Can the public sector extend its workers’ moral boundaries?

Introduction

Many decisi­ons invol­ve choo­sing bet­ween indi­vi­du­al inte­rest and the com­mon good. For examp­le, when choo­sing bet­ween poli­ci­es to be imple­men­ted, do Swiss public decisi­on-makers con­si­der and inter­na­li­ze the dif­fe­ren­tia­ted effects of a given poli­cy on dif­fe­rent social groups (the Swiss ver­sus for­eig­ners, for examp­le)? The dis­po­si­ti­on to prio­ri­ti­ze the com­mon good over indi­vi­du­al inte­rest is equa­ted with a par­ti­cu­lar value: uni­ver­sa­lism (that is, the abi­li­ty to con­si­der equal­ly the well-being of all peop­le, whe­ther they are social­ly clo­se or distant (Enke et al. 2022)). This value has been given con­si­derable atten­ti­on in the social sci­en­ces lite­ra­tu­re, sin­ce it is a pre­dic­tor of pro-social beha­viour, poli­ti­cal opi­ni­ons, and atti­tu­des towards cli­ma­te chan­ge, among other things, to be con­si­de­red along with “clas­sic” varia­bles such as inco­me, wealth, edu­ca­ti­on, reli­gio­si­ty or beliefs in government effec­ti­ve­ness. What we know less well, or not at all, is how to gene­ra­te this value: how an indi­vi­du­al can beco­me uni­ver­sa­list. This is the goal of my rese­arch pre­sen­ted here: to find out whe­ther eco­no­mic insti­tu­ti­ons could shape this value, and through what mechanisms.

The research process

Phi­lo­so­phy and social sci­en­ces have long empha­si­zed the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween the public and pri­va­te sec­tors, in terms of orga­niz­a­tio­nal objec­ti­ves, as regards the rela­ti­ve impor­t­ance given to the com­mon good and pri­va­te inte­rest. The theo­re­ti­cal hypo­the­sis that this rese­arch for­mu­la­tes and tests is that the public sec­tor incul­ca­tes uni­ver­sa­lism in its workers by expo­sing them to the public spi­rit, in other words, the pri­ma­cy of the com­mon good over indi­vi­du­al interest.

The Swiss House­hold Panel pro­vi­des geo­lo­ca­ted indi­vi­du­al-level data on respondents’ occup­a­tio­nal choices bet­ween the public and pri­va­te sec­tors and on their pre­fe­ren­ces over time. This makes it pos­si­ble to esti­ma­te how uni­ver­sa­lism (and other pre­fe­ren­ces) varies in the same indi­vi­du­als, expo­sed to the same labour mar­ket, when they move from one sec­tor to ano­t­her. Cau­sal iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on howe­ver comes up against the con­cern of poten­ti­al dyna­mic selec­tion that exp­lains why a worker swit­ches sec­tor. In par­ti­cu­lar, an indi­vi­du­al may switch sec­tor fol­lowing a “posi­ti­ve shock” to their uni­ver­sa­lism (by fal­ling in love with someo­ne new, for examp­le!) and may have beco­me uni­ver­sa­list befo­re swit­ching sector.

To remo­ve this bias, the stu­dy com­pa­res the initi­al uni­ver­sa­lism of indi­vi­du­als who chan­ge sec­tor (pri­or to the chan­ge) with that of indi­vi­du­als who have remai­ned in the same sec­tor, and finds that the selec­tion based on uni­ver­sa­lism is at the public-ser­vice occup­a­ti­on level (edu­ca­ti­on, health and social ser­vices, which are in both the public and pri­va­te sec­tors) rather than at the public sec­tor level. It is then pos­si­ble to cap­tu­re the cau­sal effect of the insti­tu­tio­nal sec­tor by focu­sing on workers who do not work in public-ser­vice occupations.

Results, discussions and implications

Results indi­ca­te that 33% of workers who were initi­al­ly non-uni­ver­sa­list beco­me uni­ver­sa­list when they switch from the pri­va­te to the public sec­tor. Howe­ver, no such effect of the public sec­tor is found on ideo­lo­gy, on atti­tu­des towards wel­fa­re and redis­tri­bu­ti­on, or on trust in public insti­tu­ti­ons. Moreo­ver, workers who beco­me uni­ver­sa­list in the work­place adopt the gene­ral beha­viour that the lite­ra­tu­re asso­cia­tes with uni­ver­sa­lists: they have fewer friends, dona­te less local­ly but more glo­bal­ly, and act less like “free-riders”. The­se results sug­gest that workers have tho­rough­ly inter­na­li­zed this value and that, once inter­na­li­zed, it gui­des their behaviour.

Obvious­ly, the public sector’s effect may vary with the type of sta­te cap­tu­re (a form of poli­ti­cal cor­rup­ti­on in which the pri­va­te inte­rests of a group con­si­der­ab­ly influ­ence the decisi­on pro­cess of a sta­te to their own advan­ta­ge). This rese­arch lever­a­ges his­to­ri­cal dif­fe­ren­ces of sta­te cap­tu­re that have gene­ra­ted per­sis­tent cul­tu­ral dif­fe­ren­ces in terms of indi­vi­du­als’ belief in the sta­te, and in its duty to favour the com­mon good over indi­vi­du­al inte­rests, in order to high­light the impact of the public sec­tor on uni­ver­sa­lism through expo­sure to the public spirit.

Sin­ce workers may also be par­ents or friends, and thus spread their values in turn, the public sec­tor has major reper­cus­sions on the dif­fu­si­on of this value throughout socie­ty as a who­le. One impli­ca­ti­on of the results is that a socie­ty can make the choice to have a lar­ger public sec­tor to ensu­re wide dis­se­mi­na­ti­on of this value. The rese­arch also sug­gests that to be fruit­ful, any reform of the public sec­tor must com­bi­ne incen­ti­ves and moral messages cent­red on the com­mon good, explo­i­t­ing com­ple­men­ta­ri­ties bet­ween the two.


Note: This arti­cle was publis­hed as part of IDHEAP Poli­cy Brief No. 7.

Refe­ren­ces:

  • Lau­re Athi­as (2024).  Com­mon Good Insti­tu­ti­ons, Iden­ti­ty in the Work­place, and Value Dyna­mics. Working Paper
  • Ben­ja­min Enke, Ricar­do Rodri­guez-Padil­la and Flo­ri­an Zim­mer­mann (2022). Moral Uni­ver­sa­lism: Mea­su­re­ment and Eco­no­mic Rele­van­ce. Manage­ment Sci­ence, 68(5), 3590–3603.

image: Shut­ter­stock

image_pdfimage_print