Paternalism and Motivation in the World Cup

By Jonathan B. Wight

Paternalism. Colombian mayors have decided to take away the punch bowl during days that the Colombian World Cup team plays. Alcohol is banned, along with motorcycles, which one supposes are used to inflict mayhem during festivities.

On June 14 of this year, Colombia’s team played its first game and won against Greece.  Nine people died in the ensuing celebrations.

In a similar game in 1993, 60 people died after Colombia’s team blew out Argentina’s in a qualifying game.

The imposition of paternalistic laws preventing people from celebrating in the style to which they would prefer, dramatically lowered deaths to just two deaths on June 19 and one on June 24.

Okay—libertarians out there!—do you support or decry this public paternalism?

Motivation. Second up is the news that Ghana’s World Cup team needed an infusion of $3 million in cash to keep playing. The money is the fulfillment of a promise by Ghana’s president. Players were doubtful they would be paid if they lost, so an airplane had to be hired to jet in the money ahead of Thursday’s game against Portugal.

Generally, economists posit that greater rewards lead to greater effort. Except it is not that simple.  Sometimes large rewards can cause people to choke (see video by Dan Pink). Despite the money, and the anticipation of more, Ghana lost, 2-1. Money can’t buy everything.

Comments

[Jonas Feit]

I think that if we call every law and regulation "paternalism," then the word will be stripped of it's purpose, namely frightening people enough that they hop on the libertarian train.

Paul Krugman has written about this phenomenon in the context of "socialism." His basic point was that, if conservatives and libertarians keep referring to programs that a wide swath of the public likes (medicare, public infrastructure, etc) as "socialism," then more and more people will begin to think that socialism isn't so bad.

If every little rule that federal state and local governments implement to keep us from maiming and killing ourselves and our fellows is "paternalistic," then maybe paternalism ain't so bad, either.

[Jonathan B. Wight]

Hi Jonas,

Yes, I worried that I was extending paternalism too far, instead of simply saying this was government fulfilling its job of maintaining order and justice.

But the paradox of happy people celebrating and killing themselves is what tipped the line for me to call this paternalism. These were not deaths caused in anger fighting another tribe; these were deaths caused by excessive jubilance. It is like government forcing someone to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, even it would be more fun without it.

Forcing citizens to celebrate a World Cup victory without alcohol reduces the fun, for your own good. Government is taking on the job of prudence, not trusting the prudence of the citizen himself.

So, I'm sticking with paternalism.... :)

[James Bacon]

Interesting question. Clearly, we have conflicting goals: (a) letting the people have fun and (b) preventing unnecessary deaths. As a quasi-libertarian, my first instinct is to say, let the people drink and have fun -- and hold them accountable for their behavior. If you kill someone, we charge you with the appropriate crime and throw you in jail, if convicted.

Of course, that approach is much easier to take in a society in which people put brakes on their own behavior. Thus, if the Netherlands or Germany wins (or loses) the World Cup, there is not likely to be an outbreak of mayhem and violence. People govern their own behavior, therefore, there is no need for the state to supervise them. The situation is otherwise in Latin America and some European countries.

Therefore, the answer is context-specific. If a people is "virtuous" and its members capable of regulating their own behavior, no "paternalism" is called for. If a people is prone to excitability and excess, then the state must step in to preserve the public health and welfare.