Families against the Big Society

Some new research suggests there’s a conflict between David Cameron’s support for families and his Big Society programme. Economists at the University of Nottingham say:

Responsibility crowds-out cooperation…
Groups such as families can be expected to behave less pro-socially than other decision-making groups.

They established this experimentally. They split subjects into three groups: in one, individuals made choices purely for themselves; in a second, they took responsibility for a payoff to a friend as well as themselves; and in a third, they took responsibility for a stranger’s payoff. They then played a series of public goods games. 
The results were clear and strong. Players who were responsible for their friends' payoffs contributed only one-third as much to the public good as sole players or players responsible for a stranger.
This is not trivial. In theory, responsibility could increase one’s inclination to contribute to public goods. This could be because being responsible in one context primes you to be responsible in others. Or it could be because the aggregate payoff in public goods games is maximized when everyone contributes, and people want the best for their dependents. In fact, neither of these mechanisms operates, and the opposite happens strongly. And if responsibility for friends generates selfishness, how much more likely is responsibility for stronger relationships such as a wife or children?
You might think this is because when we are responsible for others, we become more risk-averse. However, some other experiments refute this hypothesis; the researchers found that, in choices of lotteries, those responsible for friends payoffs made the same choices as selfish players. 
Why, then, does responsibility create selfishness?
One possibility is that people prefer to act selfishly anyway - and not contribute to the public good - but they can justify this to themselves by claiming they are thinking of others. We’ve all seen people behaving badly under the excuse of having a wife and family to support. This, though, raises the question of why having responsibility for strangers doesn’t generate this self-justification, whereas having responsibility for a friend does?
Another possibility is that although responsibility doesn’t change risk-aversion, it does increase betrayal aversion. When they are responsible for others, people become more fearful of being the mug who cooperates when others don’t, and so choose the selfish option.
Whatever the reason, it suggests there is a trade-off between two of Cameron’s main values - because family life might actually weaken the pro-sociality that is key to the Big Society. His claim that “Families are the building blocks of a strong, cohesive society” might be plain wrong.

Comments

[Bruce]

Does it matter much? I my experience, most people with dependent families are those less willing (able) to contribute to The Big Society. It is those without children or older/grown-up children who are the more active.

[Lars Smith]

That is consistent with this (Nicholas Wade quoted by Steve sailer),

"Though institutions are the basis of the modern state, the instinct to favor family never disappears and will reassert itself whenever possible. To create a loyal administrative class, Dr. Fukuyama said, some states took the extreme measure of destroying the family, in a variety of original ways.

The Chinese emperors instituted a special cadre of eunuchs who had no family but the state, and came to be trusted more than the regular administrators. Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century imposed celibacy on Catholic priests, forcing them to choose between the church and the family.

Islamic rulers created a class free of family ties with the remarkable institution of slave soldiers. Young boys would be taken from mostly Christian families, often in the Balkans, raised as Muslims and as slaves, and trained as soldiers. The system, despite its oddity, was highly effective."

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/03/francis-fukuyama-explains-it-all.html

[Tom Freeman]

Very interesting. It makes sense: we're willing to engage in some self-sacrifice when it's only our own self that loses out, but reluctant to sacrifice on behalf of the other selves we hold dearest.

[Keith]

Without wishing to denigrate this blog I wonder how useful it is to take D. Camerons' platitudes so seriously. If Cameron could raise economic growth and demand by multiplying his vast store of platitudes our economy would soon be booming.

The Marxist analysis of the family I think involves the idea of it as a device to produce Labour power and transfer ownership of capital for the ruling class; and as a device that is thus deeply oppressive. Both of women generally and of gay and bisexual people. It only became illegal to rape your wife in 1986 I believe thanks to Lord Lane ( LCJ, hurray for judge made Law! ) so is this the society we should be nostalgic for? When Gays are in the closet and uppity women get a slapping if they don't open their legs on cue? Not to mention only marrying for money and living to reproduce capital for the next generation of oppression?

[markey]

Italy is good example.

Very strong family. Very weak/cr*p state.

Is the state weak becaue families are strong?

Are families strong because the state is weak?

Whet happens if you have fallen out of the family?

[J browett]

I think that being responsible in one context does indeed prime you to be responsible in others, and you will find many examples proving so in everyday life.

[Keith]

On the other hand the extended family is regarded as strong in Spain and Spain has made a impressive transition to Liberal democracy with real political parties like the Spanish socialist party rather than a fake front party running things for a billionaire as in italy.

Making generalistions about the virtues of families tells us nothing very useful about actual societies. Or political systems.

[Grace]

Family people usually put their best effort towards their family and think about the Big Society in a second place. I think it comes natural.

[Dave]

To be honest haven't read too deeply into this "Big Society" concept that Mr Cameron enthuses about.

However I do get an impression from it to form a wild guess at what this Big Society is: which is Does he expect people to come home exhausted from their full time jobs probably having worked extra hours on top to run public services for their communities?
I do like the concept of what he talks about small government which doesn't interfere with people's lives but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what is really meant by that is Mr Joe Public you're on your own we don't care aboue you!

[DM Pearson]

Well, there certainly is a conflict between the Little Red Hen's efforts, her little chicks and the Cat, Rat and Pig. The latter three are not helping her do the work, but still expect to benefit from her labors. Is this "selfishness", or plain, old fashion, common sense?

Are big society and family at conflict? Absolutely. Because to get the bodies "here" and raised is because of the efforts and interest of Mum & Dad, and not the cat, rat and pig, isn't it?

Because Mum & Dad don't wish to give to the lazy bums what they labor with great effort to obtain does not make them selfish, per se. One must separate proper self interest from selfishness.

If it had not been for their Mums & Dads, cat, rat and pig wouldn't be here, and be "grown up" now, would they?

But because they want to mate without responsibility, and raise their own families, they thrust this burden on Little Red Hen & her hubby.

In fact, the decline in birth rates is what has caused the economic calamity, for which all are asked to contribute. But, paying into the "common good" makes insufficient available for Mum & Dad & chicks. But their main responsibility is to their own, isn't it? That they are asked to make up for lack of demand, which brought on this whole economic problem, is wrong. Cat, rat and pig should have had (when they were in litter bearing years) their own children, shouldn't they have?