You are here
Government Ethics and the Limits of Mental Bandwidth
Monday, September 23rd, 2013
Robert Wechsler
Sendhil Mullainathan's new book Scarcity:
Why Having Too Little Means So Much (Times Books) has been
getting a lot of attention lately. Although I haven't read it yet, I
was intrigued by Cass
Sunstein's review of the book in the September 26 issue of the New
York Review of Books. 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.'"
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
