Possibly because 'clever marketing' - and consumerism in general - are seen as part of the problem rather than the solution. Paying marketing agencies public money to sponsor The Simpsons or send Larry Lymphoma to raise awareness of cancer in the shopping precinct is rightly treated with suspicion. It's also of questionable effectiveness - particularly when up against the marketing strength of the Carling Cup and Happy Meal. They don't seem to tackle the 'real causes'.
I suspect advertising bans, although in synch with a behavioural approach, would be more popular amongst the Stoke Newington dinner party set, as they look more Lefty/ tough on big business. They may be slightly less popular amongst liberals (and Mandelson, Ecclestone et al). Do Thaler, Le Grand etc making support such nudges or are they too illiberal?
There's an interesting counter-question to pose to the progressive libertarians, like Richard Reeves http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/07/alcohol-drinking-temperance-society-culture. Where individual liberty is the value being upheld, where does 'freedom to consume' (aka 'freedom to market') have to be balanced against 'freedom from advertising'?
I see a suite of reports are out on this subject today http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111698
Joe (Islington)
-----Original Message-----
From: The Health Equity Network (HEN) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Oliver
Sent: 01 February 2010 15:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Quick question
I see. An appeal to behavioural economics. As a behavioural economist myself, I'm not against this approach (although I do recognise the inherent risks of deeming some choices as 'bad'). But then if this is the answer, why are behavioural economics-related policy proposals often very heavily criticised by those in the health inequalities community?
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Farrington-Douglas [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 February 2010 14:51
To: Oliver,AJ; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Quick question
To paraphrase your question: The poor choose to drink, eat and smoke themselves to death so why should well-minded peternalistic academic elites try and stop them against their will?
One argument - drawing on the behavioural discourse - would be that the choices they (we all) make are not rational informed choices but are heavily influenced by the choice architecture.
The Nanny State spends £17.6m on information/ social marketing campaigns about the risks of alcohol. Meanwhile, the drinks industry spends £200m on advertising, plus another £400-600m on promotions and marketing (including extensive sports sponsorship). How are we meant to make free choices in these circumstances?
This argument draws on older ideas. The concept of individual liberty in relation to consumer choices may be seen as an ideology. To paraphrase (albeit clunkily):
"An unhealthy choice is a process accomplished by the so-called thinker. Consciously, it is true, but with a false consciousness. The real motive forces impelling him remain unknown to him; otherwise it simply would not be an ideological process. Hence he imagines false or apparent motives. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consciousness
-----Original Message-----
From: The Health Equity Network (HEN) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Adam Oliver
Sent: 01 February 2010 11:46
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Quick question
Those that seem most concerned with inequalities in health outcomes also
often seem to think that the 'voice' of the disadvantaged is not heard
(a sort of democratic deficit). And yet isn't it the case that the
policies that are most often proposed to address health inequalities
conflict with individual liberty, going against the grain of what the
majority (including the majority of the disadvantaged) appear to say
they want?
How is that circle squared?
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/planningAndCorporatePolicy/legalandComplianceTeam/legal/disclaimer.htm
|