II. RULES AND STANDARDS FOR HOLDERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE
4. The state of literature and studies in the field of comparative conflicts of interests 22
although in Europe the situation is slowly changing11. However, in both continents, a) comparative empirical studies on b) conflicts of interests in c) different institutions for d) holders of public service do not yet exist. There may be three main reasons for this:
a) lack of comparative data
b) difficulties in comparing and analysing international data and c) difficulties in measuring ethics issues12
Only in the USA does the Center for Ethics in Government provide for comparative information on laws of ethics and standards of ethics in the different US states13 (although not for different categories of Holders of Public Office).
So far, most European-wide comparative studies have been undertaken on public officials (Bossaert/Demmke (2005)14, Gilman (2005)15, OECD (2005)16; Salminen/Moilanen (2006)17, Bovens/van Lierop/Pikker (2007)18. Other comparative studies are more limited and focus mostly on legislators or Members of Government (the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, 199919, Transparency International 200120, SIGMA 200521, Saint-Martin/Thompson 200622) or deal with more specific aspects of conflicts of interests (e.g. OECD - Post-Employment Study, 200623).
The numerous initiatives, recommendations, reports and studies about ethics and conflicts of interest reflect an increasing interest in the subject but also growing concerns about the development of values, moral and ethical standards, equality and diversity issues in
11 D.C. Menzel, Research on Ethics and Integrity in Governance, in: Public Integrity, 2005, No. 7, pp.147. In Europe one should mention the work of the EGPA-Study Group on Ethics and Integrity of Governance within the European Group of Public Administration.Http://www.egpa-ethics.eu (last checked on 25.6 2007)
12 See also: A. Salminen/O-P Viinamäki, Comparative Administrative Ethics, Three Methodological Approaches, Paper presented at the EGPA-Conference in Milan, 6-9 September 2006.
13 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/public_corruption.htm) (last checked on 22.6.2007).
14 D.Bossaert/C.Demmke, Main Challenges in the Field of Ethics and Integrity in the EU Member States, Maastricht, 2005.
15 S.C. Gilman, Ethic Codes and Codes of Conduct as Tools for Promoting an Ethical and Professional Public Service: Comparative Successes and Lessons, Washington D.C., 2005.
16 Amongst many studies: OECD, Managing Conflicts of Interest, 31 March 2006, Paris. See also
http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_34135_1_1_1_1_37447,00.html (last checked on 11 July 2007) 17 T. Moilanen/A.Salminen, Comparative Study on the Public Service Ethics in the EU Member States, Finnish
EU-Presidency, Helsinki, 2006.
18 M.Bovens/G.Pikker/K.van Lierop, EU Catalogue of Anti-Corruption and Integrity Measures, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, The Hague 2007 (forthcoming)
19 http://www.oecd.org/document/8/0,3343,en_2649_34135_27068488_1_1_1_1,00.html http://transparency.org/content/download/13187/133268/version/1/file/TIPPNo1 20 http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/september05/textonly.asp?id=339v and
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/basics.htm
21 M. Villoria-Mendieta, Conflict of Interest Policies and Practices in Nine EU Member States: A Comparative Review, SIGMA Paper, No. 36, Paris 2006
22 D.Saint-Martin/F.Thompson, Public Ethics and Governance: Standards and Practices in Comparative Perspective, Amsterdam/Boston/Heidelberg/Boston/New York/Oxford/Paris/San Diego/San Francisco/Singapore/Sydney/
Tokyo, Vol. 14, 2006.
23 OECD, Avoiding Conflict of Interest in Post-Employment: Comparative Overview of Prohibitions, Restrictions and Implementing Measures in OECD-Countries, Paris 26-27 January 2006.
general. They also show a general trend towards higher expectations of the public regarding the quality of public services and the credibility of HPO. These expectations do not only concern the field of ethics. Rather, they reflect a general tendency towards higher expectations in fields such as good governance, public performance, legitimacy and accountability, transparency and openness, diversity, non-discrimination and policies on unwelcome behaviour and harassment.
Moreover the discussions on ethics and conflicts of interests should also be understood within the context of new discussions about the corporate responsibility of internationally operating companies, the salaries of top managers, the medical benefit of genetic engineering, euthanasia, the ethics of green shareholding, the social and cultural impact of the new media, our responsibility for climate change, etc. “Achieving an ethos of honesty and transparency becomes the Holy Grail”24.
Today, not a day goes by without extensive media coverage of corruption, fraud and unethical behaviour of Holders of Public Office. Consequently discussions about ethical behaviour, conflicts of interests and integrity issues require answers to some very simple but fundamental questions: what is good and proper behaviour in times of changing and reforming government, decentralisation trends, the emergence of public-private partnerships, ongoing internationalisation trends, new threats (terrorism), new challenges (best practices), new opportunities (more and better information technologies) and new values in our societies? These developments show that any discussion about conflicts of interest cannot be separated from an analysis of ethical behaviour in general in our societies.
Unfortunately the increasing (scientific) interest in public ethics has not necessarily produced more clarity and consensus on the right choice of policy instruments. For example, in the field of public disclosure a “myriad of published studies on the public financial disclosure process represents an even broader spectrum of views. For example, some argue that a public reporting system is unnecessary and that requiring the filing and review of confidential reports would sufficiently prevent financial conflicts of interests.
Others believe that public scrutiny is essential to deterring potential conflicts of interest and to encouraging confidence in government. Even among those who favour a public disclosure system, there are very different opinions about the items of information that filers should be required to disclose. For example, some believe that filers should be required to report the identities of their assets, but not their values, under the theory that the magnitude of the financial interest is irrelevant to the question whether it creates an actual conflict of interest. Others believe that the value of an asset is a critical predictor of
Our present understanding of conflicts of interests seems to be more and more paradoxical: on the one hand there have never been so many (regulatory) activities, reforms and studies in this field. On the other hand, scientific evidence about the effectiveness of the different reforms, measures and regulatory strategies is still lacking.
Also ethics experts face many difficulties in answering whether ethical challenges are increasing, decreasing – or both? Another development is also striking: whereas the media and the wider public call for the introduction of more rules and standards in the field, many experts point to the potential negative effects of more rules, pointing, for example, to the fact that public discussions on ethics pay too little attention to the impact of ethics policies on administrative reactions, procedures, processes monitoring requirements, costs and civil rights. The first experts to address these problematic issues in detail were Anechiarico and J.B. Jacobs in the year 1996! Thus, literature on the challenges and paradoxes of conflicts of interest policies is still fairly recent.
Naturally, this study can also shed light on only some of the many existing challenges in the field. However, during the analysis of the various studies, reports, publications, laws and codes etc., much insight and many positive developments have been found. It is clearly noticeable that the regulation of conflicts of interest is gaining importance in all Member States. As a result, the current international reform process in the field is leading to a boost in innovation that could also be of great interest for the EU institutions and respective national practice. The international comparison provides a multitude of options for learning from the experiences and problems of others, without ignoring the particularities of national administrative structures.