The Arrogance of Policy Making
By Abhinav Singh
We are surrounded by people who want to make the world a better place; where nobody has to go hungry, work in poor conditions, be afraid of assault or sleep in the cold. Some also go far enough to want to ensure that nobody should have his feelings hurt, of course with good intention. With the same goal, of a better world, we find each other discussing the means to achieve our common paradise. These discussions and the variety of responses by well wishing individuals often leave us with an overwhelming sense of complexity of the problems — too many variables to take into account, numerous decision modes with several alternative options and each option with its own tradeoffs. It’s a mess!
Policy making, even the most sophisticated version, tries to nudge people to behave in ‘better’ or ‘socially desirable’ ways. These might be sending more children to school, creating more jobs, curbing ‘vices’ like smoking or supplying food to the poor. Every man has to make his life, but the policy maker seems to want to take away every action of thinking off his shoulder and either show him a carrot or bring him the milk. From cradle to grave, as it is often said, he wants to take care that no man makes ‘mistakes’ and lives a life which is ‘lowly’ in its time. Intellectuals pursue these positions of policy making and learn all theories of individual response to incentives and cook up some policy suggestions of their
own.
Adam Smith, in his less popular book The Theory of Moral Sentiments, spoke about the ‘Man of System’ who would be so enamoured of his own system that he would impose it on others without much regard for their preferences or, for their moral autonomy:
“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”
A policy, after all, is a decision about how to use the government’s power. You either ban X or subsidise Y. You decrease the interest rate for home loans, but increase the tax on the ultra-rich. It is the manifestation of collectivist thought; that there is something called the ‘greater good’ and that people in government know what that is. Individual plans are inferior because he only has his own interest in mind, while the ‘greater good’ advances the prosperity of the society. The individual is the means while the society is the centre of all discussion. Hence, if the government deems that more schools is what ‘greater good’ demands, it takes our money to spend on building schools, paying teachers’ salaries and gives us more schools. 5 years later, the ‘greater good’ might demand more airports, then more electricity and so on. The government sets the priorities every once in a while, knowing what is for the ‘greater good’, or at least having a rough idea.
Every individual has his/her own preferences, own view of the good life, own objective function. He can experience the wants, the needs, the social context in which he makes his choices. The individual is certain about what will make his life better. The policy maker faces this knowledge problem, but is ‘enamoured’ by his plan. He takes your money and hires some more teachers.
This way we make policy, shuffling targets every year, employing an army of people to predict outcomes and measure progress (or atleast pretend to do that) and then make new plans. More and more people also work in an industry that tries to influence the government’s view of what is the ‘greater good’. Does anyone actually know, what is the greater good? Is there a method we can use to discover it? What is the way to find the ‘greater good’ for 5 people who have to pool their money and spend on one product — books, food or vacation? Any pretence of certainty in answering this question would be a sign of foolish arrogance. Imposing a plan with the branding of ‘greater good’ works just how someone who is starving for food would be forced to pay for a library or a vacation he does not need.
More food or better schooling for kids? Or a desert cooler for the house? The individual knows better than the policy maker. We might think that we have a better suggestion for how he should go about life; maybe he should reduce smoking or save more money. We are free to go ahead and persuade him to do this or support organisations which inform people about the harmful effects of smoking and lack of financial planning. But forcing someone (or everyone in a country!) to follow your command is to imagine yourself as an expert on their life; this position not only overlooks the different circumstances of different people’s lives, but also disrespectfully treats morally equal adults. Policy making is no different.
