Advertisement

European Journal for Philosophy of Science

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 75–94 | Cite as

Success conditions for nudges: a methodological critique of libertarian paternalism

  • Conrad Heilmann
Original paper in Philosophy of Economics

Abstract

This paper provides a methodological analysis of Libertarian Paternalism, as put forward in the book Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (Yale University Press, 2008). Libertarian Paternalism aims to use the accumulated findings of behavioural economics in order to assist decision-makers to make better choices. The philosophical debate about this proposal has focused on normative issues with regards to this proposal. This paper analyses Libertarian Paternalism descriptively and points out four methodological conditions for successful Nudges. On that basis, a methodological critique of Libertarian Paternalism is mounted: the success conditions suggest that Nudges might be even harder to implement and to justify than commonly assumed in the philosophical debate.

Keywords

Behavioural economics Nudge Libertarian paternalism Dual process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Luc Bovens, Foad Dizadji-Bahmani, Michiru Nagatsu, Alice Obrecht, Julian Reiss, Ingrid Robeyns, David Teira, and two anonymous reviewers of European Journal for Philosophy of Science for very helpful comments on previous versions of this article. I also thank audiences at the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam for their feedback.

References

  1. Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: the Interaction of Successive Motivational States within the Individual. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of Will. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. (2010). Review of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein: nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Economics and Philosophy, 26, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens, L. (2008). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, 207–219. Theory and decision library A 42. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Grüne-Yanhoff, T. (2012). Old wine in New Casks: libertarian paternalism still violates liberal principles. Social Choice & Welfare, 38(4), 635–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: to nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Loewenstein, G.H., & Haisley, E. (2008). The Economist as therapist: methodological ramifications of ‘light’ paternalism. In A. Caplin and A. Schotter (Eds.) Perspectives on the future of economics: positive and normative foundations, handbook of economic methodologies (pp. 210–245). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Reiss, J. (2013). Philosophy of economics: a contemporary introduction. Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Saghai, Y. (2013). Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100727.Google Scholar
  12. Sahlin, N.-E., Wallin, A., & Persson, J. (2010). Decision science: from Ramsey to dual process theories. Synthese, 172(1), 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: the hunt for a descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, XXXVIII, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies, 61(2), 341–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus Institute for Philosophy and Economics (EIPE), Faculty of PhilosophyErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations