Comment by bikeformind
4 years ago
Classic perverse incentive failure.
Most famous example is called the “cobra effect.” In the 1800’s some towns in India had a problem with cobra infestation, so the governement offered a bounty for dead cobras.
People started farming cobras to collect the bounty.
Eventually too many dead snakes were being turned in, so the government stopped paying. As a result, the newly made “cobra farmers” just released all the cobras on to the streets, doubling the population.
And as usual with these nice simple narratives, there's no evidence this actually happened (and compelling evidence that it didn't):
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/pmjrdg/is_th...
Something very similar did happen though, during the "Great Hanoi Rat Massacre" [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanoi_Rat_Massacre#Hirin...
Reminds me of that people who are 3D printing firearms and parts to sell off at gun buyback programs [1][2]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/11/new-york-gun... [2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/akee4e/someone-made-dollar30...
Reading your link, the bounty was real actual thing that happened, it's that the farming of snakes isn't something that was proven to be happening. The link actually says that deaths increased due to an unintended consequence of the bounty system, just for different reasons than is usually mentioned.
The post says deaths in _houses_ increased due to snake habitat destruction that drove them there. It suggests that could be because of snake death awareness raised by the bounty system, but that feels a step too removed to call it an "unintended consequence".
It's not due to a perverse incentive regardless, though, which is what the original anecdote is supposed to exemplify.
1 reply →
That link is the neatest answer I have read in ages - this whole story could easily become a hour long tv show
Is it, though? By making disclosure a requirement, the market for sesame-free items is highlighted and elevated. It may find a profitable niche or it may not, but consumers are now better able to choose.
Allergy labeling is likely a bit like support for people with disabilities: We regulate because the market doesn't work in these cases. The number of people who require accommodations are smaller than the value to make accommodating their needs profitable, so we use regulate because it's the right thing to do.
The basis of the (edit: theoretical) free market is full information for all participants, which requiring more information on the label is helpful for. The problem here is they won't allow "may contain traces of X" as a valid acknowledgement, despite being easy to understand.
6 replies →
To be clear, we do it through the government because it’s otherwise inefficient: it imposes a bigger collective cost on society than the benefit to the individuals. Whether “it’s the right thing to do” is a moral construct. European countries, for example, have much narrower requirements for accommodation of people with disabilities than the ADA.
1 reply →