 |
| Image: Trend Monitor |
One example I have experienced is the noticeable increase in vegetarian products at my local supermarket and their placement within the supermarket - some will think this is a result of the 'clean eating movement', but actually it's part of a wider experiment that aims to subconsciously reduce our meat consumption! A prime example of nudging.
What are your thoughts? Have you experienced this nudging? Please comment below!
I haven't heard of nudging before... interesting concept! Perhaps it is because I have never really been aware of it before but I can't think of any examples that I have come across. What is the incentive for businesses/supermarkets to use 'nudging' techniques if it doesn't improve their profit? Do you think this is something that government should try to incentivise somehow?
ReplyDeleteHi Becca - great comment, thanks! It took me a while to think of some examples and when I did, it was hard to completely correlate the cause to nudging and environmentalism.
DeleteIf we assume that nudging wouldn't increase revenues, then yes perhaps governments would perhaps need to initiate subsidies. BUT this means that the government would need to have environmentalism on their agenda; something that perhaps is not a top priority with our country's current political state...
I think it would be better if they were nudging techniques that did not harm economic growth (a win-win situation), but then again I'm not sure whether this is feasible with proper climate change mitigation. Oh how complicated this issue is!
What are your thoughts?
I've never heard of nudging before either - however, seems like a good idea to me as I feel people need the 'green option' to also be the 'easy option' for them to do it. A few years ago my parents definitely only started recycling when it became convenient and bins were provided for them and regular recycling collections took place etc. - is this nudging? Don't know if i've got the right idea or not!
ReplyDeleteHi Ruth! Thanks also for the comment. I think that increasing the convenience of recycling is a type of nudging (since the choice architecture has been altered for individuals to act green more easily), but perhaps it is not the most solid example in my opinion. I think that, for instance, having recycled plastic/paper as the default in many plastic and paper products would be a better example of nudging since the consumer's green behaviour here is very subconscious.
DeleteHi Ruth,
ReplyDeleteThe idea of Nudge is fascinating; it's been used by companies for their own ends long before it was recognised as a phenomenon by academic literature- to make us feel a certain way to buy their products (e.g. weepy John Lewis Christmas Adverts making us feel fuzzy and desirous to buy things for our loved ones) or making their products more subconsciously easily accessible (snack-size portions, BOGOF deals), etc. The fact that Thaller suggested that "Nudge" could be used for societal good is a powerful one- no wonder he won a Nobel Peace Prize for it!
With environmentalism, it's a tricky one- it takes one hell of a big "nudge" to push someone away from the cheaper, easier option in favour or protecting an environment- the good ol' value action gap, which you so astutely described! So my question is, are you hopeful that these tacit "nudge" incentives will be a sufficient method of changing our modes of consumption?
Hi Mari - great comment! I find it interesting that nudging has been around for a while: when placed into an academic framework, many phenomena can seem quite complicated and unfamiliar when, actually, nudging is really quite a basic concept and has been around for a while (as you mention)!
DeleteI think that environmental nudging could be really effective, especially if it is the easier and cheaper option. For instance, I think that having renewable energy as the default option provided by energy companies is fantastically sneaky; this is a more expensive option, but would people actively go out of their way to change to the cheaper option? Additionally, when renewable energy eventually (hopefully!) becomes the cheaper option, this type of nudging will thus become the cheaper and easiest option! Win-win. Of course though, nudging requires action from government/businesses, producing questions over incentives and regulation: perhaps its biggest flaw?
I'd love to know what you think though!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Ruth,
DeleteIn principle, I think you're right- the idea of leaving the option open (people can still opt out of the default), but taking advantage of people's inertia of changing out of the default (i.e. "Libertarian Paternalism") seems the perfect win-win!
The eventual ideal of renewables being the easier AND cheaper option is, of course, heavily dependent on the state to stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry and begin investing more in research into renewables. But I would posit that this in and of itself is a nudge as opposed to pervasive intervention. It's unlikely that Shell are going to over-emphasise their greener energies whilst they're profiting on tax cuts for fossil fuels. Should a Government suddenly make greener ventures more profitable- it's not like they've imposed a sanction, they're just "nudging" companies towards a greener option.
Moreover, there is still the economic role of supply and demand involved- it's not just down to the state. Centrica have begun piloting a flexible micro-solar supplemented grid on a community level in Cornwall, because they're cottoning on to increasing consumer demand for renewables and local control on the grid.
Thaler and Sunstein go into quite some depth about how Libertarian Paternalism is not necessarily synonymous with state over-intervention.
I think the main flaw is the over-reliance that it has on a few very powerful bodies being sufficiently incentived, themselves, to implement nudges. Without political will, it doesn't happen
Hi Mari - thanks so much for your reply. You make some really interesting points, which I 100% agree with!
DeleteIt does fundamentally come down to political will and that's where I think us citizens may become extremely useful; we demand our government to change - in an ideal sense of course. I'm not sure whether people ultimately care enough to demand such governmental change. This introduces the concept of how environmental disasters may instil change - something Naomi Klein argues to be important in climate change mitigation. For instance, Hurricane Harvey has made people more aware of the impeding potential danger of climate change (although also not in others...). Perhaps such environmental disasters can spur change?
Of course though we shouldn't leave it to that! Instead of looking at bottom-up approaches to climate governance, maybe there should be a strong top-down control with an international body enforcing change? Currently, does the UN even even punish those nations that do not pursue their committed climate promises??