Integrating Virtue Ethics and Structural Dimensions in Conflict-of-Interest Policymaking: Providing A Comprehensive Framework for the Public Sector

Document Type : Based on PhD Thesis

Authors
mostafa abbasi 1
MOHAMADREZA , ATARODI 2
1 Ph.D. student of Public Administration, Faculty of Islamic Education and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Public Administration, Faculty of Islamic Education and Management, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.
10.48308/jpap.2026.243517.1547
Abstract
Purpose: The lack of a specific framework for conflict-of-interest management has led to scattered, conflicting, and often reactive policymaking on this issue. Therefore, the main objective of the research is ultimately to manage conflicts of interest in the public sector. In this regard, this study presents a conflict-of-interest management policy framework for public officials based on virtue ethics guidelines to systematize policymaking on this issue. This framework responds to that need; in addition, the researchers had secondary objectives: adding ethical considerations and dimensions and integrating them with structural dimensions in policymaking. Finally, it structures policymaking to prevent and combat corruption by addressing the relationship between conflict of interest and corruption.
Design/ methodology/ approach: The present study is theoretical, with a qualitative approach, and the researchers discussed and reviewed the framework by presenting it to a “focus group” of specialists and experts in conflict of interest and policy-making in the country. The focus group experts approved the framework for managing conflicts of interest for public-sector agents and suggested additions for completion and for related and subsequent research.
Research Findings: The findings show that the proposed framework, through the integration of virtue ethics and structural dimensions, includes fundamental assumptions, structural elements, and articulation. The framework states five fundamental assumptions. Its main elements are four: conflict of interest (issue), ethical dimensions, solutions (policy), and government agents. The framework's main issue is conflict of interest as a problematic situation in the governance system. The framework's ethical dimensions refer to applied ethical virtues (fourteen known related virtues) and virtue-based paradigms, both grounded in virtue-ethics guidelines for conflict-of-interest management and in semantic research methods used in previous research. Another structural element is policy, which includes conventional solutions and tools for conflict-of-interest management derived from practical experience. Finally, government agents are the main actors in the three roles of policymaker, policy entrepreneur, and policy audience. The key achievement of this research is to systematize policymaking on this issue under a coherent, scientific framework that considers various structural and ethical dimensions.
Limitations & Consequences: Because conflict-of-interest management involves many dimensions and considerations, policymaking is a limitation of the research. In the presented framework, important elements such as government agents, ethical dimensions, solutions and tools for managing conflict of interest, and the forms and types of conflict of interest observed are of great importance, but they could be further developed in future studies. In addition, each of the mentioned elements may have other limitations. For example, in the ethical dimensions, two guidelines of exemplary behavior and moral virtues are proposed, and in the case of virtues, fourteen related virtues are also mentioned. It is possible to add more guidelines and moral virtues. This point can be made about other elements such as tools, as well as forms and types of conflict of interest.
Practical Consequences: In this study, shifting the conflict-of-interest management approach from reactive to preventive allows policymakers to establish ethical and supervisory structures in the organization before corruption occurs. This framework makes it possible to conduct future policymaking within it. Therefore, if the policymaker uses this framework for policymaking, considering the systematic relationship between conflict of interest and corruption, at the beginning of the process, i.e. the formation of corruption, and also the output of policymaking at the end of the process, it will practically lead to structured policymaking for preventing and combating corruption, because in this framework, conflict of interest has been recognized as the main core of corruption. Also, using this framework leads to the integration of structural and ethical approaches
Innovation or value of the Article: The main innovation of this study is structuring policymaking on this issue. This research challenges existing models by redefining ethical dimensions as a structural element (rather than merely an afterthought). Furthermore, the framework explicitly articulates the roles of policy audiences as active participants in implementation success or failure—a nuance often overlooked in previous literature.
Paper Type: Original Paper
Keywords
Policy
Conflict of Interest Management
Public Administration
Framework
Virtue Ethics
1.      Abbasi, M., & Atarodi, M. R. (2025). Conflict of interest as a problematic situation in governance: Presenting a new theoretical framework. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Studies. https://doi.org/10.22034/jipas.2024.464883.1720 [In Persian]
2.      Abbasi, M., & Atarodi, M. R. (2026). A theoretical framework of corruption in governance based on conflict-of-interest situations: A step toward new policymaking in combating corruption. Danesh-e Siyasi (Political Science), Imam Sadiq University. https://doi.org/10.30497/pkn.2026.247115.3215 [In Persian]
3.      Abbasi, M., & Atarodi, M. R & Akbari, R. (2025). Virtue Ethics Guidelines for Conflict of Interest Policy making. Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 11 (4), 94-109.DOI: https://doi.org/10.22059/jppolicy.2025.105202. [In Persian]
4.      Abbasi, M., & Eyvazlou, H.(2020). Identifying financial transparency criteria for government officials. Strategic Management Thought, Imam Sadiq University. [In Persian]
5.      Bertók, J. (2011). Conflict of interest: Addressing a key risk factor in the public sector. In OECD (Ed.), Public sector integrity: A framework for assessment (pp. 111–129). Paris: OECD Publishing
6.      Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184
7.      Cairney, P., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: What is the empirical impact of this universal theory? Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12111
8.      Conflict of interest. (n.d.). In Transparency International Glossary. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org/glossary/term/conflict_of_interests
9.      Cooper, T. L. (2012). The responsible administrator: An approach to ethics for the administrative role (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass
10.   Di Carlo, E., & Testarmata, S. (2011). Defining directors’ conflicts of interest in codes of ethics. Corporate Board: Role, Duties and Composition, 7(1–2), 125–139
11.   Gilman, S. C. (2005). Ethics codes and codes of conduct as tools for promoting an ethical and professional public service: Comparative successes and lessons. Washington, DC: World Bank/UN DESA
12.   Hinman, L. M. (2023). Contemporary moral issues: Disagreements and agreements (M. Gholami, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Tarjoman Institute. [In Persian]
13.   Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 17–53). London, UK: Routledge
14.   Huberts, L. W. J. C. (2014). The integrity of governance: What it is, what we know, what is done, and where to go. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan
15.   Jafarīnia, S., Abedi Jafari, H., Vakili, Y., & Ranjbar Kabotarkhani, M. (2022). Typology of conflicts of interest among public officials: A mapping of conflict of interest studies in the public sector. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Studies, 5(1), 1–29. [In Persian]
16.   Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman
17.   Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications
18.   Lipsky, M. (1980). Front Matter. In Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (pp. i–vi). Russell Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610447713.1
19.   MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press
20.   Manzano, A. (2022). Conducting focus groups in realist evaluation. Evaluation, 28(4), 406–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890221124637
21.   Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications
22.   Moṛattab, Y., Keshafinia, V., Abbasi, M., Vasfi, M., & Fallahian, M. (2021). Conflict of interest in the public sector. Tehran: Transparency & Progress Publishing. [In Persian]
23.   Nyumba, T. O., Wilson, K., Derrick, C. J., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 9(1), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
24.   OECD. (2005). Managing conflict of interest in the public sector: A toolkit. Paris: OECD Publishing
25.   Peters, A. (2012). Conflict of interest as a cross-cutting problem of governance. In A. Peters & L. Handschin (Eds.), Conflict of interest in global, public, and corporate governance (pp. 15–38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.   Ramazani, R. (2008). The ethical views of Allameh Tabatabaei. Qom, Iran: Institute for Culture and Islamic Thought. [In Persian]
27.   Rachels, J. (2014). The elements of moral philosophy (M. Fathali & A. A. Būyeh, Trans.). Tehran: Institute for Islamic Culture and Science. [In Persian]
28.   Sah, S. (2019). Understanding the (perverse) effects of disclosing conflicts of interest: A direct replication study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 75, Article 101200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.102002
29.   Sanaei, M (2018). A framework for open government data in Iran’s science and technology sector (case study: Ministry of Science, Research, & Technology). Tehran: Faculty of Management, University of Tehran. [In Persian]
30.   Shahriyari, S., & Nawab, M. H. (2015). Zagzebski’s exemplarist virtue theory. Philosophy, 13(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/10.22059/jop.2015.56690 [In Persian]
31.   Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (2015). Focus groups: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications
32.   Subiyakto, A., Ahlan, A. R., Putra, S. J., & Kartiwi, M. (2015). Validation of information system project success model: A focus group study. SAGE Open, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015581650
33.   Thompson, D. F. (1992). Paradoxes of government ethics. Public Administration Review, 52(3), 254–259. https://doi.org/10.2307/976947
34.   Thompson, D. F. (2017). Theories of institutional corruption. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052715-111917
35.   Vogt, D. S., King, D. W., & King, L. A. (2004). Focus groups in psychological assessment: Enhancing content validity by consulting members of the target population. Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.231
36.   Whitten, H. (2020). Toolkit for managing conflicts of interest in the public sector (M. Azadi Ahmadabadi & M. Yakhchali, Trans.). Tehran: Bazargani Publishing. [In Persian]
37.   Zagzebski, L. T. (1996). Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge University Press
38.   Zagzebski, L. (2005). Morality and religion. In W. J. Wainwright (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion (pp. 310–333). Oxford University Press
39.   Zagzebski, L. (2010). Exemplarist virtue theory. Metaphilosophy, 41(1–2), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2009.01627.x
40.   Zagzebski, L. (2017). Exemplarist moral theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190655846.001.0001
41.   Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 65–92). Boulder, CO: Westview Press