Does More Choice Lead To More Unhappiness?

The right to choose freely is one of the six basic consumer rights accepted worldwide. It is based on the assumption that when consumers are given an abundance of options for any particular goods or service, they can make a satisfying choice and this will lead to happiness.

But research done by psychologists in the last few years (Scientific American, December, 2004, Journal of Consumer Research, September, 2006) has come to the surprising conclusion that the opposite is true. This research is now again in the news since in the West, more choices than ever are available in the market place, but consumer happiness seems to be declining steadily. There is speculation that psychological problems such as depression which are spreading in society like an epidemic may also be connected to this "choice overload".

Logic suggests that having options allows people to select precisely what makes them happiest. But, as studies show, abundant choice often makes for misery. It is not clear if some choice is better than none, but more is certainly not better than less. This is especially relevant now in India when consumers are being offered more and more choices in the liberalized (profusion of consumer goods) and privatized (replacement of government monopolies with several private players) economy.

Psychologists have been able to pinpoint the ways in which availability of choice leads to unhappiness. Some of them are as follows:

1. To make the best use of the choice available, one has to read labels, read consumer magazines, make product comparisons and compare notes with other purchasers. Naturally, this takes enormous effort and time. So decision making becomes slower. Research by psychologists, Barry Schwartz of Swarthmore College, USA and Rachael Elwork and Sheena Iyengar of Columbia University, USA has found that people who do all this and finally make a decision are nagged by alternatives they did not have time to investigate. They compare themselves with others and if they have done better, the increase in their happiness is small, but if they did worse, the increase in their unhappiness is much higher. They tend to brood over their bad choices. As a result, persons who made the best use of the choices before them were less satisfied with life, less happy, less optimistic and more depressed. The problem becomes even more acute when more choices are available to them. Alvin Toffler, in his famous work "Future Shock", says that as the choice increases, "freedom of choice" ironically becomes the opposite - the "un-freedom".

Nobel prize winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman of Princeton University and Amos Tversky of Stanford University have shown that losses have a much greater psychological impact than gains. A less than the best choice hurts more than the best choice gives a good feeling. When there are plenty of choices, the number of less-than-the-best choices increases and hence one's misery.

Simona Botti (Cornell University) and Ann McGill (University of Chicago) have found that if the difference between the choices is small, the person making the choice feels more strongly that he has made a bad choice and hence is more unhappy.

2. People who make the best use of the choices before them have the highest regret sensitivity, as established by Schwartz, Elwork and Iyengar. With many options available, the chances increase that a really good one is out there, and they feel that they missed it. The more alternatives there are, the deeper is their sense of loss and the less satisfaction they derive from their final decision.

3. A process termed "adaptation" by psychologists is also responsible for unhappiness. When people purchase something new, they feel pleasure, but very soon they get used to it and the pleasure is no longer there (something akin to "Familiarity breeds contempt"). If they put in a lot of time and effort in making the best choice and the pleasure they get from it is gone within a short time, they will feel like a fool for having put in all that effort.

4. When plenty of choices are available, studies have found that people's expectations increase. When expectations are high, the probability of disappointment is also high.

The finding that giving more choices to people is likely to make them more unhappy has shaken one of the corner-stones of the consumer movement. It also has serious implications with respect to our system of elections in which the voter has several choices.

B.V.Shenoy, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

DEATH KNELL FOR PILS?

There are nearly 3.5 crore cases pending before various courts and tribunals in the country (11 Lakhs in Karnataka) and the average time for deciding a case is 15 years. It is estimated that government agencies are a party in two thirds of these cases and hence are the largest contributor to the delay in deciding cases.

In order to rapidly reduce the government's share of pending cases and thereby greatly reduce the burden on the courts, the Central Government has brought into effect the National Litigation Policy - NLP from July 1 (The policy is available here). By doing so, the government has finally recognized that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens and not trample upon them by subjecting them to endless litigation.

Except for a section which sounds like a death-knell for Public Interest Litigations, the policy is a welcome policy and if implemented properly, it should go a long way in reducing the backlog in courts and speeding up justice in India. The policy applies to all central government agencies and the government has asked all the state governments to enact similar policies for state government agencies also.

The important features of the new policy are:

1. All cases in which the government is a litigant will be conducted in a time-bound manner. Unnecessary and frequent adjournments will not be taken.

2. False pleas and technical points will not be taken.

3. Correct facts and all relevant documents will be placed before the court. The easy approach, "Let the court decide" will not be taken.

4. Nodal Officers who have legal background and expertise will be appointed in each department. They will be responsible for the proper implementation of the policy.

5. Four regional and one central empowered committees will be set up to monitor the functioning of nodal officers and government lawyers. These committees will fix responsibility for violations of the policy and for losing good cases and determine suitable punishments.

6. The government will not file appeals in a variety of cases which have been listed.

7. Arbitration as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism will be encouraged at every level.

8. Arbitration awards will not be routinely challenged.

9. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General will review all pending cases and filter frivolous and vexatious matters from the meritorious ones.

Despite these several good points in its favour, the new National Policy has one strong negative feature, one that could end all Public Interest Litigations against corruption and favouritism. According to the Policy, if interim orders are issued by a court to stop a public contract in any PIL, then the government will insist on compensation if the PIL is ultimately rejected. This threat that the petitioners will have to pay huge damages if they ultimately lose their case may discourage nuisance PILs, but it will also severely discourage genuine PILs. Many public spirited people and organizations are already spending a lot of their own money fighting public interest litigations, but if heavy damages are imposed if they lose their case, no one will come forward to file a PIL. Without PILs, corruption and favouritism become even more difficult to control.

It is shocking that this clause in the national policy is threatening punishment in the form of heavy damages to genuine PIL petitioners. The government which framed this policy may feel that courts are giving interim orders liberally against the government, but instead of addressing that issue, it is warning the public not to file PILs. After all, the Supreme Court has set strict guidelines to all the courts in the country on when to issue interim orders (read here). Before issuing interim orders, the courts have to examine closely whether

1. there is a prima facie case favouring the petitioners,

2. irreparable damage may be caused to the petitioners if the interim order is not issued, and

3. the balance of convenience favours the petitioners (i.e., the loss to the petitioners if the interim order is not issued is greater than the loss to the defendants if the order is passed).

It is obvious that if these guidelines are followed, frivolous and vexatious PILs are automatically weeded out. In addition, the courts also have the power to impose fines on frivolous and vexatious complaints. Instead of taking steps to make sure that all the courts follow the Supreme Court guidelines to eliminate nuisance complaints, the government is threatening the public, through NLP, with astronomical damages if they file PILs against it.

There is another danger with NLP's logic. What is said for interim orders today may be extended to final orders tomorrow. If that happens, you can have the High Court decide in your favour and if the High Court order is later overturned by the Supreme Court, you may have to pay damages. Then no one will even think of filing a PIL!

The sad thing is that the Supreme Court seems to have given its approval to the NLP clause on PILs. In Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999 I SCC 492) and BALCO Employees Union Vs. The Union of India (2002 II SCC 343), it has ruled that the petitioner must provide an indemnity to make good the loss in the event the PIL is dismissed.

In light of these Supreme Court decisions, it is very likely that courts will accede to the government's demand that the petitioners will have to pay damages if they ultimately lose their case. Therefore, it appears that the days of PILs against government corruption are over.

 

C.V. Nagaraj, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

BUILDING A LIBRARY IN PEOPLE'S PARK IS CONTEMPT OF COURT

When People's Park was leased to a private party for the construction of a Library/Shopping Complex, Mysore Grahakara Parishat filed a Public Interest Litigation No. 32447/95 (GM) in the Karnataka High Court, praying, among other things, that the Honourable Court issue a direction for the protection of the Park as mandated by the Karnataka Parks, Playfields, Open Spaces Act, 1985. According to the Act, no building except a small watchman's quarters can be built in a park. The case is still pending before the Honourable High Court. Any attempt by the Mysore City Corporation to build a library in the park (as reported in the local media recently) will constitute Contempt of Court. Mysore Grahakara Parishat will be initiating Contempt proceedings before the Honourable High Court. Earlier, in 2001, MCC had proposed constructing a bus stand on People's Park and after MGP published a notice similar to this one, the proposal was shelved.

Maj.Gen. (Rtd.) S.G. Vombatkere, Mysore Grahakara Parishat

Photos of the June 2010 issue of Grahaka Patrike

(B.Vaikunth Shenoy)

On the occasion of "World No Tobacco Day" (31-5-10), a booklet "Tobacco Kills" was released. From left, A.S.Satish of The Institute of Engineers (India), Mysore Local Centre, H.R.Bapu Satyanarayana (MGP). Prof. S.K. Ananda Thirtha (MGP), Vasanthkumar Mysoremath (MGP) and Prof. V. Jagannath (MGP)

(Syed Tanveeruddin)

 Curzon Park-2 which was renovated recently at a cost of Rs. 1 crore has no maintenance. Debris and weeds are everywhere.

(H.R.Bapu Satyanarayana)

Radhakrishnan Avenue bridge at the western end of Kukkarahalli Tank gets flooded whenever there are rains, because the drain-holes are not cleaned regularly.

 

(Syed Tanveeruddin)
A large stone building is being built in Curzon Park-2 in violation of the Karnataka Parks, Playfields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Rules, 1985.