Quite differently frommost other European countries, the UK’s Covid-19 policy has been characterised by theminimal use of mandatory restrictions and hardly any enforcement. Onemight be tempted to ask whether this policy is effective. One useful thought experiment is to imagine the abolition of all traffic laws and replacing themwith voluntary guidelines helped by some cool nudges (psychological manipulations). This would be done, for instance, by installing a sign on every traffic light, saying “Most people who arrive at this busy intersection do stop on the red light.” If this imaginary scenario scares you, you should have similar feelings about an exit strategy that relies mostly on soft guidelines and hardly at all on enforcement. Why can we not actually rely solely on nudges to get people to abide by traffic rules? One would think that the fear of losing one’s life in a car accident would suffice to get people to follow the rules and drive carefully. But, unfortunately, this is not the case. A car accident is an event too remote, fanciful, and low probability to affect our decisions. The likelihood of a £100fine froma policeman standing around the corner, together with the feeling of shame when violating the law, is far more effective. Some of my behavioural economics colleagues, including those at the Nudge unitwhich advises the Cabinet Office on a regular basis, have propagated the use of primarily soft policies to deal with the Covid-19 crisis. A soft policy advisory is a wonderful deal for almost all parties involved. Governments love it because it allows them to avoid unpopular policies, and it will be endorsed by experts. Academic advisers enjoy it, because they can claim to have come down from their ivory tower into the realm of policymaking, and feel that they are being listened to. But too often there is one party that loses: the public! Take the use of facemasks as an example. In spite of the unequivocal recommendationof a study by a Royal Society groupin favour of their use by the general public, the British Government – who requested the study – decided not tomandate it. While masks are effective, they do not really protect the people whowear them, but rather those with whom they come into contact. This dilutes the incentives to use them. Mandatingmasks is, therefore, absolutely necessary, especially when the lockdown is gradually easing, andmillions of people who are “starving” for shopping, entertainment, and pubs will start pouring into narrow spaces. Masks are likely to be the only thing standing between themand the virus. The politics of categorisingmasks as countereffective or even dangerous in spite all the evidence is an excellent research topic for sociologists to investigate. What sort of environments would allow nudging to replace stricter policies? While it is hard to answer this question categorically, I will try to address it with three rules of thumb, at least one of which needs to hold: 1. When the alternative of mandatory rules is so repugnant that it makes many of us sick in terms of the violation of human rights. 2. When the stakes are small. 3. When the spillover effects are minor. That is to say, when the person’s decision has no major effect on the well-being of other people. Using nudging, as the sole tool, to increase organ donationisfine because the alternative of mandating it is repugnant. Nudging for the purpose of reducing electricity consumption is acceptable because the stakes are small. Nudging people to get tested for colon cancer is alsofine. The stakes are high, but there are no spillover effects. Covid-19 nudging does not satisfy any of these conditions. The stakes are huge, as are the spillover effects, and the alternative of mandatory restrictions is not really repugnant. While behavioural tools such as nudging cannot by themselves maintain safety during the Covid-19 exit phase, they can increase compliance if added to mandatory restrictions. When asked by the governments that I advise about the one tool that would be most effective, I answer transparency. People have an innate mistrust of governments. This is a global phenomenon that harms incentives to follow rules even when they are made mandatory. This mistrust is fed by the understanding that governments and individuals have different objectives. Governments want to survive and get re-elected, while we, individuals, want to survive and “re-enjoy” life. A clear exit strategy that explains the rationale behind every rule, presented in the form of a schedule that would only be amended if the epidemic changes course unexpectedly, increases trust and with it compliance. It also allows each of us to plan our own individual exit strategy to get our life back on track. Professor Eyal Winteris the P.W.S. Andrews and Elizabeth Brunner Chair in Industrial Economics e.winter2@lancaster.ac.uk FIFTY FOURDEGREES | 21
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=