Obama makes government better through science, but no one notices

In September, the Obama administration released two important documents that flew below the radar due to the presidential campaign. Both talked about how the administration has used behavioral science to advance public welfare.

{mosads}The first was the annual report of the president’s Social and Behavioral Science Team, which detailed the uses of behavioral science by the administration over the past year.

The second was more forward-looking. It was guidance from the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to agencies on how to use behavioral insights to more effectively achieve their missions.

There is a natural suspicion that arises when one hears about government using behavioral science to influence the public. It inevitably evokes images of government mind-control.

What the reports make clear, however, is that this administration has used these insights to improve government programs and better ensure that government investment of taxpayer dollars is more likely to achieve its goals.

It is only when these efforts spill over to justify government attempts to require public actions that this greater scrutiny is merited.

The first category in the OSTP guidance is improving access to government programs. The annual report provides numerous examples of the use of behavioral science in this endeavor. These accomplishments include making it more likely that soldiers will enroll in savings plans, allowing states to use Medicaid data to automatically enroll qualified students in free and reduced lunch programs, and ensuring that individuals with disabilities knew about their rights regarding reduction or elimination of student debt.

The second category of “nudges” is improving the provision of information to individuals to help them make better decisions. The Department of Agriculture has publicized the availability of microloans to owners of family farms. The Bureau of Prisons has created a new reentry handbook for prisoners to ease their transition to freedom (and hopefully to reduce their risk of recidivism).

Agencies have also restructured the way they present different choices to consumers so that it is easier for them to make the best choice for themselves. These include the choice of repayment plans for those with student debt, choices for Social Security recipients about how and when to begin receiving their benefits, and of course the ongoing efforts to assist individuals covered by health insurance for the first time under the Affordable Care Act to choose the insurance plan that is best for them.

Finally, agencies have tried to create incentives for healthcare providers to adopt electronic recordkeeping, and for employers to offer retirement savings. All of these methods (improving access, providing information, changing choice architecture and the use of incentives) derive from work by scholars such as Cass Sunstein (who worked in the Obama Administration during the president’s first term) and Richard Thaler.

In general, they are low-cost ways of improving the well-being of the public.

Where the use of behavioral science becomes more controversial is when it is used to justify government requirements rather than information provision or incentive creation.

Energy efficiency regulations are justified as combating climate change, but they are also justified by saying that they will force people to save money in the long run through lower electricity bills. The question of using government power to compel people to help themselves is much more controversial than using it to help people better understand their choices.

This question aside, the Obama administration has strove to use cutting-edge research to make government programs more effective. These are the types of changes that political leaders do not get credit for. No one wins reelection because more people chose a more lenient loan repayment plan.

These efforts are an unappreciated part of the legacy of the outgoing president.

Shapiro is an associate professor and director of the Public Policy Program at Rutgers University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.