Achi news desk-
In March 2004, the Republic of Ireland became the first country in the world to ban smoking in indoor public places, including bars and restaurants.
All countries that followed suit ended up wrestling with the same arguments. The bans were seen as a good idea for health reasons, but were widely opposed as against civil liberties, and potentially disastrous for the hospitality industry.
In 2005, only a third of British adults supported a full ban on smoking in pubs, which was eventually implemented in 2007. By 2014, 82% supported keeping it in place. No polling organization even asks the question anymore.
One reason behind this huge change in opinion is that smoking itself is now much less common in most countries (partly as a result of the bans themselves). But long-term trends cannot explain the fact that the popularity of smoking bans around the world increases dramatically almost immediately after they are imposed.
However, economics can help explain this shift in perception – and how humans are sometimes more receptive to change than we might think.
Game theory, which is the study of strategic choices, describes this type of phenomenon as “multiple equilibria”. It simply means that when our own choices depend on the choices of others, there is sometimes more than one possible outcome – and no reason to believe that one is more natural or fixed than the other.
So with smoking, in one situation (or equilibrium), almost all pubs used to allow smoking and that was generally considered normal and acceptable. Twenty years later, we have moved to another equilibrium where the absence of cigarette smoke in pubs is the norm.
Once you get used to the idea, you can see the concept of multiple equilibria everywhere.
For example, roads have two sides, and in some countries you drive on the left, in others you drive on the right. Both conventions are states of equilibrium. If everyone has agreed to drive on the left, you drive on the left too. It would be dangerous not to. But if everyone drives on the right, you do the same.
Urban planning is another example. When a city starts taking space away from cars, by pedestrianizing or adding bus lanes, it’s always controversial. But after giving more space to public transport, research suggests that the quality of the service tends to improve, and attracts more customers.
These new customers stimulate demand, which means that public transport becomes more regular, making it even more attractive.
And with fewer cars, walking and cycling become safer and more enjoyable too, so less space for cars doesn’t lead to higher congestion. In Barcelona or Brussels for example, car ownership decreased following large reductions in the space given to cars, and those who have a car use it less.
In this situation, there are again two equilibria: one where most people drive and where more space is provided for cars, and another where not many people drive, and a majority supports wider pavements and cycle lanes. A recent UK report found that more than twice as many residents of low-traffic neighborhoods support their local plan than oppose it.
e2dan/Shutterstock
Or consider how much time and attention we give to social media. There is evidence that many teenagers have a fear of missing out on these platforms, so spend time on Instagram or TikTok mainly because they expect their friends to be on it. But there is an alternative that is just as viable: a parallel world where no one joins social media and there is no interest in doing so.
Theory and reality
One problem with multiple equilibria is that they often remain hypothetical. The only way to prove they exist is when someone has managed to coordinate a change to another, as with the smoking bans.
A personal attempt to achieve this happened a few months ago, when a car almost hit my daughter while I was walking her to school along a sidewalk. The road in question is always busy with cars running to the school, with vehicles pushing for parking spaces on the edge of the pavement.
My interest in multiple equilibria led me to try to convince my local council to at least stop cars from driving on the pavement while children walk, cycle or scoot to school. I argued that it would make everyone safer and healthier. In fact, we know from a pilot project in Birmingham that banning cars altogether around some schools at drop-off time does not increase congestion.
I didn’t succeed. And I can’t really blame my local council for claiming that taking space from cars would send more of them onto other nearby roads. I was canvassing for a different situation – an alternative balance – which would require a major change, from the personal interest of a walker’s parent.
And it is also true that shifting equilibrium can create winners and losers. Some bars had to close because of the smoking bans, and some smokers are sure to wish they could still light up in their favorite pub. Some young people are much happier socializing virtually than in person. And some parents really love their cars.
But 20 years ago, Ireland showed us that things that once seemed unimaginable – like pubs that weren’t foggy with cigarette fumes – can become normal very quickly. It showed that there is not always just one balance, one way of doing things, which reflects most of our preferences. Jumping from one equilibrium to another is not easy – but as a society we can, and sometimes do, make significant changes to our way of life.
