[ad_1]
You are eating too much chocolate. Sitting too much. Drink too much beer and wine. Even good citizens have their weaknesses, at least that’s what the country’s top health officials think. Although most know exactly what would be best for their health, they do not always act wisely. “A big reason for this is that people don’t make a lot of smaller and bigger decisions completely rationally in everyday life” – the Federal Office of Public Health (BAG) puts it relentlessly. Often times, it just has to be fast. Short-term benefits then outweigh, analyze it further. “Despite all good intentions.”
To turn the Swiss into role model citizens for healthy and sensible action, FOPH prevention experts are using new strategies, taking advantage of their guilty conscience. Instead of prohibitions and regulations, they should guide themselves to the right path with little psychological tricks.
“Nudging” is the name of the instrument that is used for this; the term is English and means something like “push”. It is a new political approach. The authorities want to push citizens in the desired direction. These point to subconscious behavior patterns so that a person still acts sensibly.
These approaches could be used systematically for the first time in Swiss politics. As the research from the CH Media editorial team shows, BAG has long been testing behind the scenes how nudging can help promote health. To do this, it has counted on leading experts.
Star economists advise the federal government on pushing
On the one hand, there are researchers from the Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW). However, above all, the consulting firm Fehr Advice & Partners developed an “economic behavior guide” for the federal government, the work was recently sent to experts and published on the specialized website.
The founders of the company are the brothers Ernst and Gerhard Fehr, both leading behavioral economists. According to the rankings, Ernst Fehr, who teaches in Zurich, is considered the most influential economist in German-speaking countries.
There are some ideas in the experts’ material on how health officials could use the same nudges:
- If young people are informed that their colleagues drink less than they expect, they reduce their own alcohol consumption.
- The money could be put into a “stop smoking” program. If a participant does not fulfill their promise to quit smoking, the sum will be transferred to a charity.
- Meat labeled “99% fat free” is perceived as healthier than the same meat labeled “1% fat content.”
- Even the mundane signs served as “behavior boosters” to “implement good resolutions and healthy behavior in everyday life easily and with little extra effort.” A sign could be placed next to an elevator to draw attention to desirable behavior. One possible label: “Burns calories, not electricity. Take the stairs! “
Most of the suggestions are milder in nature. In the UK you can see how far the push can go. Here delinquent taxpayers were sometimes sent a photo of their car in a warning letter; combined with the warning that this could be garnished if you don’t pay off your tax debts soon. Or the example of California: some communities constantly inform their residents how much electricity they use compared to their neighbors.
Where exactly will BAG use to push in the future? Upon request, the authority only gives a vague statement. We are currently looking for new approaches to promote physical activity in workshops. “This area is particularly exciting because less active people are often difficult to reach with classic exercise promotion measures,” says a spokesperson.
The Federal Office for the Environment is also known to have recently released an internal “behavioral economics guide”. Among other things, it is intended to help environmental policy measures to “improve effectiveness and efficiency”.
Critics prefer to speak of paternalism
According to the official reading, the push should mainly help to implement good resolutions. It does not contain any obligations, there are no regulations. Not surprisingly, “liberal paternalism” is often talked about. Skeptics, on the other hand, consider nudging much more paternalistic. Citizens would be subtly incapacitated if they were induced to do something that the state considers to be their good behavior.
Unlike clear regulations, it is difficult to take legal or democratic action against shoving: SVP National Councilor Thomas Burgherr warns against this. Even before the BAG’s efforts were known, last winter he called for a fundamental debate on the push through a parliamentary initiative. In view of the contentious policy discussions, this is urgently needed, he believes:
The Federal Council rejects the fears. The pushes could be effective and efficient if they were inexpensive, he said in his statement, emphasizing: “However, the government pushes must be disclosed in a transparent manner.” If citizens are to be brought to their senses, they should at least be allowed to experience exactly how this happens.
