Nudges: encouraging civic behaviour - 5 comments

I started Nudge, the 'latest' behavioural economics book, yesterday. It's full of examples of experiments where subtle changes in the choices that people are offered can greatly influence the decisions they make - potentially, decisions that will benefit them, or society, much more than others. This should interest all politicians. Here's an interesting example from p. 66 (my bold):

In the context of tax-compliance, a real-world experiment conducted by officials in Minnesota produced big changes in behaviour. Groups of taxpayers were given four kinds of information. Some were told that their taxes went to various good works, including education, police protection, and fire protection. Others were threatened with information about the risks of punishment for non-compliance. Others were given information [...] how to fill out their tax forms. Still others were just told that more than 90 per cent of Minnesotans already complied, in full, with their obligations under tax law.

Only one of these interventions had a significant effect on tax compliance, and it was the last. Apparently some taxpayers are more likely to violate the law because of a misperception [...] that the level of compliance was pretty low. When informed that the actual compliance level is high, they become less likely to cheat.

So, no carrot, no stick, just a gentle nudge - rely on peer-pressure and conformity to do the rest. I'm not particularly suggesting it as an alternative to closing tax 'loopholes', the general principle is much more interesting, and just imagine how similar techniques could solve other long-standing problems.

*

Following directly on from that:

Note to political parties: If you would like to increase turnout, please do not lament the large numbers of people who fail to vote.

The argument here is that if the electorate believe that others are not bothering - for any of the myriad of good/explicable/plausible-sounding reasons that politicians have proposed - it's easier to justify not voting either; voting seems less and less like part of one's responsibility to society, and more like something exceptional - the action of a political activist, for example.

So if you believe that society is healthier if turnouts are very high (I'm sure I'd agree) then don't:

• Bleat about the electoral system or the nature of the political parties (which are not uniquely bad in the UK).
• Simply appeal to civic virtue, expecting people to look at their consciences.
  
• Punish non-voting.
• Devise strategies to make it 'cheaper and easier' to vote.

A better strategy would be for the Government and media to promote elections much better, and for the media to report on those who vote. Allow people to explain why they're voting, why the various issues, parties, or policies appeal to them, how things changed in their area from having voted in great numbers, etc:

• "So, people like me are voting."
• "Idiots like that are voting."
• "Explained like that, I'm definitely voting for/against X."
• "We organised a group and made the Council listen..."
  

Deputy Leadership voting - 2 comments

Hello again!

I'm sure you've all seen the breakdown of the deputy leadership voting figures, but for the record, LabourMark has round-by-round totals, and Luke Akehurst has a breakdown of the totals across the membership, MP, and trade union sections.