Prioritizing exceptional social needs. Experimental evidence on the role of discrimination and client deservingness in public employees' and citizens' discretionary behavior

This study examines how public employees and citizens exercise administrative discretion in a dilemma. To identify and compare the moral reasoning underlying discretionary choices, we conducted a conjoint experiment among public employees, future civil servants, and lay citizens in Germany. In the conjoint, respondents were forced to prioritize between two equally eligible welfare claimants. Claimants' profiles vary concerning attributes reflecting earned-deservingness (e.g., non-self-inflicted welfare dependency), need-deservingness (e.g., dependent children), and attributes that can be used for unlawful discrimination (e.g., nationality). While some signs of discrimination exist, need-deservingness is the most important factor shaping respondents' prioritization choices. More importantly, we find no substantial differences in prioritization choices among public employees and citizens, indicating congruence in moral reasoning. From these findings, we conclude that efforts to reflect on national prejudices in the education of civil servants should be intensified, and a renewed emphasis on administrative ethics is required to equip public employees with the ability to make impartial yet balanced judgments in administrative dilemmas.