The "Save More Tomorrow" programme makes saving easier

Behaviour Change

The ‘Save More Tomorrow’ programme tackles both of these barriers head-on by, first, auto-enrolling people onto workplace saving schemes to combat inertia. People are obviously completely free to opt back out, but, human nature being what it is, 90 per cent stay on the scheme, with their inertia now working for them rather than against them. An auto-escalator then ups the contributions, not immediately but over time (the tomorrow bit). This shifted the reluctant hugely: when asked whether they would up their contributions now by five percentage points, most said no (we need the chocolate now). But when asked whether they’d commit to saving more in the future, 78 per cent said yes.

The impact of ‘Save More Tomorrow’ has been substantial. Before the programme, the average saving rate for workers in the sample was 3-5 per cent, but after four years this had increased nearly four-fold to 13.6 per cent.

Self-control is often a scheduling problem masquerading as a moral one.

Ask me to surrender money today and today’s Dave arrives with legal representation. Ask whether future Dave should save more after a pay rise and I become a magnificent statesman, nobly allocating income that has not reached my pocket.

“Save More Tomorrow” makes use of that hypocrisy. The programme lets our patient, imaginary future self give instructions before our grabby present self can spend the increase on a larger television and three subscriptions nobody remembers ordering.

That sounds like a trick because it is one. So is placing biscuits by the till. The ethical question is whose stated intention the trick serves.

A default into saving can help somebody do what they repeatedly say they want. A hidden escalation with a miserable exit route helps the designer. Same behavioural machinery; different beneficiary.

There are dozens of less grand versions. Schedule the transfer for payday, while the balance still looks prosperous. Increase a habit after it exists, avoiding the heroic regime that collapses by Thursday. Commit part of the next budget rise before ten urgent claimants give it jobs.

The design needs daylight: clear terms, notice before changes and an exit that does not require a phone call to a dungeon. Consent should survive the moment when somebody notices the mechanism.

Motivation gets far too much credit. It is an unreliable employee with excellent interview technique. Defaults, timing and pre-commitment do the shifts motivation calls in sick for.