Incentives
and disincentives literally drives the world. Knowing how to manage the duo
determines the success and the failure of any state or an individual. I will
argue that this will be the only solitary reason that will most justify the
ostensible backwardness in the African continent versus other progressing
continents. Impunity metastases when you fail to reward hard work; and,
accordingly if you fail to penalize slut and/or misconduct.
Imagine
for a second, if there are no yellow or red card rules in soccer? Brutality becomes
the name of the game.
But just
like about anything else, a disincentive/incentive can go completely wrong. A
pair of economists conducted a study of ten day-care centers in Haifa, Israel.
Parents often come late to pick up their kids, so they decided to introduce a
fine of $3 (disincentive) for coming late. Before the study, there are about 8
late pick-ups per week per daycare centers. Surprisingly – or rather not –
after the introduction of the disincentives, the number of late pick-ups surged
up to about 20.
Stephen
Levitt and Stephen Dubner in one of their Freakonomics edition gave a replete
explanation:
“You
have probably already guessed that the $3 fine was simply too small. For that
price, a parent with one child could afford to be late every day and only pay
an extra $60 each month... What if the fine had been set at $100 instead of $3?
That would have likely put an end to the late pickups... But there was another
problem with the day-care center fine. It substituted an economic incentive ($3
penalty) for a moral incentive (the guilt that parents were supposed to feel
when they came late) for just few dollars each day, parents could buy off their
guilt”
More
interesting and expectedly, after the $3 fine was removed, the frequency of
late pickups failed to drop.
While
incentives (disincentives) drives a state, the ‘freaks’ stated “Any incentive
is inherently a trade-off; the trick is to balance the two extremes”
0 comments:
Post a Comment