The preferences problem

It's time we thought more seriously about the role that preferences should play in politics.

I'm prompted to say this in part by Yasmin Alibhai Brown's claim that many Muslim women are "brainwashed" into wearing the veil. It is improbable that it is only Muslim women who have subconciously adapted their preferences to acquiesce in their oppression and inequality. Experimental and ethnographic evidence supports Amartya Sen's view that this is true of the poor generally:

The deprived people tend to come to terms with their deprivation because of the sheer necessity of survival, and they may, as a result, lack the courage to demand any radical change, and may even adjust their desires and expectations to what they unambitiously see as feasible. (Development as Freedom, p63)

The question is: what political implication does this have?

At one utilitarian extreme, we might claim none. We should regard preferences as we regard sausages or land ownership, and not inquire too closely how they arise. If people's preferences are met, they'll be happy. Why worry if they are rational? To invert John Stuart Mill, better a fool satisfied than Socrates dissatisfied.

What lends this view credence is that it is hard to tell how a preference has arisen. All are endogenous in the sense of being a product of our culture and history; this is as true for liberal ironists as for niqab-wearers. It's patronizing and arrogant to pretend that we can discriminate against some preferences.

On the other hand, though, as Daniel Hausman has argued, preferences have no moral status except insofar as they are evidence of what's good for us - and there's increasing evidence, even aside from the problem of adaptation, that this is only sometimes the case.

I'm ambivalent here. And so too is our political culture. On the one hand, great weight is put upon preferences: radio phone-ins, vox pops, opinion polls, and comments sections all elevate the status of opinion, however ill-informed.

But on the other hand, there's a tradition of limiting the role of preferences. Some laws protect us from ourselves; we can't sell ourselves into slavery, sell an organ or possess some narcotics. For Rawlsians, the basic structure of society should be determined by the ideal preferences we'd have behind a veil of ignorance rather than by actual preferences. And human rights laws, to the consternation of the trash press, limit what can be done by popular will.

The question is: when and how do we decide when preferences should determine policy and when not? When should the Burkean legislator exercise his independent "judgment" to over-ride his constituents' opinion?

One answer - and a justification for human rights - stresses the importance of vital interests. Some of our interests, such as the right to speak or to family life, are so important that they must be protected against the popular will. But I'm not sure there are bright lines here. One could argue that the poor have a vital interest in having their lot improved, even if there's little public demand to do so. If so, then justice - "the first virtue of social institutions" as Rawls called it - trumps democracy. But this puts us on a slippery slope to Leninism.

Now, I say all this because I'm confused, and I suspect many others are too. Our political culture has not yet begun to answer the questions posed by the growing evidence that our preferences don't necessarily coincide with our interests. And this, I suspect, has contributed to the problems politicians have - that they can't decide whether to be populists or technocrats and so end up being neither.  

Comments

[breviosity]

"All (preferences) are endogenous in the sense of being a product of our culture and history"

No, preferences are also a product of our biology.

Please start paying some attention to Darwinian economics!!!

[Adrien Vogt-Schilb Hoyos]

"If so, then justice trumps democracy"

I object.
Democracy should be defined as its objective: the power for the people (this contrasts with autocracies, the power for that guy's glory, and theocracies, the power for That Guy's glory).

The fact that democracy is also the power BY the people is just a mean to reach the objective (again, people being better off with the democratic institution than without)

We could use other means: We have had illuminated autocrats claiming they were interested by the wellbeing of the people. They may or may not be effective to actually reach that goal. Frequently they really really fail. The power by the people seems to be a more robust tool.

An other example: in a democracy, asking a referendum for each single decision that any public agency has to take would not be an efficient way of making everybody better off. The ability to reach the objective is what defines effectiveness of a policy, the objective being to make people better off is what defines the democracy.

The means used to achieve the objective should always be opened to discussion, notably when there is new evidence, when a given mean turns out to be effective or not.

You are just pointing that polling people with poorly designed question is not the best way of knowing what would make them happy.

I know I'm not answering any question, just raising some: what indicators should we use for "the people are better off"?

I love your blog by the way

[Ralph Musgrave]

The idea in the last paragraph above that if politicians decided to be technocrats they’d get anything right is a joke. The technical grasp that political parties, and the IMF and OECD have of national debts, deficits, and escaping recessions is non existent. Advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (of which I am one) keep pointing to the above deplorable ignorance, but to little avail.

As for the Eurozone shambles, which of the politicians that set up the Euro had a “technical” grasp of what they were doing? Please tell me.

[Six8Fifty]

@Ralph Musgrave - while their is evidence the politicians are not fluent in economics, etc, you can sure bet your money that they know just how far they can push the lower strata with the back to the wall. It's the frog and the boiling water all over, ad nauseam.

[rogerh]

Well, oppression is good - for the oppressors. The Muslim veil may or may not be oppressive, probably different for different people at different times. But deprived people generally have to poke up with their oppression or get a clout around the head one way or the other. One would expect them to develop a cheery resignation, group solidarity in the face of a hopeless situation. No point in delivering oppression unless you can make resistance appear hopeless.

Putting to one side oppression in brutal regimes, how is oppression and hopelessness delivered in an allegedly democratic society? Many ways, and our political system certainly delivers hopelessness - 'write to your MP' is the mantra, but as if! The reality is not your or my preferences but those of the lobbyists and a desperate need to get (re)elected - little else matters. Possibly Mr Farage will benefit from the hopelessness delivered by the mainstream parties.

[Anonymous]

Muslim women are "brainwashed" to use veils in the same way as non-muslim women are "brainwashed" to not walk around topless or all people are "brainwashed" to wear pants even if it's warm outside. These are arbitrary social social rules that all societies have. Muslim women wearing one piece of clothing more than western people typically wear is just one more arbitrary social convention on top of all other arbitrary social conventions - some of which we also follow.

[Chris]

"Yasmin Alibhai Brown's claim that many Muslim women are "brainwashed" into wearing the veil."

Well, that's the last time I take her seriously. Nasty piece of work.

[Doug]

"Yasmin Alibhai Brown's claim that many Muslim women are "brainwashed" into wearing the veil."

It's just another variant on Obama's slagging off some black people/families and Jamie Oliver's opinions on the dietary habits of the riff-raff. Good old fashioned class contempt from the 'enlightened' middle classes.

[Ksenofontdzym]

тут на официальном интернет-сайте представлен большой список услуг по бухгалтерское сопровождение

[anaeboura]

у нас на официальном интернет-сайте можно заказать мешки упаковочные