Whistleblowing, or going public, is an issue which has received a great deal of media attention and scholarly consideration. Public administrators of the future will surely have to confront it. The author of this article divides whistleblowing into individual, organization, and environmental levels of analysis. Each level has its own unique considerations which must be understood separately before they can be understood comprehensively. Moreover, the author asserts that the study of whistleblowing fosters awareness of ethics, provides the skills needed to effectively cope with dissent, and imparts legal knowledge about the discipline of public administration to students.
WHISTLEBLOWING, OR GOING PUBLIC, IS AN ISSUE WHICH HAS RECEIVED A GREAT DEAL OF MEDIA ATTENTION AND SCHOLARLY CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DIVIDES WHISTLEBLOWING INTO INDIVIDUAL, ORGANIZATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS OF ANALYSIS. EACH LEVEL HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MUST BE UNDERSTOOD SEPARATELY BEFORE THEY CAN BE UNDERSTOOD COMPREHENSIVELY. MOREOVER, THE AUTHOR ASSERTS THAT THE STUDY OF WHISTLEBLOWING FOSTERS AWARENESS OF ETHICS, PROVIDES THE SKILLS NEEDED TO EFFECTIVELY COPE WITH DISSENT, AND IMPARTS LEGAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DISCIPLINE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TO STUDENTS.
Abstract: In the 1970s, both Australia and the United States instituted legal reforms aimed at promoting greater accountability among public servants. Prompted by growing awareness of the need to encourage and protect federal government whistleblowers, Congress enacted whistleblower protection measures in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Although the notion of open government in Australia has never been extended to include whistleblowing by public servants, probing the issue of whether or not United States whistleblower protection can serve as a reform model in the search for more effective legal mechanisms for ensuring government accountability can provide lessons and insights of value to Australian public administrators. Analysis of the role and impact of the Office of the Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board as established under the Civil Service Reform Act reveals many difficulties associated with whistleblower protection. Research has substantiated the jurisdictional ambiguities, administrative and procedural deficiencies and lack of sanctioning power which plague this reform effort. Similar deficiencies also impede the protection of parliamentary witnesses in Australia. Evaluation of whistleblower protection leads to the conclusion that reform models in either country for ensuring government accountability must not be judged solely through examination of statutory provisions. There must also be in place strong stabilising factors such as political unity, economic comfort, social discipline, civic virtue and public service ideology in order to achieve the common public service goal of rendering governmental decision‐making more accountable to persons affected by it and open to review by independent decision makers.
