| Part of a series on |
| Economics |
|---|
| |
| |
In economics, a perverse incentive is an incentive structure with undesirable results, particularly one where those effects are unexpected and contrary to the intentions of its designers. [1]
The results of a perverse incentive scheme are also sometimes called cobra effects, where people are incentivized to make a problem worse. This name was coined by economist Horst Siebert in 2001 based on a historically dubious anecdote taken from the British Raj. [2] [3] According to the story, the British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobras in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. Initially, this was a successful strategy; large numbers of snakes were killed for the reward. Eventually, however, people began to breed cobras for the income. When the government became aware of this, the reward program was scrapped, and the cobra breeders set their snakes free, leading to an overall increase in the wild cobra population. [4] [5]
Perverse incentives arise in various fields such as electoral systems, pest eradication campaigns, community safety and harm reduction, environmental and wildlife protection, historical preservation plans, healthcare cost control, humanitarian and welfare policies, promotional plans and publicity. These incentives are often designed to achieve short-term goals, but in the long run, they lead to bigger problems or undermine the original objectives.
In his autobiography, Mark Twain says that his wife, Olivia Langdon Clemens, had a similar experience: [44]
Once in Hartford the flies were so numerous for a time, and so troublesome, that Mrs. Clemens conceived the idea of paying George a bounty on all the flies he might kill. The children saw an opportunity here for the acquisition of sudden wealth. ... Any Government could have told her that the best way to increase wolves in America, rabbits in Australia, and snakes in India, is to pay a bounty on their scalps. Then every patriot goes to raising them.
A 2025 investigation by the Friends of Snakes Society cast doubt to the historicity of Siebert's anecdote. The investigation found no contemporary records of cobra breeding operations or prosecutions in British India, and traced the story to an 1873 newspaper article that used speculative language ("it was alleged") rather than confirmed evidence. The investigation also uncovered that an 1887 inquiry by the Bombay Natural History Society, conducted specifically to address these rumors, concluded that breeding cobras in confinement was "highly improbable" and had never been documented. The Madras bounty program was actually scaled back in 1873 (restricting rewards to cobras only and cutting the bounty from two annas to one) due to high costs and not fraud. Despite 150 years of circulation, no documentation has been found to support the breeding claims that form the basis of the "cobra effect" term. It recommended retiring the term "Cobra Effect," stating: "Continuing to use 'Cobra Effect' today is not innocent shorthand. It perpetuates colonial misinformation that caricatured Indians as cunning opportunists." [45]