This essay will examine what a social dilemma is and how it comes about. We will examine two examples of this phenomenon to draw the reasons for it and understand what possible solutions exist to solve or prevent social dilemmas.
The social dilemma illustrates the dynamic in which collective action is necessary when there is a conflict between the immediate, personal, or selfish interests of individuals and the interests that would benefit a larger proportion of a group. At the heart of the social dilemma is a rupture between the cost/benefit logic of the individual and that of the group. It is what we call 'externalities' that create this disjunction between the different agents of the problem. For instance, public goods are non-rival and non-exclusive, so it is not possible to exclude their use by one individual and they can be consumed or used by several people. This implies that the item in question will have several externalities and that it cannot, therefore, be managed efficiently and simply with the cost-benefit analysis, thus the social dilemma arises.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Another important concept to consider in explaining the social dilemma is that for any decision taken, individuals will receive a greater outcome out of acting together instead of pursuing their interests. When individuals benefit from positive externalities but produce negative externalities in return without suffering consequences, this results in a macroeconomic imbalance that makes the system unsustainable in the long term. The social dilemma can be described as a tragedy because individuals know that their choices could harm the group, but there is nothing they can do individually to change it. Therefore, no one has an interest in changing their behavior even if it will have negative consequences for the whole group.
The first news item reports how London exceeded the annual limits for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in just a week. NO2 is a gas produced by diesel vehicles that pollutes the air enormously and has serious impacts on health. The health report commissioned by Boris Johnson to evaluate the situation in London shows that this gas is said to have caused several thousands of premature deaths (Vaughan, 2016). So why is this gas used? It is an essential component in modes of transportation, especially cars. The only way to lower these levels of emission would be to restrict the number of cars to avoid congestion or to implement new effective policies or new technologies. This implies that individuals would have to refrain from using their cars, to instead act together and use public transportation or a car-sharing system. Thus, individuals are presented with a social dilemma. The second one implies that the government has to choose whether or not it wants to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to develop new effective ways to lower these levels to clean the air or instead choose to implement policies restricting the usage of certain cars in certain zones which could potentially be a good solution, but it would not benefit car owners nor have the long-term positive effects, thus another social dilemma arises. The third one implies that companies should develop new cars that emit less NO2. This could mean that individuals could continue using their cars without worrying about exceeding the limits however these cars cost more money to make so benefit the companies which introduces a social dilemma (Schwanen, 2019).
The Second news item reports that George Osbourne did not prioritize flood defense in budget management but instead decided to use state resources to reduce the deficit (Stewart, McVeigh, Perraudin, Gayle, & Carrington, 2015). As a result, thousands of people had to be evacuated after the Franck storm that occurred in the United Kingdom. This has resulted in an urgent need to increase infrastructure spending to adapt to climate change. However, studies have been carried out, in particular by Professor Simon Wren-Lewis, who indicates that the government has not taken any measures to deal with the growing threats of extreme weather phenomena. Investment projects show that the government is willing to spend about 7 times more to build roads and high-speed trains rather than to protect the country from floods. Here the social dilemma involves the state’s budget management. They are presented with the choice to either invest in new technologies and develop sectors such as transportation, or to invest in the protection of the country against extreme weather and climate change. One option could reduce the deficit or improve the mobility of its citizens whereas the other option could lead to spending money on the safeguarding of individuals' homes and other infrastructures. The first option seems to be more pressing in the eyes of the government but the second one is more important in the long term and affects the group more directly.
These situations satisfy the definition of a social dilemma because the government and the individuals are presented with two possible choices that will lead to two completely different outcomes that have a different effects on society. Thus, they must decide whether to give priority to their economic interests and therefore make a selfish decision or to prioritize the special needs of the entire group and make a cooperative decision. So, there is a disjunction between the cost/benefit analysis of the group which is also known as a social dilemma. Furthermore, a social dilemma almost always involves the use of public goods that are difficult for institutions to manage. In the first case, it is a question of prioritizing the mobility of the population or the cleanliness of the air and therefore the health of individuals. In the second case, it is a question of prioritizing the safety of the community and of the infrastructures or the use of the resources to reduce the deficit and invest in and develop other sectors. A component of the social dilemma definition is that an outcome influenced by an individual is inferior to if the whole group acted together (The Core Team, 2014). Indeed, for the first case if all individuals decided to use public transport and other measures to reduce air pollution, then London and other major cities wouldn’t have breached the annual limits in a week. As for the second news report, if all individuals acted collectively to prevent climate change, there would not be a necessity to invest in safeguarding coastal houses and infrastructures
Conclusion
There are two general ways of solving this imbalance to deal with social dilemmas. The first would be to increase the interdependency of individuals. This would be to make them more connected so that when they are presented with a social dilemma, their choice will have a domino effect of consequences which will prevent the individuals from making a selfish decision. If interdependence between individuals increases, externalities decrease which also reduces the likelihood of a social dilemma. For example, in the second case, if the government was directly affected by floods and other damages, it would not hesitate to invest in the fight against them. The second way of solving social dilemmas would be to implement a top-down structure to regulate externalities. In the definitions of social dilemma, we examined how a macroeconomic imbalance is created when individuals benefit from positive externalities but produce negative externalities in return without suffering consequences. That is why it would be important for these individuals to pay for the damage while reintroducing those externalities in the cost/benefit analysis to create a sustainable future. For example, in the first case, if fines were distributed for each limit violation, individuals would be more careful out of fear of having to pay and companies would be more invested in making sustainable cars.
In my opinion, these solutions could indeed be the key to solving social dilemmas. Individuals are profit-oriented, which confirms that fines and other policies make them think twice before they violate the law or limits imposed by the government. They will apply the state's demands for fear of having to sacrifice their property. This is why increasing their connectivity is also a valid solution in the same sense that individuals will choose the solution that costs them the least in terms of time and effort. To avoid the social dilemma, individuals must understand that in most cases, if they act together, the result will be better than if everyone thinks about their interests. So, I think the state must continue to incentivize a more collective behavior such as carpooling to not exceed the air pollution limits. Individuals and the state must both cooperate to find effective and rapid solutions that would have the best consequences for both parties but especially for the planet. In the case of climate change, individuals must certainly make efforts to pollute less by changing their usual behavior, but the government should support and push for a more drastic change.
Stuck on your essay?
