React or prevent? Politics must make this big shift
As a demographer, I think long term.
Imagining what the world looks like a decade from now is standard, but thinking in generations is also normal in my work. This long-term view is intellectually stimulating, but it has lowered my tolerance for short-term thinking in politics, business, and society at large.
Today, I want to explore one of my greatest frustrations: The political focus on funding reactive measures rather than investing in preventative approaches.
Governments constantly face problems that need addressing.
Governments must then react to these problems.
A criminal may harm others; a child may need foster care; someone may require hospitalisation. Reactive funding is a Band-Aid solution that addresses problems only after they arise. The criminal is jailed, a foster family is found, and the medical condition is treated.
While such reactive funding provides tangible results (and creates photo opportunities for the politicians signing the cheques) it doesn’t prevent future problems and is expensive.
Even the most successful preventative intervention only improves statistics: The crime rate drops; fewer children need foster care; immunisation rates keep diseases in check. These outcomes, while beneficial, are less glamorous since a preventative campaign can’t claim to have helped a specific individual. It’s just that general statistics improved – as a Stats Guy I find this exiting but many people don’t …
Time for a new model
You might like
Previously, I’ve argued that Australia faces a prolonged skills shortage, higher living costs and interest rates, and an increasing demand for health and social services. Our current approach to healthcare and social services is largely reactive in nature and won’t hold up under these future pressures.
It’s time to fund more preventative models to ensure we can look after all Australians while spending less money and using fewer workers.
Once you realise that reactive funding is often more costly and less effective than preventative funding, it’s natural to wonder why we don’t throw more money at such campaigns.
A common explanation is the short political cycle. Elections every few years make it hard for politicians to invest in measures that will only show results years down the track. Preventative measures must often survive multiple governments before their benefits become visible.
Also, statistics don’t vote, but people with immediate problems do.
Preventative programs can be dismissed as ignoring the current needs of real people while spending money on “invisible” future individuals. It’s also harder to explain preventative solutions to voters.
In a grid-locked city for example, a bypass, bridge, or train line is easier to sell than a policy that encourages working from home or higher density living and only indirectly helps to improve traffic flow.
In times of tight budgets, preventative programs are often seen as “nice-to-haves” rather than essentials, especially when compared to reactive spending. Politicians face pressure to prioritise immediate needs.
A victim of success
Ironically, successful preventative measures can also undermine themselves. You didn’t get measles because vaccinations worked; now that measles have been eradicated, anti-vaxxers argue that you needn’t bother to risk taking a measles vaccine since the disease has been eradicated.
A successful preventative campaign can easily look redundant and might fall victim to budget cuts.
Most of us have bought travel insurance only to feel we wasted our money because we didn’t get injured and weren’t robbed either.
Stay informed, daily
Politicians worry that if a problem they tried to prevent doesn’t materialise, they’ll be viewed as having wasted public funds.
Switching to preventative models also means letting go of legacy systems. The sunk-cost effect kicks in. Having spent so much time and money on the status quo already makes a preventative approach just look like so much work – the devil you know…
To shift toward preventative thinking, we must redefine how we measure and communicate success. While preventative strategies have undeniable value, promoting them requires an emphasis on long-term success, not just immediate results.
Overseas examples
So, how might we convince politicians, social service providers, and healthcare institutions to adopt preventative programs? Such a paradigm shift requires not only substantial investments but also a cultural embrace of long-termism. Pointing to successful case studies around the world may help.
Finland, for instance, is renowned for its welfare programs. The Finns invest heavily in preventive healthcare, mental health support, and early childhood education. These investments result in lower unemployment rates, lower crime rates, and fewer chronic illnesses. Finland’s education system focuses heavily on helping students at risk of falling behind, knowing that school dropouts will eventually place a greater burden on public systems.
Singapore has long prioritised preventive healthcare, emphasising early screening, public health campaigns, and subsidies for preventative services. Its Healthy Living Master Plan encourages citizens to adopt habits that prevent chronic diseases. Singapore also invests heavily in green spaces and accessible public transport, creating a city that fosters health and minimises costs from pollution, congestion, and healthcare.
To convince political and organisational leaders to fund prevention, I turn first to data. We need case studies with hard evidence showing the economic, social, and health costs of reactive spending versus preventative spending. For example, illustrating the rising costs of climate-related disasters or chronic disease management can underscore the financial benefits of prevention. Demonstrating long-term savings may convince even the most budget-conscious treasurers.
Linking preventative approaches to immediate voter concerns can also be effective. Economic stability is a common voter priority, so emphasising how preventative spending reduces future financial strain on systems like healthcare or disaster recovery may appeal to voters worried about public expenditures.
Need for rigorous evaluation
However, these strategies won’t work if we can’t prove they deliver. This is where rigorous evaluation is essential. Funders and philanthropists increasingly expect evidence that their investment yields social good. Testing preventative measures rigorously ensures people see that these approaches create real positive impacts.
Research and evaluation should also highlight co-benefits. Preventative strategies often have multiple positive outcomes. For example, public health campaigns promoting physical activity not only reduce healthcare costs but also boost productivity and reduce absenteeism, contributing to economic growth.
Policy shifts need public support from the outset. Engaging influential community groups—healthcare organisations, environmental groups, or business leaders—is critical, as they have the resources and trust to sway public opinion and pressure leaders.
This is lobbying 101 and will surprise no one.
Avoiding divisive, ideological language is equally important.
Preventative measures should be framed as common-sense solutions, not linked to specific political ideologies. Missteps here can damage progress—consider the impact of linking sustainability exclusively to the political left, which held back the environmental movement for decades.
Finally, every politician wants a legacy tied to lasting, positive change. Effective lobbying allows them to take credit for meaningful shifts. By championing preventative approaches, we can encourage leaders to prioritise policies that will serve the public well into the future.
Demographer Simon Kuestenmacher is a co-founder of The Demographics Group. His columns, media commentary and public speaking focus on current socio-demographic trends and how these impact Australia. His podcast, Demographics Decoded, explores the world through the demographic lens. Follow Simon on LinkedIn for daily data insights in short format.
