Fear and loathing of ‘free riders’
ANALYSIS: The arrival of schools’ donation demands triggers a cascade of thoughts and emotions in parents.
There’s black humour at the notion that schooling is ‘‘free’’, irritation at demands while literacy and numeracy rates are falling and inflation is making things tougher, and a stab of empathy for families on tighter budgets than your own.
And there’s the frustration of knowing some parents who could pay donations, won’t pay.
While the three responses are reasonable, is it reasonable to be concerned about what is known as ‘‘free riding’’?
A colleague who served as a school trustee told me in her time, about 80% of parents paid donations.
She saw the list of payers, and nonpayers.
The latter included some clearly well enough off to pay. It was frustrating.
Behavioural economist Ananish Chaudhuri from the University of Auckland says free-riding does happen, but people might overestimate how much of it is actually happening.
‘‘In any population the proportion of true free riders is small, typically no more than 30% or so,’’ he says.
And not all free riders ride entirely for free. Some may make partial payments.
‘‘Just as while many cheat, they cheat a little, not a lot,’’ Chaudhuri says.
Some may also be cheating in the erroneous belief that many others are, not wishing to be taken advantage of.
‘‘Some of us tend to have optimistic views of our peers and contribute, while some seem to have pessimistic views, and refrain from doing so,’’ Chaudhuri says.
Deciding whether to pay the school donation is what’s known as a ‘‘social dilemma’’.
We are all better off if we all co-operate (vote, donate, take out insurance, reduce greenhouse gas emissions), Chaudhuri says.
But if enough other people are contributing, it’s individually rational to free ride as not contributing makes no real difference, he says.
But if it is rational for one individual to do that, then it’s rational for all individuals to do that. And if everyone does that, our of our social systems would fail.
Fortunately, the prevailing wisdom now is that as social animals, humans evolved to be co-operative, or at least to ensure that at any point in time, enough of us are co-operative enough for social groups to be maintained.
And, if pain is evolution’s way of getting us to take our hand out of the fire, antagonism to free riders is its answer to keeping free-riding in check. The desire to punish free riders is strong from an early age (though academics have shown we are keener at punishing weaker free riders than powerful ones).
This all makes donations a tricky thing for schools. They want to create a culture of expectation that donations will be paid, but don’t want to highlight the relatively high rates of non-payers, or create antagonism to parents who don’t pay.
One of my daughters was attending a school that in 2013 was forced to apologise after issuing a ‘‘thank you’’ list
■ Remember, school donations are voluntary
■ Schools accept part payments throughout the year
■ Claim tax deductions on the payments naming parents who had paid.
Everyone checked to see which families were being thanked, and which weren’t.
I think everyone understood the board of trustee’s motivations, however, the majority I spoke to were appalled, and for good reason.
One single mother I used to chat with at the school gate was quite hard up. She hadn’t paid the whole donation, but still made a contribution, and yet she was not included on the school’s ‘‘thank you’’ list.
Ultimately, most parents who face the social dilemma of school donations pay at least something. They push down their irritation about free riders, side with Chaudhuri’s optimists, and decide it’s better for their children’s futures to pay.