As we saw on chapter 6, there are markets where incentives can bring contrary effects to those initially desired. While reviewing this, it made me wonder if, on the right conditions, those contrary effects could be used to get what you want.
We’re basicly talking about something like reverse psycology, a common technique used by parents, for example, to make their challenging kids to do what the parents want.
Then it came to me: could such technique be aplied to greater matter? could government make use of it as a valid policy?
Imagine the case where the administration of Enrique Peña Nieto, the one with the worst aproval rating in mexican history, wanted to make people read more and, in order to do that, they put Peña Nieto on a national broadcast saying that it is ok not to read, that he hates reading because reading is for stupid people. Is the despite for such carachter enough to make people read just because they are sure that what hi says must be wrong? Could something like the school example from the book happen here (but bringing benefical outcomes this time)? or people would faithfully follow the word of our president?
I have to recongnize that, in order to make my point, I went too far on my example. Even if that worked, it would never be a feasible policy since that would mean polictical suicide for the president (if there’s still something to lose ).
Despite that, I would like to know if someone can come up with valid channels, at any market, to take advantage of this kind of misconducts derived from incentives. Is it moral to use them?
I would love to discuss your ideas.