tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post6454819802845413234..comments2024-03-28T09:22:36.967+13:00Comments on Offsetting Behaviour: The Coalition for FunEric Cramptonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-57237734210101625502011-02-14T09:25:40.934+13:002011-02-14T09:25:40.934+13:00@James: Thanks for taking up the banner; I was lig...@James: Thanks for taking up the banner; I was light on internet over the weekend.<br /><br />@Varkanut: Do consider the horrible mess made of GST when you start exempting things. Read my prior posts on this.Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-19806424483873781832011-02-13T02:28:10.703+13:002011-02-13T02:28:10.703+13:00"Pretty dubious. Do you have any evidence tha..."Pretty dubious. Do you have any evidence that attempts to impress the surveyor create bias in answers?"<br /><br />The signalling hypothesis is most commonly discussed with respect to education (do people use higher-education as a signal of intelligence/productivity/employability/etc?). Read: http://folders.nottingham.edu.cn/staff/zlizsg1/ME/Readings/Topic6/Weiss%281995%29.pdf for a good survey. He argues that there is a good case for signalling explaining education decisions.<br /><br />With respect to people "signalling" by lieing on surveys, I found a bunch of evidence on ye olde google. First, somewhat anecdotal, but interesting, evidence: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2004/10/12/241228.aspx<br /><br />Second, a discussion about lieing on surveys (not very formal, mixed evidence here, though a strong impression that lieing on surveys is common): http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Jan09/surveys.lying.mw.html<br /><br />More on lieing, with some studies to back it up: http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/how-often-lovers-lie/experiments.html<br /><br />An interesting direct study, suggests that women lie more often to male than female interveiwers (though, surprisingly, men don't): http://karlan.yale.edu/p/LyingaboutBorrowing.pdf<br /><br />I don't mean to say that signalling/lying about preferences explains ALL of the discrepancy between stated preferences and observed behaviour, just that it can explain a lot of that gap, substantially weakening the case for intervention on the basis of people's "lack of self-control", or whatever.<br /><br />I can't find the study you're talking about. I found this, http://www.heartfoundation.org.nz/files/healthy%20eating/GST%20off%20food_background%20discussion%20paper_July%202010_final.pdf but they also point out the likelihood of substitution. And substitution is the important bit. It doesn't matter if people eat 10% more fruit after a tax change if they also eat, say, 30% more Mcdonalds: there'd be a worsening of "health", not an improvement. In what way does that sound good to you?Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995395711510222406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-73102917873949008092011-02-12T23:45:24.027+13:002011-02-12T23:45:24.027+13:00"I think signalling explains a lot of the dis..."I think signalling explains a lot of the discrepancy between proferred preferences and actual behaviour, not irrationality/lack of control/other market failures etc"<br /><br />Pretty dubious. Do you have any evidence that attempts to impress the surveyor create bias in answers? The much simpler answer is that despite your claims, people aren't perfect and they know they have plenty of room for improvement. Hence the whole idea of second-order preferences; impulse, lack of will, addiction etc. results in plenty of people having first-order desires they're not happy with. <br /><br />That post you linked to doesn't support your argument the way you think it does. As noted by the blogger the study, though fascinating, cannot be used to draw conclusions on food subsidies etc. The subjects had to spend all the total (fixed) pool of money on food! Of course making some food cheaper is going to increase total calorie intake. More interesting would be if they allowed participants to do with the saved money what they want. That would give more solid answers.<br /><br />What about that recent study in NZ that removing GST on fresh fruit and veggies increases consumption of those goods by around 10 or 11%? Sounds quite promising to me, though of course it didn't take in to account any possible substitution toward buying more junk food.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03619810131431228236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-83643745112506952672011-02-12T18:44:02.585+13:002011-02-12T18:44:02.585+13:00"We're always hearing about how 4 out of ..."We're always hearing about how 4 out of 5 smokers want to quit, people are making resolutions to eat healthier, exercise more, manage their expenses better in the new year. It's just not that mysterious what most people consider the good life!"<br /><br />Aside from the high likelihood of poor survey methods, people have strong incentives to "signal" certain preferences even if they don't actually hold them. For example, if you want to look good in the eyes of the pretty woman questioning you, you'll claim "Oh yeah, I'd love to quit smoking; such a nasty habit". I think signalling explains a lot of the discrepancy between proferred preferences and actual behaviour, not irrationality/lack of control/other market failures etc. Signalling behaviour is not a cause for government intervention ("That guy claims to love donating to charity but doesn't do it, we ought to force him!"). If it were you'd have just as good a case for banning misrepresenting preferences as regulating behaviour (same outcome: proferred preferences match behaviour). <br /><br />"So a policy to (e.g.) remove tax from healthy food would quite clearly, as far as I can see, help the majority to achieve/sustain their higher-order preferences, with just simple incentives and no overt regulation, and would surely maximise utility. I just don't get what the big deal is."<br /><br />You've not studied economics, have you? As the price of one good relative to another changes (as, for example, taxes or subsidies change the price) people will substitute from one good to the other, BUT their income will also have changed which affects their purchases of both goods. Check this out, for example: http://scienceblogs.com/obesitypanacea/2010/04/fat_tax_or_health_food_subsidy.php<br /><br />"However, as the cost of healthy foods was lowered, the total number of calories purchased actually increased. In other words, people were using the money they saved on healthy foods to purchase more unhealthy foods."<br /><br />You probably need to do a little more reading on some of this stuff.Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07995395711510222406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-28043454482282120852011-02-12T01:45:58.775+13:002011-02-12T01:45:58.775+13:00Hi Eric, thanks for the reply. I'm not up to d...Hi Eric, thanks for the reply. I'm not up to date on the scientific literature of cell phone usage and driving safety, but my understanding is that compared with the other things we regulate (DUI) the risks are still substantial. Citing the fact that hands-free phones are just as dangerous just potentially gives grounds for banning hands-free.<br /><br />I didn't intend to get into a debate about paternalism itself, but rather wanted to point out the sloppy/lazy thinking in that article. It's difficult to discuss a topic so broad; obviously some paternalism steps over the line (think proposals to ban smoking, or even the recent UC initiative to create a smoke-free campus), but then there are much more reasonable paternalistic policies. <br /><br />I don't think the issue of knowing the higher-order desires of others is as serious as you make it out to be. We're always hearing about how 4 out of 5 smokers want to quit, people are making resolutions to eat healthier, exercise more, manage their expenses better in the new year. It's just not that mysterious what most people consider the good life! So a policy to (e.g.) remove tax from healthy food would quite clearly, as far as I can see, help the majority to achieve/sustain their higher-order preferences, with just simple incentives and no overt regulation, and would surely maximise utility. I just don't get what the big deal is.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03619810131431228236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-27678097273743202572011-02-11T22:39:58.561+13:002011-02-11T22:39:58.561+13:00@varkanut: Yes, bans on cell phones in cars are mo...@varkanut: Yes, bans on cell phones in cars are more plausibly motivated by worries about external costs. But the degree of risk prevented by such regulation is so tiny (no difference in risk of hands-free and phones), it does seem awfully bloody-minded.<br /><br />It's also reasonable to take seriously Elster-type concerns about self-constraint and higher order preferences while still sticking with revealed preference. First off, there are markets in the higher order constraint mechanism - gyms that make you pay more if you fail to show up and the like. If folks don't choose to use those, isn't it more plausible that the higher order preferences aren't all that strong and that regulations mandating their enforcement would be utility-reducing? Further, isn't it rather dangerous to assume that we know folks higher order preferences and consequently regulate against their revealed lower order preferences?<br /><br />Loathing might be too a strong term. But I'm not sure that contempt wouldn't be an accurate one. Why push for mandatory calorie counts on fast food restaurants but not on high end restaurants whose fare can also be fairly energy-dense? And how else can we assume that the regulators can step out to an Archimedean point where they're immune from behavioural anomalies while setting regulations?Eric Cramptonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831696523324469713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-82127044907655655452011-02-11T21:20:59.825+13:002011-02-11T21:20:59.825+13:00"...it looks like I'll be in very good co..."...it looks like I'll be in very good company."<br /><br />Wow, really? That author wrote a terrible article. Unable to recognise that those against phones in cars are probably not motivated by paternalism, and apparently unaware of the distinction between first and second order desires ("If people are aware of the risks of an activity, and do it anyway, doesn’t that very fact show that they are better off being permitted to do it?") <br /><br />Of course worst of all was the assumption of malice behind the motives of his ideological opponents ("The politics behind today’s public-healthery are sinister. They are driven by loathing of the poor, the overweight...") Ridiculous, sloppy thinking, you deserve better company Eric.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03619810131431228236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2830084253401570472.post-65804674026505155552011-02-11T19:17:12.495+13:002011-02-11T19:17:12.495+13:00Of note is this recent submission to the Southern ...Of note is this recent submission to the Southern District Health Board<br />http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/otago/146512/boards-submission-called-unrealisticShane Pleasancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06144367923437327037noreply@blogger.com