Canadian Government Executive - Volume 23 - Issue 1

January 2017 // Canadian Government Executive / 25 should be noted in a partisan era for the U.S., by people of that reli- gion or party). Second, people oppose nudges that are inconsistent with the interest or values of most of the choosers. While they ac- cepted an automatic name change for women they rejected it for men, for example, as that contradicted societal norms. “When people are deciding whether to favour default rules, the size of the group of disadvantaged people undoubtedly matters. If a default rule harms a majority, it is unlikely to have much appeal. If the disadvantaged group is large (but not a majority) people might reject a default rule and favour active choosing instead,” he notes. He also more tentatively points to a third principle that seemed favoured: Before certain losses can occur, people must affirma- tively express their wishes. Organ donation provides an example. Respondents supported a requirement that when somebody is ob- taining a driver’s licence they should indicate whether they want to donate upon death (i.e. active choosing). But a default rule in favour of organ donations unless individuals opt out was not ac- ceptable as affirmative consent is missing. The first instinct when considering a nudge is whether it will work – how effective it will be. But Sunstein adds a new dimen- sion: Is it moral or unduly manipulative? His book is academic, slow going at times, but government executives can benefit from his insights. difference between persuading people and manipulating them,” he writes. Some governments have attempted to turn their citizens into puppets. Nobody wants to be a puppet on a string and it is partic- ularly bad, he notes, to be a puppet of government. “Manipulation takes multiple forms. It has at least 50 shades, and it is reasonable to wonder if they are tightly defined with one another,” he says. Trying to define manipulation, he says it occurs to the extent an act does not sufficiently engage or appeal to people’s capacity for reflection and deliberation. Most nudges don’t fall within that category. In general, information disclosure is not manipulative since it is appealing to people’s deliberative capacities. Remind- ers counter inattention and procrastination but aren’t manipula- tive. Warnings, however, can cross the line but most are just giv- ing people an understanding of risks – so again, appealing to their deliberative side. On the other hand, he suggests long, compli- cated forms, requiring calculations that strain people’s abilities, can be manipulative by overloading people. “The problem of manipulation arises when choosers can justly complain that because of the intentional actions of a manipula- tor, they have not, in a sense, had a fair chance to make a decision on their own. Often the distinguishing mark of manipulation is a justified sense of betrayal. Having found out what happened, or having reflected a bit, people think they have not been treated properly,” he writes. The most obvious problem with manipulation, he says, is that it can insult both autonomy and dignity. On the issue of autonomy, it might move people towards coercion, robbing them of their ability to act. From the standpoint of dignity, manipulation can be humiliating, leaving the person feeling tricked. He moves from these musings to check how people feel, through a U.S. survey he conducted, finding respondents indeed concerned with reflection and deliberation, as well as whether the nudge was towards beneficial ends. There was substantial support for mandatory calorie labels at chain restaurants, man- datory graphic warnings on cigarette packages, and automatic enrolment in savings plans, subject to opt out provisions. He even found support for what he considered controversial nudges such as listing the name of incumbent politicians first on the ballot; changing a woman’s name automatically to her husband’s upon marriage, with an opt-out provision; and federal labelling of prod- ucts from companies that have repeatedly violated labour laws. But other nudges were rejected, for two main reasons. First, people don’t want nudges that appear to have illegitimate goals, such as favouring a particular religion or political party (even, it web http://canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca/author/harveys/ “When people are deciding whether to favour default rules, the size of the group of disadvantaged people undoubtedly matters. If a default rule harms a major- ity, it is unlikely to have much appeal. If the disadvantaged group is large (but not a majority) people might reject a default rule and favour active choosing instead.” The Leader’s Bookshelf