Transcript Inducements - University of Florida

Inducements
(Rewards and Punishments)
Group F:
Willie Jackson III
Lisa Kanarek
Jennifer Kim
Vatrice Perrin
Jennifer Woodard
Our Game Plan (Agenda)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction and theory
Components of inducements
Assumptions
Inducement problems
Application to the polis
Wrap up/Questions
What is the Theory of Inducements?

A possible response to commons
problems.

What is a commons problem?
Exists when there is a divergence
between private interest and public
interest.
 Or, when individuals benefit (or lose) from
doing something that harms (or helps)
the community.

So What is the Purpose of Inducements?


To bring individual motives into line
with community goals.
Inducements alter the
consequences of individual actions
so that what is good for the
community is also good for the
individual.
Three Parts



Inducement giver
Inducement receiver/target
Inducement
The Inducement Giver



Must be able to implement a
consistent policy of rewarding or
penalizing behavior.
Usually a single person acting on
behalf of and with the authority of a
larger organization or political entity.
Different forms of givers

Examples?
The Inducement Receiver/Target


Must be capable of making a
decision and taking a single course
of action.
May be one individual representing
a larger community/organization.
The Inducement

To put it simply, we can call it a
consequence


Can be a reward
Can be a punishment
WHAT DETERMINES WHETHER AN
INDUCEMENT IS A REWARD OR PENALTY
IS NOT THE GIVER’S INTENTION, BUT
THE TARGET’S EXPECTATION.
Can anyone think of any examples?

Rewards?



Tax write-offs
Bonuses
Punishments?


Jail
Fines
Examining Inducement Assumptions
1.
We can alter people’s self-propelled
progress toward their goals by
changing the obstacles and
opportunities they face.
a. We assume people are rational.
b. People can adapt.
c. People often hang on to old
habits, choices, and actions.
Buckle Up…(Obstacles in inducing seatbelt use)

What obstructs compliance:





Willingness to adapt?
Difficulty breaking a population habit?
Other car safety features compromising
perceived seatbelt effectiveness?
Other legislation that asks to change
public opinion?
…How long does it take to change
public behavior?
Examining Inducement Assumptions
2.
Giver and receivers are unitary actors.
a. The actor (giver or receiver)
is an entity capable of “rational
behavior”:


Giver must implement consistent policy of
rewards of penalizations to specified target
Receiver must comply – with group
mentality
Examining Inducement Assumptions
3.
The receiver has some orientation
toward the future.
a. Costs and rewards shape
future behavior in order to
shape future results.
b. Gaps in inducements

Immediate vs. future inducements
Can anyone think of any examples?
A+ Plan for Education: Florida's Blueprint for
Improving Schools

Goals: To improve Florida schools
and provide accountability. The
blueprint also includes provisions to
eliminate social promotion and raise
standards for teacher certification.
A+ Plan for Education cont.


All Florida schools are graded on a scale
from A to F. Each school is assessed
according to the percentage of students
taking the FCAT and the performance of
such students.
Schools that receive an A or show
significant improvement are eligible for
school recognition funds, however, others
that receive a “D or F grade are eligible for
financial assistance from their district and
the state, as well as additional staff to help
with school improvement.”
A+ Plan for Education cont.


All scores are published on the
Florida Department of Education
website, publicized in the media,
and sent home to respective
parents.
Students attending schools that
receive an F for two out of four
consecutive years may choose to
attend another school with a C or
better grade.
A+ Plan for Education cont.

Proponents cite the rise in Florida’s
reading scores and the increased
emphasis on struggling students,
while opponents question the heavy
reliance upon standardized testing,
teaching to the test, the failure to
address achievement gaps and
historical inequities prevalent in the
national education.
Examining Inducement Assumptions



The target must care about the
costs and rewards of the
inducement.
Time frame for change
The effect of timing on the receiver
Examining Inducement Assumptions
4.
Purposeful notions of cause
a. Effect of intended
consequences of purposeful
action.
b. Result of unintended
consequences of purposeful
action.
Examining Inducement Assumptions


“Inducements Gone Wrong”
How do unintentional consequences
effect policy making?
When should inducements be used?



Simple causes
To reward targets that feel
particularly needy
Inducement systems work by
capitalizing on weakness of targets,
not by empowering them.
Inducement Problems


Even though each person within a
group may be a rational actor
(predictable outcomes),
membership in a community or
organization alter the way
individuals respond.
Chaos? Harmony?
What do you think?
Smells like Groupthink….




1952 by William Whyte
Rationalized conformity where
members hold certain values as
right, good, and just
A collective entity, in applying this
concept, therefore have one
direction in responding to policy
Trick is to determine how the group
thinks on issue and create
inducement that herds them toward
desired action/response
Inducement Problems

The longer the time span between
the reward or penalty on the one
side and the behavior change on
the other, the more likely the
situation of the target will change
and along with it, the value of the
inducement.
Application to policy


To maximize chances of an
inducement making desired impact
on constituents, make the
inducement effective ASAP
Ex: FL Constitutional Amendment 8



Physician malpractice “three strikes”
rule
Immediate response (and fear) to
prompt implementation by physicians
Impact: Legislation induced physicians
toward more accurate outcomes,
relocation, or threat of losing license
(aka: better tx outcomes)
Inducement Problems

When a social problem is rooted in a
complex organizational system, a
web of institutional patterns and
practices, or a long-standing
historical pattern of social and
political relationships, inducements
applied by on narrow set of actors
to another are unlikely to have a
significant impact.
Bush’s Health Proposal

Jan 2007 State of the Union
Address: No taxes on portion of
income for the insured



Up to $15K for families, $7.5K for
singles
Proposal supposed to convince
(induce) uninsured that health care
is affordable
But, if no money for insurance
before, how is it within easier
reach?
Positive Inducements


Wage productivity bonuses, foreign
aid, or trade subsidies, may create
an alliance and a spirit of goodwill.
In fulfilling the giver’s wish, the
target creates an obligation for the
giver to fulfill a promise, and the
implicit bargain creates a sense of
loyalty and mutual aid.
Negative Inducements


Fines, tariffs, and embargoes,
create a climate of conflict and
divide parties, EVEN if the threats
are not carried out.
Threats and penalties, even when
they succeed from the point of view
of the giver, build resentment and
solidify an oppressor-victim
relationship.
Inducements in General
There is one political similarity
between negative and positive
inducements.
*Rewards, just as much as
punishments, are efforts by one
party of control the behavior of
another.
Other Inducements; Incentive Schemes


Often presented in political rhetoric
as policy instruments that are
non-coercive and respectful of
individual autonomy.
The real truth of it…

A behavior change is increased because
targets are dependent on the giver and
unable to attain the “goodies” in other
ways.
Inducements in the Polis

In the polis, inducements are
usually designed by one set of
people, applied by another, and
received by a third party.
What is the biggest problem
here?

These elements in polis make giving
out inducements difficult.
Negative Sanctions in the Polis



Divisive and disruptive to
relationships and the sense of
community.
Fear of poisoning one’s social
relationships and work environment
restrains sanction givers.
Imposing a penalty often creates
costs for the giver.
Negative Sanctions in the Polis cont’d.


Sometimes designers of sanctions
make them so drastic that the
sanction givers are reluctant to
impose them.
Penalties can have very concrete,
material costs.

Increase in taxes
Positive Rewards in the Polis


People fear the divisive and
competitive atmosphere that may
result from positive inducements.
Handing out rewards can create
costs for the giver.
Inducements in the Polis Discrepancies


Sometimes inducements are
designed so that by imposing a
penalty, one hurts the very thing
one is trying to protect.
An incentive may contain an implicit
penalty, but the penalty is virtually
unusable.
Downfalls of Sanctions


Some people welcome sanctions as
proof of their victimization, test of
their commitment, and/or
toughness.
Sanctions may even harden
resistance to change.
Giver v. Receiver


The giver tends to focus on
inducements that he/she controls.
For the receiver, new inducements
always fit into a web of reinforcing
and crosscutting inducements.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
Slippage


Probably the most important reason
between the design of inducements
and the target’s response is that
people are strategic as well as
adaptive.
Simply put, many will try to reap a
reward or avoid a penalty without
changing their behavior.
Scheming in the Polis


Targets will sometimes try to gain
control of the political institution that
controls the inducement system.
Sometimes they will try to change
the rules by cajoling, bargaining, or
bribing the givers.
Conclusion

Inducements impact of people’s
behavior depends on how they are
interpreted by both the givers and
receivers, and their meaning is
subject to ongoing negotiation and
change.
Any Questions?