Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 397–408 | Cite as

In Search of Lost Nudges

  • Guilhem LecouteuxEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses the validity of nudges to tackle time-inconsistent behaviours. I show that libertarian paternalism is grounded on a peculiar model of personal identity, and that the argument according to which nudges may improve one’s self-assessed well-being can be seriously questioned. I show that time inconsistencies do not necessarily reveal that the decision maker is irrational: they can also be the result of discounting over the degree of psychological connectedness between our successive selves rather than over time (Parfit 1984, Reasons and Persons, Oxford University Press). Time inconsistency can call for paternalism if and only if we accept that an individual is characterised by stable “true” preferences over time-dependent outcomes, and that she is rationally required to make time-consistent choices. This model is descriptively and normatively questionable. I then argue that behavioural findings may still justify paternalistic interventions, but on a non-welfarist basis.

Keywords

Discount Factor True Preference Psychological Distance Future Utility Hyperbolic Discount 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and three anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that substantially improved this paper. I also thank Robert Sugden for his careful rereading of the paper.

Conflict of Interest

I, Guilhem Lecouteux, declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Statement

I, Guilhem Lecouteux, declare that this manuscript is original, has not been published before and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. I can confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed.

References

  1. Andersen, S., and L. Ross. 1984. Self-knowledge and social inference: I. The impact of cognitive/affective and behavioral data. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 280–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernheim, B.D., and Rangel, A. 2009. Beyond revealed preferences: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 51–104.Google Scholar
  3. Bovens, L. 2009. The ethics of nudge. In Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, ed. T. Grüne-Yanoff and S. Hansson, 207–219. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broome, J. 1991. Weighing goods: Equality, uncertainty, and time. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Buss S. 2014. Personal autonomy. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Winter Zalta, E., 2014 edition.Google Scholar
  6. Conly, S. 2013. Against autonomy. Justifying coercive paternalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frederick, S. 2003. Time preference and personal identity. In Time and decision: Psychological perspectives in intertemporal choice, ed. G. Loewenstein, D. Read, and R. Baumeister. New York: Russel Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Frederick, S., G. Loewenstein, and T. O’Donoghue. 2002. Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature 40(2): 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hausman, D., and B. Welch. 2010. To nudge or not to nudge? The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky (eds.). 2000. Choice, value, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Korsgaard, C.M. 1989. Personal identity and the unity of agency: A Kantian response to Parfit. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18(2): 101–132.Google Scholar
  13. Liberman, N., Y. Trope, and E. Stephan. 2007. Psychological distance. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles 2: 353–383.Google Scholar
  14. Mill, J.S. 1859. On liberty. London: Longman, Roberts & Green Co.Google Scholar
  15. O’Donoghue, T., and M. Rabin. 1999. Doing it now or later. American Economic Review 89(1): 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Proust, M. 1993. In Search of Lost Time, Volume V The Captive & The Fugitive. Translated by C.K. Scott Moncrieff and T. Kilmartin, revised by D.J. Enright. New York: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
  18. Samuelson, S. 1937. A note on the measurement of utility. Review of Economic Studies 4: 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Samuelson, W., and R. Zeckhauser. 1988. Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1: 7–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sunstein, C. 1998. Selective fatalism. The Journal of Legal Studies 27(S2): 799–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sunstein C. 2014. Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sunstein, C., and R. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thaler, R., and S. Benartzi. 2004. Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee savings. Journal of Political Economy 110: S164–S187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. AEA Papers and Proceedings 93(2): 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thaler, R., and C. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wilson, T., and D. Gilbert. 2003. Affective forecasting. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 35, ed. M. Zanna, 345–411. San Diego: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole Polytechnique, Department of Economics (EXCESS Laboratory, CNRS UMR 9194)PalaiseauFrance

Personalised recommendations