A Political Justification of Nudging
- 870 Downloads
Thaler and Sunstein justify nudge policies from welfaristic premises: nudges are acceptable because they benefit the individuals who are nudged. A tacit assumption behind this strategy is that we can identify the true preferences of decision-makers. We argue that this assumption is often unwarranted, and that as a consequence nudge policies must be justified in a different way. A possible strategy is to abandon welfarism and endorse genuine paternalism. Another one is to argue that the biases of decision that choice architects attempt to eliminate create externalities. For example, in the case of intertemporal discounting, the costs of preference reversals are not always paid by the discounters, because they are transferred onto other individuals. But if this is the case, then nudges are best justified from a political rather than welfaristic standpoint.
KeywordsMyopia Choice Architect Behavioural Economist Preference Ranking Neoclassical Economic
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Amir, O., and O. Lobel. 2008. Stumble, predict, nudge: How behavioral economics informs law and policy. Columbia Law Review 108: 2098–2137.Google Scholar
- Glaeser, E. 2006. Paternalism and psychology. The University of Chicago Law Review 73: 133–156.Google Scholar
- Haybron, D.M., and A. Alexandrova. 2013. Paternalism in economics. In Paternalism: Theory and Practice, ed. C. Coons and M. Weber. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Keynes, J.M. 1936. The general theory of employment, interest and money. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
- Rebonato, R. 2012. Taking liberties: A critical examination of libertarian paternalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Sunstein, C.R. 2014. Why Nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Thaler, R.H., and C.R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. London: Penguin.Google Scholar