1. Smith | 1
Robby Smith
6 May 2014
Ethics – Dr. Bearfield
No Participation is the Best Participation: Robert Moses’ Civic Disregard for New Yorkers
Robert Moses’ failure to reconcile democratic values and public entrepreneurship led to his
downfall as a public administrator. Democratic values, as articulated by Bellone and Goerl, include
ethics and must be intertwined with the actions of public entrepreneurs for their behavior to be
deemed ethical. Ethics are a component of democratic values, though not directly listed by Bellone
and Goerl. The inclusion of ethics within democratic values is based on democratic ethos’ inclusion of
an ethical framework. Robert Moses, based onroles, responsibilities, and actions, was a public
entrepreneur. His career, as outlined in a documentary film and case study article, provide examples of
his misdeeds as public works director. An analysis of how his blatant disregard for the citizenry of
New York leads to the conclusion that Robert Moses is unethical on the grounds that public
administrators are obligated to uphold democratic values, which include ethics. He failed to exhibit
democratic values in his position as director of public works and in other positions he held as a public
administrator for the State of New York and New York City.
Article Synopsis
In the article, “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy,” Carl Bellone and
George Goerl discuss how public administrators can be caught betweendemocratic values and public
entrepreneurship, as they search for a way to execute these two competing ideals. The authors propose
a bridge between the two with their “civic-regarding entrepreneurship” that rectifies the different sets
of values. According to Bellone and Goerl, democratic values consist ofaccountability, citizen
participation, openpolicymaking processes, and “stewardship behavior,” while public entrepreneurial
values are autonomy, a personal vision of the future, secrecy, and risk-taking behavior – which Robert

2. Smith | 2
Moses exhibits perfectly (Bellone and Goerl 1992). I would like to establish that ethics are a key
component of democratic values among government administrators.
Gary M. Woller’s, “Toward a Reconciliation of the Bureaucratic and Democratic Ethos,”
includes a discussion of why ethics matter in democratic ethos. Although Bellone and Goerl do not
include ethics in their list of values, conclusions on democratic values and how Robert Moses failed to
act ethically are supported by Woller’s framework of democratic ethos.It is first necessary to establish
that ethos and values are synonymous, bothincluding ethics. Ethos is derived from the Greek, and
means “The fundamental character or spirit of a culture; the underlying sentiment that informs the
beliefs, customs, or practices of a group or society” (Dictionary.com). Values is derived from Middle
English, Old French, and Latin, and means, “The ideals, customs, institutions, etc., of a society toward
which the people of the group have an affective regard. These values may be positive…or negative”
(Diectioanrly.com). The similarity in the two definitions leads to the conclusion that the terms can be
used nearly synonymously. For the purposes of this paper, the term democratic ethos(presented by
Woller) equates with the term democratic values utilized by Bellone and Goerl.
Three key principles define democratic ethos: deontology, democratic governance, and
universalizability. Democratic ethos is influenced by the school of deontological thinking.
Deontological principles adhere to the idea that “ethical behavior is determined by certain higher
order, or a priori, moral principles from which lower order rules – and hence one’s moral duty – may
be logically deduced”(Woller 1998, 90). For deontologists, adherence to core values of democratic
governance is the primary focus. They think that a more vocal public administration that seeks
resolution of social inequity and provides for equal access to political systems (Woller 1998). This
higher order thinking contributes to democratic ethos, thus a need for universalizability exists. This
means identifying an “ethical essence” about a situation, then universalizing it to other similar

3. Smith | 3
situations to determine how to react based uponthe population or community’s established values,
traditions, language, or rules. Woller (1998, 93) states, “The result is a set of universalizable ethical
rules that govern individual and our case, administrative, conduct.” Public interest is germane to the
Woller’s reconciling of two value sets. While public interest is merely a thought of effective and
efficient management for bureaucratic ethos subscribers, for democratic ethos, public interest means
an adherence to ethical duties such as not breaking laws; encouraging citizen participation in
government; being honest, fair, impartial, and benevolent; and promoting social equity and justice
(Woller 1998).
Ethics are central to democratic ethos through deontological thinking, which helps to
determine ethical behavior, and through democratic governance, which involves applying those
determined behaviors in a way that is equitable to the public interest in government. The
universalizability component allows these behaviors to become the norm for a group – which in the
case of these two articles is public administrators. With this progression of thought, it is clear how
ethics are component of democratic ethos, and thus also democratic values.
Bellone and Goerl assert the need to evaluate the behavior of public administrators and
entrepreneurs in terms of administrative responsibility and democratic values. The authors claim that
“the public administrator has a responsibility for furthering democratic values n the political process in
policy implementation, and for developing better opportunities for citizenship” (Bellone and Goerl
1992, 130). Public entrepreneurs are self-interested, but also eager to find alternative sources of
revenue. The authors argue that the two sets of values ought to be reconciled to one another in an
effort to blend democratic values with goals of public entrepreneurs.
Bellone and Goerl find that pairs of values tend to naturally be in conflict. Entrepreneurial
autonomy often conflicts with democratic accountability in financing and delegation of responsibility

4. Smith | 4
for public projects. Need to generate alternate revenue sources and public entrepreneurs want for
increasing control of budgets is often at odds with methods for accountability to the public. In some
cases, accountability is dependent on hearings and measuring the achievement of goals – but, goals
are not always easily measured (Bellone and Goerl 1992). Second, public entrepreneurial vision must
be balanced with citizen participation. To reconcile the two, Bellone and Goerl advocate for “testing
entrepreneurial vision through a meaningful public participation process”(1992, 131). Third, is the
entrepreneur’s perceived need for secrecy versus the openness of democracy. While the authors claim
that public-private partnerships often require secrecy, they also concede that there have been some
budgetary outlays in situations that prove imprudent in the end. Had the deal been less secretive and
more dialogue allowed, perhaps a more sensible decision would have been made. Lastly, there is a
need for reconciling the risk-taking aspect of entrepreneurial ventures with the stewardship
responsibility of democratic governance. Much risk is involved in business dealings: high-risk
investments, failed arbitrage, short-term payouts with no long-run gains. All of these are issues that
arise in public entrepreneurial situations in which the citizenry will end up bearing the burden for any
mistakes and additionally accrued costs. The authors note, “Entrepreneurial risk-taking may be more
congruent with democratic stewardship if it is preceded bypublic information, discussion, and formal
acceptance by those who will have to bear the risks should they fail” (Bellone and Goerl 19992, 132).
Out of these four contrasting areas of democratic values and public entrepreneurial activities comes
the foundation for a need to better incorporate the citizenry and democratic values in public
entrepreneurship.
More public involvement in entrepreneurship means that administrators need to realize their
political authority more and be civic-regarding with their entrepreneurial endeavors. Citizens must
trust entrepreneurial administrators, and the administrators must be responsive to the citizenry and the

5. Smith | 5
needs. With more citizen-participation there is more burden sharing amongst citizens and public
administrators. The authors state that for a strong theory or practice of public entrepreneurship, there
must be strong citizenship, new sources of revenue, better policies, and public services. A caveat,
however, is that all civic-participation is not totally good. Issues of serving self-interest can arise, and
of citizens having unrealistic demands on public funds. The authors suggest that elevating citizen-
participation and/ or incorporating citizen volunteers are ways to build a civic-regarding public
entrepreneurship. To be an ethical public entrepreneur, one must engage with the citizenry and allow
them to take an active part in decisions or at least bear them in mind when investing public funds.
Exhibiting true democratic values means upholding ethical behavior.
Main Ideas from the Film
New York: A DocumentaryFilm examines the impact of Robert Moses, public works director
for the city and leader of great projects throughout the state. Robert Moses worked as an urban planner
and public administrator from the 1920’s through the 1960’s. Many whom he worked for struggled to
control Moses and his great power since he had access to great funding pools and failed to give any
deference to authority. Mayor La Guardia feared that once he was no longer mayor, no one could
control Moses. Through the Depression and World War II, Robert Moses was under fiscal restraint
while funds were diverted to relieve poverty and fund the US military. As America began to transition
after the war, Moses reinvigorated his projects with a new entrepreneurial spirit.
New York was a city in transition. Veterans arrived from overseas, eager to begin their lives
again. While the suburban movement drew many of these men away from the crowded city, many of
them desperately looked for work and housing. Puerto Ricans were coming in, escaping Caribbean
poverty. The wartime manufacturing economy was transitioned from inner city manufacturing to
large-scale operations in the South and West. As working class jobs were lost and people migrated,
which created economic tensions and strains on the city, Moses saw opportunity.

6. Smith | 6
Moses joined in the fight to bring the United Nations headquarters to New York City. He
swooped in with a building plan and available land, ensuring Philadelphia would not succeed at their
bid for the UN. Moses’ power grew. He channeled toll fees from one bridge or road project into
another. He gained access to federal funds through becoming head of the city’s housing authority and
construction coordinator. He controlled all of the federal money flowing in to the City. His power
grew exponentially, and he was quite keenly aware of it. When people questioned his tactics, he
stated, “If the end doesn’t justify the means, then what does?”While industrious, Moses’ true
intentions became suspicious when he began chairing the Slum Clearing Program.
The Slum Clearing Program consisted of two main parts, Title I and Title II, both of which
were controversial among citizens. Title I focused on urban renewal. Using eminent domain powers,
the City took land and gave it to private developers for re-development who were theoretically
obligated to build housing projects for poor citizens. Title I effectively destroyed and fragmented
many communities through ruthless demolition, adding more problems to an already trepid urban
blight situation. These projects often targeted colored communities, relocating many to Harlem. Many
of the replacement structures were built up as “super blocks,” which led to a permanently lost sense of
community without the familiar city block grid. This loss of community created environments that
allowed more urban issues to fester. Disunity was not just among people, but also within the structure
of the old city and the new city. Title I projects totally demolished an area, and then rebuilt it, truly
fracturing communities at the street level. Most of the new construction, ironically, was not built by
city-dwellers, but by people who do not like cities.
With the 1956 Interstate Highway Act, Moses gained access to more money. Moses oversaw
$1.5 billion of funds from the federal highway program. He went on a road building campaign
throughout New York City. Moses wanted every inch of Manhattan and the outer boroughs connected

7. Smith | 7
by and criss-crossed with straight highway. This was an odd vision for a man who never drove an
automobile but once in his life. When people complained about their neighborhoods being destroyed
by this new wave of construction, Moses said, “People must be inconvenienced who are in the way.”
Under his authority, Moses oversaw the construction of six new expressways, a total of thirteen roads
- 130 miles in the city and a total of 627 in the city and surrounding areas. He held twelve public jobs
at once and controlled the parks, roads, sewers, and public works projects. To his critics, he would say,
“No critic ever built anything. New York has too many of these and we ought to get rid of some of
them.” Having no tolerance for any opinion but his own, Moses felt he was accountable to no one
because he was elected by no one.
One of the most contentious projects, the Cross-BronxExpressway, destroyed the East
Tremont neighborhood, a once thriving urban center where for the past century new immigrants
assimilated into New York’s urban scene. The film details the insensitive and inhuman way the city
and the housing authority treated the residents it had just displaced. Moses had no concept of what he
was doing – or if he did, he did not care about demolition of brownstone homes which he labeled
“tenements.” The city was not prompt or straight-forward in working with displaced citizens. Funds
were put on short contingency plans, residents on lists, and all protests were directed to Moses, who
never replied to any of them. When the citizens called for drafting of an alternative route, they found
the “park route” alternative would be more effective and efficient, meet all regulations, and save 1,530
apartments. Everyone stood behind this plan – senators, congressman, state representatives, and
borough president – except Moses. He threatened to resign as construction coordinator if “borough
politics’ were injected into his plan and blocked his progress. In the fight against Moses, borough
president Lyons said, “This is not Russia. Here we have democracy, and the people should be able to
speak out in order to save their homes” (“One Mile” 866). Despite is lofty rhetoric, Lyons abandoned

8. Smith | 8
his responsibility to the citizenry under the pressure of Moses and his tactics of individual and closed-
door meetings. Moses told reporters that dealing with the East Tremont protestors was no concern at
all.
By 1960, the city was began a downward spiral with a fading middle class being replaced by
poorer, jobless immigrants. The port was declining with new technological advances and a decline in
the industry. People started saying, “If the port doesn’t work, how can the city work?”As the city was
losing its way, so was Robert Moses. Though the Cross-BronxExpressway protests were a non-issue
to Moses, more citizens started seeing that Mr. Moses was a problem and a threat to their livelihood
and to the existence of the New York that they so loved. Moses destroyed the historic Penn Station, to
which poet Ada Louise Haxtable said, “We will be judged not by the monument we build, but by
what we destroy.” With his plan in place to build a tri-highway system in Manhattan – a lower, mid,
and upper highway – Moses thought he was unstoppable. He said, “Cities are created by and for
traffic.” Moses was mistaken. Cities are built by and for people, countered writer Jane Jacobs,
organizer of the group who finally stopped Moses from succeeding at his lower Manhattan
expressway which would have demolished the now bustling Soho area of the city. Jacobs’ writings
about communities, local urban thriving, and economics depicted a New York City more than just
traffic. In a hearing, Jacobs said of Moses, “Too many of his dreams turn out to be nightmares for the
city… He is a stupid old man.” She reiterated the point that New York is more than a transportation
problem. Thanks to Jacobs’ success, New York may be the only major American city without an
expressway going through it. In 1965, the Landmarks Preservation Commission was enacted to stop
the frivolous “change for the sake of change” demolition and rebuilding cycle rampant in the city.
Though there undoubtedly are mixed opinions on the impact of Robert Moses, it is clear that
he went further than citizens of New York asked for or needed in his roadwayconstruction efforts.

9. Smith | 9
Remembered for uniting the boroughs and building the UN, Moses represents aggressive power in the
minds of New Yorkers and urbanists who live with his legacies.
Analysis
Robert Moses was obviously a public entrepreneur by Bellone and Goerl’s definition, but not
democratically minded, failing in areas of accountability, citizen participation, open policymaking
processes, and “stewardship behavior” (Bellone and Goerl 1992). But, “Was Robert Moses ethical?”
Using democratic valuesas a lens, which includes ethics though the democratic ethos, Robert Moses
was not ethical. He fails at Bellone and Goerl’s definition of a civic-regarding, democratic value-
exhibiting public entrepreneur. He did not seek to incorporate civic-participation into his plans, but
rather he regarded it as a nuisance. His blatant disregard for the citizenry of New York is unethical on
the grounds that public administrators are obligated to uphold democratic values. Even in a case where
one would lean more toward bureaucratic values, there is still an undeniable ethical foundation that
calls for attentiveness to and inclusion of the citizenry to reconcile views within the bureaucracy.
Further, public entrepreneurs are stewards of public money; as Bellone and Goerl articulate, civic-
regard is necessary when expending these funds.
Three examples from Robert Moses’ career support the case for his being unethical. First,
Robert Moses viewed acting in a way that was civic-regarding as a roadblock to his own efficiency.
As some of his quotes indicated, he viewed nothing as more important than achieving his ends and
had little tolerance for anyone who disagreed with him. To get his own project proposals approved
faster, he secured the land and began a project before receiving approval for it since no one would stop
an already-begun project. His approachkept funds coming and his projects in motion. Second, he
viewed citizen input, concerns, or participation as inaccurate and irrelevant. During East Tremont
protests, he had his staff direct all protests and inquires to him, which he ignored. He referred to
citizen concerns as criticism and said that New York needed a lot less critics. Lastly, he eventually

10. Smith | 10
reached a point of operating in a data-less vacuum, doing what was ideal in his head without taking
into account the needs on the ground. As a public works director, a public entrepreneur, he should
have beenworking on projects that met the public need. In contrast, he worked on projects that he
thought were important, even when masses of people were not in favor of them. At the end of his
career, Moses intended to build the three highways across Manhattan because he believed that cities
should be built for traffic; he wanted to deal with automobiles, not people. He had little data to support
need for these three highways and a large populous opposed to the plan, but he thought the city had to
deal with traffic. When alternate plans were presented to him by engineers, he fired people, discredited
plans, and continued his own agenda. In the East Tremont case, the park route was more efficient,
saved homes, and met all regulatory standards, he still rejected it in favor of his route. This continual
dismissal of data and public opinion led to his decisions not being a true measure of what was best in
the situation, but only what Robert Moses thought was best.
With these three actions as data points, it is clear that Robert Moses was unethical. As a public
administrator, though not directly elected, he worked for elected officials. When he stopped listening
to the input of officials and refused to execute policies that met the citizen’s needs and wants, he
demonstrated a lack of ethics. When he bullied elected officials into supporting his plans, he clearly
breeched the threshold of his job responsibilities. Mayor La Guardia was right to fear that no one
could control him after he left office. Administrators are responsible to those they work for – the
elected officials and the people for whom they execute the law.
Conclusion
To be ethical, public administrators must reconcile democratic values and public
entrepreneurship. Robert Moses’ record in New York shows that failing to follow the prescriptions of
Bellone and Goerl can lead to serious downfall. Public administrators and entrepreneurs that do not
seek to incorporate civic-participation into development plan use a poor judgment.

11. Smith | 11
Bibliography
Bellone, Carl J. and George Frederick Goerl. “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and Democracy.”
Public Administration Review.March/ April 1992. Vol. 52, No. 2. p. 130-134.
New York, A Documentary Film.
“One Mile.” The Lust for Power.
Woller, Gary M. “Toward A reconciliation of the Bureaucratic and Democratic Ethos.”
Administrationand Society.March1998. p. 85-109.