SIGNAL FOR THOSE FEELING BORED

The Oxford Dictionaries named post-truth the word of last year, while discussion on the phenomenon of the spread of the so-called fake news is dominating this year as well. Meanwhile, British economist and journalist Tim Harford, an author of the long running Financial Times column the Undercover Economist, recently shared his interesting thoughts about the problems that we face today spreading… facts. It turns out that in 1995, Robert Proctor, a historian at Stanford University who was closely monitoring the tobacco industry, studied how ignorance was deliberately produced, how indisputable facts about the damage caused by smoking from unquestionable sources did not convince anyone. What is more, the seemingly indisputable facts were disputed, while unquestionable sources were questioned. Is it the case that the truth and facts are no more important? Tim Harford invites us to ask why we do not place greater focus on facts and what those of us who should care about the truth – journalists, academics, finally, ordinary citizens - are looking at.

What was the National Audit Office of Lithuania looking at? We are often asked this question when more or less resonant events ripple across Lithuania. We may start counting that in the public sector there are more than 4,000 bodies with their respective managers, competences and obligations to react, however, let each of us begin with himself. We follow this principle in our audits and recommendations, in our striving to be a model for the public sector, to serve as an independent and competent adviser to decision makers and Parliamentary scrutiny. The National Audit Office of Lithuania is the only supreme audit institution in the EU which unites three important functions that in other countries are often assigned to separate organizations: we supervise the lawfulness and effectiveness of the management of the State property and use of State funds, we audit the use of EU investments and conduct budget policy monitoring. In exercising all these functions, we aim to not only see problems, but also come up with ways to eliminate their causes. The solution to include in our activity plans horizontal audits allowing to identify problems not limited to one project or institution, but systemic public sector problems has probably been one of the most successful in recent years. Such audits have already been conducted in the areas of strategic planning, public land, investment management, etc. Audit results suggest an unpleasant thought: no one would handle their family funds in the same way as public investments worth billions of euros, nationally significant economic projects or public finances are handled. Our recommendations can help change the situation. Often, when one or another case comes to the fore, it appears that auditors have already emphasised it and notified about it several or more years ago. In such cases, taxpayers raise an obvious question about why nothing is changing, why no one offers any response to the recommendations and facts outlined in audit reports.

Let us get back to the abovementioned Financial Times article in which Tim Harford proposes to agree on more focus on facts, or the situation will become hopeless. He, by the way, wonders whether the increased focus on facts will actually lead to more informed taxpayers and electorate as well as to better decisions; whether respect for the truth and recommendations will be renewed. The source of his doubts is the same story when the connection between cigarettes and cancer was declared by the world’s leading medical scientists, professional journalists shed light on the facts, however, the truth and facts still gave in to tobacco lobbyists who used a clever, complex and new tactics. What was the tactics and how did it function?

First, the tobacco industry appeared to engage in the search for the truth, promising high-quality research into the issue, while the public were assured that the best professionals would be involved. Later, in the second stage, doubts were spread distracting the discussion away from the tobacco damage to numerous other possible causes for lung cancer. The third stage of the tactics was undermining the significance of research and competence of experts.      In the final stage, when the public “grew tired” of the information flow, the claims that the tobacco-cancer story was stale news came in, and defence turned to attack: why journalists could not move to other news of importance to the public and why researchers could not explore other topics relevant to the taxpayers?

Would we be able to recognize such a tactics in the life of Lithuania?

Recommendations issued by auditors in recent years: stale news or still relevant? Let me remind you that had the auditors’ findings been taken into account, the programme budgeting would have been more oriented towards results and management suited to the needs of the people, the process and priorities of the State funds investment would have been substantially revised, public land would have been managed and administered more efficiently. Open public sector data would also generate more benefits to the State. It is estimated that accessible and actively used open data in Lithuania could generate benefits equivalent to almost 2 per cent of GDP. It is a huge and still untapped potential. In 2016, we opened an information on how audit recommendations are implemented by the public sector. Publicity is also undoubtedly one of the most important tools for encouraging the public sector bodies to act more efficiently, to remedy weaknesses or take decisions without repeating the mistakes of the past.

What do we need to focus on in order to maximise the positive impact? To develop a regional policy strategy, to fix State investment programme and to keep on working focusing on the desired outcomes. These three elements are interconnected: without the regional policy agreement, it is not possible to reasonably plan the investments, without the programme budgeting – to efficiently implement projects and monitor the achievement of outcomes. It is easier to deal with consequences; however, we need to see the causes. We may dig yet another pit for one more multifunctional swimming pool within a radius of over a dozen kilometres, but maybe we should rather build new paths for innovations that in substance cover not only technologies, material and financial aspects? Smart budgetary governance would not only make our country more competitive, it would also provide a basis for national security.

Can one cast doubt on what has been said here? Tim Harford would very likely invite us to learn from his story. The most important lesson learnt from it is that doubt is the product of those unwilling to change, it is the best way to “sow” controversy and thus fight with facts. According to the author, it is very useful to keep the controversy alive, since doubt is not difficult to cause, and mere facts are not enough to dispel it. Why?

First – a simple untruth can overcome complex facts only by being easier to comprehend and remember. Those in doubt tend to believe what remains in the mind, while it is not so simple to forget even a false claim. Tim Harford writes about inconvenient truth: research showed that repeating a false claim even in the context where it is rebutted may help it remain in listeners’ minds. A false claim becomes significantly more forceful not because it is stronger, but also because everybody keeps on talking about it. The second reason why facts are not as appealing is they may simply be boring, and the world is full of things which require attention, so why bother with anything so boring as a fact? Third – attempting to persuade with facts people spoiled by fast-moving consumer culture can feel threatening and it generally faces instinctive resistance. Tim Harford gives an example of vaccines: people accept information about vaccines, but subconsciously push back by recalling various reasons why they are a bad idea. Presenting people with more facts can have the opposite effect since facts cause a defensive reaction in those who badly want to stick to their world view.

If people are so irrational, maybe there is no point at all in thinking about tomorrow or talking about facts? In 2016, we made a careful assessment of the long-term perspective: in implementing the function of fiscal institution we presented to the public the report on financial sustainability of the government sector, which analysed the biggest challenges that may arise in 20 or more years’ time. Population ageing, the level of public debt, rules of fiscal discipline and a probability that increasing numbers of people will find themselves below the poverty line – this is what needs to be considered when making decisions already today. Future generations will ask us many questions about that. Will we have the answers? In the near future, we will present a new analysis of financial sustainability of the government sector based on the most recent demographic and macroeconomic projections. We will examine the possible scenarios of the period 2017–2047 and the current net worth of the government sector.

Can we do something more in the “survival” fight of facts with fake news and boredom? I do agree with Tim Harford that facts can rarely stand up for themselves. They need someone to champion them, but neither journalists, nor policy experts, nor auditors can make people take account of facts. All the more so they cannot do it individually. A sick person, first of all, must be willing to get well, and common problems can only be addressed only by common efforts. Hence, a person is needed to champion facts. Many of our audits reveal that organizations which are responsible for one or another decision often lack cooperation, mutual trust, strong leadership. Our thinking needs to go beyond the boundaries of any particular institution. We need to link best management practices, to develop a culture of high-quality planning in the public sector, as well as to change approach to reporting on how money is spent.

On 28 November 2017, we are organising the first international sustainable development conference SIGNALS.  The conference will welcome audited entities, institutions, representatives of business and media as well as experts. In the future, we plan to present public sector risks and their analysis on an annual basis. Maybe it will serve as a signal to the bored decision makers – as an impetus for more open sharing of insights and seeking consistent solutions. Even if it is tedious listening to the disclosed facts about thousands of launched and unfinished State investment projects the total worth of which amounts to billions of euros, even if doubts prevail and everyone has their own truth, but if we want changes in the quality of life, we should first “get vaccinated”, i.e., start with ourselves. Each of us makes a choice: we may be engaged in the search for truth or we may only simulate the change and spread doubts by undermining facts and those who disclose them.        

http://www.veidas.lt/signalas-nuobodziaujantiems