Value Added Article: NUDGE TO FUDGE | EPW


Relevance: GS Paper III 

Source

ECONOMY


Theme of the Article

Without concrete measures for augmenting opportunities, “behavioural change” is a demagogy.


Why has this issue cropped up?

The Economic Survey 2018–19 is trying to apply a “humane” face to the public policies of a government. The government claims of nudging such positive changes through its flagship campaigns like the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) and/or the Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao (BBBP).


‘Nudge’ for behavioural change

  • The very idea that the commoners are not some “rational” entities called “economic men,” but “human beings” of flesh, blood and folly, and that they need encouragement/interventions or “nudges” (not enforcements/mandates) for making choices for positive ­socio-economic changes in the country, is nothing new.
  • In fact, for over a decade now various governments around the world are trying to integrate such insights from behavioural studies into policymaking.
  • The underlying objective is to increase citizens’ participation in various state-led programmes/schemes and policies by nudging positive behavioural changes among them.

Analysing ‘behavioural change’

  • Changes, if any, are largely restricted to a superficial change of perception brought through inauguration events/cake-cutting ceremonies/certificate distribution events/competitions/bike rallies, rather than any measures for initiating real changes at the ground level.
  • If that is the case, then what is the difference between a nudge that stimulates public behaviour towards socio-economic change and that which manipulates public behaviour for political expediency?
  • For example, a girl student receiving a bicycle under the BBBP scheme will be disenfranchised from its benefits due to various sociocultural embargos that are conventionally imposed on the movement of females.Whereas the bicycle might benefit the male members in her family and in turn influence their political (party) choices.
  • In a country like India where an individual’s behavioural pattern is deeply entrenched in sociocultural norms, financial assistances/handouts/money transfers (as in the case of the Kanyashree Prakalpa scheme in West Bengal) are least likely to bring about any fundamental changes in behaviour.
  • On the contrary, such incentives might further corrupt public conduct with beneficiaries demonstrating a prima facie change in perception for receiving the aids, while their intrinsic behaviour remains intact.

Human being vs economic man

In settings that are characterised by limited resources, scope and capability, it is difficult to discriminate a “human being” from a so-called “economic man.” This is because in such circumstances the folly of optimising self-interest at the cost of collective welfare is potentially astute for self-sustenance.


Conclusion

Without any systematic assessment of such ground realities and/or any blueprint of initiatives for expanding the economic opportunities, entitlements and capabilities, coming from the ruling government, the claims of paradigmatic change in the policy framework with shift of focus from the “homo economicus” (or economic man) to “homo sapiens” (or human beings) emerges as mere demagoguery.


Leave a Reply