Skip to content
Theme : public_behaviour
-
Social Preferences and Public Economics: Are good laws a substitute for good citizens? (pdf)
Argues:
'Laws and policies designed to harness self-regarding preferences to public ends may fail when they compromise the beneficial effects of pro-social preferences. Experimental evidence
indicates that incentives that appeal to self interest may reduce the salience of intrinsic motivation, reciprocity, and other civic motives.'
from : duncanoleary
3rd August 2007
-
Conservative Party Health review
Argues for:
'a new Public Health Act designed to deliver separate public health budgets, a stronger Chief Medical Officer's Department, joint appointments of Directors of Public Health between the NHS and local authorities, a cross-government strategy which details actions to be taken by each department to tackle public health challenges, and annual reports by the Treasury on the effect of public expenditure decisions on the delivery of public health objectives.'
from : duncanoleary
19th June 2007
-
The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo
Writes: 'Solomon Asch and Muzafer Sherif have shed light on the determinants of conformity. Their research and that of others (Morton Deutsch and Hal Gerard) has demonstrated two main types of conformity: informational and normative.'
i.e. we look to others because we don't know what to do, or because we want to fit in.
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
Philip G. Zimbardo - Finding Hope in Knowing the Universal Capacity for Evil - New York Times
Dr. Zimbardo explains his infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 in which 23 volunteers were divided randomly into two groups. :“prisoners” and “guards” in a prison environment. The experiment was to run for two weeks...the guards became sadictic within days.
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
Car wrecks and Hutus: a guide to good conduct - Comment - Daniel Finkelstein
Discusses Professor Zimbardo's book 'The Lucifer Effect'.
'Give us peer pressure or the cloak of anonymity or the need to adhere to a consistent philosophy or a group code, give us the right situation and its amazing what we will do, whatever our disposition.'
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
Don't force me. I'm open to persuasion-Comment - Daniel Finkelstein -
'Not even 1% of passengers have taken up BA's very reasonably priced offer to offset the carbon emissions of their flights (£5 for London-Madrid, £13.50 for London-Johannesburg). That may be because people are selfish—or it may be because they are rational enough to know that their individual economic choices are not going to make a blind bit of difference to the future of the planet. Nobody is going to save a polar bear by turning off the lights.'
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
The final cut | Economist.com
'Not even 1% of passengers have taken up BA's very reasonably priced offer to offset the carbon emissions of their flights (£5 for London-Madrid, £13.50 for London-Johannesburg). That may be because people are selfish—or it may be because they are rational enough to know that their individual economic choices are not going to make a blind bit of difference to the future of the planet. Nobody is going to save a polar bear by turning off the lights.'
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
Irrational incandescence | Economist.com
Article discussing 'apparent irrationality' of people not changing their lightbulbs to (cheaper) energy-saving ones.
Suggests:
'One policy option is to decouple the utilities' revenues from the amount of electricity they sell. That gives them an incentive to increase the efficiency of power usage rather than to produce
from : duncanoleary
15th June 2007
-
Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour
A good tour of the literature and introduction to key theoretical perspectives on behaviour change and government.
Argues role of govt could/should be 'helping people help themselves'.
from : duncanoleary
12th June 2007
-
RSA - Climate change study
80% of people believe they could personally reduce their carbon emissions.
65% think individuals should take responsibility. 21% govt; 11% Big Business.
61% support financially penalising/rewarding people using more/less than the average amount of energy. 22% oppose the idea.
53 would accept limits on their carbon use. 29% wouldn't. The rest don't think there is a problem or don't know.
from : duncanoleary
11th June 2007
