You are here
Nudging and Government Ethics
Monday, December 9th, 2013
Robert Wechsler
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 an article in yesterday's New York Times Business section shows.
In 2010, the U.K. established a Behavioral Insights Team, more popularly known as the "nudge unit," after the American book Nudge by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (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:
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 Local Government Ethics Programs about doing this at meetings of procurement officers:
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
---
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 an article in yesterday's New York Times Business section shows.
In 2010, the U.K. established a Behavioral Insights Team, more popularly known as the "nudge unit," after the American book Nudge by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein (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:
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.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 Local Government Ethics Programs about doing this at meetings of procurement officers:
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.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
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
