The law of Unintended Consequences

Yesterday, whilst doing some research on a particular issue and reading through the many press clippings and comment on the subject, it was not at all uncommon for people to point out something they perceived that was “wrong” and ask: “Why has this happened?” Each individual case usually has its own story.

I have spoken many times about how common it is for people to think their view is the “majority” view, when actually the majority view turns out to be highly polarised. I’ve also spoken on occasions at length about how something which seems like an “easy fix” which only needs “common sense” to resolve is usually much more complicated, though to be fair, we politicians have often brought this complexity upon ourselves. I have also previously talked about the propensity to demand action without considering (or even caring) how that action is paid for or how we avoid dealing with previous mistakes by patching over the problems with new legislative mistakes.

None of these things are the problem. The problem is the often cry: “Something must be done” and its cause is the application of a solution which deals only with the visible problem itself and does not properly consider the potential invisible costs and negative consequences of that “solution.”

Yet by following this path there is a danger that policy after policy, proposal after proposal, could be carried along on a populist wave, fueled by one type of outrage or another, on both left and right and everywhere in between. When dealing with an issue that is brought to my attention, there are three main considerations that I try to give.

The first is to have a sensible, logical economical look at proposals where it is feasible to do so. I am not saying that economics should always decide as not every issue or decision can be resolved by a straight cost/benefit analysis.

The second is to allow some time for honest reflection when a problem arises, to ask : “has this been caused by something we did in the past?” If so, maybe reversing or amending that past decision would be better than another layer of “fixes” leading to another batch of unintended consequences?

The third is not to respond to every pressure group, every angry opposition member and every furious media campaign with immediate knee-jerk action. They may be right and action may be needed, but if it’s the wrong action that will not help anybody, it may lead to more of those unintended consequences which will be the cause of tomorrow’s cries of: “Something must be done!”

I am not making a case for local government to “do nothing” as inertia creates its own problems but I am a strong believer in that a little less legislating and rule-making and a little more providing the services upon which we all rely is a better long term options.