ABSTRACT
As in other aspects of life, the most challenging ethical choices in public administration are not between right and wrong, but among contrasting perceptions of proper behavior. This general dilemma is particularly difficult in the complex world of public-sector decision making where various forms of accountability come into play. In this chapter we will examine the dynamic role of alternative conceptions of accountability in shaping the ethical choices of administrative officials. We will argue that the expectations of public administrators are rooted in thick or thin normative approaches to their work. Our analysis will focus on the behavior of two officials involved in one of the most scrutinized public events of recent decades: the events leading up to the decision of the British Parliament in the spring of 2003 to permit the Blair government’s commitment to engage troops in a war against Iraq in an effort to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein.
