Government Ethics and the Limits of Mental Bandwidth

Sendhil Mullainathan's new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Scarcity-Having-Little-Means-ebook/dp/B00BMKOO6S&…; target="”_blank”"><i>Scarcity:
Why Having Too Little Means So Much</i></a> (Times Books) has been
getting a lot of attention lately. Although I haven't read it yet, I
was intrigued by <a href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/sep/26/it-captures-your-m…; target="”_blank”">Cass
Sunstein's review of the book in the September 26 issue of the <i>New
York Review of Books</i></a>. Sunstein focuses on the idea of
bandwidth as applied to the human mind. He notes that in Washington,
"If a project must be abandoned or put on hold because of competing
demands on people's time and attention, the problem is one of
'bandwidth.'"<br>
<br>
Mullainathan notes in his introduction that bandwidth, in the mental
sense, includes both "fluid intelligence" (a resource that affects
how we process information and make decisions) and executive control
(what organizes our thoughts and keeps us from acting impulsively). The result of too little
mental bandwidth is that we are "less insightful, less
forward-thinking, less controlled."<br>
<br>
Mullainathan argues that the scarcity of food can have effects on the mind that are similar to those
caused by the scarcity of time. Sunstein takes this further by
applying it the scarcity of issues that fit on one's plate. That is,
neither government officials nor the public are capable of dealing
with more than a limited number of issues at a time.<br>
<br>

One of the issues that does not fit on many Americans' plates is
government ethics reform. When there is not a scandal, the public
doesn't care too much, officials don't care too much, and even good
government groups don't care too much about it. For the last couple
of decades, campaign finance reform has been placed ahead of
conflicts of interest reform whenever there is not a scandal. And
even campaign finance reform is difficult to attain without an
election-related scandal.<br>
<br>
That's one reason why the right has put so much work into trying to
make people angry about election fraud. It's not just about making
it harder for certain Democrat-leaning groups to register. It also
crowds out campaign finance reform. The fact that it is a minor
issue, at most, makes no difference. It's about bandwidth, which for
the press and the public is limited.<br>
<br>
The concept of limited bandwidth can also be applied to the fact
that conflicts of interest training is so rare and so limited. There
are lots more important things to learn about.<br>
<br>
It can also be applied to academia. When public sector ethics is
seen to include a huge range of personal and policy issues,
conflicts of interest is not going to make it onto many academics'
plates.<br>
<br>
How can those who feel government ethics is important deal with its
exclusion from people's minds due to limited bandwidth? One way is
to focus on the positive aspects of government ethics. After a
scandal, which is when people pay attention to it, the focus is
on enforcement. When there is no scandal, it is easier to
focus on prevention, with an emphasis on guidance, both in terms of
ethics codes and in terms of ethics advice, so that officials can
prevent themselves, their colleagues, and their subordinates from
getting involved in scandals.<br>
<br>
Another approach would be to shrink the number of officials whose
attention is necessary to attain valuable ethics reform. That would
mean getting state officials to require every local government to
have an ethics code and ethics officer, with a recommendation to
share ethics officers among neighboring jurisdictions.<br>
<br>
Sunstein is famous for the idea of "nudging," that is, creating
situations where if people do not act due to uncertainty or a lack of bandwidth, they still get something that is
helpful to them. For example, if an employee does not choose a
pension plan, a default plan is chosen for him. The employee can opt
out, but inaction will not harm him. States could do this for local
governments, whose plates will never otherwise include an informed
discussion of the value of a basic government ethics program.<br>
<br>
But I don't see how states could be convinced to do something like
this unless there were some kind of consensus among government ethics
experts about best practices. As it is, there is not even discussion
of best practices. There does not appear to be sufficient mental
bandwidth for such a discussion.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---