With a stepdaughter now starting a University degree, it has been interesting discussing ideas like social anthropology and “policy 101” again.

It was a good chance to revisit what I believe (and have been taught) is one of the core things all policy makers need to bear in mind – the law of unintended consequences.

All policy, no matter how well-meaning, runs the risk of achieving unintended effects, which in some cases worsen what the policy may have been trying to “fix”.

Sometimes the unintended consequences are minor and we can live with them and work towards minimising them in future. At other times, they can totally circumvent and event worsen what someone was trying to achieve.

We can’t always think of everything, but “Policy 101” suggests that we at least try to consider the likely reactions people might have, due to self-interest, resistance to change, or just plain contrariness.

Examples abound. A few are given below – what are your favourite examples of unintended policy consequences?

• Flies in China – The risk of an entrepreneur breeding flies to kill, to make money is pointed out in an economist’s blog about one province’s attempt to reduce the fly population prior to the Olympics – http://china-economics-blog.blogspot.co.nz/2007/07/no-flies-on-me-what-is-price-of-insect.html – note the suggestion that efforts could be targeted to cleaning up instead. A more tragic example is the 1950s four pests campaign – targeting sparows because they ate grain that could have fed people. Insects like locusts that proliferated when the sparrows were no longer around to eat them greatly reduced crops and many more went hungry as a result. See:  http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyhorrors/2014/02/26/mao-four-pests-china-disease/#.WNrnCfmGPIU That campaign also targeted flies and mosquitos and rats, which may be more readily identified with, though again flow-on consequences of any high level of success on other environmental factors are unknown (though clean ups to reduce their habitat are encouraged!).
• Windows in England – From 1696, there were experiments until 1851 in using window taxes on homes to – in theory – tax the rich more than the poor. The results included huge reductions in the number of homes with more than the “base level” of windows for the taxes and consequent increases in health epidemics due to inadequate ventilation. Urban poor were also disadvantaged when they lived in large tenement blocks. See  www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/towns/tyne-and-wear-case-study/about-the-group/housing/window-tax/
• Sugary drinks – this is a popular policy topic at the moment, that I have some sympathy with. I was distressed to find out the high level of sugar in some of the drinks like smoothies that I enjoy and had chosen as “healthier options”. I believe in NZ we do consume far too many processed drinks for our own good. But – what is a policy trying to achieve? How will it be applied? How might people react? Consider if alcohol is included – if not why not. Does it apply across the board or are there exceptions? Is fruit juice any better than other sugary drinks (WHO aren’t convinced)? Will people simply bring in their own larger serve drinks (or not – for most will that simply be not worth the effort)?  What alternatives are (already) being provided, and how easy are they to access / use? I think this is a good thing to look at, but we need to be careful how we approach these things.