Kia ora from Jess,
We can't negate the scarcity narrative being used about government right now, it only reinforces the ideas. We can tell another story about how we can have nice things.
I really love local government. More specifically, what I love is the potential it has to help us live the sorts of lives most of us want. Live where we’re more connected to each other, with more care for people and the planet, and where we’re able to make a contribution to the big stuff. I think a lot of people working in local and central government feel this way too. However, last week the prime minister gave a speech at a local government conference that told many people, in as many words, not to bother contributing to local democracy, as local government wasn't for them, the things they care about, or the big challenges we all face together.
There is a lot of talk about at the moment which carries the ideas that local and central government is not for all people in New Zealand or the things that really matter to them over the long term. We hear that the government is in a cash flow crisis, poorly performing, stuffed with people who are bad at their jobs, needing cuts all over the show. The tone is grim and depressing, the actions more so. This is scarcity or austerity framing. When it is used in relation to local or central government, it switches on very particular and narrow ways of reasoning about the role of government. This framing has a profound influence on people’s decisions and behaviours, including for example organisation's willingness to invest in people and things they need over the long term, and worse people’s engagement in democratic processes.
Framing and how it constructs our reality
Put simply, framing is the choices we make in how we present an issue. The stories, ideas, words, metaphors, and images we use in our communication are all framing choices. Those framing choices influence how people think and reason. Different frames switch on or off shared mental models or mindsets. These mindsets are realised in physical neural networks in our brains. They give us easy to reach explanations about how the world works, the different roles people have, how people interact, how problems should be solved, and what should even be considered a problem. The more frequently specific frames are used, the stronger the neural networks attached to those frames become, and the more “normal” the ideas that mindset encompasses seem. As such ideas become more normal, people begin to reason that certain actions or solutions associated with that model are “the right ones”. In other words, framing constructs our reality.
What does scarcity framing look like?
Common features of scarcity framing, including common metaphors, are:
equating government’s budgets to a household budget — where it is best to pay off debt as soon as possible
naming people primarily in terms of their role as tax or ratepayers — which excludes some people in society, as well as obscuring other roles we play in relation to governments i.e. as voters, citizens, community members, treaty partners
framing the relationships between people and their government in market based terms — people are consumers, government is the provider of services
tax is a ‘burden’ from which people need ‘relief’
the people who work in government are ‘bloat’, not doing real work, creating ‘red tape’
Those who rely on the government for income are ‘a drain, bottom feeders’, or have become ‘too dependent’ on the state
business is the backbone of the economy
caregivers are barely mentioned.
You get the picture because it is a well developed story that easily activates many of your neural networks.
When people say the choice to cut tax, not borrow, and cut spending to vulnerable groups is “political”, what they are naming is that such decisions are based not on evidence, but on cultural assumptions or mindsets.
What does scarcity framing lead to?
The cognitive sciences show us that the stories we tell (the framing we use) shapes the evidence we choose to pay attention to, and the decisions we make about what solutions we need and what problems even need solving.
Scarcity framing about government obscures what works to ensure that each and every person in our community thrives, belongs, is cared for, and valued. It switches off thinking about how governments can and should work to improve outcomes across longer time frames. For example borrowing now to avoid significant problems your communities will face further down the track is exactly what governments are well placed to do given their unique role as our representatives, the resources they have access to (including tax), and the timeframes they are dealing with.
Scarcity framing about government also affects other organisations and institutions. People stop investing in staff development, or thinking about long term planning because their view becomes narrowed to thinking about risk, crisis and survival. Those who receive tax cuts, especially the wealthy, tend to keep them rather than spend them, as austerity framing affects their psychology and behaviours too. As many core services, including welfare, get cut a whole lot of people get locked further into poverty as their focus becomes managing that stress rather than how to reach their bigger goals.
Ultimately scarcity or austerity framing undermines the entire idea of government (no matter what party is in) because it erodes trust in our institutions for many groups, and leads to less engagement by people on issues where shared decision making is critical. It is pretty bad for democracy.
Let's call it out then?
Surely we should be telling people that governments are NOT like households and that tax cuts are NOT relief? Here is the kicker — negating a frame doesn't work. If I asked you to ‘Don’t think of an elephant.’ I bet you are thinking of an elephant now. Because frames are realised in neural networks, the more you engage a frame, use the words, images, metaphors associated with it, the stronger the network becomes. So negating, mythbusting, providing reactive data to prove the frame wrong (for example “here is how much money our white elephant made”) will only serve to strengthen it — bugger eh.
The solution is to provide a new frame, one that shows how governments can work in a different way.
We can have nice things - the abundance frame
The abundance frame repositions the role of government as being about making sure we can have the things we want and need as a collective. It can be tricky to use new frames, ones we are less familiar with, but it is critical in order to build up those shared neural networks. The abundance frame encompasses stories, metaphors, words and images that focus on the types of lives many of us want to live and the solutions we have to make them happen. Things like warm homes, clean air, a solid education system, good jobs, doing meaningful work that contributes to a healthy planet and people, communities that include and take care of everyone, not just some. In other words living in more connected, caring communities where we can make more, not less of a contribution.
Three tips on how to do abundance framing
1. Explain how governments work for every group and over the long term including:
naming the public structures they create for all of us
highlighting the wisdom they need to use in making decisions about the big stuff
engaging with the responsibility of investing and thinking over the long term
naming the many different roles that all people play as citizens, iwi and communities, parents, caregivers, regardless of where they come from, or whether they rely on the support of government or their wealthy family to survive in tough times.
2. Don't shy away from talking about the role of tax in helping us achieve these things. Frame the role of setting budgets and taxes together to achieve things like:
affordable food
warm and stable homes
good meaningful jobs that help people contribute
a disability system that really supports the lives disabled people can live
bold and effective climate preparation and action
a business sector that has clarity about the goals it is contributing to in our society, and the support it can expect to get to do that.
3. Uses a tone that makes people feel hopeful
The tone of the abundance frame has more joy, more fun and more hope and more solutions. It's bold, it's necessary and it's possible. Abundance framing does include more complex thinking, more complex needs, and solutions to more complex issues, which is why tested frames can help.
Any of us can frame abundance. Our stories can be like tiles in a mosaic that add up to a picture of the place we want to live together in.
Neither scarcity or abundance framing is more accurate — both frame and explain what works. It is just that what works, to do what, and for who and over how long, is very different between them. Make sure the frames you are choosing supports what you know to work for the world you want to build.
Ngā mihi,
Jess