Shopaholics Economics

We all know the rationalisation: I just bought desirable item X for £50 less than the marked price so I’ve “saved” £50 I can spend on something else. Of course, the £50 isn’t real – it’s just a notional saving and my claim when I get home that “I’ve just saved fifty quid” is greeted with understandable scepticism. Continue reading “Shopaholics Economics”

City lets George Osborne make a monkey of the voters‎

City lets George Osborne make a monkey of the voters

Times Online

In the case of Rayner, according to Colin Talbot of Manchester University, Britain’s foremost expert on public-sector efficiency, only half the claimed 

NHS Efficiency Target: Confusion Reigns

Confusion reigns in government over what the efficiency targets are for the NHS.

To recap: in the Budget (para 6.14) it says that by 2013-14 the health service will be making annual efficiency savings of between £15bn and £20bn – that is roughly 15% to 20% of their entire spending.

Just before a hearing of the Treasury Select Committee on Monday (29th March) I talked to Robert Chote, head of the IFS and a fellow witness to the committee. We agreed this had to be an error and the £15-£20bn must be a cumulative figure over the next four years. Continue reading “NHS Efficiency Target: Confusion Reigns”

Efficiency Wars

Efficiency Wars, by Colin Talbot

Public Finance

The first Efficiency Wars occurred in 2004, in the run-up to the last General Election the following year. Labour’s Gershon £21.5bn was pitted against the 

NHS Efficiency: official – Chancellor misled Parliament

It’s official – the Budget ‘red book’ contained a glaring error about NHS efficiency savings and thus the Chancellor (obviously inadvertently) misled Parliament.

The Budget stated:

“Budget 2010 confirms that the NHS will deliver annual efficiency savings of £15 to 20 billion by 2013-14.” (Para 6.14, page 90 – my emphasis). Continue reading “NHS Efficiency: official – Chancellor misled Parliament”

Nudge

The influential new book “Nudge” (Thaler and Sunstein 2008) comes from the emerging field of behavioral economics, which investigates the non-rational ways in which people make decisions.

Its policy implications are radical – it advocates what the authors call “libertarian paternalism”. This paradoxical prescription is based on the idea of ‘choice architecture’ – the notion that the way we are presented with choices deeply influences the decisions we make. So if we shape ‘choice architectures’ that guide us to make beneficial choices, by and large we will.

For example, the way food is ordered on a school self-service lunch counter affects what pupils choose to eat, and hence their future health. This can shape our choices to make us healthier, or unhealthier – so there is no escaping the ‘choice architecture’, whether we like it or not.

Politicians of both Left and Right seem to be signing on to this approach in the hopes of cheap solutions to difficult policy areas (such as poor diet) whilst maintaining people’s ‘choice’.

The ideas certainly have strong support in research evidence – although the degree to which they work in practice is more questionable.

Probably the strongest policy idea to emerge from this strand of thinking is the positive “default” idea. For example, instead of being given the choice to opt in to a pension scheme you are automatically included unless you exercise your choice to opt out. Or, more controversially, you are assumed to consent to organ donation in the event of your death unless you specifically take action to opt out.

This certainly has potentially radical implications for law and policy-makers, who are more used to proscribing acts than framing policies and laws that are meant to ‘nudge’ people in the ‘right’ direction. It remains to be seen how effective, or how widely applicable, this approach might be.

Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein (2008). Nudge – Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven and London, Yale University Press

And thanks to Andrew W for pointing out the Nudge blog.

NHS Efficiency: who’s kidding who?

Yesterday (29 March) I gave evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on this year’s Budget. I concentrated on the so-called ‘efficiency’ savings. One of the things I pointed out was the frankly fantastic projections for savings in the Health service – something which strangely no-one seems to have noticed.

The Government is pledged to make “efficiency savings” (I use the word “efficiency” very loosely) of £4.36bn per year by 2012/13. That is challenging enough – it’s roughly 4-5% of the NHS budget.

But what seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is the pledge to make savings of “£15-£20bn” per year by 2013/14. (Budget section 6.14) In other words to treble or quadruple the “efficiency” savings in only a year to around 15-20% of the NHS budget. Continue reading “NHS Efficiency: who’s kidding who?”

Society Daily

Society daily 25.03.2010

The Guardian

What budget, asks Whitehall Watch’s Colin Talbot. “This must be the most non-budget in British history.” Certainly if you were expecting detail on