How should we encourage kindness?

Kindness is the greatest of all virtues. That is not just my opinion - the importance of kindness has been widely acknowledged for thousands of years. Some prefer to say that charity or love is the greatest virtue, but that seems to me to amount to the same thing. The concept charity or love that has particular virtue is loving-kindness. 

Psychological research provides support for the view that kindness is worth encouraging. Apart from obvious benefits to the recipients, there is evidence that kindness also has positive spill-over effects. Research by Simone Schnall and colleagues indicates that when people see another person perform a good deed they are more likely to be helpful to others. Such behaviour seems to be linked to feelings of elevation.

There is also evidence that kindness is good for those who practice it. Research by Barbara Fredrickson, Bethany Kok et al suggests that when people generate feelings of loving-kindness they tend to experience improved physical health (measured by cardiac vagal tone). The research suggests that perceptions of positive social connections with others account for the link between positive emotions and improved physical health.

I feel slightly embarrassed to be writing about the merits of kindness and how we should encourage greater kindness. That is partly because I am aware of shortcomings in my own behaviour. The main reason, however, is that the merits of kindness have been so widely acknowledged for such a long period that it probably seems platitudinous for someone like me to be asking people to consider how we should encourage it.

Some of my friends might think I should leave advocacy of kindness to religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama (who is currently in Australia preaching kindness) and focus my own efforts on promoting more widespread understanding of the merits of free markets in enabling individuals to promote the good of others by pursuing their own interests. I urge those friends to read on and to further consider the relationship between kindness and self-interest.

I think economists, among others, should be considering how to encourage kindness because incentives to engage in beneficial economic activities are likely to be greater in societies in which people are kinder. That proposition is not new. It is more usually stated in terms of the importance of trustworthiness in reducing transactions costs, including costs of contract enforcement and protection of persons and property. It seems reasonable to assume that kind people are generally more trustworthy than unkind people.

Are western societies becoming less kind? The answer seems to me to depend on the time frame considered. There seems to have been a secular trend toward greater kindness and less violence in western societies, as Steven Pinker has argued (see an earlier post for relevant comments). Over recent decades, however, there does seem to be increased incivility in many aspects of life including politics and workplaces.

Incivility in politics was very obvious in Australia last week, but I want to focus here on evidence of widespread and increasing incivility in workplaces. In 2011, about half of the workers included in a large US and Canadian study (by Christine Porath and Christine Pearson) claimed to have been treated rudely at work in the past week, whereas in 1998 only a quarter made that claim. Claims have been made that a similar epidemic of incivility is also occurring in Australian workplaces.

I doubt whether the incidence of incivility has actually doubled. It is possible that many people have become more sensitive to criticism of their performance and perhaps more prone to interpret constructive criticism as incivility.

Nevertheless, Porath and Pearson provide impressive evidence that incivility in workplaces is not a trivial matter. Those affected claim that it causes them to reduce their work effort. Managers spend a lot of time dealing with the aftermath of incivility. And customers are turned away when they witness disrespectful behaviour among employees.

Perhaps the most obvious way to reduce incivility is by making rules that will discourage offending behaviours. I suspect, however, that a plethora of rules is an ineffectual way to encourage kindness. The apparent increase in incivility has occurred at a time of increased regulation to prevent extreme acts of incivility (e.g. discrimination on grounds of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability). Workplace bullying could be expected to thrive in environments where staff are unable to achieve expected outcomes without breaching rules of conduct intended to prevent incivility.

Most of the recommendations made by Porath and Pearson to reduce incivility do seem likely to encourage more kindly behaviour in workplaces. They suggest, among other things, that leaders should look to their own behaviour, take more account of civility in hiring staff and reward good behaviour. Interestingly, such remedies would seem fairly obvious to any business leaders concerned to promote the interests of shareholders. Incivility in workplaces will presumably become less of a problem as business leaders become more aware of its effects on the bottom line.

More generally, it seems to me that the best way to encourage kindness is to make people more aware that kindness is good for those who practice it.  

What has been the most important milestone in replacing tyrannical government?

This question was prompted by a visit to the new Museum of Australian Democracy at Eureka (MADE) at Ballarat in Victoria. I was impressed by the material presented about the Eureka rebellion of 1854, the culmination of a protest by self-employed gold miners against an oppressive licence fee, levied irrespective of the amount of gold found. Taxation without representation was one of the miners’ grievances, but it is not clear how many miners saw an extension of voting rights to all adults as an objective of their protests. 

The material presented in the display includes the following statement by Peter Lalor, a leader of the rebellion, a couple of years later when he was a member of the Victorian parliament:

‘I would ask these gentlemen what they mean by the term “democracy”. Do they mean Chartism or Republicanism? If so, I never was, I am not now, nor do I ever intend to be a democrat. But if a democrat means opposition to a tyrannical press, a tyrannical people, or a tyrannical government, then I have been, I am still, and will ever remain a democrat'.

Lalor seems to have had in mind a definition of democracy similar to that later adopted by Karl Popper, which emphasizes the importance of being able to dismiss governments that have tyrannical tendencies. Unfortunately, the granting of voting rights to all adults does not always prevent the emergence of governments that act tyrannically with the support of the majority.

The aspect of MADE that I found most confronting was the attempt to put the Eureka rebellion into context in a timeline for the development of democracy. According to the timeline presented, the most significant event following the Magna Carta was the French Revolution. That seemed odd to me because the French Revolution replaced a form of tyranny with something worse – a reign of terror!

Other aspects of timeline presented tend to glorify revolution. For example, the display invites visitors to view Karl Marx as a hero of democracy.

MADE’s problem probably stems from the definition of democracy it adopts:

People + Power = Democracy.

Which people? What power? The definition fails to recognize that different people have different interests and that the success of some groups in obtaining favours from governments must be at the expense of other groups. It fails to distinguish the desirable features of a democratic regime from the tyranny of the mob. It also fails to recognize that tyrants often portray their efforts to exercise unlimited power as being in the interests of ‘the people’ - and often have substantial popular support.

My visit to MADE occurred while I was reading The Oxford History of Britain, edited by Kenneth Morgan. The chapters by John Morrill and Paul Langford, dealing with the Stuarts, the Civil Wars and the eighteenth Century, seem to be particularly relevant in considering the most important milestones in replacing tyrannical government. My reading has given me the impression that prior to the 17^th Century, politics in England (and in many other countries) was essentially authoritarian. In England, politics was dominated by the hereditary rights of sovereigns and competition to impose particular religious doctrines in order to make people less sinful. During the 17^th Century in England the idea that religion should be viewed as largely a private matter began to gain acceptance and the hereditary rights of sovereigns became less influential.

It seems to me that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 should be viewed as the most important milestone in replacing tyrannical government.  By legitimizing the replacement of James II with William and Mary, the propertied classes represented in parliament were rejecting the idea that ancestry should determine who has the right to exercise political power. The Glorious Revolution was followed by the Toleration Act of 1689 which gave formal recognition to religious pluralism, and was an important step toward giving equal rights to followers of all religions. 

Is ambition making you miserable?

A guest post by Kelly Opferman (further information below) to open up discussion on an interesting topic.

There have been some interesting discussions recently about the role that ambition plays in our overall feeling of happiness, including one piece in The Atlantic. The question is whether or not your reaching for career success undermines your sense of happiness and your overall well-being. There has not been a conclusive answer to the question, but the consensus seems to be that  is indeed a trade-off that you make when you shift your focus to your career and other accomplishments.

Here are a few reasons why too much ambition may be undermining your happiness and maybe even making you miserable:

Comes at the Cost of Relationships

The primary reason why your ambition could by making you unhappy is that it comes at the cost of your relationships. Tim Kasser, the author of the book The High Price of Materialism, argues that the pursuit of money, possessions and social status creates distress and lowers well-being, primarily because of the damage that such pursuits inflict on relationships.

Researchers John Helliwell and Robert Putnam found in a 2004 study that marriage, family, social ties, civic engagement and working relationships all had a significant impact on happiness.

If it is our relationships that make us happy, then neglecting these in the pursuit of our ambition can cause us to become profoundly unhappy.

Leads to Loneliness

Conventional wisdom says it's lonely at the top. That's because you don't have time for relationships when you are putting in the long hours to achieve your goals or try to gain prominence in your workplace. Even if you manage to maintain relationships while pursuing your ambition, you likely won't have the time that you would like to spend with those people and to enrich your relationships.

As a result, you will have achieved great successes, but it will likely feel empty. You may feel happiness at having accomplished something great, but the victory will feel hollow when you don't have those strong personal connections to form the foundation for a happy life.

Creates a Lot of Stress

Working long hours without making time for family and friends can lead to unhealthy levels of stress, which can bring down your mood and put you at risk for a number of health problems. A new study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that ambition is negatively associated with longevity -- meaning that ambitious people are likely to live shorter lives. Ongoing high levels of stress can lead to depression, sleep problems, and a number of other chronic health conditions. Not only can it reduce your overall feelings of happiness, but it can also shorten your life span.

The researchers in the Journal of Applied Psychology said that more research is needed to determine the real link between ambition and happiness. However, the research that has already been done shows that there is reason to believe that the more ambitious you are, the less happy you are likely to be.

What are your thoughts? Do you think that ambition can make you miserable? Share your thoughts in the comments!

The Author:

Kelly Opferman is a seasoned writer who at this time focuses on her site at: http://www.autoloancalculator.org. Her educational background includes finance, teaching, and economics.

Postscript by Winton

I have now had an opportunity to read a version of the article in the Journal of Applied Psychology, that Kelly refers to. The overall findings in the article, by Timothy Judge and John Kammeyer-Mueller, suggest that the effects of ambition are generally favourable for the individuals who have it. The qualification about longevity seems to me to be more about inconclusive results than evidence of a negative relationship. The authors found that ambition is positively related to educational attainment, incomes and satisfaction with life.

The study seems to be soundly based. Data are from the Terman life cycle study in the US, involving a sample of 717 individuals followed over seven decades. The most important qualification about the sample is that subjects were chosen for inclusion in the Terman study because they were assessed to have high ability.

The definition of ambition used by the authors is ‘persistent and generalized striving for success, attainment and accomplishment’. It is measured by a combination of self-assessment and parental assessment of whether the individual has ‘a definite purpose in life’ and whether ambition is listed among the individual’s most favourable qualities or lack of ambition is listed among the individual’s most serious faults.

In their suggestions for further research, the authors acknowledge that the effects of ambition may depend on the goals that are sought. For example, other research suggests that people who seek fame or wealth for the pleasure they imagine that it will bring them, are less likely to have happy lives than those who have nobler ambitions.  

Should Australians be more concerned about budget deficits or big government?

We live in strange times. A few months ago, when the Australian government had little hope of achieving its promised budget surplus, it seemed likely to face severe punishment for fiscal mismanagement. Since then the short term budget situation has worsened, but the treasurer has been able to mount a plausible argument that this has happened as a result of factors beyond the government's control. Wayne Swan has been able to argue that 'we've had this sledgehammer smash into our revenues' as a result of the high dollar and lower commodity prices. The federal opposition, fearful of being labelled as favouring 'mindless austerity', has now walked away from its commitment to have a surplus in its first year of office. So, the government seems to be off the hook!

Rather than showing contrition, Wayne Swan seems to be taking advantage of the situation to engineer a change in public attitudes towards deficits. His recent criticism of European finance ministers for their austerity policies must have been intended largely for an Australian audience. Wayne must know that the Europeans have not chosen austerity. With few exceptions, European finance ministers would love to be able to follow his example of ongoing increases in government spending. Austerity has been forced upon them as a consequence of decades of profligacy.

I suspect that Wayne Swan is denouncing option A (austerity) so severely because he favours option D (deficits for a decade). The next budget should confirm whether or not my suspicions are well-founded. The big test is whether it presents a plausible route to budget surplus within a few years, or whether he tries to make ongoing deficits look respectable.

How might Mr Swan attempt to make ongoing deficits look respectable? He would probably find it difficult to argue in favour of never-ending fiscal stimulus: even Keynesians would have to acknowledge that fiscal stimulus for more than 5 or 6 years in a row could be difficult to justify. Perhaps he will attempt to advance a dodgy argument along the lines that low world interest rates provide Australia with the opportunity to borrow at low cost in order to pay for increased investment in human capital (implementing Gonski proposals for increased education funding) and help us to meet the challenges of the Asian century (whatever that might mean). He could suggest that such a policy would raise productivity and thus generate income streams that would enable the debt to be serviced without any problems. (I think the argument is dodgy because the Gonski proposals are unlikely to have much impact on productivity – but that is another story.)

Would the electorate buy such an argument for ongoing fiscal deficits? Jacob Greber has an interesting article in this weekend's Financial Review ('Swan changes his tune', p 16) in which he argues that voters may care about budget deficits far more than the government anticipates. He points to a Nielson poll suggesting that the percentage of voters viewing a surplus as a high priority rose after the government abandoned its promise of a surplus in the current fiscal year. A poll in February suggested that 54 percent of voters viewed a surplus as a high priority (up from 49 percent before the promise was abandoned), and 41 percent (down from 45 percent) viewed it as a low priority.

I hope Greber is right, but I think public opinion is likely to become more favourable to dodgy arguments for increasing government debt if a surplus can only be achieved during the next few years through tax increases or substantial cuts in government spending. I suspect a majority for voters would favour increasing debt to fund additional education spending if an option was presented to them in those terms.

In my view, Government debt is still at a sufficiently low level in Australia that it could not plausibly be argued that servicing that debt is likely to present a problem in the near future. The government's failure to achieve a budget surplus this year is only of consequence because it is muddying the waters about the importance of maintaining fiscal discipline as it runs away from that stupid promise. Irresponsibility is being heaped upon stupidity.

In my view there is reason to be concerned that the cautious attitudes that Australians have shown toward increasing public debt in recent decades could be quite a fragile phenomenon. John Daley has expressed a similar view in his report for the Grattan Institute, Budget pressures on Australian governments:

'There are concerns that this public attitude may be eroded by several years of budget deficits, and the accompanying rhetoric justifying this in both Australia and overseas. Public concern about deficits may also be affected by promises for specific costly programs and political attitudes projecting a belief in the ability of government to cure all social ills'.

Daley's report provides an excellent overview of the contribution of increases in different forms government spending to budget deficits. Growth in spending on health seems to present the biggest challenge.

However, Daley seems to be more concerned about the potential for budget deficits to increase than about the growth of government spending. He is at pains to point out that budget deficits can be a problem in countries with relatively low levels of government spending as a percentage of GDP and that size of government in Australia is relatively low by OECD standards. He argues on historical grounds that 'successful budget repair invariably involves both tax increases and expenditure reductions'.

Stephen Anthony's report for the Minerals Council, A roadmap for fiscal sustainability, seems to imply that we should be concerned about the growth of government spending over the longer term, even if tax revenue could be lifted sufficiently to prevent fiscal deficits from growing. His projections suggest that the federal government will still have a structural deficit a decade ahead even if it manages to restrain spending to a rate below the growth rate of the economy. His recommendations include elimination of up to $15 billion in poorly targeted outlays as well as institutional reforms to re-orient fiscal strategy around a structural budget measure designed to prevent spending from blowing out of control when commodity booms result in windfall tax revenues.

Andrew Baker's report for the Centre for Independent Studies, Target 30 – Tax-welfare churn and the Australian Welfare State, provides some clues as to where poorly targeted outlays might be found. The report suggests that around one-half of government welfare spending in Australia is due to tax-welfare churn, where government taxes middle and high income earners and then returns those taxes in the form of welfare benefits, usually with conditions and requirements attached. Baker argues for reductions in government spending in specific areas of churn, with savings returned to taxpayers through reduced taxes.

In considering whether Australians should be more concerned about the budget deficit or big government, some consideration should also be given to the question of Australia's ability to cope with big government. As I pointed out in Free to Flourish countries differ greatly in their ability to cope with big government. For example, Sweden seems to have been able to cope with government spending that is still around 50 percent of GDP without huge problems so far, whereas the Greek economy was exposed to a great risk of calamity before its government spending reached that level.

Where does Australia stand? It seems to me that the political institutions and public administration of this country are struggling to cope with existing responsibilities. It makes no sense for governments to be spending more and taking on additional responsibilities when they cannot even sort out which level of government has responsibility for what function.

That leaves me more concerned about big government than about the budget deficit. The federal government should be castigated for allowing government spending to increase faster than GDP.