Means of Achieving Trust

Ethical governance is important to trust, because its values and mechanisms are clear means of achieving trust. In comparing integrity and trustworthiness, norm acceptability is a standard (Six & Huberts 2008: 70). More tested is the obligation to provide public argumentation for decisions that increase transparency and pub-lic trust in governance, and prevents partial and partisan decision-making (Salminen & Ikola Norrbacka 2010: 82). Current evidence from the United States about citizen participation shows that the ability to take people along in an open manner is a mechanism for achieving trust (Farrell 2009: 131).

Virtue is value for achieving trust, because the qualities of doing good and fol-lowing its standards are virtues (Gensler 2006: 170). MacIntyre for example saw one important function of virtues as protecting the internal goods of practice from the external goods of institutions; and if public administration could be under-stood as a practice, so understanding virtue as certain character traits might be a key element in supporting ethical conduct in pressure circumstances from organi-sation to act opposite (Richter & Burke 2007b: 14). The virtue ethics helps to emphasize the relevance of developing emancipatory capabilities in decision making, because it tells us to develop those traits of character that help moral agent function well in situations that demand moral judgement (Cooper D. 2004:

35 & 46). Developing an organisation includes nurturing and balancing a range of

competencies and virtues that improve judgement in decision making (Menzel 2007: 5).

It is important to start with normative standards of conduct derived from the reli-gious and traditions of society (Jones, Sontag, Becker & Fogelin 1969: 1). A posi-tion that is informed by Martin’s (1995: 7 8) breakdown of moral philosophy into values of truth and justice. Positive and Negative views of ethics are sure tied to normative ethics, which is giving guidelines for behaviour especially in deciding between bad and good behaviour (Hyyryläinen 2010: 2). Ethics involves the ex-amination and analysis of the logic, values, beliefs, and principles that are used to justify morality in its various forms (Cooper 2006: 2 3). Administrative ethics, is well positioned when virtue and intuition work together. The virtues person mani-fests and lives on the characteristics that identify one as a person of character (Richter & Burke 2007b: 23).

Integrity is a means of achieving trust, because from a real practical ethical situa-tion, integrity is virtues (Hyyryläinen 2010: 10 12). Václav Havel a former presi-dent of Czechoslovakia and of Czech Republic has stated that public officials live in a world of half-truth, which saps the soul and integrity of any individual. How-ever, individuals of high integrity with an understanding of true public responsi-bility can make the world a better place. Integrity glues the social world of organ-isation together. Integrity and judgements form the bedrock of public morality.

Integrity involves the capacity of people to evaluate their life and tie belief and practice. Integrity aids to ensure clarity of reflection and to resist temptation to self-deception. Personal integrity has several sides. Most primary, integrity de-mands consistency between inner beliefs and public actions. Integrity relies upon people possessing the self-discipline and moral courage to engage on a commit-ment even if doing so requires sacrifice and effort. (Dodel 1999: 3.) From a moral point of view, office commits individuals of integrity to hold themselves to stand-ards and procedures as a public trust. (Salminen & Ikola Norrbacka 2010: 81). In addition, integrity displays that people have the reflective capacity to make a commitment, figure out what the commitment contains, and act on it (Carter 1996 qtd. in Dodel 1999: 4).

Participation and collaboration are means of achieving trust, because the ability to manage and utilise meaningfully the potentials of every member of a network in an ethical filled manner are what positively affect public trust (Adamolekun 2002). Participation and collaboration go with understanding the relevance of every member or stakeholder in a network and the need to carry them all along.

Another means of achieving trust is the value of responsibility. The more popular association in modern discussion is stated in earlier times by John Locke (1690),

who held the view that society turns power to governors, whom society have giv-en the responsibility to manage its affairs with express or tacit trust. This trust is expected to be used for their good and the preservation of their property. In Locke’s political philosophy, the relationship of governments and citizens is one of trust and not of contract. There are two elements at the core of governing a society. One is of some variant with Hobbes’s concern with obedience motivated by compelling incentives of self-interest even when there is no trust. The other is Locke’s trust, which itself is grounded in relevant judgements of government’s agents incentives and willingness to serve the populace. (Dunn 1988: 74–79.) The value for caring for others can help trust realization. The care approach of ethical governance informs the notion of governance caring for its citizens and their welfare including administrative matters connected to them (citizens). Care ethics is also characterised by relation-centeredness. Care ethics places much em-phasis on close relationship and the development of the future generations. To care also mean ability to extend services to others one might not be officially in-debted and not taken for granted other theoretical points of ethical issues, which is displayed by exactness and efficiency of service. By sticking to caring ideas and empathy as major values in public service, and making sure that public agents can implement a caring attitude in their act of work execution, the gap between ad-ministrative reality and the citizens’ expectation for good governance can be nar-rowed. (Lehtonen 2010: 31 41.) A care orientation would focus on identifying creative ways of simultaneously fulfilling competing responsibilities to others (Simola et al. 2010: 181). Empathy and kindness can be understood as a deep awareness of the suffering of others coupled with the wish to relive it (Salminen 2006: 183).

The value of justice can also help trust realization. Justice is an attempt, to display how the theory gains support when it is analysed in the light of a fuller considera-tion of the nature of goodness; and when its stability as a moral concepconsidera-tion is made clear, because justice and goodness go together in a just society according to John Rawls. The application of theory of justice leads to intuitive sound judgements in concrete situations. The starting point is that a judgement with which a theory is needed to be equilibrium is considered a judgement of justice.

So it is easy to state that the theory of justice is the study of ethical equilibrium that helps insure stability among men. (Kukathas & Philip 1990: 6 12.) Justice as orientation is predicated on impartiality, fairness, reciprocity, and the application of universal moral principles to abstract features of ethical situations (Simola, et al 2010: 180). Justice goes with performance, because performance articulates justice. Three topics of justice are: 1) Equality, 2) Respecting public interest, and 3) Citizens-centred public services (Salminen et al. 2009).

Accountability and transparency are mechanisms of ethical governance that help in achieving trust. Conventionally, accountability refers to answerability for one’s actions or behaviour. Formally, it involves the development of objective standards of evaluation to assist the owners of an organisation to evaluate the performance of duties by individuals and units within the organisation. Accountability thus, has three crucial components: a clear definition of responsibility, reporting mech-anisms, and a system of review, rewards and sanctions. Accountability flows in different directions: upward, downward between subordinates and superiors, and literally among professional peers. Accountability like transparency stands as a quality control mechanism. Public accountability is the requirement that those who hold public trust account for the use of that trust to citizens or their repre-sentatives. Transparency is functional openness that informs trust (Olowu 2002:

140–141.) Auditing and appraisal are special tools ways of achieving trust (Faw-cett & Wardman 2008: 132), because commitments can be enforced through sanc-tions, rewards, and personal realisation.

Motivation as an ethical governance mechanism can also help in the realization of trust. Numerous comparative experiences have shown that well-established re-sponsibilities of financial and performance controlling institutions and transparent controlling mechanism can increase trust and reduce corruption, because corrup-tion can increases if administrative control and audit mechanisms are missing or if controlling is not extensive (Maor 2004; Caiden 2001). There is a meaning in auditing money allocated to special functions in order to ascertain its level of uti-lisation. The auditing process can increase performance by making sure money budgeted are well utilised; embezzlement and wastage are best curtailed by annu-al or regular auditing by expert auditors. However, appraisannu-al on its own tries to take a general overview on how the organisational visions and elements are stand-ing. This includes how workers are coping with their duties at various levels. Ap-praisal helps the initiation of reforms, rewards, and sanctions at the most appro-priate places and positions.

Expertise as a mechanism of ethical governance is a means of achieving trust.

Expertise goes with professionalism and specialization; and institutions with these variables, is classified as professional and specialized institutions. Specialisation that leads to efficiency anchors on the optimal use of resources to achieve ration-ally set objectives (Viinamäki 2004: 37). When I talk about resources here, I mean intellectual, structural, social, economic, and environmental variables. It is obvious that the ‘knowledge factor’ is an essential tool to achieving trust. We can further say there is ethical governance when intellectual assets are given their right positions in an organisation. Having the right knowledgeable personnel at right places in an organization along with knowledge oriented environment and

tool can go a long way in establishing trust, because of the performance they can generate.

Shaw (2009: 21), has stated that reform as an ethical mechanism has a tendency of generating trust. This is because reform tries to bring the things of old in agreement with features of modern world (Clark 2009: 158). Reform is in some other cases about increasing choice (Barnes & Prior 1995: 53). In the words of Esteves De Araujo (2001: 915), reform is characterised by externalities, because of the orientation of doing good. The focused group at which institution-building reforms are pointed must also be expanded to include all parts of society with interest in creating and maintaining integrity; in creating general strategies, insti-tutional reforms can be classified into ‘pillars of integrity’ that are side by side supportive and include elements from government and civil society (UN 2004a:

83). Reform relating to public organization should be able to inform ‘choice’ and

‘voice’ along with improvement (Blair 2005 & UK Parliament 2012).

Independence and discretion are ethical mechanisms that can also help in achiev-ing trust. In real life situations there are chances of a moral agent behavachiev-ing ab-normally under institutional pressure, with some certain unique circumstances, codes of ethics cannot possibly cover every contingency that might come up in professional practice, thus, professionals must exercise professional discretion, which means they need leeway to apply their esoteric knowledge to figure out the best means for carrying out the objectives of profession in specific cases and pro-fessionals should be able to explain their use of discretion for the sake of elimi-nating bias (Cooper D. 2004: 51 & 68). Public organizations can also need inde-pendence from political interest in order to be able to give preference to public interest.

Another ethical mechanism that helps in achieving trust is enlightenment, because it offers result and guidance to the people. Enlightenment serves as the real basis of knowing and understanding, because it brings to true light the things that hap-pen around us.

The ethical mechanisms and values discussed so far are what make public trust part of ethical governance. Trust in government is ideal in the working of modern society and the trust that a good government enables its citizens to have between one and another is also important. The literary usage of trust is readily applied to many institutions and institutional actors like banks, anti-corruption agencies, nations and political leaders. As regard individuals, the question whether we can trust institutions reduce to the question whether institutions can be trustworthy.

The concept of trust is highly surrounded by the norms of reciprocity. (Hardin 2006: 9–16 & Lähdesmäki 2010: 65.)