Annie, thank you for starting us thinking about this issue, and John, your analysis is very insightful as well as eloquent and humourous - as usual! 

The new English Dept of Health Public Health white paper also follows similar ideological lines in terms of 'nudging' us to change by providing incentives (such as children being given shopping vouchers as a reward for walking to school) - while regulation (such as banning 'trans-fats') being portrayed as 'intrusive'. 

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/MediaCentre/Pressreleases/DH_122249
(have a look at the 'ladder of interventions' - it is ripe for deconstruction!)

Like John, I don't think the government has any powerful new technology of behaviour change up their sleeve. But this whole phenomenon does strike me as more insidious than just a figleaf for further cuts. 

The first thing that strikes me (which of course is not new, but seems especially blatant in this case) is the assumption that the government's role is to change our behaviour (helping people 'make better choices for themselves'), changing 'the way citizens think' (as Annie quoted Clegg), etc. Isn't government supposed to respond to citizens' demands, rather than knowing what is best for citizens? Tories criticise the 'nanny state' but this approach is just as patronising and controlling as command communism (just a bit more Foucauldian). Clegg says apparently that we don't always act in our long-term best interests by e.g. paying into our pension plans, and so we need these 'nudges' - perhaps the pension plans need to be nudged so that private ones are not going bankrupt, and public ones don't keep changing their terms and conditions! As Annie says, yet again, it is ordinary peolpe who have to be nudged, not corporations, politicians or regulators of
 financial services.  

This brings me to the 2nd thing that I find insidious, which is the involvement of corporate interests in shaping the policies. Not only does the focus on citizens changing their own behaviour allow for government cuts, but minimising regulation - of food and drinks industries, say - is right in line with the interests of the industry representatives who have been invited to the heart of public health policy-making 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/mcdonalds-pepsico-help-health-policy?intcmp=239 

Apparently, the government have ruled out using pricing and want voluntary rather than regulatory approaches -  great for PepsiCo and Diageo. Regulation of the drinks and food industry is a way to change (nudge) the behaviour of corporations - but this is being portrayed as intrusive, whereas providing me with incentives is not. Rewarding children with shopping vouchers constitutes them nicely as consumers, and further consumption is good for undustry of course. I find it incredibly intrusive for the government to want to teach my children that shopping is a reward and that one should expect material rewards for anything that seems to be deemed 'a good thing'. So at least in some ways, this is perhaps all not only a figleaf for cuts, but a figleaf for entrenching the interests of private industry in our society. 

Like Penny, I'm not sure where exactly this all goes in terms of whether we want to develop a public critique of it or where such a critique might be targeted. 

With a feeling of grim-ness, 
Flora. 









--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Penny Priest <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Penny Priest <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] Behavioural insight team: Nudge
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Friday, 10 December, 2010, 7:56
> Hi there
> I'm not aware of any new behavioural stuff either but I
> haven't rooted
> around. Anyway, I think what you say John forms the main
> body/structure of
> a great article/response. I wonder if you Annie had any
> particular ideas
> about where a commpsy piece/response might go?
> Penny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> >
> > This is interesting stuff. On the one hand its same
> old, same old: the
> > government want to regulate and control what we
> 'freely' choose whilst
> > generating the appearance of beneficence and
> democracy. One of the best
> > ways of controlling a population is to give them
> 'free' choice but then
> > predetermine the options they are able to viably
> choose between. Amongst
> > others, Foucault was onto this some years ago.
> >
> > And on the other hand, from what I can find online it
> seems like little
> > more than economists finally waking up to the idea
> that their pet theory
> > of rational choice doesn't actually capture how most
> people decide in
> > most situations. Its wrapped up in a language of
> 'choice architecture'
> > which makes it sound sinister but I'm not convinced
> they've provided
> > much that's actually new. I couldn't find any studies
> directly testing
> > hypotheses generated by the theory - though I didn't
> have loads of time
> > to spend searching - but I'm not convinced there's too
> much here that's
> > new or different to the techniques that advertisers
> have been using for
> > decades except that they've chucked in the
> behaviourist finding that its
> > better to reward good choices than punish bad ones.
> >
> > The kinds of choices they want to nudge us toward 'for
> our own good and
> > the good of all' will presumably include things like
> exercising more,
> > smoking less, drinking only in moderation, and having
> sex only on
> > Sundays and even then under a duvet with the light off
> and strictly in
> > the missionary position. Yet they're employing
> McDonald and Pepsi to
> > help them write health policy and representatives of
> the alcohol
> > industry to advise on responsible drinking. I don't
> think they've yet
> > signed up a porn star to advise on sexual moderation
> but that can't be
> > far away.
> >
> > At the same time they're cutting funds to local
> government and freezing
> > or limiting council tax, forcing steep rises in the
> cost of e.g.
> > swimming pool and football pitch hire and gym use.
> They're putting VAT
> > up to 20%, cutting public sector jobs and wages,
> reducing benefits...
> >
> > In this context I'd see their adoption of nudge theory
> as more akin to
> > the notion of the big society: a figleaf to cover over
> the fact that
> > we're being shafted. Unlike the big society it does
> involve them
> > actually doing something, although it has the benefit
> that what's
> > involved seems like it will cost little or nothing,
> adopting a rhetoric
> > and creating some guidelines rather than actually
> investing in people's
> > wellbeing.
> >
> > But just like the big society its a figleaf that
> pushes responsibility
> > back onto us, our choices and our lifestyles. When it
> 'works' they'll
> > claim the credit, when it fails - which it mostly will
> because there's
> > little or no substance - they'll blame us. So its
> Foucault (and others)
> > yet again: they're giving us the power to choose
> whilst requiring us to
> > choose responsibly on their limited and restrictive
> terms.
> >
> > I could be wrong and there's a mass of empirical
> evidence to back up the
> > claim that there's a new technology of behavioural
> manipulation here
> > that actually works. If anyone knows of anything it
> would be good to
> > hear it. But in the absence of that I'd be more
> concerned about their
> > use of nudge theory to legitimate a cuts agenda than
> their use of it to
> > manipulate our choices. Consequently, if we're to
> critique it then
> > that's where I think our critique should be targeted.
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/12/2010 08:25, Annie Mitchell wrote:
> >> Dear all, Have people in the UK been following the
> development of the
> >> “nudge unit “ ( behavioural insight team) ?
> the intentions are intended
> >> towards social benefit ( but by getting us to
> change our individual
> >> choices by changing incentives ) and while there
> is some sense behind it
> >> in terms of acknowledging environmental
> determinants of human behaviour
> >> , I find the whole development hugely sinister -
> very alarming indeed to
> >> read ( see link below for Guardian report) “ The
> deputy prime minister,
> >> Nick Clegg, said he believed the unit could change
> the way citizens
> >> think.“ I didn’t read anything in the book
> about nudges ( or even
> >> shoves) towards bankers and unfettered business
> interests. What do
> >> others make of this development? Can we marshall a
> community psychology
> >> critique?
> >>
> >> Annie
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/09/cameron-nudge-unit-economic-behaviour
> >>
> >>
> >> ___________________________________ The Community
> Psychology List has a
> >> new website/blog at: http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/ There is a
> >> threaded discussion forum:
> >> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
> There is
> >> a twitter feed: http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK To post on the website
> >> blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or
> David at the email
> >> addresses below. David Fryer ([log in to unmask]
> >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
> or Grant Jeffrey
> >> ([log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>)
> To
> >> unsubscribe or to change your details on this
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
> >> visit the website:
> >> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> >
> > --
> >
> *********************************************************
> > John Cromby
> > Psychology Division, SSEHS
> > Loughborough University
> > Loughborough, Leics
> > LE11 3TU England
> > Tel: 01509 223000
> > Email: [log in to unmask]
> > Personal webpage: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~hujc4/
> > Co-Editor, "Subjectivity":
> www.palgrave-journals.com/sub/
> >
> *********************************************************
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog
> at:
> > http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
> > There is a threaded discussion forum:
> > http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
> > There is a twitter feed:
> > http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
> > To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed,
> contact Grant or David
> > at the email addresses below.
> > David Fryer ([log in to unmask])
> or Grant Jeffrey
> > ([log in to unmask])
> > To unsubscribe or to change your details on this
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list,
> > visit the website:
> > http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> >
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> Planet Ink Club is a great way to save money and help the
> environment.
> Join today (http://www.planetinkclub.com)
> 
> This message has been scanned by Supanet for viruses and
> dangerous content using ClamAV and SpamAssassin.
> 
> ___________________________________
> The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
> There is a threaded discussion forum:
> http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
> There is a twitter feed:
> http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
> To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact
> Grant or David at the email addresses below.
> David Fryer ([log in to unmask])
> or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
> To unsubscribe or to change your details on this
> COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK
> 


      

___________________________________
The Community Psychology List has a new website/blog at:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/
There is a threaded discussion forum:
http://www.communitypsychology.co.uk/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi
There is a twitter feed:
http://twitter.com/CommPsychUK
To post on the website blog, forum or twitter feed, contact Grant or David at the email addresses below.
David Fryer ([log in to unmask]) or Grant Jeffrey ([log in to unmask])
To unsubscribe or to change your details on this COMMUNITYPSYCHUK list, visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=COMMUNITYPSYCHUK