You are here
Embracing Friction
Monday, February 20th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Efficiency is good, but sometimes friction is better. This is a
basic statement of the argument made in a
New York Times op-ed piece yesterday by Barry Schwartz, a
psych professor at Swarthmore best known for his book The Paradox of
Choice: Why More Is Less.
Schwartz was focused on finance and business, where so much emphasis is put on efficiency, not just technologically, but also in terms of what is needed to increase profits and allow credit to move freely around the world. As we found out again in 2008, there can be too little friction, and those who have no say in the matter usually are the ones who suffer.
Friction is an essential concept for government ethics. Corruption is often defended, especially in poorer countries, as the lubricant that allows government to be efficient. There is no doubt that no-bid contracts and quick contract renewals take far less time and bother than formal bidding procedures. There is no doubt that decisions made in closed meetings are easier to make. And there is no doubt that giving jobs and contracts to your family, business associates, and friends will mean that it's easier for everyone to work together and get things done. In fact, what's more efficient than having a front man as mayor, a hand-picked council and administrator, and doing everything behind the scenes? That way, there is almost no friction, no drag on the workings of government.
Face it: democracy gets in the way, slows things down, makes things more difficult and expensive. And government ethics is a part of the democratic process that especially gets in the way. In fact, its purpose is to create friction and to prevent the various kinds of lubrication that corruption supplies. Government ethics starts from the assumption that efficiency is not an absolute value, that friction is necessary to preserve the democratic process and the public trust.
Government ethics requires officials to consider their possible conflicts and deal with them responsibly, often in ways that take them out of a matter altogether. It requires that important discussions and decisions occur in the public eye, and that documents are available to the public. It requires that contracts be bid, and it places limits on hiring. It makes it harder to raise campaign funds and harder to interact with lobbyists and their clients. It even allows officials to be accused of ethical misconduct, so that they have to defend themselves or admit to not dealing responsibly with their conflicts.
And although everyone knows that government ethics will, if embraced rather than fought, create an ethics environment that will, like efficiency, save tax dollars, the evidence is often not clear. It's hard to prove how much was saved by preventing the hiring of incompetent relatives or by bidding out a contract with specifications that no bidder had anything to do with.
Those who defend government ethics programs should not only talk about the savings they bring to citizens. They should embrace friction just the way some embrace efficiency. They should talk about the importance of friction to making cities and counties different from, and better places to live than, those where corruption is tolerated. So many of the things we value require friction: fairness, justice, due process, equal opportunity, pride in our community, a feeling that we can freely participate in government without the fear of retaliation.
People often say that, yes, in a perfect world government ethics programs should be independent, comprehensive, and well-funded. But it is idealistic to believe we can have such programs here and now. Well, isn't it just as idealistic to believe in efficiency? It's like believing in perfect Newtonian physics, where objects slide along in a vacuum without any friction. Friction is the way our world works. Government ethics is a good form of friction, a way to help officials take responsibility for their conflicts. Done right, its cost should be low, and should go down as officials and employees learn how to deal with everyday situations and learn to discuss the more difficult situations and seek advice.
There is a bad form of friction in government ethics: the unprofessionalism and self-centeredness of public servants unwilling to learn about government ethics or to seek advice. They should be the ones put on the defensive. They should be the ones required to defend a form of friction that helps nobody but themselves and those with whom they have special relationships.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Schwartz was focused on finance and business, where so much emphasis is put on efficiency, not just technologically, but also in terms of what is needed to increase profits and allow credit to move freely around the world. As we found out again in 2008, there can be too little friction, and those who have no say in the matter usually are the ones who suffer.
Friction is an essential concept for government ethics. Corruption is often defended, especially in poorer countries, as the lubricant that allows government to be efficient. There is no doubt that no-bid contracts and quick contract renewals take far less time and bother than formal bidding procedures. There is no doubt that decisions made in closed meetings are easier to make. And there is no doubt that giving jobs and contracts to your family, business associates, and friends will mean that it's easier for everyone to work together and get things done. In fact, what's more efficient than having a front man as mayor, a hand-picked council and administrator, and doing everything behind the scenes? That way, there is almost no friction, no drag on the workings of government.
Face it: democracy gets in the way, slows things down, makes things more difficult and expensive. And government ethics is a part of the democratic process that especially gets in the way. In fact, its purpose is to create friction and to prevent the various kinds of lubrication that corruption supplies. Government ethics starts from the assumption that efficiency is not an absolute value, that friction is necessary to preserve the democratic process and the public trust.
Government ethics requires officials to consider their possible conflicts and deal with them responsibly, often in ways that take them out of a matter altogether. It requires that important discussions and decisions occur in the public eye, and that documents are available to the public. It requires that contracts be bid, and it places limits on hiring. It makes it harder to raise campaign funds and harder to interact with lobbyists and their clients. It even allows officials to be accused of ethical misconduct, so that they have to defend themselves or admit to not dealing responsibly with their conflicts.
And although everyone knows that government ethics will, if embraced rather than fought, create an ethics environment that will, like efficiency, save tax dollars, the evidence is often not clear. It's hard to prove how much was saved by preventing the hiring of incompetent relatives or by bidding out a contract with specifications that no bidder had anything to do with.
Those who defend government ethics programs should not only talk about the savings they bring to citizens. They should embrace friction just the way some embrace efficiency. They should talk about the importance of friction to making cities and counties different from, and better places to live than, those where corruption is tolerated. So many of the things we value require friction: fairness, justice, due process, equal opportunity, pride in our community, a feeling that we can freely participate in government without the fear of retaliation.
People often say that, yes, in a perfect world government ethics programs should be independent, comprehensive, and well-funded. But it is idealistic to believe we can have such programs here and now. Well, isn't it just as idealistic to believe in efficiency? It's like believing in perfect Newtonian physics, where objects slide along in a vacuum without any friction. Friction is the way our world works. Government ethics is a good form of friction, a way to help officials take responsibility for their conflicts. Done right, its cost should be low, and should go down as officials and employees learn how to deal with everyday situations and learn to discuss the more difficult situations and seek advice.
There is a bad form of friction in government ethics: the unprofessionalism and self-centeredness of public servants unwilling to learn about government ethics or to seek advice. They should be the ones put on the defensive. They should be the ones required to defend a form of friction that helps nobody but themselves and those with whom they have special relationships.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
