In Singapore, the government almost never hands out goodies free of charge. There’s almost always a co-payment, even for health care and education. Western economists justify these charges as a partial remedy for “moral hazard.”
But perhaps Singapore has been more successful in selling the idea because it’s got better marketing. They don’t defend co-payments as a way to avoid moral hazard. They defend co-payments as a way to avoid a “buffet mentality.”
Great slogan, no? Economic educators, formal and informal, take note!
READER COMMENTS
Dave
Jan 8 2009 at 4:12pm
Reminds me of the “cafeteria Catholic” metaphor.
Steve Miller
Jan 8 2009 at 5:24pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7884113202622628827&hl=en
@ 2:35 in I explain moral hazard (and adverse selection), using the example of an all-you-can-eat buffet.
I’m pretty sure I got the idea from Bryan, though.
dearieme
Jan 8 2009 at 6:48pm
As distinct from Buffet?
chug
Jan 8 2009 at 8:03pm
Many years ago I was with a university continuing education program that offered free admission to graduate students. The no-show rate for these “free registrations” was almost 100%. So I implemented a $5 charge, and the student registration rate dropped by about 75% but almost all graduate students who paid $5 for registration (rather than the regular $195 rate) showed up.
Requiring a token fee is a good way to cut down on “free things.”
csning
Jan 9 2009 at 10:11am
“But perhaps Singapore has been more successful in selling the idea because it’s got better marketing.”
Right, and I’m completely sure that the fact that it is functionally a one party system and a restrictive semi – democracy has nothing at all to do with that.
Instareader
Jan 9 2009 at 7:15pm
[Comment removed for supplying false email address. Email the webmaster@econlib.org to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog.–Econlib Ed.]
Comments are closed.