Ethics Self-Regulation in Politics: Norms, Oversight and Enforcement

The international Encyclopedia of Ethics defines Political Ethics as the practice of making moral judgements about political action and the study of that practice. The concept has two core dimensions: the ethics of process, i.e. judgements about the way political office is exercised; and the ethics of policy, i.e. judgements about the outcomes of political action (policies and laws). This workshop focuses on the first dimension. Academics have tried to understand the boundaries of acceptable conduct in political office through survey methods and, more recently, experimental studies. The literature has also covered, in a scattered manner, the nature and quality of corruption control measures and the reasons why these have systematically failed to deliver (Johnston 2005; Mungiu-Pippidi 2006; Batory 2006; Amundsen 2006; Persson et al. 2013). Little has been said about the self-regulatory statutory and institutional measures developed internally by political actors and their impact. Scandals involving political officials and/or institutions have been one of the major drivers of ethics regulation (Bolleyer et al. 2018; Dávid-Barret 2015). In the last two decades, countries have responded to the perceived decline in ethical standards in political life through a complex mixture of internal and external regulations and supervision governing the ethical conduct of individual and collective political actors. Ethics regulations touching many sensitive areas, such as political financing, conflicts of interest, financial disclosure or gifts and hospitality, have gained particular attention. Institutional and legal mimetic isomorphism became a trend in most political ethics reforms (de Sousa 2010). The push for more ethics regulation in politics was also influenced by developments taking place in the private sector (Dávid-Barret 2015; Saint-Martin 2009; Stapenhurst and Pelizzo 2004). International organizations also played an important role through their “democracy promotion” and “good governance” agendas, by conducting studies, issuing recommendations and creating review mechanisms to evaluate progress in this domain. A significant number of soft law instruments promoting standards of conduct for democratic institutions have also been adopted in recent years. The way different components of an integrity management system, with their different levels of compulsion, are designed and put together, will have a different impact on the relationship between the regulators and the regulated (Heywood 2015). The literature distinguishes two major approaches to ethics management (OECD 1996): a compliance-based approach and an integrity-based approach. Most countries tend to embark on compliance-based responses applicable top-down to all players by externalising oversight and enforcement functions. In addition to external legal frameworks, oversight and enforcement, in recent years parties, parliaments and cabinets have also adopted a series of self-regulatory measures, such as internal codes of conduct and disciplinary bodies. This workshop will focus primarily on self-regulatory measures at the party, parliamentary and cabinet levels. The specific objectives of this virtual workshop are twofold: (1) to identify and map what measures have parties, parliaments, and governments implemented to mitigate integrity risks; and (2) to try to understand the effectiveness of these measures in different institutional contexts. The ultimate goal is to contribute to a better understanding of integrity management in politics.