Advertisement

Journal of Risk and Uncertainty

, Volume 58, Issue 2–3, pp 121–142 | Cite as

Ruining popcorn? The welfare effects of information

  • Cass R. SunsteinEmail author
Article

Abstract

Some information is beneficial; it makes people’s lives go better. Some information is harmful; it makes people’s lives go worse. Some information has no welfare effects at all; people neither gain nor lose from it. Under prevailing executive orders, federal agencies must investigate the welfare effects of information by reference to cost-benefit analysis. Federal agencies have (1) claimed that quantification of benefits is essentially impossible; (2) engaged in “breakeven analysis”; (3) projected various endpoints, such as health benefits or purely economic savings; and (4) relied on private willingness to pay for the relevant information. All of these approaches run into serious objections. With respect to (4), people may lack the information that would permit them to make good decisions about how much to pay for (more) information; they may not know the welfare effects of information. Their tastes and values may shift over time, in part as a result of information. These points suggest the need to take the willingness-to-pay criterion with many grains of salt, and to learn more about the actual effects of information, and of the behavioral changes produced by information, on people’s experienced well-being.

Keywords

Behavioral economics Nudges Willingness to pay Hedonic forecasting errors Welfare effects Information avoidance Present bias Information disclosure 

JEL Classifications

K0 K2 D60 D61 D8 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University. In some places, this essay draws on Cass R. Sunstein, On Mandatory Labeling, With Special Reference to Genetically Modified Foods, 165 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1043 (2017). I am grateful to Hunt Allcott, Oren Bar-Gill, George Loewenstein, and Tali Sharot for valuable discussions, Ralph Hertwig and W. Kip Viscusi for excellent comments, Andrew Heinrich and Cody Westfall for superb research assistance. Thanks too to audiences at Carnegie-Mellon University, Microsoft, New York University, and Vanderbilt University for terrific suggestions.

References

  1. Abaluck, J. (2011). What Would We Eat if We Knew More: The Implications of a Large-Scale Change in Nutrition Labeling. Available at http://economics.mit.edu/files/6459. Accessed 4 May 2019.
  2. Allcott, H., & Kessler, J. B. (2015). The welfare effects of nudges: A case study of energy use social comparisons. NBER Working Paper 21671. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w21671.
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bar-Gill, O., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Drawing false inferences from mandated disclosures. Behavioural Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2017.12.
  5. Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronsteen, J., Masur, J. S., & Buccafusco, C. (2015). Happiness and the law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Charpentier, C., Bromberg-Martin, E. S., & Sharot, T. (2018). Valuation of knowledge and ignorance in mesolimbic reward circuitry. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(31), E7255–E7264.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800547115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Golman, R., Hagmann, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2017). Information avoidance. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(1), 96–135.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20151245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gruber, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2002). Do cigarette taxes make smokers happier? NBER working paper 8872. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w8872.
  10. Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hansson, S. O. (Eds.). (2009). Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology 4. New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsmc.2009.07.002.Google Scholar
  11. Hertwig, R., & Engel, D. (2016). Homo ignorans: Deliberately choosing not to know. Psychological Science, 11(3), 359–372.Google Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Thaler, R. (2006). Anomalies: Utility maximization and experienced utility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 221–234.  https://doi.org/10.1257/089533006776526076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalaitzandonakes, N., Marks, L., & Vickner, S. S. (2005). Sentiments and acts towards genetically modified foods. International Journal of Biotechnology, 7(1), 161. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1504/IJBT.2005.006452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levy, H. G., Norton, E. C., & Smith, J. A. (2016). Tobacco regulation and cost-benefit analysis: How should we value foregone consumer surplus? NBER working paper 22471. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22471.pdf.
  15. Loureiro, M. L., Gracia, A., & Nayga, R. M. (2006). Do consumers value nutritional labels? European Review of Agricultural Economics, 33(2), 249–268.  https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbl005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Posner, E. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Moral commitments and cost-benefit analysis. Virginia Law Review, 103, 1809–1860.Google Scholar
  17. Robinson, L., Viscusi, W. K., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2019). Efficient warnings, not “wolf or puppy” warnings. In H. Kunreuther, R. J. Meyer, & E. Michel-Kerjan (Eds.), The future of risk management. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press.  https://doi.org/10.1107/S2059798319002912.Google Scholar
  18. Sunstein, C. R. (2013). Simpler. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  19. Sunstein, C. R. (2014). Valuing life: Humanizing the regulatory state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sunstein, C. R. (2016). The ethics of influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1222169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). Mandatory labeling, with special reference to genetically modified foods. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 1043–1092.Google Scholar
  22. Sunstein, C. R. (2018a). Nudges that fail. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sunstein, C. R. (2018b). The cost-benefit revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Thomson, K., & Monje, C. (2015). Guidance on treatment of the economic value of a statistical life in U.S. Department of Transportation analyses. Memorandum. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://perma.cc/C6RQ-4ZXR, DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dadm.2015.03.001.
  26. Thunstrom, L. (2019). Welfare effects of nudges: The emotional tax of calorie labeling. Judgment and Decison Making, 14(1), 11–25.Google Scholar
  27. Thunstrom, L., Nordstrom, J., Shogren, J., Ehmke, M., & van’t Veld, K. (2016). Strategic self-ignorance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 52(2), 117–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11166-016-9236-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (2013). F., 2d(720), 372–375.Google Scholar
  29. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (2014). F., 3d(748), 369.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (2015). F., 3d(800), 547.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2018a). National bioengineered food disclosure standard. Proposed rule. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-TM-17-0050-0004.
  32. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2018b). Proposed national bioengineered food disclosure standard. Regulatory impact analysis. Report AMS-TM-17-0050-0015, 8, 65. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=AMS-TM-17-0050-0015.
  33. U.S. Department of Labor. (2016). Improve tracking of workplace injuries and illnesses. Federal Register, 81, 29628.Google Scholar
  34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, & U.S. Department of Transportation. (2011). Revisions and additions to motor vehicle fuel economy label. Federal Register, 76, 39517.Google Scholar
  35. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2011). Required warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. Federal Register, 76, 36719.Google Scholar
  36. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2014). Food labeling: Nutrition labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and similar retail food establishments. Regulatory impact analysis. Report FDA-2011-F-0172, 11, 64. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/UCM423985.pdf,  https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2014.rb.0007.1405.
  37. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. (2012). Conflict minerals. Federal Register, 83, 56350.Google Scholar
  38. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (2017). Normal rationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Viscusi, W. K. (1991). Reforming products liability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Viscusi, W. K. (2018). Pricing lives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Viscusi, W. K., & Magat, W. (1987). Learning about risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Viscusi, W. K., & Magat, W. (1992). Informational approaches to regulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Welch, H. (2004). Should I be tested for cancer? Berkeley: University of California Press.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.2004.1403967.Google Scholar
  44. Welch, H., Schwartz, L., & Woloshin, S. (2012). Overdiagnosed. Boston: Beacon Press.  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00267.1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard Law SchoolCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations