TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum  

Go Back   TheNewTopical.com - current events, politics, culture, ethics, economics discussion forum » Main Forum » General & Current Events

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 13-08-10, 11:14 AM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default First Obama, now Cameron embraces 'nudge theory'

First Obama, now Cameron embraces 'nudge theory' - UK Politics, UK - The Independent

Quote:
Many years ago, when David Cameron was still at school, boys of his age would fall about laughing at a Monty Python sketch involving two men in a pub, one of whom was desperate to draw out information about the other's sex life. His continually repeated phrase was: "Nudge, nudge, wink wink, say no more!"


Nudge – with or without a wink – has a special meaning in modern political theory, and was very much in vogue in Mr Cameron's circles two years ago, before the current economic crisis began. Then it disappeared, as if they had decided to say no more. Now, it appears, it is back. The man who elevated "nudge" into a political catchphrase, the Chicago-based academic, Richard Thaler, says that his idea is at last getting serious attention in Downing Street, as it is in Barack Obama's White House.

A "behavioural insight team" – known colloquially as the "nudge unit" – is reported to be growing in influence inside No 10. The team includes the academic David Halpern, a former adviser to Tony Blair. He reports to Steve Hilton, Mr Cameron's director of strategy, and the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell. Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, is said by Professor Thaler to be "very much on board".


Professor Thaler visited Britain in 2008 to promote his theory, met Cameron, and made such an impression that for a time he acted as unpaid adviser to the Tory leader. His day job is directing the Center for Decision Research at the University of Chicago where he "studies behavioural economics and finance as well as the psychology of decision-making which lies in the gap between economics and psychology". He also "investigates the implications of relaxing the standard economic assumption that everyone in the economy is rational and selfish, instead entertaining the possibility that some agents in the economy are sometimes human".

To some people this may sound a statement of the bleeding obvious. Young people would be behaving rationally if the money they spend on iPhones was put into a pension fund instead, but most are not going to do anything so far-sighted without very heavy prompting. According to Professor Thaler, we would all invest in the stock market if we were rational, but we do not. Smoking, overeating and taking no exercise are other examples of irrational behaviour.

Nudge theory is an attempt to resolve a classic Conservative dilemma: since they believe in the small state and low taxation, should the Conservatives just leave us to our bad habits, and accept the undesirable social consequences that will follow, or use the levers of state to try to improve our behaviour?

There is a powerful libertarian wing within the party whose general prejudice is to allow people to do as they please provided they do not break the law. There are also paternalists who believe that the fortunate in society have a duty to protect the less fortunate from the consequences of their own folly. Libertarianism and paternalism are assumed to be necessarily in conflict.

In 2008, Professor Thaler and Cass Sunstein wrote a book called Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness in which they claimed that there is a middle way that enables the state to be both paternalist and libertarian. Instead of ordering people around or leaving them to behave in self-defeating ways, the state can nudge them into behaving sensibly.

The example they gave which has attracted most publicity – not because it is the most important, but because it is so wacky – is the success story of the public loo in Amsterdam airport where men were nudged into urinating in the pan, despite the many distractions which were apparently spoiling their aim. This small, but desirable, improvement in male behaviour was achieved by painting a picture of a house fly on the porcelain. The quantity of misdirected urine is said to have fallen by 80 per cent.

In the UK it has long been assumed that if people are given financial inducements to cut their fuel bills through better insulation, they will do it. Nudge theory allows that they are not necessarily that rational, but will be influenced by what their peers are doing. Therefore, the way to persuade people with excessive fuel bills to do something about it is to tell them what the average bill being paid along their street is. Very few consumers will willingly pay more than their near neighbours.

The authors called their philosophy "libertarian paternalism". Another phrase they introduced was "choice architecture", a concept implying that the state can be the architect that arranges personal choice in way that nudges consumers in the right direction.

Not everyone who had read their book was overwhelmed. The writer Peter Wilby thought it was "pretty marginal to what politics ought to be about". But it impressed David Cameron, who met Professor Thaler at around the time that the book was published. He and his adviser, Steve Hilton, were looking for a neat idea that would suggest the Conservatives had found the ideal median between state intervention and laissez-faire. In August 2008, the book was included in a list of suggested summer reading circulated to Tory MPs.

Then all went quiet. As the economic crisis hit the UK, there were important things to talk about, and the next time the Tories reached for a big idea, they produced the Big Society. But the Big Society left the Civil Service cold – despite the fervent conviction David Cameron put into his exhortations to the public to be more civic-minded – because it did not translate well into policies.

It does not answer the question whether it is government's business to deter people from adopting bad habits that damage their health or wealth, yet ministers have to make these choices. If they intervene, they can be accused of running a nanny state; to do nothing risks appearing irresponsible and uncaring. But if the theory works, they can avoid either of those extremes – by nudging.

Wonks at the White House

They are the wonk's wonks: two middle-aged scholars from Chicago whose gift for explaining even the most complex legal and economic conundrums, in terms that Joe Public can understand, has turned them into cult figures in both the dusty halls of academia, and beyond.

But for men who are frequently hailed as visionaries, and whose books – in particular the hugely influential Nudge – have achieved the rare distinction of filling libraries, holidaymakers' suitcases, and presidential bedside tables, Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler boast surprisingly dodgy political antennae.

The first time they encountered a local politician called Barack Obama, they presumed that his career was headed nowhere. "I met him at a neighbour's apartment," Thaler once recalled. "At the time he was running third in the primary [for the Senate election]. So we thought: great guy; probably never hear about him again."

Fortunately, for their careers at least, they were wrong. Mr Obama's rise has propelled the academic career of Thaler, hitherto an largely anonymous 64-year-old economic theorist, into orbit.

Sunstein, a formidably brainy law professor, has done even better: he now earns a crust as the White House regulatory "tsar", bringing the ideas that informed Nudge to bear on White House decisions on everything from shaming companies so they pollute less to getting people to make use of their tax-free pension plans. With his wife Samantha Power, who sits on the National Security Council, he forms one of Washington's foremost power-couples.

Guy Adams
Words cannot describe how much I loathe this contemptible horseshit. It goes against everything that liberal democracy is is supposed to stand for.

"Libertarian paternalism" my arse.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 13-08-10, 01:50 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

So are we saying that Thaler and his colleages need to be held accountable for the massacre of previous economic ideas so that they must be sent to the gas chambers of serious thought, or that they have some very good ideas?

I tend to think the latter, but am I mistaken?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 13-08-10, 04:50 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Well they are economists, so in that sense I suppose they can be excused their ignorance of basic political science - after all, for all my efforts I'm still terrible at economics, but then I stick to what I know and don't presume to tell the Fed what it should do about sovereign debt. (You posted an article a while back about people too ignorant to know that they're ignorant - are we looking at an example of that?)

For democracy to work there need to be honesty and transparency in the relationship between citizens and government, and they need to remember at all times that they're here to do what we tell them and not the inverse.

This theory assumes that it's perfectly fine for governments to use underhand methods to get people to behave correctly - effectively giving leaders the go-ahead to short-circuit democracy by getting people to do what they believe is good for them without their consent - stopping smoking, eating healthy food, voting for the right party...
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 01:59 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
This theory assumes that it's perfectly fine for governments to use underhand methods to get people to behave correctly
No it doesn't.

Take one example. A new employee walks into a firm and one of the papers she has to sign is about superannuation payment deductions. One possible design of the form says:
Six per cent of your salary can be deducted into a superannuation fund of your choice. Tick here if you want to do that.
Another design says:
Six per cent of your salary can be deducted into a superannuation fund of your choice. Tick here if you don't want to do that.
A minority of people tick in either case but it is hard to argue that the nudge case (the latter one) is short circuiting democracy in some way that the former is not.

You may find this video interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 02:09 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

It's the government trying to make people do something without telling them why and what they are doing. Why should a government that we appointed feel that it has any right to behave in such a sleazy way with us. We're their bosses, not children or animals. Tell us what policies you favour and we'll either vote for you or not, don't try and scam us into compliance.

Incidentally the correct answer is: let the businesses choose themselves. They're big boys. You don't need to hold their hands all the time.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 02:25 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

I think you miss the point. The way choices are framed always predisposes people to choose in one way and not the other.

Quote:
It's the government trying to make people do something without telling them why
That has always been the case. Now a little transparency is being introduced into the process.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 14-08-10, 02:41 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Quote:
I think you miss the point. The way choices are framed always predisposes people to choose in one way and not the other.
And I think you miss the point of democracy. It's not there to make us into virtuous people against our will, it's there to let us decide what laws we're going to have. They give us policies to choose from, we choose them, said policies are enacted. Everything clear and transparent.

Incidentally, the neutral way of framing it would be "Would you like six per cent of your salary to be deducted into a superannuation fund of your choice. Yes. No. (Delete as appropriate)"

Quote:
That has always been the case. Now a little transparency is being introduced into the process.
No it hasn't. Even the use of legislation for social engineering purposes is a relatively recent concept (and the reason there's so much crappy legislation around these days).

To use your example, precisely what is wrong with the idea of a party putting in its manifesto "we think that these saving schemes should be opt-out rather than opt-in and that the issue is so important that legislation is needed to ensure that they are", and letting people vote on it?
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 16-08-10, 02:20 PM
insignificant data point
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,799
Default

Quote:
the neutral way of framing it would be "Would you like six per cent of your salary to be deducted into a superannuation fund of your choice. Yes. No. (Delete as appropriate)"
No it isn't.

The neutral way of framing it would be "Do you want to be entirely dependent on shrinking government entitlements when you can no longer work, or do you want to save a proportion of your income to ensure that you will then be self-sufficient?

The definition of self-sufficiency varies. If it means maintaining a middle class existence in a middle class suburb when one is retired, twelve per cent is probably necessary. If it means buying a cabin in the Montana hills, an assault rifle, 5,000 rounds of ammunition and a couple of tons of tinned food, it may be enough if you are able to also sell an average priced American home.
In a field one summer's day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart's content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.

"Why not come and chat with me," said the Grasshopper, "instead of toiling and moiling in that way?"

"I am helping to lay up food for the winter," said the Ant, "and recommend you to do the same."

"Why bother about winter?" said the Grasshopper; we have got plenty of food at present." But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:

It is best to prepare for the days of necessity.
You can adopt the position that most people tend to be grasshoppers, that is their own fucking fault and they should be left to stew in their own juice. Or you can nudge them towards making like ants.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 16-08-10, 02:30 PM
Zichao's Avatar
Moderator
 

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,037
Default

Or you can grant them the same dignity you'd hope that they'd grant you and treat them like adult human beings.
__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 17-08-10, 04:08 AM
AnonymousIdiotSavant's Avatar
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,089
Default

Quote:
bringing the ideas that informed Nudge to bear on White House decisions on everything from shaming companies so they pollute less
Thats worked real well with BP hasn't it?

Or the Hedge-Banks on Wall Street? So far the biggest take away has been Goldman Sachs banning profanity in company emails.

Anyway, sounds like a load of marketing crap. I'm not suggesting it can't be effective sometimes, but I think of a sleazy used-car salesman selling someone a lemon and not a respectable way to run a government.
Reply With Quote
Reply


(View-All Members who have read this thread : 6
AnonymousIdiotSavant, Benjamin, contracycle, Noir, roadkill, Zichao
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0