Feature
Developing and enforcing conflict of interest policies is no simple task for anti-corruption advocates and ethics officials alike. Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson help to better understand the problem and examine when risk is underestimated and when it is overestimated.
The federal government’s vast ethics bureaucracy, led by the Office of Government Ethics, is charged with ferreting out and controlling conflicts of interest amongst millions of federal civil servants, political appointees, and contractors. Yet by most indicators, such conflicts remain embedded among the nearly three million-strong federal workforce.
Conflict of interest allegations leveled against presidents, Supreme Court justices, and congressional leaders continue to demonstrate the challenges to stamping out the perception that public officials are unduly influenced, according to Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson, writing in a recent article published in the journal Governance. “Conflicts of interest compromise not just integrity and competence but democracy itself,” they write. “Democratic processes importantly determine the public interest. Democracy requires officials to exercise their judgment to advance that public interest.”
As conflicts of interest take even larger public and political prominence, Fung and Thompson lay out misconceptions and mistakes they argue often underplay the risks of such conflict. The pair cite what they term the “honesty claim,” that those who may have a conflict of interest are inherently honest in their intentions, conflicts aside, as one such misconception. As an example, they reference claims made by allies of former President Donald Trump that his intermingling of official and private business interests while he was in the White House was of no consequence because of his underlying integrity and honesty.
In a similar vein, Fung and Thompson point to “motive denial” as another attempt to deflect charges of conflict of interest. They reference allegations that Hillary Clinton conducted her official duties as Secretary of State while also participating in meetings regarding her own family foundation, which had previously received donations from foreign governments.
Clinton, when pressed about potential conflicts raised by her work with the foundation, responded that she had always been honest in her dealings and was guided by her work on behalf of the American people as secretary of state. But according to Fung and Thompson’s framework, Clinton’s honesty defense doesn’t clear the bar. “[O]fficials may deceive themselves about their motives. But the motive denial asks even more of the public than the honesty defense.”
While disclosure can be a useful corrective, it will often be insufficient.Archon Fung and Dennis Thompson
Authors, Conflict of interest in government: Avoiding ethical and conceptual mistakes
Transparency, an increasingly used remedy to help address conflicts of interest in government, is often lauded by reformers as a means for citizens to better hold public officials accountable. Yet it is too often held out as a panacea for addressing conflicts of interest. “While disclosure can be a useful corrective, it will often be insufficient,” Fung and Thompson write. Transparency information, “may be publicly available but unnoticed,” they write. “Electoral security may shield officials from corrective pressure; and officials may respond by deceiving rather than rectifying.”
Yet, the pair argue that mistakes can even overplay the risks of conflict. “They [overzealous policies] can have the effect of discrediting legitimate regulation and provoke backlash against concerns about conflict of interest. The pair point to the recent story of an educational economist barred from working on federal student loan policy because she, like tens of millions of other Americans, had outstanding student loan debt. They argue that overly cumbersome rules enacted in response to certain perceived conflicts could discourage capable individuals from entering public service.
Ultimately, Fung and Thompson argue, understanding these mistakes and misconceptions about conflicts of interest is important for maintaining citizen trust in government. “Conflict of interest is a chronic condition that needs to be correctly identified and effectively managed. That is more likely when officials and citizens avoid the mistakes we have described above.”
Podcast
Harvard Radcliffe Institute Fellow and Boston College Associate Professor Ali Kadivar joins Terms of Engagement hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the prospects for democracy in Iran now that the country is at war with the U.S. and Israel.
Podcast
Amanda Litman, the president and founder of Run for Something, joins co-hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to talk about why she believes democracy needs a generational makeover.
Podcast
Archon Fung and Stephen Richer invite Harvard Kennedy School Professor and civil rights advocate Cornell William Brooks to assess the evolution of America’s historical narrative and what implications history has on our contemporary political context.
Commentary
Allen Lab Affiliate Benjamin A. Barsky examines alternative emergency response programs — arguing for a democratic model of public safety governance in which responses to nonviolent incidents are shared across government and civil society rather than dominated by police.
Podcast
Archon Fung and Stephen Richer invite Harvard Kennedy School Professor and civil rights advocate Cornell William Brooks to assess the evolution of America’s historical narrative and what implications history has on our contemporary political context.
Commentary
Allen Lab Policy Fellow Christine Slaughter makes the case that democracy must be understood through people’s lived experiences and agency, not just institutions.
