Nudge

A Nudge as I have illustrated above and as popularised recently in a book of the same name is a way of presenting choices to people but with a 'nudge' towards the choice which will best promote their welfare. Because basically we are lazy and rubbish at making (good) choices.

The branch of inquiry that is 'behavioural economics' studies what people actually do (something rather different than the rational, freely choosing actor upon which the whole edifice of free-market theory is based) when faced with decisions and thus reveals the way choices can be presented to us so that They can make us choose what They want us to choose, or in the case of public policy the thing which is good for us.

Apu knows that Homer is just a little bit lazy and has cleverly placed the donuts further away than the healthy fruit in the hope and knowledge based on research that Homer may well choose the healthy option.

This new approach to the welfare of the individual, for those who like their words big and clever, is called not Nudge but 'Libertarian Paternalism' –paternalism because the way Choice is presented to us will contain a steer -the Gentle Power of Pa- towards better, welfare-promoting life choices, but libertarian in that other choices are not blocked off -you can still rebel against Pa and choose donuts instead (or at least you are made to feel you can).

Given the strength of Homer’s love of donuts would he really not walk that extra distance for his beloved confectionery? In which case can leaving him this free to eat himself to ill-health and an early death (there are costs to himself, his family and wider society in his ill-health and early death) be said to be paternalistic enough? Furthermore if choice architects or the people who will be framing the way choices are presented to us know full well how we will choose based on their nudges can it really be said that we are truly free to choose or that this falls at the libertarian end of the libertarian-paternalistic scale.

Anyway, my purpose here isn't to critique the substance of the theory -maybe another time-indeed, blimey!, it would take me a month of Sundays to absorb the body of work from which the book springs in order to be able to criticise it in any greater depth.

For those who might want to begin to get acquainted with the Big Idea of the Summer and who like their words big and want to impress their friends with three big ones strung together and some knowledge of the field you may like to start with the Nudge authors', Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler, earlier paper 'Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron'. At only 45 pdf pages long and substantial portions of some of the pages taken up with footnotes and references it’s significantly shorter than the book. What’s more its like all the best things in life, entirely free, to download, online . The website of the book also tells you what its all about, for free.

While you are at it you might also like to read the expert testimony Robert Cialdini gave to the Subcommittee (of the US House Of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology) on Research and Science Education, on the topic of "The Contribution of the Social Sciences to the Energy Challenge," September 25, 2007 -it is relevant honest! as it gives a flavour of his work on social norms and how these can be harnessed to change behaviour towards welfare-enhancing ways. His book, ‘Influence’, is on the Conservatives’ summer reading list and he has already been name-dropped by Cameron and Osborne (though contrary to their claims they are a few years late).

My principal objection here to Nudge and Robert Cialdini's 'Influence' is not for the moment in any of their central claims; I am sure (though some would beg to differ) our learned friends Thaler and Sunstein have tweaked, twiddled and extrapolated their test-tubes, research participants, hypotheses and wotnot.

My problem with all this is in the claims the Tories are using it as cover for. Or put another way they are using their alleged interest in these ideas to deliver a swift (and unjustified), pointy-elbowed nudge in Labours political/intellectual nethers. They are also trying to root around for and display their own substantial credentials. With what is the intellectual/political equivalent of stuffing a pair of socks down their pants, they are trying to persuade us they are well endowed with ideas, new and fresh and shiny, they are where the action is at.

Here is George Osborne waving it around:

"..it's [the power of social norms] just one of the fascinating insights from the emerging fields of behavioural economics and social psychology. But the impact has stretched far beyond academia. It is enriching our understanding of human behaviour and changing the way policymakers think.

The Conservative party is at the forefront of this new intersect."

Unfortunately for George and Dave, this isn't quite true.

It isn't new and the Conservatives are actually only just catching up with the government’s forward thinking and policymaking. The Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit produced a document called ‘Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour’ back in 2004 which discussed the many ways of changing people’s behaviour based on these new areas of research including 'social proof' which is one of the tools cited in Cialdini’s book ‘Influence’. The document also references the work of Thaler and Sunstein and Cialdini’s ‘Influence’.

The recent suggestion about changing the default rule for organ donation from a system of opt-in to one of opt-out is straight out of this document -default rules and opt-outs being all part of the Nudge toolkit.

In January this year the hothouse of cutting edge ideas The Government Office for the North East and the Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber, in association with Brook (United Kingdom) held a conference on Teenage Pregnancy. The afternoon slot was given over to the discussion of the social norms approach to young people’s health and well-being with a view to reducing high-risk behaviour. The speaker was “Wesley Perkins of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in the US, where he and his colleague, David Craig, have introduced pioneering applications of this prevention strategy.” After that ‘Theory into Practice’ provided an insight into how ‘social normative’ theory influenced County Durham and Darlington Teenage Pregnancy Sexual Health media campaign for Sexual Health Week 2007 followed by reflections on the process and exploration of how the campaign developed, the lessons learnt and possible future uses of social norms interventions within County Durham and Darlington’s Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health Strategies.

You can read all the conference documents here. The ideas the Tories claim to have only recently discovered are elsewhere already being put into practice.

More significantly the government’s plans for pension schemes to come into effect in 2012 are to involve firms auto-enrolling their employees into the schemes –the kind of classic nudge which Thaler and Sunstein talk a great deal about.

Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce also sees the principles of Nudge in, yes, Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill yet as he points out:

“When the Government tries to nudge it is lambasted. When the Conservatives suggest something similar they are hailed as brilliant.”

The other claim the Conservatives are making is that these ideas are somehow an alternative to 'top-down government' or regulation and all the other pejorative words they use against the government to describe any kind of (Labour) government action. Here’s Matthew again:

“Some commentators suggest 'nudging' as an alternative to legislation but of the three nudges Osborne advocates this morning in the Guardian two require new national regulation and one new local rules”

Thaler and Sunstein’s findings are not necessarily an alternative to government and regulation but in their paper they describe how the principles of Libertarian Paternalism can be used to inform legislation and regulation.

As for Robert Cialdini’s influence, here’s a section from Cialdini’s evidence:

“Not long ago, a graduate student of mine visited the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona with his fiancée—a woman he described as the most honest person he’d ever known, someone who had never taken a paperclip or rubber band without returning it. They quickly encountered a park sign warning visitors against stealing petrified wood, “OUR HERITAGE IS BEING VANDALIZED BY THE THEFT OF 14 TONS OF WOOD EVERY YEAR.” While still reading the sign, he was shocked to hear his fiancée whisper, “We’d better get ours now.”

"What could have spurred this wholly law-abiding young woman to want to become a thief and to deplete a national treasure in the process? I believe it has to do with a mistake that park officials made when creating that sign. They tried to alert visitors to the park’s theft problem by telling them that many other visitors were thieves. In so doing, they stimulated the behavior they had hoped to suppress by making it appear commonplace—when, in fact, less than 3% of the park’s millions of visitors have ever taken a piece of wood.”

If Cameron had really engaged with and grasped the insights of Cialdini he would not be irresponsibly talking-up ‘broken society’ or exaggerating the extent of knife-crime. Indeed, Cialdini explicitly warns against it as mentioned above it ‘stimulates the behavior they had hoped to suppress by making it appear commonplace.’

Given all this it is clear there is something very presentational going on here (spin, indeed!) with the Conservatives' flaunting their interest in these ideas in the media and their claim to be leading the agenda and it needs debunking. I hope my humble effort here contributes to this.

But as Matthew Taylor sums up “The issue is not 'to nudge or not to nudge' it is how to nudge well.”

The next election will see a contest in who’s the most likeable guy and the size and efficiency of their nudges.

Update: This says it so much better! (Cap Doff:Paulie)