Advertisement

Monash Bioethics Review

, Volume 32, Issue 1–2, pp 141–158 | Cite as

Are health nudges coercive?

  • Muireann Quigley
Original Article

Abstract

Governments and policy-makers have of late displayed renewed attention to behavioural research in an attempt to achieve a range of policy goals, including health promotion. In particular, approaches which could be labelled as ‘nudges’ have gained traction with policy-makers. A range of objections to nudging have been raised in the literature. These include claims that nudges undermine autonomy and liberty, may lead to a decrease in responsibility in decision-making, lack transparency, involve deception, and involve manipulation, potentially occasioning coercion. In this article I focus on claims of coercion, examining nudges within two of the main approaches to coercion—the pressure approach and the more recent enforcement approach. I argue that coercion entails an element of control over the behaviour of agents which is not plausibly displayed by the kinds of serious examples of nudges posited in the literature.

Keywords

Nudges Coercion Health policy Behavioural research Decision-making 

References

  1. Almashat, S., B. Ayotte, B. Edelstein, and J. Margrett. 2008. Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient Education and Counselling 71: 102–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amir, O., and O. Lobel. 2008. Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral economics informs law and policy. Columbia Law Review 108: 2098–2138.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. 2010. The enforcement approach to coercion. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 5: 1–31.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, S. 2014 Coercion. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2014 Edition, ed. E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/coercion/. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  5. Behavioural Insights Team. 2010. Applying behavioural insights to health. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60524/403936_BehaviouralInsight_acc.pdf. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  6. Behavioural Insights Team. 2013. Applying behavioural insights to organ donation: preliminary results from a randomised controlled trial. http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/applying-behavioural-insights-organ-donation. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  7. Bovens, L. 2009. The ethics of nudge. In Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, ed. T. Grüne-Yanoff, and S.O. Hansson, 207–219. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caloia, B. 2014. Psychic costs and broad learning effects: Locating coercion and threats to autonomy in the use of ‘nudges’ in public policy. http://people.hws.edu/caloia/BroadLearningEffectsandPsychicCosts.pdf. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  9. Conly, S. 2013a. Coercive paternalism in health care: Against freedom of choice. Public Health Ethics 6: 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conly, S. 2013b. Against autonomy: Justifying coercive paternalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Day, P. 1992. Coercive offers do not exist. Philosophical Notes No. 24. http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn024.pdf. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  12. Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hausman, D.M., and B. Welch. 2010. Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hughes, R.C. 2013. Law and coercion. Philosophy Compass 8: 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., J.L. Knetsch, and R.H. Thaler. 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lammond, G. 2000. The coerciveness of law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 20: 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lammond, G. 2013. Coercion. In International encyclopedia of ethics 1–7. West Sussex: Blackwell. doi:  10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee696. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee696/abstract. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  18. Marteau, T. 1989. Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology 28: 89–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nelson, R.M., T. Beauchamp, V.A. Miller, et al. 2011. The concept of voluntary consent. American Journal of Bioethics 11: 6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nozick, R. 1969. Coercion. In Philosophy, science, and method: essays in honor of ernest nagel, ed. S. Morgenbesser, P. Suppes, and M. White, 440–472. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  21. Pallikkathayil, J. 2011. The possibility of choice: Three accounts of the problem of coercion. Philosophers’ Imprint 11: 1–20.Google Scholar
  22. Quigley, M. 2013. Nudging for health: On public policy and designing choice architecture. Medical Law Review 21: 588–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rozin, P., S. Scott, M. Dingle, et al. 2011. Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgment & Decision Making 6: 323–332.Google Scholar
  24. Saghai, Y. 2013. Salvaging the concept of nudge. Journal of Medical Ethics 9: 487–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scoccia, D. 2014. Paternalism and manipulation. http://philos.nmsu.edu/files/2014/07/pat-and-manip-2.pdf. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  26. Steverman, B. 2014. Manipulate me: The booming business in behavioral finance. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-07/manipulate-me-the-booming-business-in-behavioral-finance.html. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  27. Sunstein, C., and R.H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sunstein, C. 2014. Why nudge?. New Haven & London: Yale University Pres.Google Scholar
  29. Thaler, R.H., and C. Sunstein. 2009. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Bavel, R., Herrmann, B., Esposito, G., and Proestakis, A. (2013). Applying behavioural sciences to EU policy-making. EUR 26033 EN, 8. ftp://jrc.es/pub/EURdoc/JRC83284.pdf. Retrieved 3 Sept 2014.
  33. Wertheimer, A. 1987. Coercion. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wertheimer, A., and F.G. Miller. 2008. Payment for research participation: a coercive offer? Journal of Medical Ethics 34: 389–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, M.D. 2011. We’ve been nudged: The effects of the downturn on dignity and responsibility. In Consequences of economic downturn: Beyond the usual economics, ed. M.A. Starr, 103–118. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  36. White, M.D. 2013. Manipulation of choice. New York: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Willis, B.H., and M. Quigley 2014. Opt out organ donation: On evidence and public policy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107: 56-60. Google Scholar
  38. Yeung, K. 2012. Nudge as fudge. Modern Law Review 75: 122–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zimmerman, D. 1981. Coercive wage offers. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10: 121–145.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Monash University 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ethics in MedicineUniversity of BristolBristolUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations