More Related Content Similar to Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison (20) Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play? An international comparison1. 1
Behaviour Change: What role do we want governments to play?
An international comparison
Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute
© Ipsos MORI
2. 2
How do attitudes towards
behaviour change policies vary
around the globe?
© Ipsos MORI
3. What people say and how they act is different but…
3
A measure which does not have
public support is, in general,
less likely to succeed
House of Lords report
on Behaviour Change
© Ipsos MORI
5. We asked people in 24 countries…
5
Britain
Belgium
Poland
Sweden Germany
France Hungary
Russia
Canada Spain
Italy
USA
China Japan
Mexico South Korea
Indonesia
Saudi India
Turkey Arabia
Key: Brazil
Australia
1,000 interviews
500 interviews Argentina South Africa
© Ipsos MORI
6. …about their support for different degrees of
government intervention in these areas: 6
FOOD RETIREMENT
ENVIRONMENT SMOKING
© Ipsos MORI
7. We looked at four degrees of Government intervention
– and also asked about interventions against business 7
INFORMATION
FORCE OF INTERVENTION
Provide information about changing behaviour
INCENTIVES
Provide incentives to change behaviour
RESTRICTIONS
Make behaviour more expensive or difficult
BAN OUTRIGHT
Ban behaviour
COMPANIES
Make companies act to change behaviour
© Ipsos MORI
8. Limitations of the data
8
Global @dvisor is conducted • As such, for developing
nations the results are
through an internet survey not representative of the
in 24 countries country as a whole
• Internet penetration by
no means uniform
• Results must be seen in
this context
• There may be bias in
some countries where
Internet is not felt to be
private
• Ecological data
• Definitions will be
different
© Ipsos MORI
10. …perhaps surprisingly, there is majority support for
intervention across the board… 10
What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas)
% Strongly support/tend to support
FORCE OF INTERVENTION
Provide information 92%
Provide incentives 87%
Make behaviour more
expensive/ difficult 69%
Ban behaviour 62%
0%
Make companies act
against behaviour 88%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
12. People want financial incentives to save for their
pension, and 7 in 10 support being forced to save 12
Next, thinking about how people plan for retirement. What, if anything, do you think government should do?
% Strongly support/tend to support
Provide information 92%
Provide incentives 90%
Make pension scheme
enrolment automatic 79%
Make pension scheme
enrolment mandatory 69%
Make employers contribute
to pension schemes 87%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
13. Smoking: still low support for an outright ban, but
banning in public places is largely accepted 13
Now thinking about smoking: What, if anything, do you think government should do?
% Strongly support/tend to support
Provide information 92%
Incentivise people to stop
smoking 82%
Ban smoking in public
places 80%
Ban smoking altogether 52%
Make tobacco companies
invest against smoking 84%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
14. There are exceptions to the hierarchy of public support
14
Firstly, thinking about what people choose to eat. What, if anything, do you think government should do?
% Strongly support/tend to support
Provide information about
healthy eating 90%
Provide incentives, such as
health food vouchers 82%
Make unhealthy foods
more expensive 53%
Ban unhealthy foods 60%
Make companies promote
healthy choices 88%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
15. Similar story around environmental interventions
15
Now thinking about using the planet's resources in a sustainable way (i.e. in a way that protects the quality of
life of future generations). What, if anything, do you think government should do?
% Strongly support/tend to support
Provide information 92%
Make sustainable options
less expensive 92%
Make unsustainable
products more expensive 63%
Ban unsustainable products 68%
Make companies be more
sustainable 91%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
16. 16
But we also gave people the
opportunity to say whether the
government should not get
involved in their behaviour…
© Ipsos MORI
17. Half still have a negative gut reaction to the
“nanny state” 17
What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas)
% Strongly support/tend to support
Not get involved in what people
choose to eat 53%
Not get involved in what people
choose to save for retirement 53%
Not get involved in whether or not
people choose to live sustainably 46%
Not get involved in how people
make decisions about smoking 46%
Not get involved (average) 50%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
18. Inconsistent views or a question of framing?
18
53% agreed that 69% agreed that
“government “government
should not get should change the
involved in what law so that
people choose to everyone has to
save for enrol in a pension
retirement” scheme”
© Ipsos MORI
36%
19. 19
Support for the five degrees of
intervention varies in different
ways between countries
© Ipsos MORI
20. Support for information is uniformly high
(range = 16pp) 20
Government should provide information… (Average over all four policy areas)
Tend to support/strongly support
Indonesia 98%
South Africa 98%
China 97%
Turkey 97%
Saudi Arabia 95%
India 94%
South Korea 94%
Mexico 93%
Australia 93%
Brazil 93%
Russia 92%
INFORMATION
Hungary 92%
Argentina 92%
Canada 91%
Belgium 91%
Italy 91%
Great Britain 90%
Poland 90%
Spain 90%
Germany 88%
France 85%
Japan 85%
Sweden 84%
USA 82%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
21. Support for outright prohibition shows the full extent of
political diversity (range = 54pp) 21
Government should ban… (Average over all four policy areas)
Tend to support/strongly support
Saudi Arabia 87%
India 87%
Indonesia 86%
China 84%
Russia 75%
Turkey 72%
Mexico 69%
Italy 68%
South Korea 66%
Poland 64%
BAN OUTRIGHT
Argentina 63%
Brazil 63%
Japan 62%
South Africa 60%
Hungary 56%
Canada 53%
Spain 53%
Australia 52%
France 52%
Belgium 51%
Germany 49%
Great Britain 49%
Sweden 43%
USA 33%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
22. Broad support for government intervention in business
but price trade off not explored 22
Government should make companies… (Average over all four policy areas)
Tend to support/strongly support
Indonesia 97%
China 97%
Turkey 97%
Saudi Arabia 94%
India 94%
Russia 93%
Mexico 92%
South Africa 92%
Hungary 91%
Brazil 90%
France 90%
Italy 90%
Argentina 89%
COMPANIES
South Korea 86%
Belgium 85%
Australia 85%
Canada 85%
Poland 85%
Great Britain 84%
Germany 83%
Spain 82%
Japan 81%
Sweden 80%
USA 66%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
24. Cultural divide? The right to eat what I want
(range = 68pp) 24
Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods
Tend to support/strongly support
China 89%
South Korea 89%
Saudi Arabia 88%
India 87%
Indonesia 87%
Turkey 87%
Russia 86%
Mexico 71%
Japan 70%
Argentina 68%
OUTRIGHT BAN
Italy 65%
Spain 64%
Poland 63%
Hungary 55%
Brazil 53%
Germany 43%
South Africa 42%
Canada 41%
Belgium 39%
France 35%
Sweden 35%
Australia 33%
Great Britain 33%
USA 21%
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
26. 26
Countries do not differentiate in a
nuanced way between shoves: if
you like one type of legislation
then you’ll like another
© Ipsos MORI
27. Strong correlation between support for banning and
restricting 27
What, if anything, do you think government should do? (Average over all four policy areas)
Strongly support/tend to support policy
90%
SAUDI ARABIA INDIA
INDONESIA
80% RUSSIA CHINA
POLAND
MEXICO
ITALY
70% PATERNALISM
BAN OUTRIGHT
JAPAN TURKEY
SOUTH KOREA
AUSTRALIA CANADA BRAZIL
60% ARGENTINA
FRANCE SPAIN
SOUTH AFRICA
HUNGARY
50% GERMANY
BELGIUM
LIBERALISM UK
40% SWEDEN
UNITED STATES R² = 0.9357
30%
45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%
RESTRICTIONS
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
28. 28
But by comparing other
interventions we can observe
more subtle characteristics…
© Ipsos MORI
29. Subtle differences between nations emerge:
authoritarians and incentivisers 29
Tend to support/strongly support for food and smoking (average)
90% SAUDI ARABIA
CHINA
INDIA
80% BANNING OVER INCENTIVES INDONESIA
SOUTH KOREA
TURKEY
70% RUSSIA
BAN OUTRIGHT
ITALY
MEXICO
60% JAPAN ARGENTINA
BRAZIL
SPAIN POLAND
50%
HUNGARY SOUTH AFRICA
CANADA
SWEDEN
40% UK BELGIUM
GERMANY AUSTRALIA
FRANCE
30% INCENTIVES OVER BANNING
UNITED STATES
R2 = 0.50
20%
55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
INCENTIVES
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
30. 30
But along with cultural
differences, could prevalence of
behaviour contribute to this
variation?
© Ipsos MORI
31. Prevalence of obesity does not appear a factor in the
case of food 31
Government should introduce laws to ban unhealthy foods
OUTRIGHT BAN
R2 = 0.60
100%
STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT
SOUTH KOREA
90% CHINA SAUDI ARABIA
INDIA RUSSIA TURKEY
80% INDONESIA
ITALY MEXICO
70% ARGENTINA
JAPAN SPAIN POLAND
60% BRAZIL
HUNGARY
50% SOUTH AFRICA
GERMANY
SWEDEN CANADA
40% BELGIUM
UK
30% FRANCE
AUSTRALIA UNITED STATES
20%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
% ADULTS WITH BMI ≥ 30
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Obesity Taskforce
© Ipsos MORI
32. Prevalence of smoking appears to strengthen opinion –
the power of nicotine 32
Government should introduce laws to ban…?
OUTRIGHT BAN
90%
STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT
SAUDI ARABIA
Smoking Food
80% INDIA
CHINA
INDONESIA
70%
BRAZIL ITALY
SOUTH KOREA
60% MEXICO
AUSTRALIA
ARGENTINA
JAPAN
50% SOUTH AFRICA CANADA SPAIN
UK TURKEY
RUSSIA
40% BELGIUM POLAND
SWEDEN
HUNGARY
30% UNITED STATES
FRANCE
GERMANY
20%
10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
% ADULT POPULATION SMOKING
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; WHO World Health Statistics 2010
© Ipsos MORI
34. The wealthier the nation the less likely they are to
favour government intervention 34
The government should make the behaviour more difficult/more expensive. (Average over all four policy areas)
RESTRICTIONS
90%
STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT
INDIA
CHINA R2 = 0.70
85%
INDONESIA
80% TURKEY
RUSSIA SAUDI ARABIA
SOUTH KOREA
75% BRAZIL MEXICO
JAPAN
70% POLAND
SOUTH AFRICA ITALY CANADA
HUNGARY BELGIUM
65% ARGENTINA
SPAIN AUSTRALIA
UK
60% FRANCE
SWEDEN
55%
GERMANY
50% UNITED STATES
45%
40%
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000
GDP PER CAPITA (PPP) (CURRENT INT'L $)
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010 Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; International Monetary Fund 2010
© Ipsos MORI
35. A wealth paradox
35
High earners are more supportive of
legislation than low earners
% Support by Household Income
RESTRICTIONS Low Medium High
Food 50 53 56
Retirement 79 80 78
Environment 61 63 67
Smoking 76 80 83
Overall 66 69 71
© Ipsos MORI
37. Apart from those with extreme confidence in
government, there is little correlation 37
What, if anything, do you think government should do? Strongly support/tend to support.
How confident do you feel in the way the Government of ... tackles the main problems facing the country?
90%
HUNGARY RUSSIA
INDIA
80% POLAND
SWEDEN
INDONESIA
70% JAPAN
BAN OUTRIGHT
ITALY SOUTH AFRICA BRAZIL
ARGENTINA MEXICO
60%
SOUTH KOREA
SAUDI ARABIA
CANADA
CHINA UK AUSTRALIA
50% BELGIUM
FRANCE GERMANY SPAIN
40%
TURKEY
R² = 0.2544
30%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, September 2010 (confidence), November 2010 (intervention) Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor
© Ipsos MORI
38. Countries with a higher inequality of power more
supportive of prohibitive legislation 38
The government should ban the behaviour. (Average across all policy areas)
Nb. PDIs for China, Hungary, Poland and Russia are estimate values; there is currently no individual PDI for Saudi Arabia.
OUTRIGHT BAN
90%
STRONGLY SUPPORT/TEND TO SUPPORT
INDIA
CHINA
INDONESIA
80%
TURKEY
ITALY
SOUTH KOREA
70% MEXICO RUSSIA
ARGENTINA POLAND BRAZIL
60%
HUNGARY JAPAN
SOUTH AFRICA
AUSTRALIA FRANCE
50%GERMANY CANADA SPAIN
BELGIUM
UK
40% SWEDEN
UNITED STATES
R2 = 0.5832
30%
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
POWER DISTANCE INDEX
Base: c.500 - 1,000 residents aged 16-64 (18-64 in the US and Canada) in each country, November 2010. Source: Ipsos Global @dvisor; Hofstede Cultural Dimensions
© Ipsos MORI
40. What have we learnt?
40
• What was striking was the extent to which people
supported government intervention
• Public acceptability tends to fall as more freedoms
are lost with some exceptions
• Clear and striking country differences
• It is issue dependent to a point
• Still a reaction to “nanny state”
• Influence of wealth is not straightforward
• Governmental system (power distance) may explain it
• We haven’t analysed fully is the extent to which these
policies already exist in countries
• Definitions of government?
© Ipsos MORI
41. Can measuring acceptability help determine where we
are in a cycle? 41
Sufficient support
to go ahead
Fall-off as detail
emerges Build-up of support
PUBLIC SUPPORT
as benefits appear
Increasing support
for general idea
New idea, no
justification
Panic just before
implementation
TIME
Goodwin P. (2006) Cycle of Public Acceptability
© Ipsos MORI
42. What does level of support tell us?
42
• There have been interventions that have been successful without public
support and vice versa
• Acceptability is just one factor that needs to be considered
• Consider public space smoking ban in China which is widely ignored
• A better concept might be how “prepared” the public are which includes
acceptability but also:
• Recognition of an issue
• Understanding benefits/scale of the problem
• Belief in the effectiveness of the measure proposed
• Level of opposition
• Measuring acceptability should be seen as part of a cycle of change
• All of the above and more need to be considered to increase the
effectiveness of an intervention
© Ipsos MORI