Nudging and Government Ethics

Anonymous

Mon, 12/09/2013 - 06:54

Book Reviews

I've been writing a lot about government ethics and behavioral
psychology over the last few years. I consider some of the findings
of behavioral psychology, especially about blind spots, essential to
understanding what leads to ethical misconduct and, therefore,
essential to ethics training, ethics advice, and ethics enforcement.
But behavioral psychology has not yet been embraced by American
government ethics programs, at least as far as I have seen. 
 
The first reason that comes to mind is that behavioral psychology is
great for thinking about ethical misconduct, but isn't useful to
prevent it. This argument might work in the United States, but not
in the United Kingdom, as <a>an
article in yesterday's New York Times Business section</a> shows. 
 
In 2010, the U.K. established a Behavioral Insights Team, more
popularly known as the "nudge unit," after the American book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014…; target="”_blank”">Nudge
by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein</a> (2008). One example
of a nudge unit experiment is testing different reminder letters to
people who haven’t paid their taxes. "One nudge was a sentence
telling recipients that a majority of people in their community had
already paid their taxes. Another said that most people who owe a
similar amount of tax had paid. Both messages bolstered tax
collection, and combining them had an even stronger effect."

Nudge experiments have been done in the U.S., too, just not much by the
federal government. For example, voter mobilization campaigns have
tried asking not only “Are you going to vote?” but also “What route
are you taking to the polling station? At what time are you planning
to go? What bus will get you there?” Doing this makes it twice as
likely that the individual will actually vote. That's a big result
for a little nudge. 
 
The article's most important paragraph is as follows:<blockquote>

At the core of nudging is the belief that people do not always act
in their own self-interest. We can be undone by anxiety and swayed
by our desire to fit in. We have biases and habits, and we can be
lazy: Faced with a choice, we are more likely than not to go with a
default option, be that a mobile ringtone or a pension plan.</blockquote>

Yes, nudging is intended to get individuals to act in their
self-interest. How is that going to help government ethics, which
tries to get government officials to not act in their self-interest?
The answer is, there are two kinds of self-interest. There is the
self-interest of benefiting oneself and those with whom one has
special relationships, and there is the self-interest of being seen
as ethical and not getting caught in a scandal that might end one's
career. Nudging can help a great deal with the second kind of
self-interest. 
 
Nudging is about making decisions, and when it comes to government
ethics, the biggest problem is the decision-making process. Or the
lack thereof. As with any decision, officials tend to do what those
around them do, they tend to be swayed by biases (especially the one
that makes them believe they're special and they won't be caught),
they tend to be afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise
(acting goody-goody is not a good way to fit in to many ethics
environments), and they tend to do what is habitual (act secretly
and without seeking professional advice). 
 
Deliberate Nudging 
Rohan Silva, an adviser to the British prime minister, is quoted as
saying, “Governments have a set of nudges in everything they do,
even if they don’t do anything. You can either be deliberate about
it or not.” This is the other most important statement in the article. Every
ethics environment has unwritten rules that govern ethical
decision-making. These rules nudge, sometimes push or elbow,
officials and their subordinates into making decisions that can harm
both the community and themselves. Central to an unhealthy ethics environment is the refusal to deliberately and
openly discuss these rules and decide if others may be more
desirable. In fact, it's downright cowardly: officials are deathly afraid to discuss unwritten rules in
public, whatever they may be. 
 
In most local governments, there is only one written nudge:
annual disclosure. Once a year, high-level
officials are required to think about at least some of the assets and
relationships that might lead to conflict situations in the
following year. The disclosure requirements are, however, usually
set by state law, or borrowed from a neighboring city or county.
Rarely are they debated, and almost never are they debated in terms
of nudging officials into making conflict of interest decisions that
benefit both the community and themselves. 
 
Nudging the Disclosure of Possible Conflict Situations 
The principal nudge that I have been pushing for is this:
whenever any matter is discussed at a board, department, or
agency meeting, the question should be asked up front whether anyone might have a conflict with respect to the matter or a relationship with anyone involved.
At a board meeting, whenever the board moves on to a new agenda
item, the chair should
ask not only if anyone has a motion, but also if anyone has or knows
of a potential conflict
situation, his own or someone else’s. 
 
Here is language that can be used at public meetings: “Does
anyone here have a special relationship with anyone involved in this
matter? Or would a decision on this matter benefit or harm you, your family, or your business or business associates? If you are not
sure, ask for more information or for ethics advice. The matter can be tabled if your
questions cannot be
answered immediately.” 
 
Questions like this are asked at some public meetings. But this is not sufficient. The same questions should be asked at closed agency and department meetings. Here is
what I wrote in my book <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/ethics%20book" target="”_blank”">Local Government
Ethics Programs</a> about doing this at meetings of procurement
officers:<blockquote>

At a meeting of procurement officers, when they start to discuss a
contract matter,
the question should be raised if anyone has or knows of a potential
conflict situation
involving not only the procurement officers themselves, but also any
official or employee
who might have been or might become involved in any way with the
contract preparation,
bidding, approval, or oversight process. In addition, the question
should be raised whether
there have been any irregularities, such as ex parte communications
with elected officials,
possible contractors, or their representatives, or unusual
specifications, change requests,
etc. If a contract has been presented as a no-bid contract, this
decision should be
questioned, including the relationships of anyone who suggested that
the contract not be
bid, and adequate explanation given. And when an official or
contractor contacts a
procurement officer regarding a contract, she should ask whether the
person has a
relationship or involvement with any potential contractor or
subcontractor, or with a
government official or employee. When there is uncertainty about a
possible conflict
situation, someone should be assigned to ask those who might know.</blockquote>

Other Ethics Nudging Ideas 
More ethics nudging can be done. Take the first experiment mentioned in
this blog post, the one about reminders to people who have not paid
their taxes. I'm sure there is language that will make it much more
likely that officials who have failed to file their annual
disclosure statement or have failed to pay their ethics fines will
file or pay. Ethics commissions should work together to experiment
with different language, to see what works. 
 
My guess is that the best language is language that makes officials feel something positive (such as loyalty), that contains a positive obligation to someone they know. To do this, one individual in each agency, department, or board can be made responsible for turning all disclosure statements in on time, and their records can be posted online. A reminder from that individual will mean far more than a reminder from some unknown ethics commission staff member. This is how United Way gets everyone to participate. It's an approach that works. 
 
Or take the second experiment, the one about having individuals map
out their route to their polling station. This could also be done
with officials in ethics training. It's not enough for them to
pledge to deal responsibly with their conflict situations. They
should be asked how they would deal responsibly with one situation
after another, so that each official both understands and commits himself
to a path of taking responsibility, which includes seeking ethics
advice from the ethics officer. 
 
Nudging in the Opposite Direction 
There's one big catch. Nudging is all about government officials
getting citizens to do what's best for them. When it comes to
government ethics, it's about getting government officials to do
what's best for the community and for themselves. If government
officials aren't doing this — and they usually aren't — someone else
has to do it for them. That "someone else" is the ethics commission.
In other words, what's required is nudging in the opposite direction: citizens nudging government
officials to do what's best. When you think about it, nothing could
be more appropriate. 
 
That doesn't mean, however, that it's easy. It's easier to nudge
citizens than it is to nudge officials. But it can be done. It
requires a little imagination and a lot of perseverance. And
remember: while libertarians may complain about the "nanny state,"
our governmental system is based on nanny citizens who provide
oversight in many ways, including through their participation on
ethics commissions. And officials, as officials, have no right to be
left alone to screw up as they please. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Nudging and Government Ethics

Tags

Share This Page