Obeying Ministers or Laws? A Study of Danish Civil Servants' Responses to Illegal Requests

Abstract


 
 
 It is part of a civil servants job description to be responsive to its political leadership as well as to uphold legal norms. But what happens when the two types of demands conflict? When legal norms stipulate one thing, but political leaders want another. In modern de- mocracies, observing the rule of law is no less important than holding elections. Respect for legal norms by those who exercise government authority is widely regarded as the cornerstone of democracy and good governance. The question is what role the bureaucra- cy plays when it comes to defending legal norms vis-à-vis its political leaders. This article investigates this question theoretically as well as empirically. First by exploring the nor- mative and positive theoretical issues involved, and secondly by examining the institu- tional context and behavior of the civil service in the Danish state administration. The analysis draws on survey data where civil servants have been asked to respond to fictive scenarios that present a conflict between obedience to the minister and observing the law. A substantial share of the civil servants – up to 1⁄4 - choose to compromise legal obliga- tions to comply with Ministerial requests. The findings suggest that educational back- ground, position in the hierarchy, and work place and function matters. Lawyers, leaders, those who work in departments – as opposed to agencies – are thus less likely to show willingness to compromise their legal obligations than their colleagues are.
 
 

Between a rock and a hard place: Balancing the duties of political responsiveness and legality in the civil service

“…Moreover, the Professors agree that the duty “to refuse” would clearly be violated if civil servants choose answer options 1 or 2. They also state that answer option 4 is clearly in accord with the duty to refuse while it can be discussed whether option 3 constitutes sufficient refusal (see fuller discussion of the vignettes and legal principles involved in the answer options: Bischoff, 2018: pp. 71–75 and Boye Koch & Bischoff, 2018: pp.…”

“…It is doubtful that the difference in “norm” alone explains this apparent reversal, however. As pointed out elsewhere, while the vignettes involving legality ask civil servants what they would do if tasked with clearly illegal acts, the other vignettes do not depict a clear‐cut conflict between following instructions and the norm in question (Bischoff, 2018; Boye Koch & Bischoff, 2018). Consequently, none of the civil servant responses to the non‐legal vignettes clearly violate the norm in question to obey the Minister.…”

Considering (New Public) Civil Servants: Emerging Roles and Contexts

“…Findings presented by e.g. Poulsen and Boye Koch (2018) and Bischoff (2018) directs attention to emerging coping strategies that could be studied in other national contexts and welfare levels. Such studies could e.g.…”