Innovation, the Individual and the State

Governments in the West are finally beginning to recognise the powerful role of innovation. That is to say they are recognising that human beings thrive when they are encouraged to think creatively about the problems they face. Increasingly the age-old method of mechanistic taxation, subsidy, incentives and punishments are being eschewed for more dynamic models of behaviour change. For example large taxes on cigarettes has not been sufficient to reduce smoking (and in turn not allayed the massive healthcare costs which in modern society are in part borne by the state), recent proposals to introduce plain packaging to cigarettes are designed to reduce the allure of brand recognition (and supposedly the discriminative function of such stimuli [see my Behaviourism article]) on the face of it this seems like a good pragmatic suggestion (setting aside ethical arguments) but consider it in some detail. The assumption underlying it is that smoking behaviour is a function of the availability and salience of cigarettes; a fair assumption, but perhaps not the whole story. Instead, consider the effect it will have on public perception of smoking. By making it someone hidden, something secret and frowned upon you risk increasing the appeal amongst certain individuals in so far as it becomes a grown-up thing to do, something secretive… almost like a club! How powerful does it feel to be part of a special club? We all know the sense of belonging it creates.

This is not a blog about smoking regulation and I’ll leave that sticky subject for another blog, but my point is that standard approaches to managing behaviour have been ineffective.

Considerations about the individual are often left entirely out of an analysis. Similarly the negative effects of state intervention are often ignored or treated as a necessary evil. We often hear talks about “innovation in society” or how “our community can innovate”. These are fancy buzz-words picked up by politicians designed to garner votes, but they don’t hold up to serious analysis. Anyone who works in a sector charged with innovation on any level know how deeply personal innovation is. Yet it often requires collaboration but that is not its defining feature.

The individual

Each person is unique. We all have a unique learning history and, as such, set of behaviours. Our thinking (after all another type of behaviour) is equally unique, especially as we diversify. A psychologist sees the world in a very different way to a designer and an anthropologist. Each of us, however, is capable of innovating in interesting and important ways. For example, as a behavioural psychologist, I tend to view things in terms of – you guessed it – behaviour. In designing a unique intervention I may be biased towards my own literature, my own way of looking at things. I may, concurrently, completely ignore the role of visual design (since I am not skilled in it) and as such miss an important innovative opportunity (and vice versa).

The State

The state has an important role in civilised society. It is a policeman, a peacemaker, a co-ordinator, and a protector. It has legitimate functions and illegitimate functions. When the state over-steps its bounds it can wreak havoc with innovation. Example time again! Consider the NHS. The pride and joy of every British citizen. A shining light in the modern world. Unfortunately it has failed to innovate. Mired in bureaucratic roundabouts it becomes impossible (indeed illegal!) to innovate within the confines of it. Any innovation that does occur is slow and ineffective because it becomes dependent on government approval. Want to trial a new way of handing A&E? Forget it. Want to reorganise a ward for better management? No way. Those on the ground; nurses, doctors, cleaners, healthcare workers of all stripes, are hog-tied and bound by rules and regulations. Those charged with managing the NHS are given wide powers but are not directly connected (nor skilled enough) to make the appropriate changes, similarly they are hidebound to obey those above them and so on. When you finally get to the top – parliament – you are faced with opposing political factions all with their own ideas of what an NHS should look like and all obstinate in their refusal to agree on anything that could possibly help patients because it violates their ideological commitment.

The Truth

It’s a hard pill to swallow (pun intended!) but innovation requires freedom; importantly it requires the freedom to fail. In our highly controlled public sector innovation is all but stifled. Failure is not tolerated. In fact there is a direct incentive to stick with the status quo because those who do risk it all and fail are summarily fired and publically humiliated and witch-hunted. On the one hand we demand better services, on the other hand we can’t stomach the conditions required.

Something has to give

If we are truly serious as a society about innovation we have to recognise some vital truths. The age of big government, top down intervention and micro-management of public services has to end. This is not an ideological argument but a pragmatic one. We cannot have our cake (perfectly symmetrical, all-purpose public services) and eat it too (a rapidly innovative set of services).

So what’s to be done?

It’s impossible to say for sure what needs to be done (we need some meta-innovation for that one!) but what we do know is that our public services need more breathing space. We need to introduce incentives for trialling new ways of doing things. We need to be prepared to fail. We need to respect the role of the individual in such measures. Instead of rejecting evidence-based interventions in favour of political point scoring our governments have to recognise that more autonomy has to be granted to public services in order that they can make bespoke changes to respond to the evolving needs of the citizenry they serve. If including a flat-fee for hospital admissions reduces the strain on our doctors and nurses, we have to be prepared to implement it. If a widening of police powers decreases crime, we have to be prepared to do it. More importantly though we should be allowed to see it fail.

The answer is not a simple one. There is a long argument to be had about how much freedom is necessary to both safeguard public services for as long as people want them, but to make sure those services don’t devolve into inefficient drains on limited resources, in the end they are funded by our taxes and in a very real respect we are all owed well-run services. Central to it all though is a very simple truth. We either innovate, and on a massive scale, or we risk losing the services we hold so dear. Can we let go of preconceptions about what a government and an individual should and should not do in order to achieve the best possible world for everyone?