[New Wave] Youth Game Shutdown Policy Should Be Evaluated by Its Results, Not Intentions

Published 10 Aug.2021 12:48(KST)

"Evaluating policies based on intent rather than outcomes is a grave mistake." This is a statement made by Nobel laureate in economics Milton Friedman. It is a conclusion he reached after analyzing cases where well-intentioned policies, such as welfare programs or market regulations, produced counterproductive effects.

The Prohibition law enacted in the early 20th century United States is a prime example of a well-meaning policy led by women's groups and religious organizations. Its purpose was to prevent the harms caused by alcohol, such as crime and productivity loss, and thereby restore peace in households and revive local economies. However, as we well know, the outcome became a textbook example of policy failure.

When the manufacture and distribution of alcohol were banned, the number of people drinking did not decrease; instead, the number of people drinking secretly increased. Criminal organizations, the mafia, who supplied alcohol to these people, gained power. Contrary to expectations, the crime rate actually increased by 24% after Prohibition was enforced. Records show that in 1930, during the Prohibition period, about 500,000 people were incarcerated for alcohol-related crimes, which was eight times the total number of prosecutions before Prohibition. Additionally, an average of 250 police officers died annually during the Prohibition era, marking the highest police fatality rate.

Prohibition did not increase the number of drinkers. However, looking deeper, the book The History of Prohibition records that people started drinking at younger ages, and the number of women who drank actually increased, showing a counterproductive effect. After experiencing these outcomes, Prohibition was repealed in 1933. Did this lead to more legal drinking and bigger problems? We know well that it did not.

There are also policies that work in the opposite way. Some policies that seem risky at first have actually produced positive results. For example, Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman proposed a bold hypothesis that removing crosswalk markings, road signs, and traffic lights could reduce serious traffic accidents. The logic was simple: by injecting uncertainty into drivers, they would become more cautious and reduce their speed.

This hypothesis was tested in various countries. For instance, in 2004, a city in the UK removed all white road markings, resulting in a one-third reduction in traffic accidents and an average speed decrease of 5%. Such effects can also be observed around us. Apartment complexes with winding roads instead of straight ones, or zigzag lane markings in front of schools, are representative examples of counterintuitive policies designed to increase uncertainty and promote safety.

Currently, discussions about abolishing the game shutdown policy are active. Nearly ten years have passed since it began with the good intentions of protecting adolescents' right to sleep and preventing game addiction, but clear policy achievements are not evident. Furthermore, side effects such as isolation from global trends?like the 19+ rating of Minecraft, a symbol of wholesome gaming?are becoming a reality.

Not all good intentions lead to bad outcomes. However, pushing forward without examining results simply because of good intentions is as dangerous and reckless as driving blindfolded, a fact repeatedly proven by historical examples. Reckless goodwill is not true goodwill. I sincerely hope that the adolescent game shutdown policy can be used as an opportunity for reflection and thorough review in the National Assembly to determine whether it was an act of dogmatism.