One of the major problems affecting the overall effectiveness of vocational education in India has been the lack of interest shown by the so-called below-poverty-line youth in opting for the training that can ensure livelihood for them. It is not uncommon to find batch after batch of youth getting dropped out during or even after training. Common sense would tell us that the youth who is desperately in need of a job would move heaven and earth to seek opportunities and avenues for livelihood. We have many pieces of evidence that common sense or the prevailing wisdom does not really explain the behaviour of persons. What is true of the youth is equally true of farmers. Despite knowing that the present method of farming is not productive they continue with the old ways. Despite knowing that in handling pesticides enough precautions have to be taken it is done most casually. Year after year post-harvest loss continues for not changing to simple yet effective ways to reduce the losses. Despite knowing that smoking causes cancer still many are compulsive smokers. Despite knowing that saving is a good option during unemployment people shop compulsively. Despite knowing that getting the lottery has minimal chance youth spend their money on purchasing the tickets. These instances contradict the traditional view of men being very logical in their decision-making process or in their selection of choices. The so-called mythical youth who is a careful and logical decision-maker and who knows what is good for him/her does not exist in reality. Instead, we find the youth doing things that will directly harm their prospects. In many ways, the behaviour pattern is such that ensures self-sabotage. Behaviour Economics- a relatively new branch that culminated out of the understanding of the psychology of men and its impact on our economic decisions- tries to offer an understanding of the main issue of this article as to why the below-poverty-line youth – even if offered all kinds of assistance- do not continue and complete the training.
As mentioned earlier human behavior is complex and does not necessarily follow the principle of economic decision making. There is no ‘walk the talk’ syndrome visible. The reasons why the youth make the decisions that are detrimental to their self-interests can be summarized as follows:
- No Rocking the Boat Syndrome
All of us have a default setting mechanism embedded in us which at the slightest threat of a change goes back to its original setting. A new environment in a new setting is a threatening event for the youth and his first impulse is to run back to his village. Besides it also saves him from making any ‘active choices’. That means even if he knows, at a rational level, that by completing the vocational skills training he may get a job that will take him and his family out of the poverty trap, he prefers to go for his default setting- his pre-set options.
-90% Achievement Syndrome or Satisfice Syndrome
Satisfice literally means pursuing a course of options that will satisfy the minimum requirements necessary to achieve a particular goal or objective. It also means pursuing not the best but a good enough goal that does not involve any stretch. For example, if people are given a choice of 50 items to study and tick which suits them most appropriately they would tick the first three to avoid going through the details of the remaining choices. So the tendency to look for easier and non-threatening options often results in making wrong choices and poor decisions.
- Tendency to be ‘loss averse’ than ‘benefits gain’
Again this flies against the rational man theory. Individuals weigh losses more than the gains they might get. So for the below-poverty-line youth, the perceived risks are Psychological (What will I do in a new situation/city?), Social (I will lose my familiar environment and social circle), and Financial (How will I sustain in an unfamiliar place?). So between the choices of losing something and gaining something he prefers the first one.
- Peanuts Effect
We have seen that the youth are generally risk-averse when faced with high-probability gains or low-probability losses. But what is surprising is that they are more risk-seeking when faced with certain losses or uncertain gains. They take more risk just to avoid the losses. This means the perceived threat of being migrated to a new city for a job after training (actual gain) forces them to opt to stay back (actual loss). This tendency to be less risk averse and more risk-seeking for small-stakes gambles than for large-stakes is known as the ‘peanuts effect’, i.e., people are more willing to take a chance when playing for ‘peanuts’. That is, risk-seeking decreases when the (loss) stakes are high, such that people are more risk-seeking for small losses than for large losses.
- Sunk Cost Effect
As the youth have spent their efforts, time and resources in the villages they prefer to spend ‘more’ in the same way rather than exploring new options or choices. It is the famous’ boiled frog’ syndrome. So if these are the realities of the so-called rational youth, how do we create an enabling environment that forces him to think differently?
- No Rocking the Boat Syndrome
A simple way to break the psychological barrier would be to demonstrate a successfully trained youth or groups of youth who can motivate the fence-sitters to join the training. The personality change in the trained youth and the gained confidence of working in a different setting successfully can force the fence sitters to change their default setting.
- 90% Achievement Syndrome or Satisfice Syndrome
Youth are suspicious and wary of too much overload of information through booklets, magazines, bulletins etc. Therefore, in a simple yet effective way messages are communicated about the benefits of training it might work. In addition, the cognitive overload is to be avoided. Typically, when a youth is presented with 50 options of courses to choose from he will run away. Research has proved the efficacy of offering limited choices.
- Tendency to be ‘loss averse’ than ‘benefits gain’
The counselling must emphasise minimizing costs and losses more than pointing out a very rosy picture of future prospects. So if the messages are about reducing the existing loan burden, improving the health of the family and live-stocks it will be more effective. Messages must be loss-framed than gain-framed.
-Peanuts Effect
Here we need to identify those ‘risk relievers’ that will give comfort to the youth that opting for the training is a low-risk proposition. Word-of-mouth publicity about the efficacy of training, simple booklets, and free trial training are some tools that can be employed. In the agricultural context, the village-based entrepreneurs that companies have started to employ become friends, philosophers and guides and can influence the youth in the desirable direction.
- Sunk Cost Effect
The negative implications of the already sunk costs and the futility of putting more resources into them need to be explained. At the same time if the cost-benefit analysis of opting for a new course of action is explained to the ‘family’ the impact is more lasting. The family can exert peer pressure on the youth.
To conclude the traditional way of assuming that the rural youth and farmer is a rational human being who makes his choices on a very cognitive and logical basis needs serious scrutiny. Appropriate psychological interventions skilfully meshed with economics is the way forward. Thus Psychoeconomical tools and strategies for this irrational and default-loving youth and farmer have to be evolved.
