Putting Public Service Motivation into Context. A Balance Between Universalism and Particularism

Research on Public Service Motivation (PSM) has increased enormously in the last 20 years. Besides the analysis of the antecedents of PSM and its impact on organizations and individuals, many open questions about the nature of PSM itself still remain. This article argues that the theoretical construct of PSM should be contextualized by integrating the political and administrative contexts of public servants when investigating their specific attitudes towards working in a public environment. It also challenges the efficacy of the classic four-dimensional structure of PSM when it is applied to a specific context. The findings of a confirmatory factor analysis from a dataset of 3754 employees of 279 Swiss municipalities support the appropriateness of contextualizing parts of the PSM construct. They also support the addition of an extra dimension called, according to previous research, Swiss democratic governance. With regard to our results, there is a need for further PSM research to set a definite measure of PSM, particularly in regard to the international diffusion of empirical research on PSM.Points for practitionersThis study shows that public service motivation is a relevant construct for practitioners and may be used to better assess whether public agents are motivated by values or not. Nevertheless, it stresses also that the measurement of PSM must be adapted to the institutional context as well. Public managers interested in understanding better the degree to which their employees are motivated by public values must be aware that the measurement of this PSM construct has to be contextualized. In other words, PSM is also a function of the institutional environment in which organizations operate.

Dynamic nature of human rights: Rawls's critique of moral universalism

Human rights do not represent an absolute truth. Otherwise, they would represent ideology, which is contradictory to the basic idea of human rights itself. Consequently, there is a need for redefinition of the main presuppositions of modern conception of human rights represented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This paper argues that Rawls's conception of human rights is significant for the refiguration of human rights. It represents the path towards postmodern idea of human rights and the recognition of difference.

Constructive Universalism: Sen and Sensitivity to Difference

Amartya Sen’s capability approach is, on the one hand, in line with universalism such as exhibited in Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach and Len Doyal and Ian Gough’s human need theory. On the other hand, his approach puts priority on people’s “self-evaluation” of capabilities and needs. The latter emphasis makes his approach distinctly sensitive to people’s differences such as gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc.. One could ask, however, how successfully the former commitment to universalism relates to this latter feature that places importance on taking difference seriously. This question is especially relevant with respect to global justice and gender, for example. To offer a potential answers to this question is main goal of this paper.

The Grounding of Regional Integration for Brazil: Universalism, Sovereignty and Elite Perception

The aim of this article is to analyse the meaning of Mercosur for Brazilian foreign policy. To this end, we discuss the perceptions of the Brazilian elites concerning the regional integration process. The defence of the principle of inter-governmentalism is related to the conception of Mercosur's place within Brazil's international relations. The fact that principles such as universalism and sovereignty are very highly valued ends up affecting the deepening of the integration. The hypothesis of this article is that the Mercosur structure is in line with the perceptions of part of the Brazilian elites, which has put less emphasis on integration since the late 1990s. Our argument is that the current structure is insufficient to guarantee the dynamics of integration.

Access for All? The promise and problems of universalism.

In what follows, I explore why the question of ‘access for all’ is both important and difficult. Beginning by treating it as a contested claim, I will consider some of its political, institutional and professional implications. What do I mean by saying that access for all is a contested claim? First of all, it is a claim – a demand that access for all needs to be created. It is a claim about change. To demand ‘access for all’ is to speak about, and speak against, social conditions that are unjust, unequal or excluding. At its simplest, then, to claim ‘access for all’ is to address social arrangements in which all people do not have access. Secondly, it is a claim made by – or on behalf of – specific social groups against their experience of exclusion, marginalization or subordination. I have added these other terms because I think that ‘exclusion’ is too simple, and too problematic, a term to capture all the aspects of unjust social arrangements that produce claims for ‘access’.1 Access is a demand to be treated equitably in relation to a range of valued social resources, conditions and relationships. It is a claim to be a member: of the society, the polity or the nation. It is a claim to be a citizen: to possess rights and the capacity to make legitimate demands on the state. It is a claim on the apparatuses and agencies that sustain social citizenship: citizenship brings with it access to benefits, services and rights of ‘fair dealing’ or ‘fair treatment’. As this last point suggests, it is a claim about equality: the expectation that all citizens will be dealt with by public agencies in ways that are not discriminatory or oppressive.