Over the past two weeks, I have published a guide to implementing values analysis in the policy development process. The first article was about the correct mindset, outlining how analysts need to think about moral values to make the tool work. Without this way of thinking, values analysis is more likely to simply confirm preexisting biases rather than help public servants explore alternative ways of viewing the world. In other words, the tool would be useless, and maybe even counterproductive, which means that this mindset is a critical part of values analysis that cannot be ignored.
Next, I outlined the proper research method for values analysis. It is firmly rooted in the material world, drawing on the views of real people. Good research in this space is focused on what morality is, not what it ought to be. Key sources for this research, such as social media posts and the oft-dreaded comment section of news articles, are frequently ignored, because they are deemed to be too emotional and irrational. However, for the purposes of values analysis, this is feature, not a bug. They show what people think, and the job of the public servant is to take this into consideration to make better policy.
This final article will complete the guide to values analysis. Once the correct mindset has been applied and the research completed, it’s time to design and implement policies. Broadly speaking, public servants already know how to do this, so I’ll skip over many of the details; it involves plenty of extra research, meetings, consultations, and long nights, a process that doesn’t need to be summarized here. That being said, every policy development tool has a few quirks, and values analysis is no exception. Here are the three main points to keep in mind:
1. In designing policies, look for cheap lunch (i.e. ways to reduce moral repulsion without changing anything that matters).
There are hundreds of “laws” of economics, but my favourite is, “ain’t no such thing as free lunch.” In other words, everything has a cost. It may be hidden or low, but it’s there. We know this implicitly; if we received an offer for a free ski trip in the mail, we’d expect that people there are going to try to sell us an overpriced vacation or a time-share (if time-shares still exist). Anyone with a little sense would think the invitation comes with a catch.
Although I wouldn’t go as far to say there is free lunch in matters of values, there absolutely is cheap lunch. All else being equal, the lower the public backlash, the better the policy. Since minor changes to the design of a policy could have outsized impacts on its acceptability, small adjustments can bring large benefits with few costs. It’s probably impossible to reduce backlash to zero, but smart design can minimize it.
For example, when the Government of Alberta announced a $100 incentive for the unvaccinated to get the jab, vaccinated Albertans were enraged, as they viewed it as a reward for selfish behaviour. Expanding the eligibility of such a one-off incentive to also include Albertans who had already received the vaccine would have likely reduced the moral backlash, even if it would not have increased the vaccination rate any further. Considering the significant political capital that the Government of Alberta expended for their program, such a policy may have been preferable.
As a different example, pro-gun control policymakers in the U.S. would likely benefit from focusing on strengthening laws around gun storage or restricting handguns over assault-style weapons. These proposals meet the key goals of gun control advocates while reducing the violation of the fairness/cheating and the liberty/oppression values. With more expansive gun control efforts stalled at the Federal level, such a change in focus would be welcome – and probably more productive.
Of course, I don’t have a crystal ball, and it is difficult to know if these recommendations would truly be preferable. Even so, there are a multitude of smaller examples that would come up in the day-to-day work of the government that could benefit from the values analysis lens. I encourage all readers to keep this tool in the back of your mind during the policy development stage. I would be thrilled to hear about times when it proved to be useful.
2. In building support for a policy, be clear and transparent about how values will be affected.
Once a policy is designed and ready to go, it’s time for the most time-consuming part of the process: building support. Meeting follows meeting, as public servants race around town trying to get every department comfortable with the approach. No doubt, someone is bound to send back the final version of a critical document with only a few corrections to the grammar, and dozens of palms will fall upon the faces of dozens of frustrated analysts. Eventually, after plenty of sweat and tears, it goes to elected representatives to decide: is this going to become government policy or not?
This is the stage where values analysis shines brightest. At the level of the public service, the tool can guide improvements in policy design, but public servants are not qualified to make the ultimate choice between values. That’s the job of elected representatives, so they are more likely to benefit more from the findings of values analysis. In addition, elected representatives must answer to angry constituents if government policy violates their morality. They’ll want to get a head’s up if backlash is possible, so they can make decisions with a clear view of the likely consequences.
Even more importantly, elected representatives are more likely to require the public service’s support in checking personal biases in matters of morality. As members of a non-partisan organization, public servants are not selected based on their political or moral beliefs, beyond observance of a relatively unintrusive code of conduct. In contrast, adherence to a certain set of views is a prerequisite for political life. Since political and moral views are related, political parties are at a higher riskof moral groupthink due to the self-selection of their members. Although the public service can also suffer from the same maladies, its non-political roots are more likely to draw upon a worker base reflecting a wider set of moral worldviews. Consequently, it’s the non-partisan nature of the public service that make it best positioned to conduct values analysis.
So, when the time comes to communicate the findings of the values analysis, be blunt. If the policy under consideration is likely to elicit backlash, just say so. Don’t try to sugarcoat it. This advice is important, and if the public service glosses over uncomfortable truths, it’s not clear where elected representatives would get balanced advice on matters of values.
3. In implementation, ensure moral considerations are reflected in communications products.
Once a decision is made about the structure of a policy, it’s time to turn to communications. This is another area where values analysis can play a vital role in building public support (or even just acquiescence) to new policy. Morality is fickle, so minor changes in the presentation of a policy can lead to massive swings in the public’s reaction. This is a risk and an opportunity for communications, because the way a policy is introduced to the public can greatly alter how it is perceived, for better or for worse.
The key point is that morality is a System 1 process (i.e. the type of thought that is rapid, intuitive, and emotional). Here’s how moral reactions to public policy usually arise:
- Someone hears about a new policy;
- Their gut immediately tells them if the policy is morally right or wrong; then
- Their brain searches for reasons to justify why they feel this way.
Many policy-based communication products are focused on step three, trying to explain first how a policy works in order to appeal to our rationality. Unfortunately, that’s just not how people think. Rationality usually justifies the moral reaction, rather than drives it. As a result, communications products should focus on step 2 by providing the reasonswhy the policy is right up front. Only then should the structure of the program be described, which serves to help people rationalize their immediate moral reactions. Properly implemented, this approach stands to be much more effective at building support for new policies.
Communications products should also make efforts to head off moral repulsion. If the values analysis shows that a new policy is likely to violate a certain value, it’s best to think about how to manage this pre-emptively. There is no secret formula, and it will likely be necessary to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Responses could include government-sponsored social media posts, pre-prepared responses to expected moral concerns, or a more low-key launch strategy to avoid public attention. Much more work needs to be done to determine the best way to respond to moral backlash, and I invite readers to roll up their sleeves and begin to test different approaches.
Some readers may be concerned that a values-based communications strategy is manipulative, as it plays upon our irrational biases to push government policy. I somewhat agree, but I refuse to admit this is improper for several reasons. First, communications strategies are inherently manipulative, as they work to shape how issues are perceived and discussed. It’s unfair to single out the application of moral psychology as improperly devious, but also allow the use standard communications tools, such as political wordsmithing (such as the use of the term “price on pollution” instead of “carbon tax” in government communications about climate change). These are not qualitatively different tools. Rather, moral psychology just makes communications more effective at achieving pre-existing goals.
Second, every policy is implemented because the government in power thinks it’s the right thing to do, for better or for worse. All governments push values-based policies, and this is completely independent of which formal communication tools it intends to use. Properly expressing the moral underpinnings of a policy stands to promote understanding between the government and its population. I’m sure anyone would admit is a worthy goal.
Third and most importantly, these tools are also available to less responsible actors than governments, and they’re already being used. Peddlers of fake news and misinformation, subconsciously or otherwise, leverage moral psychology to promote outrage and sow division, effects that undermine trust in government and promote conspiracy theorizing. Over the past two years, these impacts have been proven to be dangerous, as otherwise normal people started eating horse dewormer and injecting bleach into their blood streams. With stakes this high, the government cannot afford to ignore these tools. Either the government appeals to people’s intuitions, or other actors will. And they’re much less likely to use these tools responsibly.
Conclusion
This concludes a three-part guide on moral responsiveness and values analysis, which has covered the correct mindset, research method, and approach to policy design/implementation. At a high-level, analysts only need to understand moral foundations theory and this guide to start doing values analysis. So, let’s get to it. I encourage all policy analysts to try to leverage these findings in their day-to-day work.