|
Aikido may advocate the wisdom of living in
 harmony with others, and we may accept the value of focusing on the positive in a situation. Still, it can be difficult to imagine how these ideas would apply to public policies. This could be because we have lived for a very long time with a mechanical, cause and effect approach to these policies. In spite of growing evidence to the contrary, we cling to the notion that we can control and eliminate antisocial behavior simply by passing laws prohibiting it and punishing those who break such laws. Now, as antisocial behavior appears to grow, we try to regain control by passing more laws and increasing the penalties for breaking them.
I believe that if we look at this area with an awareness of the energies involved, we can find more effective approaches for dealing with negative behaviors. We may find that it’s often much more effective to flow with and then redirect a person’s interests and intentions than it is to attempt to block and control them forcefully. While there will probably always be a criminal element that can only be dealt with by the police and the courts, the vast majority of citizens are not really criminals. Any inference by the government that they are is more likely to inspire resentment against the government than respect for the law. These citizens are much more likely to respond favorably to an approach that promotes positive behaviors while respecting their dignity and autonomy.
For example, let’s consider the traffic safety field, an area most of us have some experience in. Strategies for dealing with high risk driver behaviors have traditionally followed a punitive strategy. If drivers get caught violating the law, they get a ticket, and face an array of license and/or financial sanctions. If there is a history of convictions, an administrative hearing may be held, to determine if license sanctions might be appropriate. Drivers who are involved in accidents may see their insurance go up. Drivers with a history of accidents may have administrative actions taken against them.
There are a number of shortcomings in this approach:
It is reactive. Most traffic safety resources are devoted to dealing with the person who has already violated the law or had an accident. Relatively few resources are devoted to encouraging driver improvement or excellence in the first place. Instead, it is taken as an article of faith that enforcement and sanctions will discourage violations or accidents.
It is one-dimensional. The primary tool in trying to discourage violations or accidents is fear:  fear of getting a ticket, fear of losing a license, fear of being hurt or killed in an accident, fear of an increase in insurance premiums. But if motorists rightly or wrongly believe it is unlikely they will get a ticket or be in an accident, they will feel little other incentive to improve their driving. Likewise, if they get a ticket or have an accident and find it doesn’t appreciably alter their life, they may have less fear of future tickets or accidents. It is possible that, for some people, the more experience they have with the traffic safety system, the less fear they may have of it.
It is expensive. All of these enforcement and sanction programs cost a great deal of money. In addition, society bears the costs of medical services, insurance, and lost productivity when accidents happen. If we can develop effective strategies for motivating people to drive better before they get a ticket or have an accident, we should be able to expect savings in all of these areas.
It is widely recognized that positive incentives can be significant shapers of individuals’ behavior. An example of an incentive-based approach to shaping behavior is American Express’ finance charge policy for its Optima Card. The Optima Card offers three different interest rates, depending on the customer’s behavior. There is a basic rate that is offered to customers whose accounts are in good standing. Customers who are “seriously delinquent” on payments are penalized with a higher interest rate for the next twelve months. On the other hand, customers who also have an American Express Card, charge at least $1,000 within a twelve month period, and make payments on time are rewarded with a lower interest rate. The end result is that customers are encouraged in a tangible manner to behave the way American Express wants them to: keeping an American Express Card, using their Optima Cards regularly, and paying their bills on time.
While there are many penalties and other punishments for bad driving, there are very few incentives to encourage good or improved driving behavior. An increased focus on opportunities for incentive-based programs in traffic safety could lead to an improvement in the behaviors of both current and potential high risk drivers. They could also lead to a savings in the public and private sector costs associated with these drivers. What would an incentive program look like? Here's an example.
Working in partnership with the business community, a state might offer special incentives to motorists who have had a good driving record for an extended period of time. These "good driver" incentives could consist of opportunities for special treatment and/or discounts by both state agencies and participating businesses. For example, the state might offer priority service to good drivers at its offices, or a special telephone hotline number for problems and questions. Businesses might offer special sales promotions to good drivers, or offer special rates on rental cars. To encourage companies’ participation in the program, its design and the determination of who should be eligible for it should be developed in partnership with representatives of the business community.
Such a program would benefit motorists, participating businesses, the government and other highway users.  Motorists would have a financial and status incentive to gain or maintain a driving record with no accidents or convictions over an extended period of time. Participating businesses would benefit by enhancing their civic image as promoters of public safety, while they encourage patronage by people who have demonstrated a certain degree of personal responsibility. The government would benefit by the greater social focus on driver excellence, which should lead to better driving and fewer accidents with their related costs. This program would also create a new positive relationship between the motorist and the agencies and businesses providing these benefits. Finally, other highway users would benefit from having drivers focused on having a good driving record.
The administration of a program like this could raise certain issues. Beyond administrative costs, there could be ramifications from designating people as "good" drivers. Depending on how it was done, there might be concerns about these drivers receiving preferential treatment by the police or the courts. And some people might be more likely to fight convictions or argue over accident fault if it meant losing special benefits.
But these issues are basically a mirror of the ramifications from designating people as "bad" drivers, as we do now. If it's possible a judge may be unduly lenient on a driver with a good record, it is also possible that a judge might be unduly harsh on a driver with a blemished record. And if it's likely that some driver might fight a conviction for fear of losing some special benefits, it is also likely that some other driver might fight a conviction for fear of losing his insurance, or her license.
In either instance, the potential drawbacks of a program should be weighed against the benefits it could provide. It is clear that the negative reinforcement approach we use now has some serious drawbacks to it. These drawbacks are unlikely to be minimized by simply getting "tougher." Isn't it time we added another dimension, a positive approach, into the policy mix?
© Dave Higgins, November 1996. All rights reserved.
Back to “My Thoughts”
|
