Reapplying behavioral symmetry: public choice and choice architecture
- 214 Downloads
New justifications for government intervention based on behavioral psychology rely on a behavioral asymmetry between expert policymakers and market participants. Public choice theory applied the behavioral symmetry assumption to policy making in order to illustrate how special interests corrupt the suppositions of benevolence on the part of policy makers. Cognitive problems associated with market choices have been used to argue for even more intervention. If behavioral symmetry is applied to the experts and not just to market participants, problems with this approach to public policy formation become clear. Manipulation, cognitive capture, and expert bias are among the problems associated with a behavioral theory of market failure. The application of behavioral symmetry to the expanding role of choice architecture will help to limit the bias in behavioral policy. Since experts are also subject to cognitive failures, policy must include an evaluation of expert error. Like the rent-seeking literature before it, a theory of cognitive capture points out the systematic problems with a theory of asymmetry between policy experts and citizens when it comes to policy making.
KeywordsExperts Behavioral symmetry Behavioral policy Policy failure
JEL ClassificationH10 H23 H39 H77
The author would like to thank Anthony Gill, Edward Lopez, William F. Shughart, II, Diana W. Thomas, and the participants of the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech’s graduate brown bag workshop, in particular Ben Powell, for their helpful comments on a draft of this paper. The usual caveat applies.
- Amir, O., & Lobel, O. (2008). Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral economics informs law and policy. Columbia Law Review, 108(8), 2098–2137.Google Scholar
- Bar-Gill, O. (2012). Competition and consumer protection: A behavioral economics account. In The pros and cons of consumer protection, pp. 12–43. Swedish Competition Authority. http://www.konkurrensverket.se/globalassets/english/publications-and-decisions/the-pros-and-cons-of-consumer-protection.pdf#page=12. Accessed March 15, 2018.
- Boettke, P. J., Caceres, Z., & Martin, A. G. (2013). Error is obvious, Coordination is the puzzle. In R. Frantz & R. Leeson (Eds.), Hayek and behavioral economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillian UK.Google Scholar
- Buchanan, J. M. (1999). In: G. Brennan, H. Kliemt & R. D. Tollison (Eds.), The collected works of James M. Buchanan. The logical foundations of constitutional liberty (Vol. 1). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
- Carrigan, C. & Coglianese, C. (2016). Capturing regulatory reality: Stigler’s the theory of economic regulation. Faculty Scholarship Paper 1650. http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1650. Accessed March 15, 2018.
- Congdon, W. J., Kling, J., & Mullaninathan, S. (2011). Policy and choice: Public finance through the lens of behavioral economics. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Glaeser, E. (2006). Paternalism and psychology. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 1333-156.Google Scholar
- Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.Google Scholar
- Hoffer, A. J., Shughart, W. F., & Thomas, M. D. (2014). Sin taxes and sindustry: Revenue, paternalism, and political interest. The Independent Review, 19(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
- Martin, A. (2010). Emergent politics and the power of ideas. Studies in Emergent Order, 3, 212–245.Google Scholar
- McLaughlin, P. A. & Stanley, L. (2016). Regulation and income inequality: The regressive effects of entry regulations. Mercatus working paper. https://www.mercatus.org/publication/regulation-and-income-inequality-regressive-effects-entry-regulations-0. Accessed March 15, 2018.
- Niskanen, W. A. (1968). The peculiar economics of bureaucracy. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 293–305.Google Scholar
- Niskanen, W. A. (1971). Bureaucracy and representative government. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan and Co.Google Scholar
- Rizzo, M. J., & Whitman, D. G. (2009). The knowledge problem of new paternalism. BYU Law Review, 4(4), 905–968.Google Scholar
- Shughart, W. F., II, & Thomas, D. (2015). Regulatory rent seeking. In R. D. Congleton & A. L. Hillman (Eds.), Companion to the political economy of rent seeking (pp. 167–186). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
- Shughart, W. F. II & Thomas, D. (2017). Interest groups and regulatory capture (forthcoming).Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Why Nudge? The politics of pibertarian paternalism. Princeton: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C. R. (2017). The ethics of influence: Government in the age of behavioral science. New York: Cabridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Tannenbaum, D., Fox, C. R., & Rogers, T. (2016). On the misplaced politics of behavioral policy interventions. Nature, 1, 130.Google Scholar
- Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Princeton: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Thomas, D. (2012). Regressive effects of regulation. Mercatus working paper no. 12-35. https://www.mercatus.org/publication/regressive-effects-regulation. Accessed March 15, 2018.
- Tullock, G. (1967). The welfare costs of tariffs, monopolies, and theft. Western Economic Journal, 5(3), 224–232.Google Scholar
- Viceira, L. M. (2009). Life cycle funds. In A. Lusardi (Ed.), Overcoming the savings slump: How to increase the effectiveness of financial education and savings programs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Viscusi, W. K., & Gayer, T. (2015). Behavioral public choice: The behavioral paradox of government policy. Harvard Journal of Law and Policy, 38(3), 973–1007.Google Scholar
- Walker, C. J. (2017). Legislating in the shadows. University of Pennslyvania Law Review, 165, 1377–1433.Google Scholar
- Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: Why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar