Rewarding Rules-respecters
In the competitive, get-ahead-somehow world of today, those who respect rules often end up as losers. This is best exemplified on our roads: the car that pushes ahead by any means, with scant respect for the rules, inevitably forges ahead while the obedient and law-abiding get left behind. Overtaking from the left, cutting in and out of lanes, not giving way to traffic from the right: all this is par for the course.As people see that this works, more follow the same path. There is, of course, the “stick” of fines; but poor enforcement ensures that few are punished, and agile mental calculations or sharp instincts indicate that breaking the law is quite safe, given the low probability of being caught. On the other hand, the disciplined law-abider has a decreasing incentive to follow rules, since s/he ends up getting stuck and reaching last. In such a situation, how to counter the downward spiral and ensure better compliance?
The answer may lie in a contrarian approach tried in an innovative experiment in Sweden. Speed cameras picked up the number plate of cars and fined the violators as usual. The innovation was that the number plates of the law-abiding non-speedsters went into a lottery to win the pooled fine money. In just three days, the average speeds dropped by 7 km/hr!
This is an example where, instead of only punishing bad behaviour (speeding), the system rewards good behaviour. The carrot seemed to work better than the stick. It is too early to say whether this will continue to work, over time. Also, will it work as ratios change: as the number of speeding cars (and so the “prize money”) decreases and the number of non-violators increase? For, the bigger number who are eligible to participate in the lottery will mean a reduction in the probability of winning, even as the jackpot decreases. Of course, given our general level of civic sense and discipline, it will be a while before the number of violators sees a substantial reduction! Then there are the usual arguments about our exceptionalism and diversity: it works in Sweden, but India is very different; the diversity of our country will mean that it will not work everywhere; corruption will make it infeasible, etc.
These doubts can only be answered with experiments here, and “in due course”. At a time when many, including the government, see higher fines as the only way to improve compliance, the contrary thinking in the innovative experiment provides a significant and interesting alternative. This is in keeping with developments in other fields. For example, in behaviour change communication, the “positive deviance” format appears to be more effective. Similarly, results indicate that a nudge is often an effective way of gently pushing people to act in a desirable way.
While the experiment in Sweden was limited to traffic, clearly, the basic principle could be extended to other areas. Imagine a lottery for honest taxpayers with the prize money coming from penalties on evaders and fraudsters. Or environment-compliant companies benefitting from fines on polluters.
Rewarding rules-respecters may well be a new route towards increasing compliance.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Pages:
[1]