Embracing Friction

Anonymous

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 06:28

Efficiency is good, but sometimes friction is better. This is a
basic statement of the argument made in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/opinion/sunday/the-danger-of-too-much…; target="”_blank”">a
New York Times op-ed piece yesterday by Barry Schwartz</a>, 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 
 
---

Search

Share This Page