There are millions of examples of incentives misapplied, but there are fewer of incentives misapplied and incentives corrected. In the immortal words of Dragnet, “This is one of them.” The only times incentives are misapplied is through coercion. Lack of coercion lets incentives take care of themselves so the only correction is removal of coercion.
This information, not as well known as it should be, is from the antipositivist blog to the right of this blog and comes from here.
“Feast and football. That’s what many of us think about at Thanksgiving. Most people identify the origin of the holiday with the Pilgrims’ first bountiful harvest. But few understand how the Pilgrims actually solved their chronic food shortages.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials. People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
We are direct beneficiaries of the economics lesson the pilgrims learned in 1623. Today we have a much better developed and well-defined set of property rights. Our economic system offers incentives for us—in the form of prices and profits—to coordinate our individual behavior for the mutual benefit of all; even those we may not personally know.
It is customary in many families to give thanks to the hands that prepared this feast during the Thanksgiving dinner blessing. Perhaps we should also be thankful for the millions of other hands that helped get the dinner to the table: the grocer who sold us the turkey, the truck driver who delivered it to the store, and the farmer who raised it all contributed to our Thanksgiving dinner because our economic system rewards them. That’s the real lesson of Thanksgiving. The economic incentives provided by private competitive markets where people are left free to make their own choices make bountiful feasts possible.”
Back to our rehabilitation considerations.
from the book: Shadow Dancing on the Grave of Hope:
Alcohol and Other Drugs: Potent Reinforcers
"Why do you drink so much?"
"I drink to forget."
"Forget what?"
"It works so well I can’t remember."
As in all areas of the social sciences, the causes, "cures" and effects of drug use are riddled with myth and misinformation. As usual, the most damaging misinformation is centered on what works. As usual, in-depth psychotherapy is favored. As usual, in-depth psychotherapy is ineffective. As usual, any set of practices based on faulty assumptions will lead to ineffective practices.
People take drugs because drug use is reinforcing. No cocaine user, no drunk and no heroin user has ever said to me, "I really hate getting high. It makes me sick. I do it because of the rigid belief that it is my duty." Remember, any consequence of a behavior which maintains or increases the probability of the behavior it follows is a reinforcer. Using drugs is a reinforcer for obtaining, preparing and ingesting drugs. As usual in human behavior, many different reinforcers are available to a person simultaneously and drugs are just one more category. Some drug users will go through long and difficult behavior chains to consume drugs and\or take drugs frequently. These users are labelled addicts and their drug use is explained by their addiction. See how easy it is. As usual, the label starts as a description, ends as a cause and deludes us into thinking we know something useful.
Effective Programs for Drug and Alcohol Do Not Involve the 3R Method
In 1991, several workers in the field of alcoholism reviewed the effectiveness of alcoholism programs. The results were; 1). The most productive programs are those which emphasize changes in the environment and\or demonstrate and monitor the changes the client needs to make in his\her environment in relation to alcohol use., 2) The most ineffective programs were those which dealt with in-depth psychotherapy (change the essence of the person and alcoholism will disappear) and\or took the person away from his\her environment for a "cure". The take-away-from-environment programs follow the medical model of take-into-hospital-take-out-the-appendix-return-to-house which is appropriate for appendicitis but not for behavioral problems. Alcoholism, by the way, is not a disease. Calling it a disease leads to mischievous treatments which look medically appropriate but don’t result in long-term decreases in drinking. One of the most telling arguments against the medical model is that, the stronger the social network, the less likely addiction. The most successful programs for addiction do not depend on the medical model., and, 3) The most expensive programs, as the reader, who should not only be prepared for but, expecting irony and paradox, will not find surprising, were the least effective. Although the review doesn’t make this point, it appears that the loosely structured programs were the least effective while those with specific procedures were the most effective. If the Devil is in the details, salvation can be found in the same place. The Devil is always found where there are no details.
The people who go on talk shows come from that part of the alcoholic sample which would improve as a matter of course. If they go through treatment, they attribute the improvement to the treatment. Another disciple is created and another myth supported. Popular television–poor science.
W.R. Miller labelled as 3R those programs which remove the person from his\her environment, subject him\her to psychotherapy, and return him\her to the old environment. 3R stands for remove, repair, and replace. This technique works for vehicles with faulty alternators. The reason it doesn’t work for people is that the person is returned to the same environment which supports and\or doesn’t discourage drug use.
A Short Comment About the "Successes" of Some Programs
Many social sciences programs have a religious fervor about them which means they rely on guilt, expostulation, proselytizing and true belief and does not look favorably upon dissent. Such programs give examples of success those who have joined the program as staff members and have remained "clean and sober". This "works" for a small percentage, because staff numbers are limited, but cannot work for the majority of drug\alcohol abusers who must return to the everyday world. Staying clean and sober as a member of a special community does; however, show the importance of the environment in maintaining a drug free life.
Holder, H., Longabaugh, R., Miller, W. R., & Rubonis, A. V. (1991). The cost effectiveness of treatment for alcoholism: A first approximation. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 517-540.
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson
November 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm |
Hey there
just wanted to let you know that someone is reading your posts and learning from them. . . Thanks!
Joel
November 25, 2009 at 8:20 pm |
Good to know. Cheers Grant