Democracy: How democracy can win again – by Gergely Karácsony

My political awakening coincided with the systemic changes that unfolded following the collapse of communism in Hungary in 1989. I was both fascinated and overjoyed by my country’s rapid democratisation. As a teenager, I persuaded my family to drive me to the Austrian border to see history in the making: the dismantling of the Iron Curtain, which allowed east-German refugees to head for the west. Reading many new publications and attending rallies for newly established democratic political parties, I was swept up by the atmosphere of unbounded hope for our future.

Today, such sentiments seem like childish naivety, or at least the product of an idyllic state of mind. Both democracy and the future of human civilisation are now in grave danger, beset by multifaceted and overlapping crises.

Read more at: How democracy can win again – Gergely Karácsony

G7 agree to back 15% global minimum corporate tax rate, more taxes for tech giants

The Group of Seven wealthy democracies agreed Saturday to support a global minimum corporate tax rate of at least 15% in order to deter multinational companies from avoiding taxes by stashing profits in low-rate countries.

Read more at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/taxes/2021/06/05/g-7-nations-support-15-global-minimum-tax-corporations-tech-giants/7560398002/

May Day 2021: Know history and significance of Labour Day

May 1 is the International Day of Workers or International Labour Day dedicated to workers and labourers across the world. This day celebrates labourers and encourages them to be aware of their rights. The day has its origins in the labour union movement, specifically the eight-hour day movement. Popularly known as May Day, the day is observed in countries such as India, Cuba and China among other countries.

Read more at: May Day 2021: Know history and significance of Labour Day | Hindustan Times

Netherlands keeps crown as world’s best pension system - by Rachel Fixsen, Venilia Amorim

The Dutch pension system has won the highest score in the latest Global Pension Index report from Mercer, with the international consultancy using this year’s publication to sound a stern warning on the impact of the pandemic on retirement income systems around the world.

In the 2020 Mercer CFA Institute Global Pension Index report – previously called the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index – which awards national pension systems points for adequacy, integrity and sustainability as well as giving them an overall score, the Netherlands came top with 82.6 points, followed by Denmark with 81.4 and Israel with 74.7 points.

Read more at: ​Netherlands keeps crown as world’s best pension system | News | IPE

Netherlands ranked eleventh best country in the world to raise a family

A new study has ranked 35 countries, using six different categories, to discern which are the best for raising a family. The Netherlands ranks eleventh overall, behind the Scandinavian countrie and Germany, being beaten by the Czech Republic for a spot in the top ten.

Read more at; 
Netherlands ranked eleventh best country in the world to raise a family

Neoliberalism – the ideology at the root of all our problems - by George Monbiot

NEOLIBERALISM

Neoliberalism: do you know what it is?

If you do have the capability to distinguish between "Right and Wrong",  and  are not too preoccupied with other "things" to do, it might be worth your while to read this rather lengthy, but most informative article, to help you understand why the world is in the total mess it is.  Have fun, and don't get too depressed. Tomorrow might bring better tidings - R.M - EU-Digest

Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major role in a remarkable variety of crises: the financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which the Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health and education, resurgent child poverty, the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of Donald Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power can there be than to operate namelessly?

So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin’s theory of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human life and shift the locus of power.

Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning.

Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.

We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Never mind structural unemployment: if you don’t have a job it’s because you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your credit card is maxed out, you’re feckless and improvident. Never mind that your children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it’s your fault. In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and self-defined as losers.

Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About Me?  in which he describes his main concern how social change has led to this psychic crisis and altered the way we think about ourselves.re :epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness, performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it’s unsurprising that Britain, in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is the loneliness capital of Europe. Unfortunately we are all neoliberals now.

The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified by Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal and the gradual development of Britain’s welfare state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as nazism and communism.

In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control. Like Mises’s book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism – the Mont Pelerin Society – it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.

With their help, he began to create what Daniel Stedman Jones describes in Masters of the Universe as “a kind of neoliberal international”: a transatlantic network of academics, businessmen, journalists and activists. The movement’s rich backers funded a series of thinktanks which would refine and promote the ideology. Among them were the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Adam Smith Institute. They also financed academic positions and departments, particularly at the universities of Chicago and Virginia.

s it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek’s view that governments should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among American apostles such as Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name. In 1951, Friedman was happy to describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.

At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins. The postwar consensus was almost universal: John Maynard Keynes’s economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe, top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment, developing new public services and safety nets.

But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, “when the time came that you had to change ... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up”. With the help of sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter’s administration in the US and Jim Callaghan’s government in Britain.After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions, deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services. Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation, neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes, “it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised.”

It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have been promoted with the slogan “there is no alternative”. But, as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet’s Chile – one of the first nations in which the programme was comprehensively applied – “my personal preference leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government devoid of liberalism”. The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.

Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.

As Naomi Klein documents in The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman described as “an opportunity to radically reform the educational system” in New Orleans.

Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed internationally, through trade treaties incorporating “investor-state dispute settlement”: offshore tribunals in which corporations can press for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have voted to restrict sales of cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.

Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic nightmare of central planning has instead created one.

Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since 1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after 60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.

The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water, trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other outlays. The rest reflects the fact that they have you over a barrel.

Those who own and run the UK’s privatised or semi-privatised services make stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India, oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico, Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone services and soon became the world’s richest man.

Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in Why We Can’t Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. “Like rent,” he argues, “interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort”. As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly, are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.

Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy: from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.

Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course. Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.

The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every organ of the public sector.

Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending. But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement. Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.

Chris Hedges remarks that “fascist movements build their base not from the politically active but the politically inactive, the ‘losers’ who feel, often correctly, they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment”. When political debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.

Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to “cajoling, threatening and ultimately coercing people to obey them”.

Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of anonymities.

The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers. Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry, has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover that Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the institute that set up the Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his thinktanks, noted that “in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised.

The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. “The market” sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What “the market wants” tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. “Investment”, as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same word for different activities “camouflages the sources of wealth”, leading us to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.

A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.

These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that even the police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.

The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some justice – that it is used today only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman’s classic work, Capitalism and Freedom.

For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project, at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action. It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to power.

Neoliberalism’s triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the 70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008 there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.

Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems. It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth are the motors of environmental destruction.

What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it’s not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century.

 EU-Digest - Neoliberalism : "The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by its private citizens"

Netherlands ranked sixth happiest country in the world

The Netherlands is
ranked the world’s sixth happiest country in the latest World Happiness
Report.

Although the country is once again one of the jolliest in the world, it
has slipped one place since last year, and is – according to the report
based on data from the Gallup World Poll – slightly less contented than
it was between 2008 and 2012.

However, only in Finland (first), Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland and
Norway are people happier.

The study assesses factors including the healthy life expectancy, social
support, freedom and average income in the countries, alongside the
levels of corruption, trust, generosity and people’s own ‘life
evaluation’ – which includes their personal feeling of safety.

The Netherlands is categorised alongside ‘Nordic countries’ and the
researchers say that it does better than Europe as a whole because of
levels of social and institutional trust, as well as social connection.
However, as in some other developed highly economies, people feel less
happy in Dutch cities than they do in rural areas.


Read more at DutchNews.nl:

The Netherlands is
ranked the world’s sixth happiest country in the latest World Happiness
Report.

Although the country is once again one of the jolliest in the world, it
has slipped one place since last year, and is – according to the report
based on data from the Gallup World Poll – slightly less contented than
it was between 2008 and 2012.

However, only in Finland (first), Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland and
Norway are people happier.

The study assesses factors including the healthy life expectancy, social
support, freedom and average income in the countries, alongside the
levels of corruption, trust, generosity and people’s own ‘life
evaluation’ – which includes their personal feeling of safety.

The Netherlands is categorised alongside ‘Nordic countries’ and the
researchers say that it does better than Europe as a whole because of
levels of social and institutional trust, as well as social connection.
However, as in some other developed highly economies, people feel less
happy in Dutch cities than they do in rural areas.


Read more at DutchNews.nl:

The Netherlands is ranked the world’s sixth happiest country in the latest World Happiness Report.

Although the country is once again one of the jolliest in the world, it has slipped one place since last year, and is – according to the report based on data from the Gallup World Poll – slightly less contented than it was between 2008 and 2012.

However, only in Finland (first), Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway are people happier. The study assesses factors including the healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom and average income in the countries, alongside the levels of corruption, trust, generosity and people’s own ‘life evaluation’ – which includes their personal feeling of safety.

The Netherlands is categorised alongside ‘Nordic countries’ and the researchers say that it does better than Europe as a whole because of levels of social and institutional trust, as well as social connection.

However, as in some other developed highly economies, people feel less happy in Dutch cities than they do in rural areas.

Read more at: Netherlands ranked sixth happiest country in the world - DutchNews.nl

Switzerland-Davos 2020: American politics is the biggest risk facing the world right now, say experts

American politics is the biggest threat facing the world in 2020 and the looming presidential election will stress the country's institutions, influence economic and foreign policy and further divide an already polarized electorate, with potentially huge consequences for the climate, business and investors.

That's the view of experts at consultancies Eurasia Group and Control Risks.

The World Economic Forum, which is preparing to hold its annual meeting of political leaders and CEOs next week in Davos, is also warning of increased turbulence this year from trade conflicts and political polarization that makes it harder to tackle global challenges.

Read more: Davos 2020: American politics is the biggest risk facing the world right now, say experts

EU needs to learn the 'language of power', incoming chief says

The European Union can no longer rely on soft power to promote its interests and must develop more security "muscle" and policy focus on trade, incoming European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on Friday.

In a speech on the state of Europe, von der Leyen stressed the EU’s strengths as a bastion of openness and democracy in a troubled world and said Brexit had forged a tighter group out of the remaining members of the bloc.

“We must go our own European way with confidence,” she said in Berlin. But she added: “Soft power alone won’t suffice today if we Europeans want to assert ourselves in the world. Europe must also learn the language of power.” 

Read more at:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-commission-von-der-leyen/eu-needs-to-learn-the-language-of-power-incoming-chief-says-idUKKBN1XI2BM

Poland: Agriculture - Blue Berries are now produced worldwide and Cooperation was the slogan of The VII International Blueberry Conference in Poland March 7 - 8

Delegates from 27 countries and over 900 participants in total visited the VII International Blueberry Conference. This event confirmed that blueberry producers can work together to achieve common goals. They must continue to do so – there are still many challenges in cultivating and trading blueberries.

Blueberry production is growing in various European countries. One of them is Ukraine, where, as Taras Bashtannyk from Ukrainian Berry reported, the area of ​​blueberry cultivation increased rapidly and in the last 3 years it grew three times to the level of 2100 ha. In 2018, blueberry harvest in Ukraine amounted to 5,000 tons, and it is expected that exports will grow by about 2000-2500 tons in each subsequent year. This means that in 2020, blueberry harvest in Ukraine may exceed 10,000 tons.

In China  it is estimated that the area of blueberry cultivation in 2020 will reach 70,000 ha, and the fruit production will amount to 1 million tons in 2025.

A new selection of blueberry varieties gives a chance for further development of the industry. Their features were presented by Andrea Pergher from Fall Creek Farm and Nursery Europe. Fall Creek has started the breeding program almost 20 years ago. The selections have undergone very selective comparison trials before they were released.

Before becoming commercial, the variety must prove to be better than the existing varieties. Fall Creek is managing trial sites in different climatic area where we compare new releases with standard varieties. The plants are planted together at the same age for consistency in data
output.

Based on the the calculations presented by Hans Liekens from Fall Creek Europe, it is justified to say that blueberry market in Europe has a chance to grow, provided that it is possible to increase consumption and penetration of the market. Great Britain, where the average citizen eats 860 g of blueberries annually, sets an example. Meanwhile, the average European citizen consumes 180 g of blueberries annually.

"If we could increase consumption in Europe to the level of Great Britain, an additional 500,000 t of blueberries would be needed. To achieve these goals it is necessary to provide the market with high quality, hard, firm and tasty blueberries. The most important thing is
that the consumer who once buys blueberries will come back for more.

When they are disappointed, because of quality issues, he will cease to be our client. We all are blueberry producers. We all need to look after quality and keep working on it," said Hans Liekens.

During the second day of the 2 day event there were pruning demonstrations and workshops dedicated to establishing blueberry plantations. They were led by Paweł Korfanty, nurseryman and enthusiast of blueberries and Leon Schrijnwerkers - a nursery worker from Netherlands.

He showed how to form ‘Bluecrop’ blueberry bushes and which shoots are the most valuable, how many of them should remain in the bush to ensure good fruit quality.

For the complete report go to:
Cooperation is a key to success for all blueberry growers"

Climate Change: Record high temperatures around the world

Heatwave sees record high temperatures around world this week

For the complete report go to:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/13/heatwave-sees-record-high-temperatures-set-around-world-this-week?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Blogger

Heads of State Pay scale: Who are some of the best paid country leaders in Europe?

The leaders of Germany, Switzerland and Belgium are among the best paid in Europe, a new study has revealed.

Swiss President Alain Berset earns nearly €400,000 a year, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel take home an annual basic salary of around €300,000.

Their wages were revealed in a study of countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which was conducted by UK-based financial services company

Read  more: Who are some of the best paid country leaders in Europe? | Euronews

Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Sara Gorman

In 2016, in the midst of a devastating measles outbreak, California decided to repeal the philosophical exemption to vaccines, which allows parents to opt out of required childhood vaccines because of “personal beliefs.”

Soon after that law went into effect, the number of exemptions for medical reasons suddenly soared. Some have argued that the philosophical exemption ban may have in some ways made matters worse, since school administrators are powerless against medical exemptions, but may have had more room to question philosophical exemptions.

Responding to complex social issues such as the anti-vaccine movement requires a full view of human behavior and a solid understanding of what it really takes to change minds. We need to let go of the idea that we can just strong-arm people into complying. Policymakers must understand that changing attitudes and behaviors requires a comprehensive approach that doesn’t rely exclusively on punitive measures alone.

These kinds of laws should be familiar to anyone who has followed the evolution of the response to anti-vaxxers in the US and elsewhere.

Last year, France, Italy, and Germany all announced new laws and fines that in each case made more vaccines mandatory and raised the stakes of not complying. In India, Kerala state instituted a new vaccine mandate for the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine after growing resistance led to serious declines in vaccination rates and constituted a major threat to India’s progress toward eliminating measles. Such policy responses to anti-vaccine sentiment are very common and often the first line of defense.

When faced with a viewpoint or behavior that seems completely irrational, it’s often very tempting to essentially “bully” people with facts, overwhelming them with all the reasons why their viewpoint is factually wrong. But recent research has found that not only does this approach often fail to change people’s minds and behaviors, it may even backfire. This is the basis for the “backfire effect,” a phenomenon in which people become more entrenched in their views after being bombarded with evidence against it.

A recent experiment from researchers at Dartmouth illustrates the principle well. Subjects were given fake newspaper articles that seemingly confirmed several very common misconceptions from recent history, such as that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When they were then given a corrective article indicating that weapons were never found, liberals who opposed the war accepted the new article and rejected the old, whereas conservatives who supported the war did the opposite. In fact, those who did not change their view reported being even more convinced that there were weapons after being exposed to the correct information.

Another recent study showed what goes on in the brain when someone experiences the “backfire effect.” Participants were surveyed about their opinions on particular political issues and then were placed in an fMRI machine to measure brain activity. They were then presented with a large quantity of information that disproved their stated opinions. In a follow-up survey several weeks later, researchers found stronger inclination toward original views in the majority of participants. More importantly for this study, however, is what they found about brain activity during these informational challenges. Regions of the brain associated with strong emotion were heavily activated while parts of the brain associated with cognitive reasoning and comprehension were suppressed. In essence, the parts of the brain needed to absorb the new information were shut down by the parts of the brain associated with strong emotion.

As we can see, when people are faced with challenges to strongly-held beliefs, they may become emotional and dig their heels in. This can be a response to a barrage of new information that challenges what they believe, or a response to new laws that challenge the behavioral outcomes of strongly-held beliefs. Either way, we can see how punitive policies to address strongly-held beliefs might be limited, even if they are necessary.

Even when new laws are passed, lawmakers must take great care about how they communicate about them, especially if the law touches on “hot-button” issues like childhood vaccines or gun control. For example, recent research has suggested that presenting people with views they disagreed with on paper made them discount the intellect of the person presenting the views much more than when there was a video explanation provided instead. This is just one of many ways in which the medium and the precise content of a potentially controversial message can change the way it is received.

When faced with difficult viewpoints and behaviors of constituents, policymakers must think very carefully about how to respond. Often laws and regulations are needed, but what gets put in place with those regulations also needs to be carefully considered before new laws are implemented, not as an afterthought.

Read more: Governments would get more done if they bullied people less on issues like anti-vaccination — Quartz