President Obama Orders Behavioral Experiments On American Public

President Obama announced a new executive order on Tuesday which authorizes federal agencies to conduct behavioral experiments on U.S. citizens in order to advance government initiatives.

“A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people,” reads the executive order, released on Tuesday.

The new program is the end result of a policy proposal the White House floated in 2013 entitled “Strengthening Federal Capacity for Behavioral Insights.”

According to a document released by the White House at that time, the program was modeled on one implemented in the U.K. in 2010. That initiative created a Behavioral Insights Teams, which used “iterative experimentation” to test “interventions that will further advance priorities of the British government.”

The initiative draws on research from University of Chicago economist Richard Thaler and Harvard law school professor Cass Sunstein, who was also dubbed Obama’s regulatory czar. The two behavioral scientists argued in their 2008 book “Nudge” that government policies can be designed in a way that “nudges” citizens towards certain behaviors and choices.

The desired choices almost always advance the goals of the federal government, though they are often couched as ways to cut overall program spending.

In its 2013 memo, which was reported by Fox News at the time, the White House openly admitted that the initiative involved behavioral experimentation.

“The federal government is currently creating a new team that will help build federal capacity to experiment with these approaches, and to scale behavioral interventions that have been rigorously evaluated, using, where possible, randomized controlled trials,” the memo read.

That document cited examples from the U.K. which showed that sending out a letter to late taxpayers which read “9 out of 10 people in Britain pay their taxes on time” led to a 15 percent increase in compliance.

The new executive order encourages federal agencies to “identify policies, programs, and operations where applying behavioral science insights may yield substantial improvements in public welfare, program outcomes, and program cost effectiveness,” as well as to “develop strategies for applying behavioral science insights to programs and, where possible, rigorously test and evaluate the impact of these insights.”

To jump-start the programs, agencies are encouraged to recruit behavioral science experts to join the federal government and to develop relationships with researchers in order to “better use empirical findings from the behavioral sciences.”

A fact sheet sent out by the White House on Tuesday shows that researchers at numerous universities and think tanks — from MIT, Harvard, and the Brookings Institute, to name a few — have signed on to the program.

The executive order specifically directs federal agencies to develop nudge programs that help individuals, families, communities and businesses “access public programs and benefits by, as appropriate, streamlining processes that may otherwise limit or delay participation.”

This can be achieved by “administrative hurdles, shortening wait times, and simplifying forms,” the order suggests.

The initiative also urges agencies to tinker with how information is presented to individuals, consumers, borrowers, and program beneficiaries.

The “content, format, timing, and medium by which information is conveyed” should be taken into consideration as those characteristics affect “comprehension and action by individuals.”

In programs that offer choices for consumers, agencies are instructed to “consider how the presentation and structure of those choices, including the order, number, and arrangement of options, can most effectively promote public welfare.”

The order also suggests that agencies fiddle with whether to label certain expenditures as “benefits, taxes, subsidies” or other incentives to “efficiently promote” programs.

President Obama’s federal health care law, Obamacare, is replete with “nudge” language and experimentation.

In its fact sheet, the White House noted that reminding individuals who had started to sign up for Obamacare led to a 13 percent increase in completed applications.

To help determine which presentation was more effective, the Department of Health and Human Services “sent one of eight behaviorally designed letter variants to each of more than 700,000 individuals who had already begun the health insurance enrollment process but had not yet completed an application.”

The most effective version of the letter generated the 13 percent improvement. Other less effective letters only increased enrollment rates by around four percent.

Another nudge contained in Obamacare was brought to light in the debate over whether the individual mandate contained in the law was a tax hike.

Republicans insisted that it was a tax increase, but the White House portrayed it as a penalty on the logic that the word “tax” has a negative connotation.

While the Obama administration touts nudge policies, others are hesitant to get on board.

“I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies,” Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told Fox News in 2013.

“Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.

Thanks for that, Soul of the South
.......................................................
So Did Nudging Work?
And would you know if you’ve been nudged?

By Graham Lawton June 30 2013 8:30 AM

Cass Sunstein, nudge inventor and former White House official, explains how his nudges have helped Americans save for retirement and eat better. He co-wrote the best-selling 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness with Richard Thaler. His latest book Simpler: The Future of Government is about using behavioral science to transform government.

When you published Nudge in 2008, did you expect it to have so much influence?
No. We were trying to write the best book we could. I was surprised and gratified that it got such attention.

You went on to head up the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. What was the most effective nudge that you implemented?

Automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans has had a major effect. If you have to sign up, it’s a bit of a bother. People procrastinate or go about other business. Then they have less money in retirement. With automatic enrollment, you’re more likely to be comfortable when you retire.

How many U.S. citizens have been nudged that way—and do they know it?
A very large number. Automatic enrollment is a common practice now; many millions of people have benefited from it. People recognize they’ve been automatically enrolled—there’s nothing secret about it, and it’s explained by employers. But they wouldn’t think, “I’ve been nudged.”

Don’t they have a right to know?
I don’t think it’s very important that people support the idea of nudging in the abstract. I think it’s important that policies be helpful and sensible.

What other policies did you design during your time at OIRA?
In the United States, the principal icon for informing people about healthy food choices was known as the food pyramid. It was very confusing. We now have the food plate, which is more intelligible, and we believe it’s leading to more informed choices.

We also had a situation in which poor children who were eligible for free meals weren’t getting them because they had to enroll. We automatically enrolled them, and a lot of kids are now getting food who otherwise wouldn’t.

How do you design a nudge?
It’s a problem-centered approach, rather than a theory-centered approach. So if we had a problem of excess complexity making it hard for people to make informed choices, the solution would be to simplify. If people aren’t enrolled in a program because it’s a headache to sign up, automatic enrolment seems like a good idea.

Is nudging generally preferable to strategies like taxes and prohibition?
The advantage of a nudge is that it’s more respectful of freedom of choice. It always belongs on the table, but if you have a situation where, say, polluters are causing health problems, some regulatory response is justified—a criminal sentence or a civil fine.

Can nudging solve complex, long-term problems such as climate change?
Climate change needs international efforts. You can make progress by informing people of greenhouse-gas emissions associated with their car, or through default rules, like lights going off when no one is in a room. But nudges are unlikely to be sufficient.

Can nudges lead to lasting change?
There is good research on the circumstances under which using social norms result in persistent instead of short-term behavioral change. With respect to energy use, so long as people are frequently reminded, it works.

How much further can nudging go?
I think it’s important not to get too fixated on the word nudge. Part of the reason the book did well is that it has a catchy title, but I’d like to think the better reason is that it has solutions to problems. The use of these tools has produced terrific results in a short time—and we’re at the tip of the iceberg.

This article originally appeared in New Scientist.

“Ultimately, nudging…assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them.”

Nothing new about this.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2h.htm
Philosopher / Kings

////

But Plato also believed that an ideal state, embodying the highest and best capabilities of human social life, can really be achieved, if the right people are put in charge. Since the key to the success of the whole is the wisdom of the rulers who make decisions for the entire city, Plato held that the perfect society will occur only when kings become philosophers or philosophers are made kings. (Republic 473d)

Obama’s father (a drunken professional student, bigamist and wife abuser) wrote a paper on the topic of taxing people at 100% and giving back to them only what they needed to live, presumably according to their need.

His son can’t retire soon enough. He’s done tremendous damage to our great country. Notice this latest nonsense is due to an executive order.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.