Social Policy Bonds and price signalling

 One of the less obvious benefits of a Social Policy Bond regime arises from the price signalling of the market for the bonds. At flotation, the bonds would be auctioned, and difference between the sums raised at flotation and the total redemption value of the bonds would supply the market's best estimate of the cost of achieving the targeted goal at that time. This estimate would vary over time, depending on many factors including bondholders' performance in undertaking or financing goal-achieving projects. The market for Social Policy Bonds, then, as with all markets, plays a vital role not only in allocating resources but also in signalling to the bonds' backers the approximate costs of achieving social goals. The bonds' backers, that is, those who put up the funds for redeeming the bonds, could be in the public or private sectors: either way, this information is of great value. 

A competitive market for Social Policy Bonds would minimise the total cost of achieving a specified objective, as well as signalling it. More subtly, and more technically, it would also indicate the marginal cost of achieving further improvements. Say one million Crime Reduction Bonds issued by a local authority were to sell for $5 each. This would tell the issuing body that the present value of the expected maximum cost, including bondholders’ profits, of reducing the crime level from, say 50 to 40 units, would be $5 million. The local authority might then suppose that it could afford to be more ambitious, and aim for a further fall to 30 units. It could issue a million additional bonds redeemable when this new lower rate were reached. These would (probably) have an initial market value of less than $5, reflecting the (probably) diminishing returns involved in preventing crime. The point is that, by letting the market do the pricing of the bonds, the local authority would be getting an informed view of the marginal cost of its objectives. So if the bonds targeting the new level of 30 units were to sell for $4 each, then the maximum cost of achieving that objective would be $11 million, being equal to: $5 million (paid out when the level fell from 50 to 40 units) plus $6 million (paid out when the level fell from 40 to 30 units). The marginal cost of a 10-unit drop in crime would thus have been revealed to have risen from $5 million to $6 million. Should the local authority aim for a further fall to 20 units? Following such crime rate-targeting bond issues it would have robust information about the cost of doing so.

This is, of course, a simplified example and in fact the bond market would continuously update its pricing information. Say that new research, of the sort that might be stimulated by an initial bond issue targeting crime, suggested new ways of reforming or deterring criminals. Bondholders may, for example, have financed successful research into more effective reform programmes, or set up more appealing alternative lifestyles for especially hardened criminals. How would the market react to such developments? Once their effectiveness had been revealed, the value of all the bonds would rise. Instead of being priced at $5 and $4, the two crime reduction issues of the example might sell for $8 and $7. The total cost to the government of redeeming these bonds would not change: it would remain at $11 million (though redemption would most probably occur earlier). But the market would be generating new information as to the likely cost of future reductions in the crime rate. The market would now be expecting reductions of 10 units of crime to cost $2 million (from 50 to 40 units), and $3 million (from 40 to 30 units). The new research would have reduced the costs from $5 million and $6 million (respectively). So the cost of any further crime reductions would also fall, and by following market price movements policymakers could gauge approximately by how much. 

These figures are hypothetical, but they do indicate the role that markets for Social Policy Bonds could play in helping the government, and taxpayers, decide on their spending priorities. The market for the bonds is elegantly efficient in conveying information about the cost of achieving objectives and, crucially for policymakers, how this cost varies with time and circumstances. I discuss this in Chapter 5 of my book.

The system is corrupt

Two excerpts from recent readings:

In the Rostov region, in southern Russia, the owner of several stalls that sell local produce says she dreams of having her own fuel tanker. “They can all go to hell with their ideas and grand ambitions,” she says. “They” include Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky, Emmanuel Macron and local governors. “We used to live just fine. Now all you do is scramble from one problem to the next.” Russians are growing anxious and angry, 'Economist', 8 July 2026

The SNP [Scottish National Party] has been winning by default for years now. Everyone knows the party is exhausted and out of ideas, but people keep voting for it for want of anything better. And, like Labour when it ruled Scotland, it never tries anything new. Why bother? The day before [Peter] Murrell’s sentencing, the party’s eight remaining Westminster MPs backed a presentation bill aimed at devolving independence referendum powers to Holyrood. These bills are highly unlikely to be passed. A futile gesture. Business as usual. Stealing from the SNP, Dani Garavelli, 'London Review of Books', 9 July 2026

The real political divide, I think, is not so much between left and right, or government and opposition, but between politicians and ordinary people. There are probably convincing psychoanalytical explanations for why those who pursue and attain power lose sight of whatever ideals they might have had, but more important is what we can do to close the gap between those with power and the people they are supposed to represent. Part of the reason for this gap is that we live in systems under which politicians can avoid being accountable for outcomes that are meaningful to ordinary people. Instead they make vague, unverifiable promises, and their debates centre around funding arrangements, institutional structures, and legalisms. 

My thinking is that we need to re-orientate policy discussions and express policy goals in terms of long-term meaningful outcomes such as reduced crime rates, improvements in literacy, health and the environment. Ideally, too, we'd devise a way of channeling the market's incentives and efficiencies into the achievement of these outcomes, and my suggestion is that we transition to a Social Policy Bond regime. This could be done gradually, Take health, for example. In the UK, central government provides funding for regional health authorities (for spending on doctors, hospitals and prescriptions) according mainly to
population level, age and need. Government also supplies funds directly to medical research organizations and academic institutions. A transition to a Social Policy Bond-based, rather than institution- or activity- based, funding programme would see the direct funding government gradually decline, while expenditure allocated by bondholders to the outcomes that all these institutions are collectively trying to achieve — longer life spans and a better quality of life, say — would gradually rise. Bondholders would face continuous incentives to make sure their funds are allocated only to those institutions with the most promising approaches to improving people's health. Those institutions could be already existing or new, public- or private-sector. There is more on how this sort of gradual transition can be achieved in Chapter 4 of my book, and more about applying the Social Policy Bond principle to health in the links on this page.

Someone understands the Social Policy Bond principle!

Kylie Mohr writes: 

As prediction markets boom and a new wildfire season begins, fire survivors and ethicists say that the betting encourages and rewards callous thinking — and dangerous behavior, too. One major concern stemming from wildfire prediction markets is arson. ...Theoretically, making a bet could give someone the perverse incentive to start a fire, or help one grow. Unlike other disasters, such as hurricanes, flooding or extreme heat, a fire can be manipulated in minutes by just one person. “Systems that tie financial gain to wildfire outcomes risk encouraging misuse, including arson, and are not compatible with our mission,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service said. Will betting on wildfires lead to arson?, Kylie Mohr, 29 June 2026

This is how Social Policy Bonds were conceived: define an uncertain future event and allow people to bet on whether it will occur or not. If enough people bet enough money, they will have an incentive to co-operate to make that event happen. Simple. Social Policy Bonds would target desirable social and environmental goals. Though some bondholders would be mere speculators, others would be motivated by the prospect of potential increases in the value of their bonds, to help achieve the targeted goal. The aim is to channel people's self-interest - their wish to win a bet - into improving society's well-being. Targeted goals have to be chosen carefully. A bond regime would show the most marked improvement over conventional policy when: goals are long term; when current policy is failing; and when diverse, adaptive approaches will be necessary. I've written about applying them to goals that fulfil all these criteria: including eliminating conflict, reducing crime, unemployment or climate change. Each goal must ideally be objectively verifiable. Though the non-tradeable variant of my idea is currently being implemented in about 25 countries, the original conception has yet to be tried. One possibility could be target for reduction the area of land lost to wildfire in, say, the United States, in one year....

Small wars and nuclear peace

The Economist writes about great power equilibrium: 

But for a balance of power to bring a new order it must do more than satisfy the two main actors. It must also bring stability to others or be flexible enough to encompass change. It must offer something of what Britain brought to 19th-century Europe through policies which sought to preserve the status quo by ensuring no country could dominate. Wars still happened, but their goal, as Henry Kissinger put it, was equilibrium, not total conquest. Unfortunately, as Dr [Francis] Fukuyama points out, using small wars to recalibrate the balance of power in a world studded with nuclear weapons will court catastrophe. How such a system could function is a mystery. America's wrecking-ball revolution, the 'Economist', 2 July 2026

Right; and small wars aren't going to stop happening any time soon. Does anybody seriously believe that there are there are systems in place that will effectively stop them becoming nuclear if one or other of the protagonists have the means to use them? We've been lucky, so far. The number of warheads has fallen from about 70000 since the Cold War, but there are now nine countries in possession of 12187 warheads, and those numbers are likely to increase. 

Consider the incentives on offer to those in power today: if they possess nuclear weapons they can initiate a conflict knowing that they can dictate its course by threatening, implicitly or otherwise, to deploy them. If the target of their aggression doesn't possess nuclear weapons or if the target cares more about its civilian population than the aggressor, then at some point our luck is likely to run out. It might be today, it might be in a few years, but the number of countries with nuclear weapons continues to proliferate and we should not have to rely on those in power to continue to exercise restraint at all times. The taboo against threatening use of nuclear weapons has been broken. It now appears inevitable that, before long, the taboo against their use will also be broken. Our political systems reward those most adept at acquiring power. Threatening the use of nuclear weapons is one way in which a regime can hold on to that power.

What can ordinary people - those of us who are content not to have the power to kill millions of human beings - do, faced with the realistic possibility that the nuclear taboo will be violated some time soon? My suggestion is that we issue Nuclear Peace Bonds. These bonds would be redeemable for a fixed sum only when a targeted array of indicators of peace had been achieved and sustained for a period of at least thirty years. They would reward those who do most to reduce the likelihood of nuclear conflict. Backed by a combination of governments, non-governmental organisations, philanthropists and ordinary people, they would encourage a variety number of diverse, adaptive peace-generating approaches. Some would inevitably fail; the way the market for the bonds would work means that these efforts would be terminated and resources diverted into more promising initiatives.

The effect of Nuclear Peace Bonds would be to give incentives to accelerate and guide our progress toward a less violent world more efficiently than has happened so far: a protracted, haphazard and bloody path that has given us a less violent world until now, but also one that has left us fearful of nuclear catastrophe. We can do better than that. By acknowledging that not all approaches are going to work, and supplying incentives for those that do, we can guide and accelerate evolutionary processes to bring about, as quickly and efficiently as possible, what is surely our one of our most urgent goals: sustained nuclear peace.

Defensive medicine

When adherence to process becomes more important than outcomes, it's time to complain. One example is the practice of defensive medicine: 

Between 60 and 90 percent of U.S. physicians report practicing defensive medicine, defined as the practice of ordering of tests, procedures, and other medical care solely to reduce the threat of malpractice liability.  This additional care has been estimated to cost the U.S. as much as $50 billion annually, and this likely underestimates the scope of the problem. Why do so many doctors practice defensive medicine? maybe because it works, Anupam B Jena et al, 16 May 2016 

'It works' in the title of that study does not mean that defensive medicine generates better health outcomes; rather: 

[It was found that] physicians with higher spending in a given year—in other words, the physicians who ordered more tests or procedures for the “typical” patients—were substantially less likely to be sued for a malpractice incident occurring the following year. Source, cited in the above paper, but not currently visible on the web)

Doctors are reacting rationally to the incentives on offer: they are liable for under-diagnosis, but not for over-diagnosis. The incentives aren't solely financial: in the UK 'the primary driver behind this trend [toward over-testing] often lies in a "better safe than sorry" mindset, coupled with a growing emphasis on preventive medicine.' (Source)

The problems caused by over-diagnosis are not limited to its waste of resources arising from unnecessary treatment and its adverse effects, and treatments that bring no benefit: there are also the psychological harms such as anxiety, stress, depression, and the burden of being unnecessarily labelled as having a disease. 

We need to rejig the incentives so they align with people's health. I suggest we explicitly target broad, meaningful indicators of national health and reward improvements in these indicators however they are achieved. Funding should be dictated by its expected benefits to people, rather than to liability lawyers. Resources should be directed to where they will achieve the maximum improvement in health per pound spent. Such improvement could be measured using such indicators as Quality Adjusted Life Years, longevity and an array of other measures. 

My suggestion, therefore, is that we apply the Social Policy Bond concept to health, and issue Tradeable Health Outcome Bonds (THOCs), which would provide incentives to research, develop and refine all approaches to improving our health, including measures that are currently thought to be beyond the remit of health authorities, but that could nevertheless generate large positive health improvements. Such measure might include measures as varied as better public transport for low-income households, subsidised apprenticeships, or lobbying for more controls on alcohol outlets. There are many other possibilities - but, currently,  few incentives to explore their potential health impacts. A bond regime would not assume that existing healthcare organisations are best placed to deliver all such impacts: it would encourage investors in the bonds to direct resources into any those approaches that promise to bring about the best improvements in health. My essay on THOCs is long, at 9500 words. A shorter version is here.