Advertisement

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1115–1120 | Cite as

A constitutional paradigm is not enough—would sovereign citizens really agree to manipulative nudges?—A reply to Christian Schubert

  • Martin Binder
Commentary

Abstract

In this short note I reply to a comment made by Christian Schubert, who argues that my criticism of libertarian paternalism cannot be upheld under a constitutional economics paradigm. I disagree: it is implausible to assume that sovereign individuals behind a veil of ignorance would actually agree on manipulative nudges from the public sector. Resorting to a constitutional economics paradigm does not diminish the force of the manipulation objection—libertarian paternalism remains morally objectionable. Moreover, where sovereign citizens would agree on permissible (morally legitimate) nudges behind a veil of ignorance, these would no longer constitute “paternalism” under its commonly agreed definition. More constructively, the only morally defensible paternalistic nudges would be those that improve welfare while respecting or, better yet, improving individual autonomy. These are not the typical nudges defended by libertarian paternalists.

Keywords

Libertarian paternalism Nudges Manipulation Autonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to thank Leonhard Pompeius Lades for helpful comments.

References

  1. Barber BS (2008) Consumed—how markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and Swallow Citizens Whole. W.W.Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Binder M (2014) Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism? J Evol Econ 24(3):515–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binder M, Lades LK (2014). Autonomy-enhancing paternalism. Stirling Economics Discussion Paper, 2014–09. http://hdl.handle.net/1893/20987. Accessed 12 Sept 2014
  4. Bovens L (2009) The ethics of nudge. In: Grüne-Yanoff T, Hansson SO (eds) Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. DellaVigna S (2009) Psychology and economics: evidence from the field. J Econ Lit 47(2):315–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworkin G (2010) Paternalism. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism
  7. Frey BS, Stutzer A (2005) Beyond outcomes: measuring procedural utility. Oxf Econ Pap 57:90–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frey BS, Benz M, Stutzer A (2004) Introducing procedural utility: not only what, but also how matters. J Inst Theor Econ 160:377–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Harsanyi JC (1976) Essays in ethics, social behaviour and scientific explanation. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar Straus & GirouxGoogle Scholar
  11. Lades LK (2014) Impulsive consumption and reflexive thought: nudging ethical consumer behavior. J Econ Psychol 41:114–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge/MassGoogle Scholar
  13. Rizzo MJ, Whitman DG (2009) The knowledge problem of the new paternalism. Brigham Young University Law Review, p 103–161Google Scholar
  14. Rosati CS (1995) Persons, perspectives, and full information accounts of the good. Ethics 105(2):296–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schnellenbach J (2011) Wohlwollendes Anschubsen: Was ist mit liberalem Paternalismus zu erreichen und was sind seine Nebenwirkungen? Perspekt Wirtsch 12(4):445–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schnellenbach J (2012) Nudges and norms: on the political economy of soft paternalism. Eur J Polit Econ 28(2):266–277Google Scholar
  17. Schubert C (2014) Evolutionary economics and the case for a constitutional libertarian paternalism—a comment on Martin Binder. Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism? J Evol EconGoogle Scholar
  18. Sobel D (1994) Full information accounts of well-being. Ethics 104(4):784–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sugden R (2013) The behavioural economist and the social planner: to whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed? Inquiry 56(5):519–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge—improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Whitman DG (2004) Meta-preferences and multiple selves. MimeoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bard College BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations