Conflict of Interest

Author(s): Byron E. Price

Source: Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Jun., 2003), pp. 433-434
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3381117
Accessed: 20-08-2016 01:32 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Public
Performance & Management Review

This content downloaded from 141.117.125.76 on Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:32:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

CASE AND COMMENTS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
BYRON E. PRICE
University of Dayton

Faced with staggering budget deficits, California is considering privatizing it

system. A special legislative committee is exploring the possibility and calls in Dr.
Larry Smith for advice about this policy. Dr. Smith is a prominent scholar in the area of
prison privatization, the head of the California University Private Corrections Project
(a research project funded by corrections companies), and a highly regarded professor

of sociology at the state university. He has testified before legislative committees

before and generally makes a very strong case in favor of privatization.

The chair of the committee, Ralph Toble, raises some basic criticism of prison pri-

vatization as follows: "Since the incarceration of individuals is so deeply associated

with the fundamental function of government, government should not abdicate this

responsibility by turning over the administration of incarceration to a private entity."

Whereby Dr. Smith counters by arguing that a distinction must be made between the
choice to punish and the administration of punishment. Under this line of reasoning,
scholars assume
that it is perfectly acceptable to recognize, as the government's responsibility, the decision to punish an individual and equally acceptable to allow a private entity under governmental supervision to administer the punishment, that is, operate the prison-implying
social contract theory.

Another committee member raises another issue: "Will profit-motivated firms

make decisions that maximize profits at the expense of the rights and well being of
inmates?" Before Dr. Smith can answer, another concern is articulated: " How sure are
you that the state will save money if we do this?" "And what is the incentive for the pri-

vate companies to address recidivism in their prison programs?"

It is a long and contentious session, but Dr. Smith adequately addresses the con-

cerns of the committee. The committee members are impressed with his mastery of the
facts and his conviction that privatization is the answer. They adjourn to consider his
recommendations.

Public Performance & Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, June 2003 433-434
DOI: 10.1177/1530957603252598

C) 2003 American Society for Public Administration

433

This content downloaded from 141.117.125.76 on Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:32:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

434 PPMR / June 2003

Only 3 weeks later, the San Francisco Sun leads with the headline: "California
vatizes Eight Prison Facilities." The article reports that 10 of the 12 members on
committee were convinced by Dr. Smith's pro-privatization arguments.
The thrill of victory did not last very long. The police chief of the town that

the university had been talking to the one of the campus deans about Dr. Smith's

the private corrections companies. The next day, the university ethics committee
requests his appearance to answer ethics allegations lodged against him by the local
Police Benevolent Association.

The ethics committee accuses Dr. Smith of a breach of professional ethics. Spe-

cifically, the committee is concerned because he failed to mention his affiliation with
the Private Corrections Project housed in the Center for Studies in Criminology and
Law at the university that funds his research. The largest contributors to the project,

Corrections Corporation of America and Wackenhut, are the largest providers of private prisons and are alleged to control 74% of the private facilities nationwide. The

large corrections project funds Dr. Smith's summer salary ($25,000), and he serves in a
consulting capacity to the tune of around $50,000 in additional income per year. He
also has a board position with one of the private corrections companies that provides
him with stock options; thus, he has a financial stake in the success of the private prisons initiative.

Dr. Smith's response is that he is researching a topic about which he feels very
strongly but that his research itself is not influenced by his personal beliefs. He points

to his long list of refereed publications as proof of his intellectual honesty. He argues
that the peer review process ensures that he is an honest interpreter of the data.
The chair of the ethics committee feels strongly that Dr. Smith should have dis-

closed his connections to the prison industry. But because that did not happen, so is it
the chair's obligation to inform the committee? And should the press be notified? This
story is still below the radar-the chair could leak and thus not have to be the person to
inform on a colleague. As for the reputation of the university, this story certainly is not

good publicity. The state has already begun the process of moving prisoners, so a
retraction now would be difficult. The ethics committee chair needs to write the final
report of the committee to present it to the university president tomorrow. However, it
is already 10:00 p.m. and not a word has been typed into the processor yet.
Byron E. Price is an assistantprofessor of public administration at the University

of Dayton. He has his Ph.D. from Mississippi State University. Contact him at
Byron.Price@notes. udayton.edu.

This content downloaded from 141.117.125.76 on Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:32:03 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms