There could be no better example of the coalition government's contradictory ambitions than news that councils, desperate to deliver David Cameron's "big society", are planning to offer supermarket-style reward points to goad people into being good citizens. But, why is that so bad?
Behaviour expressive of certain values tends to form a self-reinforcing loop. Hence, appealing to self-seeking, materialistic gain, makes people less likely to be communally and altruistically motivated. Conversely, being involved in a collective enterprise tends to make us less self-absorbed and more likely to be positively inclined to take part in a "big society". For example, it was the experience of "national unity" during war time, writes the historian Paul Addison, that laid the cultural and political foundations to build a more caring society fit for returning heroes after 1945.
In short, appeal to self-interested individualism and you will get self-interested individuals. Emphasise the intrinsic and mutual benefits of common endeavour and you will begin to grow a nation where people are more inclined to look out for each other.
Effectively paying people to be good citizens can also directly backfire. A classic study looked at the results of different approaches to blood donation in the UK, where people volunteer and in the United States where they got paid. In the US, research by the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs theorised that paying donors was the way to increase supply. Subsequent analysis by Richard Titmuss found the opposite. Not only did more people give blood when it was unpaid, but that voluntarily donated blood was of a higher quality.
The financial incentive increased dishonesty among donors who lied more often about their health conditions. Titmuss concluded: "Commercialisation of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism." It was a classic and common error. Think of how you feel when good friend invites you to dinner. Now imagine how you would feel if the same friend offered to pay you to go to dinner with them? Relationships nurtured by open gift giving and reciprocity differ from commercial ones. It's the difference between a loving relationship and prostitution.
Economics, too, often boils human relationships down to a caricature of self-interest and competition. In justification, it invokes misappropriated Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest". But, this misses the equally successful evolutionary strategies of collaboration, symbiosis and co-evolution. Co-operative companies, tellingly, weathered the recession better than others.
The proposed hook-up with commercial, supermarket-based reward cards also appears self-defeating. The point of a big society is an active, engaged citizenry. But research on the impact of big stores on communities shows that their dominant presence can reduce voter turnout. They do so by unweaving the tighter social fabric that grows in more diverse economies. As more of every pound spent by shoppers stays locally if the shops are locally owned and operated, encouraging the opposite will drain not invigorate a big society. It gets more personal, too. Because of their socially alienating store formats, large chain stores even reduce the number of conversations people have while shopping, further dissolving the social glue.
Yet, a further worry might be the disturbing potential for data convergence that would occur once the enormous power of commercial store cards are combined with the personal and other information that government authorities hold on people.
I think it is far more likely that people don't vote with their feet to build the big society due to a lack of time, rather than financial or material incentive.
Recession and chronic public spending cuts are set to hugely stress social cohesion. And, there will be large numbers of people in structural unemployment (probably blamed for their fate) and many, many others working ever longer to stay afloat.
The big society needs more time banks where people swap time and skills, and a shorter working week, underpinned by sufficient safety nets, to create the conditions for a big society. Engaging vastly more people in helping communities to function will not only radically reduce costs (although that is not the reason to do it), it will enormously improve the quality of neighbourhood life, raising individual and communal wellbeing simultaneously. Getting involved ticks all the boxes that the literature tells us really improves life satisfaction: giving, being active, connecting, taking notice and learning. Papers are currently full of politicians and business people encouraging us to shop Britain back to its feet. But if we want the nation to stand up and be a truly big society, it's time that we need to spend with each other, not reward points in supermarkets.
Behaviour expressive of certain values tends to form a self-reinforcing loop. Hence, appealing to self-seeking, materialistic gain, makes people less likely to be communally and altruistically motivated. Conversely, being involved in a collective enterprise tends to make us less self-absorbed and more likely to be positively inclined to take part in a "big society". For example, it was the experience of "national unity" during war time, writes the historian Paul Addison, that laid the cultural and political foundations to build a more caring society fit for returning heroes after 1945.
In short, appeal to self-interested individualism and you will get self-interested individuals. Emphasise the intrinsic and mutual benefits of common endeavour and you will begin to grow a nation where people are more inclined to look out for each other.
Effectively paying people to be good citizens can also directly backfire. A classic study looked at the results of different approaches to blood donation in the UK, where people volunteer and in the United States where they got paid. In the US, research by the rightwing Institute of Economic Affairs theorised that paying donors was the way to increase supply. Subsequent analysis by Richard Titmuss found the opposite. Not only did more people give blood when it was unpaid, but that voluntarily donated blood was of a higher quality.
The financial incentive increased dishonesty among donors who lied more often about their health conditions. Titmuss concluded: "Commercialisation of blood and donor relationships represses the expression of altruism." It was a classic and common error. Think of how you feel when good friend invites you to dinner. Now imagine how you would feel if the same friend offered to pay you to go to dinner with them? Relationships nurtured by open gift giving and reciprocity differ from commercial ones. It's the difference between a loving relationship and prostitution.
Economics, too, often boils human relationships down to a caricature of self-interest and competition. In justification, it invokes misappropriated Darwinian notions of "survival of the fittest". But, this misses the equally successful evolutionary strategies of collaboration, symbiosis and co-evolution. Co-operative companies, tellingly, weathered the recession better than others.
The proposed hook-up with commercial, supermarket-based reward cards also appears self-defeating. The point of a big society is an active, engaged citizenry. But research on the impact of big stores on communities shows that their dominant presence can reduce voter turnout. They do so by unweaving the tighter social fabric that grows in more diverse economies. As more of every pound spent by shoppers stays locally if the shops are locally owned and operated, encouraging the opposite will drain not invigorate a big society. It gets more personal, too. Because of their socially alienating store formats, large chain stores even reduce the number of conversations people have while shopping, further dissolving the social glue.
Yet, a further worry might be the disturbing potential for data convergence that would occur once the enormous power of commercial store cards are combined with the personal and other information that government authorities hold on people.
I think it is far more likely that people don't vote with their feet to build the big society due to a lack of time, rather than financial or material incentive.
Recession and chronic public spending cuts are set to hugely stress social cohesion. And, there will be large numbers of people in structural unemployment (probably blamed for their fate) and many, many others working ever longer to stay afloat.
The big society needs more time banks where people swap time and skills, and a shorter working week, underpinned by sufficient safety nets, to create the conditions for a big society. Engaging vastly more people in helping communities to function will not only radically reduce costs (although that is not the reason to do it), it will enormously improve the quality of neighbourhood life, raising individual and communal wellbeing simultaneously. Getting involved ticks all the boxes that the literature tells us really improves life satisfaction: giving, being active, connecting, taking notice and learning. Papers are currently full of politicians and business people encouraging us to shop Britain back to its feet. But if we want the nation to stand up and be a truly big society, it's time that we need to spend with each other, not reward points in supermarkets.
Andrew Simms @'The Guardian"
No comments:
Post a Comment