I’ve written before that I think the Conservative government is not wrong to try to measure the UK against a standard of happiness. And now it seems that they are putting to work some of the lessons from behavioural economics to try and shift behaviour without regulation – a Tory anathema – or costly interventions. This story from Martin Hickman in the Independent lifts the lid on some of the behaviour change work going on.
Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein’s ‘Nudge’ was required reading for all in politics a couple of years ago, so I take it that everyone is familiar with their idea that experimental psychology indicates that we don’t always act from pure rationality and evidence, but rather from a combination of social norms, defaults and rules of thumb. Even where the economic incentives should inspire action, it just doesn’t work that way because the human brain is habitual, contrary, and sometimes irrational.
So the basic principle is: if you think behaviour change in necessary, you can’t just put rational economic incentives in place and sit back; you have to work with people’s habits and make the right choice the easy choice.
So far so uncontroversial. Party politics aside, this just is a better approach for government. Using defaults for pension contributions, donor registers and (I would argue) library registration could make all our lives more straightforward and possibly better.
But here is the problem. What is better? What would better look like? We all want efficient, effective government, doing its job well. But what do we want it to actually do?
If we (cross-party, apparently) think that government has a ‘nudge-like’ interventionist role to play in our lives, what is that for? What is the end for which these means are designed?
I suspect that the answer is very different depending on your moral or ethical view of the world.
For example, I’ve heard some Conservative MPs anecdotally suggest that incentives for marriage is the kind of ‘nudge’ they like, whereas social liberals in Labour and other parties tend to be more neutral about this institution itself. The Tories describe the need to praise wealthy philanthropists – a nudge that will help other rich people give for charitable aims, but this increased emphasis on charity calls into question commitment to social justice.
As the days go by, I see Cameron’s vision of a Britain where life chances depend on the chaos of fragmented and diminished public services emerge. ‘Nudge’ policies may make the remainder of government more effective, but it won’t be in order to realise the kind of social interventions we believe in.
Douglas Alexander yesterday rightly called for Labour to present a credible alternative to the government. I agree. But we need to know what for. We can’t just pitch our credibility on our effectiveness or efficiency alone, vital though that is. We have a different vision from this Conservative government – we believe in a different vision of the good.
The challenge for Labour is to be clear in articulating that vision. Political parties don’t share the same moral ends, and before we clarify our policies that exemplify our view, Labour needs to reaffirm our driving ethical ambition.
In practice it’s a complete con for the government to claim interest. Many argue that local government has improved in recent years because of the publication of star ratings, which is something of a nudge – the government has abolished these because they didn’t suit politically, and are instead imposing various things. A lot of the Jamie Oliver healthier eating stuff was nudge in action. It isn’t supported by the new government. In theory Nudge is a good approach to things and one Labour frequently tried to use while in government. The tories seem to be using it less. It’s another example of something we are going to have to fight repeatedly – the current government is blatantly saying one thing while doing something completely different. As an opposition we have yet to pick up on this sufficiently.
A very interesting article. I think it underlines the need for a serious discussion on where the Labour Party goes from here. What did ‘New Labour’ do for us? Could we have won in 2010? Did we make serious mistakes during the Brown Premiership that could have been rectified? In the same way as the new government has had a honeymoon we have a period where simple not being Conservative or Liberal Democrat will be enough so we can use the time and establish what the Ed Miliband led Labour Party is about.
The government have done very little ‘nudging’ with seasonal/ swine flu. Cancelling the advertising campaign has seen take-up among risk groups down to 40%, with alarm bellings ringing in the medical profession and consequences now being picked up in the press. Doctors and nurses need a smart state on their side. Nudge or abdication?
“I suspect that the answer is very different depending on your moral or ethical view of the world. ” Yes, this. This is one of the biggest problems with the whole nudgery carry-on: who gets to decide what to nudge for. The other big issue that I see in it is the constantly changing nature of what is the ‘right’ advice. Think, for example, of the changing consensus on how to put baby to sleep. The whole thing ends up looking like a game of pinball after a while.