Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 8 February 2012

Tory Authoritarianism: The Nudgers Approach

Friday, 29th January 2010

Oh dear. George Osborne and his guru, Richard Thaler, have been at Davos. This means, sure as eggs is eggs, that there's a piece celebrating behavioural economics on the way. And, yup, it duly arrives in the Guardian today. I've mentioned the Nudgers before and few people doubt that there are some useful ideas that it can bring to bear on policy. Then again Thaler and Cass Sunstein call their ideas "libertarian paternalism" which, while confusing is at least vastly less confused than Tory policy seems to be.

Apart from anything else, David Cameron frequently rails against libertarianism (or, to be more precise, his idea of a libertarianism built of straw) which would seem to leave us with merely the paternalism part of the bargain.

And, indeed, that does seem to be the case. Consider the example of "good practice" Georgie Osborne chooses to highlight:

[B]ecause the behavioural sciences show that people often make bad decisions when they're excited by the prospect of immediate gratification, a Conservative government will impose a seven-day cooling off period for store credit cards, so shoppers can't immediately rack up debts on them when they sign up at the till. That's a far less intrusive way to tackle problem debt than banning store cards, for example, or introducing a new tax.

Less intrusive than prohibition! My, this Toryism is brave and fresh isn't it?

And how does this jibe with the Tories' supposed commitment to localism and "empowering" individuals in their ballyhooed "post-bureaucratic age"? If I have this right, the Conservatives think (English) people should be trusted to choose where their children are educated while simultaneously not being trusted to open an account at John Lewis without immediately heading for Queer Street?

Even if you think their small-bore store-card policy might help some people, it clearly inconveniences many others and, more importantly, completely contradicts the Tories' supposed commitment to local and individual autonomy.

And why, in any case, stop at store cards? There are plenty of people who, excited by the prospect of immediate gratification, decide to purchase a bottle of whisky only to regret some of the consequences of that decision the next morning. Perhaps there should be a "cooling off period" before you can buy a drink too? If anything this might seem a more widespread, not to say serious, problem afflicting rather more people than the number terrorised by vicious store cards.

For that matter, what about a "cooling off" period between deciding who you want to vote for and actually being able to cast that ballot? Might help people avoid making bad decisions they'll later regret...

Note too, the fact that this is proposed as an alternative to banning store cards. From this one may presume that the Tories have considered the idea of banning store cards. You can't reject an idea you don't have.

A trivial example, you may say and perhaps you'd be right. But that's why it matters. Politicians often make great claims for the "broken windows" approach to crime prevention; voters should adopt a similar attitue to politicians' promises. Let them away with the small things and who knows where you'll end up. Nowhere good, that's for sure. And that's why this sort of caper is actually a Non-Trivial, Trivial Indicator.

Kinder, gentler, subtler authoritarianism is still authoritarianism and makes a mockery of Tory rhetoric. That rhetoric is quite appealling but when you actually look at what the Tories actually want to do then, more often than not, their plans bear little or no relation to the meaning of their words. So why should their words be taken seriously?

Then again, this should not be a surprise. As James points out in his excellent column this week, Cameron and Osborne run an unprecedentedly centralised operation inside the Tory party. There's little reason to suppose that their approach to government will be any different. Your freedom is severely constrained by their idea of that freedom. But that's ok because Muesli Authoritarianism is good for you!

Filed under: Britain (678 more articles) , Libertarians (142 more articles) , Nudge (6 more articles) , Osbourne (2 more articles) , Tories (265 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (16)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Edward

January 29th, 2010 2:34am Report this comment

Well, quite. The trick is to remember that the word "libertarian" in "libertarian paternalism" is just an adjective describing exactly what kind of paternalism we will be faced with.

DavidDP

January 29th, 2010 7:07am Report this comment

A cooling off period?! It's worse than Stalin!

Rory the Deplorable

January 29th, 2010 8:49am Report this comment

Yup. The political class have all gone bonkers. Perhaps, given that the public vote correctly for Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity...etc., it is time to move to Government by referendum. George Orwell forewarned us about the professional political class.

Fergus Pickering

January 29th, 2010 9:11am Report this comment

Actually I think the store card idea is a good one. But perhaps, Alex, you haven't yet had the pleasure of teenage daughters. When you have had, that's when I'll listen to you on this. Teenage girls spend what they haven't got. It's in the genes.

DavidDP

January 29th, 2010 10:13am Report this comment

I rather think there is a massive difference between authoritarianism and a government saying "this is really the best way to behave" and "Here, have a moment to think if you really want to do it" and then letting you do it if you really want to anyway.

Dave B

January 29th, 2010 11:37am Report this comment

The UK has a problem with household debt, as well as government debt, that will have to be addressed. This seems a perfectly sensible idea.

Cuffleyburgers

January 29th, 2010 12:22pm Report this comment

A timely reminder that kicking labour out is only half the battle.

The good news would appear to be that a large proportion of the likely tory intake are eurosceptic and being younger are likely to be more generally libertarian minded. Combined with Cameron'slikely small majority that means that they will be able to exert themselves as well. Furthermore the most influential tories in the blogosphere are the likes of Tebbit, Hannan, Redwood and of course Boris, who are all sound on both europe and individualism.

Therefore a lot of both Cameron's and Osborne's current flailing around tryig to please everybody is purely pre-electoral positioning and once in office, hopefully they will be forced to reflect this thinking.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

January 29th, 2010 12:31pm Report this comment

Expect more of this "nudge" from the Conservatives. Some of it will be less visible, such as in their banking, policing, education, taxation and other policy areas.

Paternalism is a form of Authoritarianism so "Libertarian Paternalism" is, in fact, an oxymoron.

Probably not much greater than "Cameron's Conservatives"!

Mr Eugenides

January 29th, 2010 12:33pm Report this comment

I'm sure Mr Massie has had the pleasure of teenage daughters, although perhaps not his own.

Congratulations, anyway, Alex; you have successfully "nudged" me to finally purchase and read the book in question. I confidently expected to be enraged.

FLA

January 29th, 2010 1:18pm Report this comment

George Osborne and Richard Thaler draw the wrong conclusions about store cards. With a small average balance on store cards of only £142, and a typical purchase of about £60, it is difficult to see what problem they are trying to solve. Most customers pay off their accounts in full each month and incur no charges. Store cards account for less than 1% of outstanding unsecured credit in the UK.

They also need to consider more carefully the likely results of a ‘cooling off period’ for store cards. For example, this would mean that stores could not offer immediate discounts for store card customers, which is the reason many people use the cards.

This is another area where economic policy-makers (whether behavioural or not) need to beware of unintended consequences.

Lee Wells

January 29th, 2010 1:33pm Report this comment

Alex it's all very well criticising any attempt to 'nudge' behaviour, but are you also prepared to oppose any state intervention in the consequences of said behaviour?

If you're o.k with bankrupts being denied benefits and social housing, then fine. If not, pipe down!

Andrew Zalotocky

January 29th, 2010 1:46pm Report this comment

Libertarian paternalism is a contradiction in terms. Libertarians believe that most people can and should control their own lives. They believe in maximising liberty, and believe that government interference is usually unnecessary and harmful.

Paternalists believe that the ignorant masses are not capable of running their own affairs without the guidance of their betters. They believe that liberty must be strictly limited to protect people from themselves, and see an interventionist state as necessary and beneficial. Libertarians and paternalists have fundamentally different views of human nature and the proper role of government.

But in practice "libertarian paternalism" is simply paternalism. It recommends paternalist policies based on paternalist assumptions. The "libertarian" part is just spin. It would be better described as "dishonest paternalism".

It would also be ineffective paternalism. The "nudgers" make hopelessly unrealistic assumptions about the ability of central planners to predict exactly how people will respond to a particular stimulus. Human behaviour is far too complex to be controlled in that way, and people will inevitably learn to recognise the "nudges" and filter them out. Over time a system of "nudges" must either become totally ineffective or revert to old-fashioned coercion.

Tim Carpenter LPUK

January 29th, 2010 4:30pm Report this comment

An additional point.

The concept of nudging I doubt will survive once the Tories are in power. The need to get "results" within a parliament will mean that patience will be lost and ever more draconian and authoritarian measures will be needed, transforming nudging into pushing, shoving and then beating.

It will do so because at its heart it does not countenance a differing view, the fact that people who disagree might be right, if only for themselves in their own set of circumstances.

Beefeater

January 29th, 2010 6:34pm Report this comment

Never intellectual, the Tories have now lost even their instinctive understanding of Britain's essential genius: mercantile and financial pragmatism.

The "cooling off" period will have the same effect on spendthrifts as mandatory Sunday closing of shops; the same effect as licensing hours on drunkards. It will have the same effect on retailers as an additional VAT or sales tax.

If the Tories no longer represent the interests of a nation of shopkeepers, whose interests do they represent?

It is not "libertarian paternalism", it is not a kind and gentle authoritarianism, it is clod-hopping idiocy. Send in the clowns.

Beefeater

January 29th, 2010 6:44pm Report this comment

Lee Wells:
-"If you're o.k with bankrupts being denied benefits and social housing, then fine. If not, pipe down!"

Bankruptcy law no longer allows debtor's prison, but there is a "cooling off" period before a bankrupt may reestablish creditworthiness. That is the consequence of spendthrift behaviour.

No recipient of welfare is creditworthy, by definition.

If you are against the "safety net" extending to people who fall as a result of their own foolishness, pipe-up! But I don't know who you can vote for.

Beefeater

January 29th, 2010 8:40pm Report this comment

DavidDP:

-"I rather think there is a massive difference between authoritarianism and a government saying "this is really the best way to behave" and "Here, have a moment to think if you really want to do it" and then letting you do it if you really want to anyway."

Aaaaargh! This is a perfect demonstration of how far the law of contract - that foundation stone of the free market - has been shattered, and is in itself proof that there can be no "meeting of minds", because there are no minds to meet.

Are we voting for government to treat us as non-competents because we are non-competents ?

Post comment