A paradigm of change IRRATIONAL CHOICE

Two weeks ago I had argued that while the default solution we think up for our problems (such as extortionate school fees) is to appeal to the government to fix them; but, often, it is the government that is the problem in the first place. Readers interpreted the piece according to their interests. Many thought I was highlighting the exploitative educational establishments run by politicians and/or well-connected businessmen. Some others thought the piece was nihilistic. Since citizens have no other option for redress, not appealing to the government leaves us condemned to our fate. So, why do we, as a not-forprofit foundation (that I have cofounded) that voices the concerns of citizens, routinely appeal to various arms of the government for redress?

The idea behind the piece was to argue that the government is usually the source of the problem and that it rarely pays to appeal to it. Look around and you will see that most changes have come from two main sources: One, stray officials taking the initiative to make significant changes against tremendous odds; and two, court action dictating changes — after appeals to the government failed to work. Changes initiated by the government either on its own or as a result of public protests don’t exactly improve our lives. But there is a strong belief that change is possible with two age-old tools — carrot and stick — in the hands of committed bureaucrats with good intentions. A smart politician will quickly realise that the government is indeed the problem in a majority of cases, and will try a variety of other means to deliver better governance. Last week I ended the piece by arguing that if the system has to make our lives simpler, reward the meritorious and deliver justice speedily, we need to take some other path. What could be that path?

Perhaps everyone would be more effective with a slightly changed perspective about change. Change is now a vast subject of research and the domain of what was once called social psychology, which has now acquired the fancy label of behavioural science. An enormous amount of fascinating research is now available, and it explains what makes people change both at the individual and the societal level. The results of such research are so striking and counterintuitive that smart writers like Daniel Pink, Chip and Dan Heath, and John Duhigg, and of course seminal thinkers like Daniel Kahneman, Robert Cialdini, and Richard Thaler have easily converted them into gripping bestsellers that cover changing individual habits, improving processes, delivering better governance and everything else that involves some kind of persuasion.

Chip and Dan Heath in Switch answer the question why it is so hard to make lasting changes anywhere — companies, communities, and in our own lives. “Psychologists have discovered that our minds are ruled by two different systems — the rational mind and the emotional mind — that compete for control. The rational mind wants a great beach body; the emotional mind wants that Oreo cookie,” as the Heaths put it. Even assuming that a clean administration would like to deliver peace, justice, lower costs, and minimum friction — the main objectives of better governance — without getting a hold on the means to get the irrational mind (Heaths call it elephant) and rational mind (Heaths call it the rider) to work together, the results will be average to poor. Enormous resources will have to be thrown at achieving too little (which is what happens to most government schemes). The Heaths give many examples of how resolving the tension between what the rational mind wants and the emotional mind makes us do can create effective change. They have offered a working blueprint for anyone involved in the business of effecting change. Successful change follows a pattern, they say, which can be applied to any objective, whether it is improving test scores of school students or saving birds from going extinct.

If we can direct the rider, motivate the elephant, and shape the path, we may achieve significant changes, as Heaths describe in case after case. Can this be achieved by clean bureaucrats and committed politicians? Change, behavioural scientists tell us, can be codified as a method; and, for lasting change we need to follow that method. Hence, change is not just about domain knowledge, which bureaucrats have in spades. It is knowing what works on the public mind. If so, we need to involve huge non-governmental resources to deliver better governance.

This immediately creates a practical problem. The deal that politicians offer to the people is this: Get us elected and our administration will do things for you. Wouldn’t involving very visible private groups and outside experts to improve municipal schools and primary hospitals kill this appeal? Why share credit and expose the government’s limitations? Remember, the same tricks of persuasion that are used to deliver change can also be used to persuade people as to who is making the change — while cutting ribbons and making inaugural speeches.