•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Po licies are only fit for purpose if they target the right problem. But what if a problem is not really “one problem” but a series of connected problems? Issues relating to democratic change, human rights and health reform, for example, often come under this category. An Australian government publication described these types of multidimensional issues as “wicked problems”: too complicated for one policy, one agency or one approach to tackle.

Two such problems regularly in the news are overeating and smoking. What can we learn from how policy makers approach them?

The first step is deciding where the “problem” lies. Obesity is blamed on a variety of factors. To name but some: an overzealous media trying to sell fatty and unhealthy food, our tendency to inertia over movement (we are lazy at heart), a change in work and home environments where we can indulge our propensity to inertia, the development of a snack culture where fast food is sold as more convenient, better and tastier than food that needs time to cook, to savor and to share.

As the problem of obesity spreads around the globe, many have blamed globalization. One look at children in any of Jakarta’s malls can tell you that obesity is becoming an issue in some strata of society in Indonesia. Certainly it is globalization that brought many of the problems to our supermarket shelves but it is parents who put these products on our tables. It is skilled advertisers who tell us these products have charm, or are cool, or even that we need them, but it is parents who buy them. Is globalization, advertising, laziness, an over-attentive parent or a spoiled child thus the “real” issue? Or is it a combination of all?

Imagine you were charged with drawing up policy to tackle the growing number of overweight children in Jakarta. Where would you begin? Governments have written policies encouraging exercise as a way of shedding pounds. Children like watching TV or playing video games. Health messages are reinforcing the connection between overweight kids growing into overweight adults and health problems that overweight adulthood can bring, such as diabetes and heart disease.

Would a policy encouraging advertisers to promote products more matter of factly work? Would ensuring consumers know just how much salt, fat or other unhealthy substances are in their food reduce consumption? One suspects not. Would children not want them if they knew more about what they contain? It tastes good, so one suspects not. Would banning junk food altogether work? One suspects not.

The right to eat what we like and the reality that many imported foods are a good source of tax revenue complicates this obvious choice, at least for the government and financiers.

Smoking is a similar issue, one that for many has an obvious solution: Ban it. But what is the “it” that should be banned? Smoking, smokers or the smoke they puff out? The answer depends on which authority you ask.

The Ministry of Health is unequivocal. Smoking is dangerous to everyone’s health and it should be eliminated. This would reduce the number of early deaths of smokers, the number of people dying from second-hand smoke, the burden on the health care system, bad breath and those tiny kretek holes in what were perfectly good shirts before smokers pocked them.

Officials of Jakarta Governor Fauzi Bowo’s administration have a slightly different take: banning smoking in public areas. I am for it, but even as a rabid anti-smoker, I want to talk to my wayward smoking friends now and then. It is not smokers I want to ban, it is their smoke.

Smokers argue for their right to smoke. They have a point. But I also believe I have a right to breathe fresh air. Thus is the issue here smokers, their right to smoke or the smoke they produce, which in turn harms my right to clean air? As virtually no one heeds the ban in cafes and bars, smokers vote with their lighters.

Another reason why banning smoking in public areas is not working is that cafe workers won’t enforce the restriction because smokers are the majority of their customers. Empty seats ado not make money. Thus if the policy does not work, is there a policy that would benefit more stakeholders?

Why not let all establishments who want to allow smoking in their establishments do so, but insist they install extractors that suck up smoke so it does not bother others? Why not tax them more for this privilege? Why not give tax breaks to those cafes that enforce the ban on smoking, thus rewarding “the healthy choice.”

Who would benefit?

I would for sure. I would have a choice of a completely smoke-free environment, guaranteed, with cheaper coffee as owners could charge less, given the tax breaks they have. I could occasionally sit in a smokers’ cafe and talk to friends but not be bothered by their habit. The owners would still have a thriving business. Jakarta authorities would have increased tax revenues.

Who would lose out? The Ministry of Health would see anything but a total ban as a compromise. But perhaps it would be happy with the interim measure. Cigarette companies would see their sales maintained and, in the biggest irony of all, the Jakarta authorities would maintain high revenues from taxes on cigarettes and companies that make them.

The difficulties facing policy decisions in relation to these two wicked problems are clear. Furthermore there are some overarching issues and reality checks that need to be factored in when deciding on policy content: The growing demand for a full set of human rights cannot be ignored; democracies need taxes as governments have limited budgets; people make their own choices about what goes into their mouths; behavior is difficult to change.

And instruments that generate new policy, such as the British system of White Papers, often take years to be compiled because there are so many stakeholders to consult. As a result these methods are very expensive and many governments do not use them, preferring to limit the number of stakeholders they consult. Finally, it is not just about the numbers of stakeholders but how representative they are. An editorial this month in the Guardian Weekly highlighted Britain’s inclusion of fast food producers as advisers on health policy. Not all health sector policy makers in Britain were happy with what to them seems like a conflict of interest. Can fast-food producers be impartial in a debate on a policy in which they are frequently seen as the villains? Policies must not be captured by vested interests.

Whatever your stance on overeating and smoking, wicked problems cause policy makers many a sleepless night. But somebody has to do it. Just be thankful you have delegated others to do the job on your behalf.


Keith Hargreaves is a director of Strategic Asia Indonesia, a Jakarta-based consultancy promoting cooperation among key Asian countries. He can be contacted at keith.hargreaves@strategic-asia.com.