, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
1. Directional and aspirational codes of conduct are used to promote integrity in the public
service. Compare the work of Clapper (2014: 9–12) and Robson (2014: 23–24) in your prescribed
book and motivate whether such codes are suitability instruments to promote ethical conduct.
Introduction
In the context of public service, codes of conduct serve as critical instruments to guide the behavior
of public servants and ensure they uphold the values of integrity, accountability, and professionalism.
These codes are typically categorized into two distinct types: directional and aspirational. Directional
codes of conduct provide clear, explicit guidelines for expected behavior by setting strict boundaries
for what is considered acceptable conduct. They are often prescriptive, outlining specific rules and
procedures designed to prevent misconduct and ethical breaches, thereby creating a structured
environment where employees are fully informed of their obligations.
In contrast, aspirational codes of conduct are more flexible and idealistic in nature; they set forth
broad ethical principles and values that encourage public servants to strive for higher standards of
professionalism and moral behavior, focusing less on rigid rules and more on fostering a culture of
ethical excellence. The importance of ethical conduct in public service cannot be overstated, as it
directly impacts the trust the public places in government institutions. Since public servants are
entrusted with considerable power and responsibility, their actions must consistently align with the
principles of transparency, honesty, and fairness. Ultimately, adherence to these codes ensures that
the public service remains accountable to the people it serves, thereby fostering public confidence
and promoting a positive image of government institutions.
Clapper's Perspective on Codes of Conduct
In his analysis, Clapper (2014: 9–12) emphasizes the critical role of codes of conduct in promoting
ethical behavior and integrity within the public service. He argues that such codes are essential tools
for setting clear expectations of conduct and for fostering an environment where ethical
decision-making can thrive. According to Clapper, the primary function of a code of conduct is to
provide a framework for public servants to understand their obligations, both in terms of legal
requirements and moral responsibilities. These frameworks are particularly important in public
administration, where the actions of individuals have a direct and substantial impact on public trust
and the efficient functioning of government institutions.
Clapper also highlights that directional codes of conduct, with their clear rules and regulations, act as
preventative measures against unethical behavior. By defining boundaries and providing concrete
guidelines for acceptable conduct, these codes help minimize opportunities for corruption, abuse of
power, or other forms of misconduct. In this way, they contribute to building a culture of integrity,
where public servants are continuously reminded of their duty to act in the public's best interest
(Clapper, 2014: 9–12).
Furthermore, Clapper acknowledges that while directional codes are important, they must be
supplemented with aspirational codes, which go beyond simply preventing misconduct. Aspirational
codes set high standards for ethical behavior, encouraging public servants to strive for excellence in
their service delivery. Clapper (2014: 9–12) argues that the balance between the two types of codes
is essential for promoting a comprehensive ethical culture that not only prevents wrongdoing but also
fosters a spirit of service, fairness, and accountability.
1. Directional and aspirational codes of conduct are used to promote integrity in the public
service. Compare the work of Clapper (2014: 9–12) and Robson (2014: 23–24) in your prescribed
book and motivate whether such codes are suitability instruments to promote ethical conduct.
Introduction
In the context of public service, codes of conduct serve as critical instruments to guide the behavior
of public servants and ensure they uphold the values of integrity, accountability, and professionalism.
These codes are typically categorized into two distinct types: directional and aspirational. Directional
codes of conduct provide clear, explicit guidelines for expected behavior by setting strict boundaries
for what is considered acceptable conduct. They are often prescriptive, outlining specific rules and
procedures designed to prevent misconduct and ethical breaches, thereby creating a structured
environment where employees are fully informed of their obligations.
In contrast, aspirational codes of conduct are more flexible and idealistic in nature; they set forth
broad ethical principles and values that encourage public servants to strive for higher standards of
professionalism and moral behavior, focusing less on rigid rules and more on fostering a culture of
ethical excellence. The importance of ethical conduct in public service cannot be overstated, as it
directly impacts the trust the public places in government institutions. Since public servants are
entrusted with considerable power and responsibility, their actions must consistently align with the
principles of transparency, honesty, and fairness. Ultimately, adherence to these codes ensures that
the public service remains accountable to the people it serves, thereby fostering public confidence
and promoting a positive image of government institutions.
Clapper's Perspective on Codes of Conduct
In his analysis, Clapper (2014: 9–12) emphasizes the critical role of codes of conduct in promoting
ethical behavior and integrity within the public service. He argues that such codes are essential tools
for setting clear expectations of conduct and for fostering an environment where ethical
decision-making can thrive. According to Clapper, the primary function of a code of conduct is to
provide a framework for public servants to understand their obligations, both in terms of legal
requirements and moral responsibilities. These frameworks are particularly important in public
administration, where the actions of individuals have a direct and substantial impact on public trust
and the efficient functioning of government institutions.
Clapper also highlights that directional codes of conduct, with their clear rules and regulations, act as
preventative measures against unethical behavior. By defining boundaries and providing concrete
guidelines for acceptable conduct, these codes help minimize opportunities for corruption, abuse of
power, or other forms of misconduct. In this way, they contribute to building a culture of integrity,
where public servants are continuously reminded of their duty to act in the public's best interest
(Clapper, 2014: 9–12).
Furthermore, Clapper acknowledges that while directional codes are important, they must be
supplemented with aspirational codes, which go beyond simply preventing misconduct. Aspirational
codes set high standards for ethical behavior, encouraging public servants to strive for excellence in
their service delivery. Clapper (2014: 9–12) argues that the balance between the two types of codes
is essential for promoting a comprehensive ethical culture that not only prevents wrongdoing but also
fosters a spirit of service, fairness, and accountability.
