PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY A case study of the police

Paper1 to be presented at the first meeting of the

Study Group on Ethics and Integrity of Governance

EGPA conference, September 2003, Oeiras, Portugal

Esa Käyhkö

Ministry of the Interior

esa.kayhko@poliisi.fi

Kirkkokatu 12, PO Box 26

FIN-00023 Government, Finland

1 The author wishes to thank professor Ismo Lumijärvi for his very helpful advice and support.

1

Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................2 2. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY..........................................3

2.1 Responsibility or accountability......................................................................................3 2.2 Institutional and normative aspects .................................................................................4 2.3 Legitimacy and the system of authority ..........................................................................6 2.4 Concluding remarks ......................................................................................................11

3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY..........................................12

3.1 Studying perceptions of the police personnel ...............................................................12 3.2 Survey............................................................................................................................14 3.3 Specific questions and responses ..................................................................................15 3.4 Final results ...................................................................................................................23

4. IMPLICATIONS TO THEORY AND RESEARCH............................................................26 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................28 APPENDIX: Rotated Factor Matrix .............................................................................................29

2

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper is based on my doctoral dissertation2. My study deals with public accountability. This

ambiguous topic will be approached through a national and international discussion on the role

and basic duties of public servants, and the structure of public organisations. The key matter is

that legitimacy, that means legitimacy in depth, should be a stronger legal basis for operations,

rather than the gross legitimation and authorisation of public organisations and their employees.

This subject will be analysed as a case study of the police.

From a conceptual viewpoint, public organisations such as the police have a constant legitimacy

problem. This means that the police should constantly be able to have the right to take action, ir-

respective of whether there is an apparent problem or crisis. The essential matter is that the po-

lice should be regarded as accountable, not only as individual policemen performing their duties,

but also as an organisation striving to maintain public confidence.

Police accountability will mainly be studied as a question of the legal status of the police organi-

sation, as well as of the police powers and duties. From a philosophical viewpoint, the focus will

lie on the moral and ethical aspects of accountability.

The basic elements of the discussion on public accountability are in relation to the organisation,

the powers and the ethics of public authority. When meeting citizens’ expectations, the focus, in

regard to police accountability, has been transferred to the area of extended accountability.

This extended accountability is illustrated through the concept of public accountability. Formal

organisation of accountability, such as the hierarchical organisational structure and legal respon-

sibility, does not, however, constitute a sufficiently solid basis for the realisation of public ac-

countability.

In addition, we need accountability as a virtue, which in turn is a more comprehensive concep-

tual entity than the one referred to by ethical accountability, for example. In practice, this means

a transfer from passive accountability, such as control-oriented activity and actors, to a proactive

and predictive aspect of accountability. Active accountability may be realised in the framework

2 Käyhkö 2002. http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5326-3.pdf

3

of a hierarchical organisational structure and management system and, therefore, it is more ap-

propriate to talk about bureaucratic virtues.

Through these basic conceptual questions, the study will proceed to three verifying questions

concerning the present, potential and probable ideas concerning the accountability of the police.

To get an answer to these verifying questions, a questionnaire was sent to everyone working for

the police administration.

As a result of the study, the public accountability of the police is divided into five core areas,

which are as follows: the efficiency of the accountability chain of the police, the realisation of

the accountability to achieve results, accountability of the police as a virtue, precedence of pro-

fessional accountability and the legitimacy of the police.

The most essential result of my study is that uniting the hierarchical and professional account-

ability of the public authority, such as the police, is the fundamental precondition for the realisa-

tion of legitimacy. The public accountability of the police is realised in both elements as forms of

active accountability. Result-oriented accountability is not the most essential form of account-

ability from the point of view of legitimacy, but it can be applied to performance agreements be-

tween different organisational levels and to the creation of strategies. The efficiency of the ac-

countability chain of the police and the accountability for results are correlated.

The study can be characterised as critically normative. By means of the verification of a theoreti-

cal frame of reference, it reaches an empirically understandable research subject from which it

has further been possible to extrapolate.

2. THEORETICAL ASPECTS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

2.1 Responsibility or accountability

The word "responsibility" is often used as a synonym for "accountability". Day and Klein3 have

there found to be a relevant difference between these words:

4

1. a person is not accountable to anyone; as well as

2. a person is only responsible for something.

Lucas has pointed out that in the sense of "accountability" we usually ask "Why did you do

this?" and in the sense of "responsibility" we should ask "What has to be done?"4 The former re-

fers to formal arrangements such as the hierarchical structure of public agencies, and the latter

refers to individual conduct. Public organisations, such as the police, have been structured ac-

cording to the hierarchy that is mainly composed of formal relationships between the members

and parts of the organisation. Hierarchy as a model for organisation structure is synonymous

with "accountability", whereas hierarchy as a set of relationships between employees is synony-

mous with "responsibility".

Responsibility is such an integral part of human relationships that in its various meanings it

serves as a synonym for almost every important political word like "equality", "solidarity" and

"liberty".5 According to Barnard6, the point is that responsibility is the property of an individual

by which whatever morality exists in him becomes effective in conduct. The practical difficulties

in the operation of a group of entity seldom lie in the excessive desire of individuals to assume

responsibility for the organisation of themselves or others, but rather these difficulties lie in the

reluctance to take responsibility for their own actions in the organisation. The exercise of final

authority receives its legitimacy from the citizens.

The pursuit of personal responsibility provides the best foundation for understanding the role that

human agency plays in good and bad government, and this strong base for enhancing account-

ability should be demanded of government officials.7

2.2 Institutional and normative aspects

Public actors and authorities are responsible for their acts primarily in the sense of legality. In

this sense, responsibility comes very close to the idea of monitoring where the activity of the of-

ficial machinery is evaluated ex post facto. Accountability in this context will be, whatever it is

3 Day - Klein 1987: 5. 4 Lucas 1995: 5-6. 5 Wildavsky 1986: 1. 6 Barnard 1938: 170-171. 7 Thompson 1987: 65; Bovens 1998: 106.

5

stipulated or formulated, to be in advance. New or extra-organisational interpretations of ac-

countability will not have the opportunity of influencing and changing this well-defined concept

of responsibility.

The recent debates concerning the modernisation of public management have revealed that be-

hind "New Public Management" lies a business and customer-oriented managerialism that fails

to comprehend the specific nature of the public sector.

In international debate there have been attempts to search a form for the concept of New Public

Management other than the one that differs from that of professional management. In reality, en-

suring the accountability of public authorities through traditional control systems has proved an

extremely difficult task. In many cases any public authorities are perceived as forming a group,

whose values are shaped of the autonomous nature of the organisation itself and the natural free-

dom of action. This has also involved the fact that often this kind of public authority had to deal

with confidential private matters, beyond public scrutiny and, as it were, sheltered. It is also

natural that these professions guard their independence by keeping the evaluation role of their

operations to themselves, for instance, and specialise their own evaluation jargon to distinguish it

from everyday language.

According to Kooiman and Vliet8, firstly we have to realise that introducing managerial tech-

niques developed for business to public administration has not led to new more comprehensive

theoretical concepts. Secondly, this development was dominated by a political ideology, a kind

of neo-conservative reappraisal of expectations based on the idea of the market as the new prin-

ciple guiding society as a whole. Inspired by this philosophy, initiatives have been created, such

as deregulation, privatisation and contract-management.

In this context Kooiman and Vliet raise the traditional Weberian distinction between the political

system and the administrative apparatus. According to them, thinking along the lines of this tra-

dition can no longer continue. In societies where policy making and policy implementation are

interactive and can be seen as co-products of governmental agencies and their clientele groups,

public management is more and more "political" in the traditional sense. The civil servant sets

the agenda, promotes or hampers consensus, wins social support and makes bargains.9

8 Kooiman - Vliet 1995: 59; Kooiman 1993.

6

Behind this type of public management there is the simple fact that in an increasingly complex,

dynamic and diverse society, the government cannot decide alone the direction of societal devel-

opment. Societal development is the result of interactive social forces. However, this does not

mean that public management might not have a special responsibility. On the normative level it

has the responsibility to stimulate public debate about public values, governmental tasks and col-

lective decision-making through which the government's role in society is legitimised and a pub-

lic purpose is given to governmental action. According to Kooiman and Vliet, we need innova-

tive public management instruments.10

The principle of direct democratic accountability introduced by Dunsire represents a new contri-

bution to the debate on accountability. According to Dunsire, we might ask what more democ-

ratic system is needed than public servants - waiting-list administrators in the health service,

classroom teachers in state education, or policemen on their beats - should have to account di-

rectly to the citizens they deal with for the quality of public services they provide?11

Direct democratic accountability in the context of police accountability, for instance, can be un-

derstood as follows: when the police particularly on the operative level are in direct contact with

their environment, we are also dealing with representative communication, the concrete encoun-

tering and understanding of citizen expectations.

2.3 Legitimacy and the system of authority

Legitimacy in the public administration is composed of many legal aspects and social principles

of authorisation. Such formal organisation of accountability as a hierarchical organisational

structure and legal responsibility, do not, however, constitute a sufficiently solid basis for the re-

alisation of public accountability. Hierarchy as a bureaucratic controlling system, as observed by

Weber12, has at least two dimensions: (1) accountability as a model of the organisation, and (2)

responsibility as relationships between the organisation and its employees. As Bovens13 has ar-

gued, the idea of this hierarchical model is "one for all". For that reason we need to examine

connections between responsibility and accountability.

9 Ibid. 65. 10 Ibid. 71-72; also Metcalfe 1991. 11 Dunsire 1994: 94. 12 Weber 1976; Albrow 1970; Leemans - Dunsire 1981.

7

According to Lucas14, Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the first philosopher who considered the ques-

tion "What is responsibility and accountability itself?". Aristotle puzzled over the problem how

to connect the external orientation of accountability with the internal responsibility. He had an

idea that there are:

1. responsibility activated by an individual; and

2. accountability caused by an external reason.

This idea contributes the analysis of goals and means in modern public administration. Aristotle

warned about the notion of absolute goals and too effective means in public life. According to

him, if we only value logical facts and immediate perceptions as a basis for our action, we are far

from the origins of responsibility and accountability thought by Aristotle. When we these days

take attainable objectives and goals for granted, we ought to realise that the final result of the

process can be status quo. In Lucas' view, the combination of effective means and definite goals

is the poor basis for accountability and responsibility. Aristotle preferred the connection between

the individual responsibility and the institutional accountability to the contrast of these two.15 In

this sense virtues, such as justice, practical wisdom, truthfulness and liberality, are significant

elements in order to balance external and internal features of the organisations. This balancing

also refers to the passive and active sides of responsibility. For instance, Bovens16 has examined

responsibility as virtue on the active side of responsibility, and on the passive side of responsibil-

ity he has dealt with responsibility in the sense of accountability.

Romzek17 considers hierarchic (or bureaucratic) and professional accountability as internal con-

trol mechanisms. A high degree of control is dominant to hierarchic accountability. Instead, a

high degree of autonomy is enabled by professional accountability which allows discretion to or-

ganisations and individuals. This has led to the question of how much discretion public servants

can and should have. However, as a conclusion, it is not possible to reach an optimum between

discretion and control. For example, the correspondence between efficient policing and citizens'

expectations is even in principle difficult to reach. It should be remembered that in democratic

13 Bovens 1998: 74. 14 Lucas 1995: 271-272. 15 Lucas 1995: 206. 16 Bovens 1998: 28-32. 17 Friedrich 1940; Finer 1940; Finer 1978.

8

society policing is always practiced within a limited capacity. According to Gruber18, the idea of

constraints is an essential imperative in controlling bureaucracy democratically. Responsiveness

as such constrains public administration that at present should be more and more open and trans-

parent. The quest for balance between internal discretion and external control is also in the future

one of the most significant demands in constituting public accountability.

Legal and political accountability is, according to Romzek, seen as external sources of responsi-

bility. Legal accountability means external control in forms of legal sanctions, detailed over-

sights, close scrutiny of performance, fiscal audits, inspections and court proceedings etc. Politi-

cal accountability as an external source of control and expectations means that the answerable

party has the discretion and choice to respond to main stakeholders called constituents, such as

the general public (citizens), agency heads, clientele groups and other special interest groups.19

The dimensions of accountability relationships can be described as shown in the figure below.20

Source of control and expectations

External Internal

Degree of control and autonomy

High

Legal

Bureaucratic

Low

Political

Professional

Figure 1. Dimensions of accountability

These four types of accountability are based on two dimensions: control/autonomy and con-

trol/expectations. The degree of autonomy or control is either high or low, and the source of ex-

pectations or control is external or internal. The degree of control over agency action in political

and professional accountability is low. In other words, the degree of autonomy is high.

However, "responsibility as virtue" and "responsibility as accountability" are not ambiguous in

the sense that there would be a kind of subjectivity on the one hand , and a kind of objectivity on

the other hand. In addition to these dimensions of responsibility, there must be something more.

18 Gruber 1987: 11. 19 Romzek 1999: 6. 20 Romzek 1999; Romzek - Dubnick 1987.

9

Ingarden21, who represents phenomenology and has examined ontological bases for responsibil-

ity, has emphasized "the third dimension" of responsibility. This third dimension is composed of

realistic and existent imperatives, such as freedom and individuality, and the causal structure of

the world and a human being with values and experiences.22 According to Ingarden, this holistic

approach to responsibility means different "ontic" features of the same thing, not only causes and

consequences. Therefore, we identify responsibility as a situational connection. Ingarden23 has

distinguished four different situations in which the phenomenon of responsibility emerges. Ac-

cording to Ingarden, someone:

1. bears responsibility for something or, differently put, is responsible for something;

2. assumes responsibility for something;

3. is called to account for something;

4. acts responsibly.

Ingarden makes an interesting point about responsibility , namely:

"The agent is responsible for the deed performed by him and for its result if and if it is his

own deed."24

In accordance with this view, it is very complicated to point out in practice that an organisation,

such as the police, bears collectively and institutionally responsibility for the organisation’s acts.

It is a fact that also a hierarchical organisation assumes responsibility for its daily acts. This or-

ganisation can also be called to account for its acts, and the organisation acts responsibly, but

only as a community.

The above notions are the most significant foundations of responsibility as legitimacy. From a

broader viewpoint, in addressing the institutional level, the accountability of public administra-

tion is something that also includes the means with which the public authorities and their em-

ployees manage different expectations originating inside and outside the organisations. How

does this kind of search for legitimacy involve the strengthening of public accountability?

21 Ingarden 1970; Ingarden 1983. 22 Huhtinen 1993. 23 Ingarden 1983: 53; Ingarden 1970: 5; Huhtinen 1993: 101. 24 Ingarden 1970: 59.

10

Philosophically and pragmatically, there was an interesting discussion of legitimacy in public

administration between Carl Friedrich (1901-1984) and Herman Finer (1898-1969) in the United

States in the 1940s.

In Friedrich's opinion, public administration cannot be discussed in isolation from public policy,

because together they constitute a constant process, considering that

"there is probably more politics in the formation of policy, more administration in the exe-

cution of it."25

According to Friedrich, administrators and officials as experts must have a futuristic and creative

attitude under complex, modern conditions in public administration.

"The responsible administrator today [again, under complex, modern conditions] works

according to anticipation. Within the limits of existing laws, it is the function of the admin-

istrator to do everything possible which will make the legislation work. The idea of enforc-

ing commands yields to the idea of effectuating policy." 26

In Friedrich's opinion, public administration is not like a controlling authority in relation to ad-

ministrators and their acts. "What is more important is to insure effective action of any sort."27

How did Finer understand Friedrich's argumentation regarding responsible administrators? "As

Finer cited28, he [Friedrich] argues:

1. that the responsibility of the official is not political responsibility but moral responsi-

bility;

2. that the quality of administration and policy making depends almost entirely [and

justifiably so] upon the official’s sense of responsibility to the standards of his pro-

fession, a sense of duty to the public that is entirely inward, and an adherence to the

technological basis of his particular job or the branch of the service in which he

works;

3. that the public and the political assemblies do not understand the issues of policy

well enough to give him beneficial commands in terms of policy;

25 Friedrich 1940: 225; McSwite 1997: 33. 26 Friedrich 1940: 237. 27 Friedrich 1940: 222; McSwite 1997: 32. 28 Finer 1940: 261.

11

4. that, in fact, legislatures and the public have been obliged to allow or positively to

organise more and more latitude for official policy making;

5. that there are satisfactory substitutes for the direction of officials and information as

to the state of public opinion through the electorate and the legislature in the form of

administratively conducted referenda, public relations contacts, etc.; and, therefore,

6. that political responsibility, i.e., the responsibility of the administrative officials to

the legislature and the public, is and should only be considered as a minor term in the

mechanism of democratic government, so much so, indeed, that officials may rightly

state and urge policies in public to counteract those advocated by the members of the

elected legislatures."

In Finer’s opinion, responsibility can be interpreted as an inward character of the responsible

administrator but in Friedrich’s view, an outward orientation is also incorporated into responsi-

bility. As Friedrich has noted, the responsible administrator must interpret and anticipate those

public needs that have emerged at the final stages in the implementation process of policies.

Friedrich has confidence in the human nature of administrators, and he believes that the most re-

sponsible character can be reached by avoiding the fear of sanctions and the load of excessive

control. However, Finer is not in favour of a trusted administrator, and he considers responsibil-

ity as virtue to be a limited form of accountability. That is why he has stated: "Virtue itself hath

need of limits".29

2.4 Concluding remarks

Legitimacy is the core concept when conceptualising the police accountability. In summary,

there are four concluding aspects as follows.

1. The origin of responsibility. Historically and philosophically it is important to remember the

idea of responsibility itself. This means that people as human beings can realise, in the context of

responsibility, such a philosophy of life and this way coordinate their own values and structural

preconditions in public circumstances. Virtues can be seen as connecting attributes between per-

sonal responsibilities and accountability structures or models of the organisation. The history of

virtues coincides with the origin of responsibility.

29 Finer 1940: 252; McSwite 1997: 38-39.

12

2. Two facets of responsibility. It is obvious that conceptually responsibility is composed of two

compatible counterparts. On the one hand there is "accountability" at the organisational level and

on the other hand "responsibility" at the individual and collective level. Hierarchical and bureau-

cratic accountability, and official liability of public servants are examples of the first counterpart.

In these cases we have to answer a question "What for or why, and how is someone account-

able?". On the other side of responsibility we are dealing with relationships between the organi-

sation and people committed to this organisation. In this case the question of responsibility is

"What for, to whom and how is someone accountable?".

3. Human nature as static. The modern democratic administration system has been based on the

static view of human nature and relationship between people and public administration. In this

kind of "administrative picture" people are involved with public administration but only in the

passive sense of object, which has led to the fact that people are considered as good or bad, hon-

est or dishonest. This idea of man as a predetermined subject is not included in the whole exis-

tence of man, his action and effects in the wider context than that of immediate experiences. The

quest for balancing the outer and inner orientation of human action means that human nature

must be seen as dynamic.

4. The problem of separation between facts and values. Traditionally, the policies based on

value choices at the political level and the administration which enforces these values have been

separated. In fact, this is not possible because the political preferences can never be so explicit

that they would function as a standard of accountability in the implementation process. Accord-

ing to the Friedrich-Finer dialogue, the responsible administrator must anticipate and modify

these policies.

3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

3.1 Studying perceptions of the police personnel The study will proceed to three verifying questions concerning the present, potential and prob-

able idea of police accountability. In order to address these research questions it was obligatory

to build an empirical research setting as shown in Figure 2.

13

Key concept Basis dimensions Sections of questionnaire

Figure 2. Research setting specifying police accountability

Public accountability in this case has been formulated through four basic dimensions that are: (1)

the police as a public authority (public police), (2) roles and duties of the police, (3) ontological

basis of responsibility, and (4) legitimacy of policing. In order to connect these basic dimensions

to specific questions the following six frames were established:

1. public and legal constraints on police accountability;

2. accountability structure of the police administration;

3. responsibility for formulating policing policies;

4. responsibility for integrating policing and appropriations;

5. significance of individual and collective responsibility; and

6. implementation of social accountability of the police.

The lines in Figure 2 illustrate the main connections between different parts. It must be remem-

bered that this setting has been constituted by the theoretical framework of this study. Although

Public and legal constraints on police accountability

Accountability structure of police administration

Responsibility for policing policies

Responsibility for integrating policing and appropriations

Significance of individual and collective responsibility

Realisation of social accountability

Public police

Roles and duties of the police

Ontology of respon-

sibility

Legiti-macy

Public account-ability

14

the theoretical framework has channelled research interest into specific questions, it is also pos-

sible to extrapolate theoretically.

3.2 Survey

The Finnish police authorities operate under the direction of the Ministry of the Interior. Police

administration is organised according to a centralised model as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Police organisation - rank structure

The police have a three-tier organisation. The Police Department of the Ministry acts as the Su-

preme Police Command and is in charge of planning, developing and supervising police opera-

tions in the whole country. It decides on national strategies and priorities as well as on guidelines

for international police cooperation.

On the second level are five Provincial Police Commands, the National Bureau of Investigation,

the Security Police, the National Traffic Police, the Police School and the Police College of

Finland, the Police Technical Centre and the Police IT Management Agency and functionally

also the police force of the capital, the Helsinki Police Department. The police departments of

State Provincial Offices act as the Provincial Police Commands. They report to the Supreme Po-

lice Command, and they plan, develop and manage police functions in their provinces, ensure the

Supreme Police Command Supreme Police Commissioner

Police Department of the Ministry of the Interior

Provincial Police Commands (5) Provincial Police Commissioner Police Departments of the State

Provincial Offices

Local Police Police Chief

90 local police departments Police District of the Åland Islands Helsinki Police Department

Police Commissioner

Special units (7) National Bureau of Investigation Security Police National Traffic Police The Police College of Finland Police School Police Technical Center Police IT Management Agency

15

cooperation between the local police, the National Bureau of Investigation and the National Traf-

fic Police and perform all other duties provided by law or otherwise assigned to them.

On the third level is the local police that is organised by the State Local Districts, each with its

own district police force. The district police operate under their Provincial Police Command.

There are 90 local police departments in Finland. The Åland Islands form their own independent

police district, reporting exclusively to the Åland administrative authorities

In order to study perceptions of the whole personnel, a postal questionnaire was sent to a sample

(N=1200) of the police administration. The method was stratified sampling. The number of re-

spondents was 713, and the response rate 59.4. The population of the empirical study, sampling

ratio and response rate in different groups of personnel are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Population, sampling ratio and response rate of police personnel

Groups of personnel Population Sampling ratio Response rate N % N % N %

Management 171 2 136 82 100 73.5Commanding officers 666 6 98 15 76 77.6Senior officers 1,964 18 231 12 160 69.3Officers 5,316 49 536 10 249 46.6Others 2,660 24 199 8 93 46.7Personnel group unknown 34 Total 10,777 100 1200 11 713 59.4

3.3 Specific questions and responses

The specific research questions are based on the above frames. The purpose of these questions is

defined below. The statistical analysis of the study is based on a comparison between the means

of responses. At the end of each question is a note to the appendix which describes the rotated

factor matrix of the analysis of this study.

1. Public and legal constraints of police accountability. The duties and powers of the police are

the most significant basis of police accountability in a normative and institutional sense. In this

section of the questionnaire police personnel were asked to evaluate the significance of the fol-

lowing nine factors on a scale of 1-5 (1 = insignificant, 2 = not very significant, 3 = neutral, 4 = fairly

significant, 5 = very significant).

1. The police duties are comprehensively defined in the law (normative 1).

2. The powers of the police are strictly constrained by law (normative 2).

16

3. Policing priorities are based on citizens' expectations (normative 3).

4. Police duties are prioritised by the police themselves (normative 4).

5. Policing priorities take form in practice (normative 5).

6. The police duties are formulated as services for different customer groups (normative 6).

7. Performance planning covers all police activities (normative 7).

8. Performance target discussions are held with the whole personnel (normative 8).

9. The performance guidance system is based on the present chain of command (normative 9).

On a scale of 1 to 5, the whole personnel gave mean scores for "the public and legal constraints

on police accountability", as a normative basis, as shown in Figure 4.

4,58

4,42

4,10

3,78

3,86

2,52

3,31

3,87

3,19

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

Duties comprehensively defined by law

Powers strictly constrained by laws

Citizens' expectations

Priorities of police

Priorities in practice

Duties as services

Performance planning

Performance target discussions

Performance management

Mean

Figure 4. Public and legal constraints on police accountability

The analysis shows that the demand to enhance the normative basis in duties and powers of the

police, policing based on citizen's expectations and priorisation of policing activities is very

high. Also, the performance target discussions between different levels and persons in police

administration are seen as an important element for enhancing the normative basis. However,

service-based policing is not considered as a very significant normative aspect.

2. Accountability structure of the police administration. The performance guidance practice

presently taking shape stresses the unity of the police administration in which national and pro-

vincial level administrations are characterised as performance-driven units. Police activities are

directed under strategic goals and spending limits set in the yearly state budget and the quarterly

17

performance plan of internal affairs. Performance units, performance areas and accountable offi-

cials have been introduced at all levels of government. In this section of the questionnaire there

were six statements to be evaluated on a scale of 1-4 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3=

agree, 4 = strongly agree).

1. The current basic structure of the police guidance system (Supreme Police Command ⇔ prov-

inces ⇔ local police ⇔ and Supreme Police Command ⇔ Helsinki Police Department, special

units ⇔ special units at local level) is very functional (structure 1).

2. Responsibility of the Supreme Police Command for appropriations and achievement of the per-

formance targets of the police is at present realised highly (structure 2).

3. Responsibility of the Provincial Police Command for appropriations and achievement of the per-

formance targets of the police at the provincial level is at present realised highly (structure 3).

4. At present, local police departments and special units can be independently accountable for their

appropriations and own performance targets (structure 4).

5. Accountability of policing and appropriations will be best realised by the principle of shared re-

sponsibilities (model of performance-driven units) (structure 5).

6. Accountability of policing and appropriations will be best realised by the principle of collective

responsibility (corporate model) (structure 6).

On a scale of 1 to 4, the police personnel gave the following mean scores for "the accountability

structure of the police administration", as a present organisation structure, as shown in Figure 5.

2,29

1,77

2,08

2,31

2,49

2,37

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

Current commandstructure

Supreme Police Command

Provincial PoliceCommands

Police departments andspecial units

Result-driven model

Corporate model

Mean

Figure 5. Accountability structure of the police administration

18

At this point, the analysis shows that the personnel of the police are quite satisfied with the basic

structure of the police as a whole. In fact, a lower mean score concerning the Supreme Police

Command proves that the basic structure is functional and communicative. Experiences about

scarce resources at the operative level are channelled into the Supreme Police Command (1.77),

which is at the top of the allocation hierarchy.

3. Responsibility for policing policies. Although policing practices would be corresponded to

citizens' expectations, it is important to bear in mind that it is very difficult to evaluate in ad-

vance the impact of policing policies formulated by the political level. According to the Frie-

drich-Finer dialogue, it is obvious that the certainty of intended strategies can be seen until these

strategies have been implemented.

The order of questions in this section advances in such a way that there are certain assumptions

concerning which level, political or administrative, should be responsible for formulating polic-

ing strategies, and which level should be accountable for attainable effects of these strategies in

practice. This section also presents six statements which were evaluated on a scale of 1-4 (1 =

disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3= agree, 4 = strongly agree). 1. The aim of political decision makers is realised in the common nationwide targets of the police

(policies 1).

2. The national targets of the police can well be set by the Ministry of the Interior (in a wider con-

text than the Supreme Police Command) (policies 2).

3. Police administration itself is the best body to set national targets for the police (policies 3).

4. Provincial Police Commands and special units of the police are able to efficiently coordinate na-

tional targets and special regional characteristics (policies 4).

5. Local police departments themselves can best coordinate their own targets and the strategies

drawn up by the Provincial Police Commands (policies 5).

6. In practice, the police are able to operate efficiently in accordance with the confirmed targets

(policies 6).

On a scale of 1 to 4, the police personnel gave mean scores for the "responsibility for formulat-

ing policing policies", as a rank of prioritising policing policies. The mean scores are shown in

Figure 6.

19

2,22

2,16

2,60

2,29

2,91

2,31

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

Political decision makers

Ministry

Police administration

Provincial Police Commands and special units

Police departments

Practice

Mean

Figure 6. Responsibility for formulating policing policies

In the personnel's opinion, it is very difficult to define policing policies accurately at the political

level. Mean scores concerning the police departments at the operative level (2.91) and the police

administration as a whole (2.60) prove that policies formulated at the political level are not func-

tional before they have been "reformulated" and revised as strategic goals.

Section 4: Integration of policing and appropriations. The performance-oriented guidance prac-

tice presently taking shape stresses the unity of the police administration in which national and

provincial level administrations are characterized as performance-driven units. Police activities

are directed under strategic goals and spending limits set in the yearly state budget and the quar-

terly result plan of internal affairs. The basic question in this case is where and how the integra-

tion of policing and appropriations should happen. In this section there were six statements to be

evaluated on a scale of 1-4 (1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3= agree, 4 = strongly agree).

1. Policing is well adapted to the spending limits set in the yearly state budget (financial 1).

2. The spending limits set in the yearly state budget are derived from the operational needs of the

police (financial 2).

3. The operational targets and spending limits of the police are well connected with the nationwide

performance plan of the police (financial 3).

4. The Provincial Police Command allocates appropriations equally to local police departments in

accordance with the uniform allocation criteria (financial 4).

5. The spending limits and performance targets of the local police departments are coincided (finan-

cial 5).

20

6. In practice, the spending limits and performance targets of the police are connected automatically

through police activities (financial 6).

On a scale of 1 to 4, the police personnel gave mean scores for "the responsibility for integrating

policing and appropriations" as a stage of integrating policing policies and spending limits of the

police. The mean scores are shown in Figure 7.

1,66

1,36

1,59

1,99

1,88

1,66

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 4,00

In the state budget

Based on policing needs

In the nationwideperformance plan

In provinces

In police departments

In practice

Mean

Figure 7. Responsibility for integrating policing and appropriations

As shown in Figure 7, policing policies and appropriations cannot be integrated adequately at

present. The opinion of the personnel is quite united on that, especially as regards the fact that

spending limits in the state budget and in the frame budgeting system are not adequately based

on policing needs (1.36). In addition , the allocation is a very problematic issue, because the Pro-

vincial Police Commands (1.99) and the local police departments (1.66) have to bear the main

responsibility for the integration of policing policies as strategic goals and appropriations at the

operative level. There is no other choice in practice (1.88) than to adapt to the yearly spending

limits.

Section 5: Significance of the individual and collective responsibility. Responsibility as virtue

can be implemented by hierarchical, personal, social, professional and citizen-oriented account-

ability. In this section the significance of six bureaucratic virtues were to evaluated on a scale of

1-5.

21

1. To obey orders given by my superior (virtue 1).

2. To conform to my personal values (virtue 2).

3. To conform to the prevailing values of my work community (virtue 3).

4. To conform to my professional ethic (virtue 4).

5. To respect citizens' expectations (virtue 5).

6. To value the unity of the police organisation (virtue 6).

On a scale of 1 to 5, the police personnel gave mean scores for "the significance of the individual

and collective responsibility", as a measure of virtues, as shown in Figure 8.

3,97

4,13

3,77

4,51

4,16

3,77

0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5

Orders by superior

Personal values

Values of work community

Professional ethic

Citizens' expectations

Unity of the police

Mean

Figure 8. Significance of the individual and collective responsibility

In total, six features measuring the significance of the individual and collective responsibility are

very highly valued in the police administration. Especially, the personnel gave very high scores

for "professional ethic" (4.51), "citizens' expectations" (4.16) and "personal values" (4.13).

Section 6: Realisation of the social responsibility. The synergy between the role of the police,

political steering of the police and citizens' expectations in policing policies is an obvious ques-

tion regarding legitimacy in depth. In this section there were six statements to be evaluated on a

scale of 1-4 (1 = disagree, 2 = somewhat agree, 3= agree, 4 = strongly agree). 1. Legislation determines the social role of the police and the responsibility according to that role.

Police accountability is implemented mainly as an official liability and as a use of legal remedies

(role provided by law) (social 1).

22

2. The role and responsibility of the police is determined by citizens' expectations (expected role)

(social 2).

3. The role and responsibility of the police are implemented according to what the police do in real-

ity and how police activities are perceived by the public (practical role) (social 3).

4. Citizens' expectations are channelled into operative policing adequately through Parliament and

the government (social 4).

5. The authorisation for police activities as meant by citizens is implemented only in practice (social

5).

6. In the end the implementation of the citizens' will depends on the discretion and the sense of re-

sponsibility of an individual policeman (social 6).

On a scale of 1 to 4, the police personnel gave mean scores for "the implementation of the social

accountability of the police", as a final reference to the legitimacy, as shown in Figure 9.

3,04

2,60

2,87

1,61

2,46

2,62

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0

Role provided by law

Expected role

Practical role

Citizens' will

Authorisation by citizens

Citizens' purpose

Mean

Figure 9. Realisation of the social accountability of the police

As seen in Figure 9, the most significant role is the role provided by law (3.04). The expected

(2.60) and practical (2.87) roles are also understood as coexistent elements in the process of po-

licing policies and practice. The combination of these roles proves the significance of the norma-

tive basis as discovered in the former sections of empirical questions. In practice, the citizens'

will (2.62) can be authorised by citizens themselves by trusting the responsible conduct of an in-

dividual policeman.

23

3.4 Final results

As a result of rotated factors30 (see appendix), I have divided public accountability of the police

into five core areas as follows: the efficiency of the police accountability chain, implementation

of accountability for results, the virtues of police accountability, paramount importance of pro-

fessional accountability, and the legitimacy of the police.

1. In the accountability chain, emphasis is placed on the interdependence of public policy, po-

lice management by performance and police practices, when creating, interpreting and carry-

ing out strategies that unite police activity and appropriations. At present, the major obstacle

to improving the efficiency of the accountability chain is the strong divergence between stra-

tegic planning and operational activity. In this respect, the role of the Provincial Police

Command is a focus for strategic planning and operative management. However, let us not

overlook the difficulty of combining police practices and political planning when drawing

up police strategies. At present, circumstances do not allow full integration of the opera-

tional and financial accountability.

2. Implementation of accountability for results is possible only after a connection has been es-

tablished between police strategies, performance targets and appropriations both from a con-

ceptual and a practical point of view. Therefore, performance planning should cover all the

police activity, and appraisals should be extended to the whole police personnel. Account-

ability for results is an area that can be defined, but the essential thing is that performance

targets be made challenging in order to reinforce the virtues of police. This form of active

accountability can easily be realised in the framework of the hierarchical accountability

structure of the police. Therefore, we can talk about accountability as bureaucratic virtue.

3. The most important forms of bureaucratic virtue of the police are to observe professional

ethics, to respect citizens’ expectations, to attach importance to consistency across the police

organisation, to uphold the values both of the work culture and of the individual, and to obey

orders. The police are in broad agreement that these virtues are of great importance.

4. Public accountability through virtue requires that the professional accountability of the po-

lice be prioritised. This means that the police administration is best placed to interpret and

30 The method of statistical analysis is Explorative Factor Analysis. Nummenmaa et al. 1997; Jöreskog, K.G. 1979.

24

modify the purpose of the political decision-maker when drawing up police strategies and

prioritising duties. Police strategies should be drawn up and prioritised on the basis of prac-

tical requirements. An inclusive, comprehensive vision for the police would suggest that the

entire police staff should participate in the formulation of strategy – by providing vital in-

formation and feedback from all levels to the administration.

5. As regards public accountability, attention should be paid to all five core areas, with priority

given to police legitimacy. The basis is the role of the police as laid down by law, - which

should square with their role as envisaged by the public. In this way, the powers given to the

police by citizens would function as guidelines within which the individual police officers

can use their discretion. As a result, police activity should eventually meet the expectations

of the citizens.

Empirical questions are classified into six sections as in the questionnaire, and the sections are

put in the fourfold table of Romzek and Dubnick31 as shown in Figure 11.

Source of control and

expectations

External Internal Degree of control and autonomy

High

Legal accountability

Public and legal constraints on police accountability

Bureaucratic accountability

Accountability structure of the police

Low

Political accountability

Responsibility for formulating policing policies (strategies) Responsibility for integrating policing and appropriations

Professional accountability

Individual and collective re-sponsibility (virtues) Social responsibility (legiti-macy)

Figure 10. Dimensions of police accountability

Firstly, the analysis of empirical data shows that public and legal constraints are elements which

are contained in legal accountability. The normative basis of policing is central, as shown in

Figure. The police organisation is based on bureaucratic accountability. The relationships be-

tween different parts and personnel are hierarchic. The source of control is internal and the abil-

ity to control is high.

31 Romzek - Dubnick 1987: 228-229.

25

The arrow from bureaucratic to legal accountability in Figure 11 means that although the police

command hierarchy is a matter of course, there are many normative aspects that should also be

specified in legislation. For instance, accountability for results is still very abstract and concen-

trated too much on appropriations.

Secondly, the analysis proves that the responsibility for the formulating policing policies and the

integration of policing and appropriations can be associated with political accountability. Ac-

cording to the personnel's view, the purpose of the political decision-maker is not included ap-

propriately in the national targets of the police. According to the Friedrich-Finer dialogue, the

correspondence between intended strategies and practice cannot be seen until strategies have

been implemented.

Individual and collective responsibility are included in professional accountability. The source

of control is internal and the degree of control is low. In the background is Boven's analysis32

which establishes five conceptions of individual responsibility: (1) the hierarchical conception,

in which the emphasis is on strict loyalty to one's own organisation and to one's own superior, (2)

the personal conception, in which loyalty to personal ethics and one's own conscience are essen-

tial features, (3) the social conception, in which loyalty to one's peers is central, (4) the profes-

sional conception, in which the emphasis is on loyalty to one's own profession and professional

ethics and (5) the civic conception, in which the emphasis is on civic values, such as democratic

control and citizens' expectations.

The above conceptions have been measured in this study as a form of individual and collective

responsibility as seen in Figure 8 (page 21). In addition, there is "the integrity conception", as the

sixth dimension, in order to value the unity of the police organisation. The six dimensions of in-

dividual and collective responsibility can be called virtues, of which the most important are:

1. Professional ethics are the most significant virtue in the Finnish police administration. It

means loyalty to the police's own profession and to their own professional codes. At the

same time, the question is of the professional accountability from the point of view of an

individual.

32 Bovens 1998: 148-149.

26

2. Respecting citizens' expectations is also a significant virtue of the police. It means loyalty

and accountability to citizens and civic values, such as fairness.

3. The third virtue of the police is to conform to personal values. In this case the question is

of loyalty to conscience and personal ethics.

Social responsibility has been placed in the fourfold table under professional accountability be-

cause the role provided by law, expected role and practical role of the police can be connected as

a whole to legal, bureaucratic, political and professional accountability.

The arrow from political to professional accountability in Figure 11 means that the police ad-

ministration itself is the best body to prepare and establish strategic goals, and furthermore, to in-

terpret and modify these strategies so that they correspond with the practice. However, the inter-

nal and external control of the police must be strengthened as the balance of inner and outer ori-

entation by the virtues of the police.

The study shows that the most challenging issue in the future is how to stress the connection be-

tween the citizens' expectations and the personal values of the police. From the point of view of

virtue, they must be in balance in the long run.

In summary, the complexity of police accountability, as an example, consists of the following

core elements: (1) "accountability chain", (2) "accountability for results", (3) "responsibility as

virtue", (4) "professional accountability", and (5) "legitimacy in depth". Legitimacy is not, how-

ever, a separate element in this complexity but it coincides with the other four core elements of

the public accountability of the police.

4. IMPLICATIONS TO THEORY AND RESEARCH The question of accountability can be constructed in theory but in practice the implementation of

accountability is an extremely difficult task. The public accountability of the police, like other

public authorities, provides different mechanisms to balance requirements that have been consti-

tuted by external and internal expectations of the organisation.33 At the same the question is how

to connect the passive and active sides of responsibility. On the passive side control is empha-

sized and virtues are emphasized on the active side.34

33 Wolf 1999: 37. 34 Bovens 1998.

27

This study is concerned with the content and structure of accountability by surveying the percep-

tion of the police personnel. In addition, how citizens and constituents understand public ac-

countability must also be surveyed. In the comparison between different perceptions, experiences

and expectations can emerge internal contradictions and external pressure for change, which can

contribute to new information on and better understanding of the accountability phenomenon.

In addition, the accountability issue must also be examined from the point of view of political

authorities. The European concept of administration is traditionally based on the fact that citi-

zens' perceptions concerning accountability as a whole should also reflect the views of politi-

cians regarding the administrative accountability. But is this view based on simplified role think-

ing, where citizens merely trust and public actors act upon this ‘mandate of trust’ ethically as

well as they can? Is this a kind of "political elitism"?

It is important to consider the concept of legitimacy also in the European tradition because le-

gitimate administration must be congruent with accountability as experienced by civil servants.

When studying public accountability it is also important to consider different fields of activities

and different demands as a consequence of their special features. In this study public account-

ability is examined from the point of view of police administration, but it is obvious that an em-

pirical study like this will give different priorities to the accountability question, for instance

concerning the public school system and social and health care. Nevertheless, there are also simi-

larities when considering legitimacy in depth.

Finally, the connection between public accountability and public value must be emphasized. If

the concept of public value is unclear or too ambiguous, it is not possible to connect public ac-

countability to a wider context, and otherwise, either. Public value is a very temporal and posi-

tional concept, and what seems to be "public value" in the USA is not necessarily so in the Euro-

pean context, and vice versa. The role and duties of public administration differ internationally

and also manifest themselves in different ways.

The results of this study confirm that the concept of public accountability is a multifaceted ap-

proach to understand the combination of "accountability" and "responsibility". Legal account-

ability is not sufficient exclusively but emphasis must also be put on citizens’ expectations

28

REFERENCES

Albrow, Martin. Bureaucracy. Pall Mall Press Ltd, London 1970. Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Harvard University. Cambridge 1958. Bovens, Mark. The Quest for Responsibility. Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organisations.

Cambridge University Press 1998. Day, Patricia - Klein, Rudolf. Accountabilities Five Public Services. Tavistock Publications Ltd., London.

1987. Dunsire, Andrew. John Major's Citizens' Charter A democratic perspective. Hallinnon tutkimus 2, 91-96

(Journal of Administrative Studies, Finnish Association for Administrative Studies). 1994. Finer, Henry. Administrative responsibility in democratic government, in C. Friedrich (ed.) Public Policy.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1940. Finer, Henry. Administrative responsibility in democratic government, in F.E. Rourke (ed.), Bureaucratic

power in national politics. Boston: Little, Brown. 1978. Friedrich, C. Public policy and the nature of administrative responsibility, in C. Friedrich (ed.), Public

policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 1940. Gruber, Judith E. Controlling Bureaucracies, Dilemmas in Democratic Governance. The Regents of the

University of California, USA 1987. Huhtinen, Aki. Ingarden vastuusta (Ingarden responsibility). In J. Varto (ed.), Ingarden & Toinen feno-

menologia ("Ingarden and an other fenomenology"). Tampere 1993. Ingarden, Roman. Über die Verantwortung; ihre ontischen Fundamente. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1970. Ingarden, Roman. Man and Value. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 1983. Jöreskog, K.G. Basic ideas of factor and component analysis, in Jöreskog, K.G. & Sörbom, D., Advances

in Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Models, 5-20. Cambridge: Abt Books. 1979. Kooiman, Jan - Vliet, Martijn. Governance and Public Management. Working Paper. European Group of

Public Administration. Annual Conference. Rotterdam, September. 1995 Kooiman, Jan (ed.). Modern governance: new government - society interactions. London: Sage, 1993. Käyhkö, Esa. Poliisin julkinen vastuu. Tutkimus poliisin vastuusta erityisesti legitimiteetin näkökulmasta

(Police accountability. A viewpoint to legitimacy). Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 862. University of Tampere, 2002. http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/951-44-5326-3.pdf

Leemans, A. F. - Dunsire, A. (eds.) The Public's Servants. Finnpublishers Oy, Finland. 1981. Lucas, J.R.: Responsibility. Oxford University Press, 1995. McSwite, O.C. Legitimacy in Public Administration. A Discourse Analysis. Sage Publications, Inc. USA

1997. Metcalfe, Les. Public Management: from imitation to innovation. Working Paper. European Institute of

Public Administration. Maastricht, The Netherlands, 1991. Nummenmaa, Tapio, - Konttinen, Raimo - Kuusinen, Jorma - Leskinen, Esko. Tutkimusaineiston analyysi

("Research Analysis"). WSOY 1997. Romzek, Barbara. Dynamics of Public Sector Accountability in an Era of Reform. Workshop Report at

the conference "Accountability in Public Administration: Reconciling Democracy, Efficiency, and Ethics". Sunningdale, UK 1999.

Romzek, Barbara S. - Dubnick, Melvin J. Accountability in the Public Sector: Lessons from the Chal-lenger Tragedy. Public Administration Review, May/June, 227-238. 1987.

Thompson, Dennis. Political Ethics and Public Office. Cambridge MA, 1987. Wildavsky, Aaron. Responsibilities are Allocated by Cultures. Mimeo, Berkeley 1986. Weber, Max. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Grundriss der verstehende Soziologie. 5e revidierte Auflage,

besorgt von Johannes Winkelmann, Studienausgabe, Tübingen 1976. Wolf, Adam. Accountability in Public Administration. General Report at the conference "Accountability

in Public Administration: Reconciling Democracy, Efficiency, and Ethics". Sunningdale, UK 1999.

29

APPENDIX: Rotated Factor Matrix Questions Factors

1. Public and legal constraints on the police accountability 1 2 3 4 5Normative 1 0,09359 0,18400 0,26600 -0,11200 -0,16200Normative 2 0,12500 0,15100 0,07318 -0,12300 -0,11300Normative 3 -0,08185 0,03795 0,19000 -0,14700 0,31100Normative 4 -0,04800 0,03595 0,09486 0,50800 0,01098Normative 5 -0,06075 -0,08896 0,01141 0,47900 0,13800Normative 6 0,05567 0,23900 -0,02905 0,23300 0,08593Normative 7 0,16900 0,76100 0,11800 -0,06533 -0,06219Normative 8 0,11000 0,75800 0,08348 -0,10700 0,01550Normative 9 0,28100 0,56300 0,17800 0,04949 -0,049952. Accountability structure Structure 1 0,53800 0,17200 0,20800 0,12300 -0,14000Structure 2 0,62900 0,15500 0,06342 0,04530 -0,05796Structure 3 0,62300 0,20800 -0,00360 -0,01939 -0,07410Structure 4 0,44100 0,17300 0,05055 0,05538 -0,09973Structure 5 0,26500 0,21500 -0,00316 0,11600 0,01590Structure 6 0,16000 -0,05773 0,08210 -0,06244 0,023903. Policing policies Policies 1 0,37500 0,04697 0,11500 -0,00605 -0,05769Policies 2 0,51100 0,09577 0,12700 0,02310 -0,08023Policies 3 0,04638 -0,00515 0,09416 0,57900 0,03287Policies 4 0,51300 0,15300 0,10000 0,14700 -0,07694Policies 5 0,15800 0,01064 0,09157 0,28200 0,13900Policies 6 0,45500 0,08357 0,15800 0,10000 0,126004. Policing and appropriations Financial 1 0,50900 0,02057 -0,06998 -0,02471 0,12900Financial 2 0,57500 -0,01346 -0,05554 -0,07838 0,14200Financial 3 0,60300 0,00154 -0,04218 0,01199 0,16100Financial 4 0,47600 0,10700 0,00700 -0,03333 -0,07416Financial 5 0,60400 0,06824 -0,06363 -0,05425 0,07043Financial 6 0,31300 -0,01183 -0,02991 0,11300 0,127005. Individual and collective responsibility Virtue 1 0,10300 0,23600 0,32900 0,10800 -0,08028Virtue 2 -0,01960 -0,00536 0,45000 0,14400 0,12000Virtue 3 0,10600 0,06216 0,48000 0,12800 0,14700Virtue 4 0,01125 -0,00010 0,61400 -0,03770 -0,04548Virtue 5 -0,02717 -0,00870 0,52700 -0,18700 0,28500Virtue 6 0,08576 0,11400 0,52000 0,17000 0,092916. Social responsibility Social 1 0,13700 0,09320 0,19500 0,01572 -0,08694Social 2 0,00253 -0,00226 0,18600 0,05230 0,39300Social 3 0,04713 0,01466 0,09507 0,07095 0,51800Social 4 0,33600 0,02337 0,09211 -0,06514 -0,10700Social 5 0,01729 -0,04479 -0,08109 0,21300 0,37600Social 6 0,03338 -0,08037 -0,05724 0,17700 0,34400 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 7 iteration