Abstract
In the wake of Musgrave’s move to question the absolute hegemony of individual preferences for normative economics in the 1950’s by propounding the existence of merit goods, a recent book by Thaler and Sunstein is now making a similar claim under the label of ‘libertarian paternalism’. This paper tackles the question of why the framework of libertarian paternalism has received a so much more friendly reception among economists than the theory of merit goods. The main reason is a better foundation, not only for the conditions under which paternalism may be justified but also for the tools that should be applied, utilizing transaction cost theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational—the hidden forces that shape our decision. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Baumol, W. (1962). The doctrine of consumer sovereignty—discussion. The American Economic Review, 52, 289.
Besley, T. (1988). A simple model for merit good arguments. Journal of Public Economics, 35(3), 371–383.
Brennan, G. (1989). A methodological assessment of multiple utility frameworks. Economics and Philosophy, 5, 189–208.
Brennan, G., & Lomasky, L. (1983). Institutional aspects of “Merit Goods” analysis. Finanzarchiv, 41(2), 183–206.
Clark, A. E., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: an explanation for the easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144.
D’Amico, D. (2009). Merit goods, paternalism and responsibility. http://www-3.unipv.it/websiep/2009/200928.pdf.
Drakopoulos, S. A. (2010). The history of mainstream rejection of interdependent preferences. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24933/1/MPRA_paper_24933.pdf.
Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Erlei, M. (1992). Meritorische Güter—Die theoretische Konzeption und ihre Anwendung auf Rauschgifte als demeritorische Güter. Münster: Lit.
Gesang, B. (2003). Eine Verteidigung des Utilitarismus. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Harsanyi, J. (1955). Cardinal welfare, individualistic ethics, and interpersonal comparisons of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 63(2), 315–335.
Head, J. G. (1969). Merit goods revisited. Finanzarchiv, 28(2), 214–225.
Holländer, H. (2001). On the validity of utility statements: standard theory versus Duesenberry’s. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 45(3), 227–249.
Kant, I. (1956). Critique of practical reason. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Locke, J. (1960([1689])). The second treatise of government. In P. Laslett (Ed.), Two treatises of government (pp. 283–446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mann, S. (2006). Merit goods in a utilitarian framework. Review of Political Economy, 18(4), 509–520.
Mackscheidt, K. (1974). Meritorische Güter: Musgraves Idee und deren Konsequenzen. In: Das Wirtschaftsstudium 3: 273.
McLure, C. E. (1968). Merit wants: a normatively empty box. Finanzarchiv, 27(3), 474–483.
Mill, J. S. (1869). Subjection of women. London: Longmans.
Musgrave, R. A. (1957). A multiple theory of budget determination. Finanzarchiv, N. F., 17, 341.
Ott, A. F., & Cebula, R. J. (2008). Introduction to the special issue in honor of Richard Abel Musgrave. Journal of Economics and Finance, 32(4), 324–329.
Rawls, J. (1988). The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251–276.
Salvat, C. (2008). Is libertarian paternalism an oxymoron? A comment on Sunstein and Thaler (2003). http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/33/65/28/PDF/libertarian-paternalism.pdf (Feb 5, 2010).
Samuelson, P. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36, 387–389.
Samuelson, P. (1955). A diagrammatic exposition of a theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 37, 350–356.
Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools: a critiqe of the behavioural foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 317–344.
Solf, G. (1993). Theatersubventionierung—Möglichkeiten einer Legitimation aus wirtschaftstheoretischer Sicht. Bergisch Gladbach
Sugden, R. (2008). Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(6), 226–248.
Sugden, R. (2009). On nudging: a review of nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 16(3), 365–373.
Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Fast, frugal and (sometimes) wrong. Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 110. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Thaler, R. H. (1980). Towards a positive theory of consumer choice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1(1), 39–60.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. The American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge—improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. Chicago: Yale University Press.
Tietzel, M., & Müller, C. (1998). Noch mehr zur Meritorik. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts—und Sozialwissenschaften, 118, 87–127.
Ver Eecke, W. (1998). The concept of a “merit good”: the ethical dimension in economic theory and the history of economic thought or the transformation of economics into socio-economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(1), 133–153.
Wolfe, A. (2008). Hedonic man: the new economics and the pursuit of happiness. Real-World Economics Review, 48, 355–361.
Zanitelli, L. M. (2009). Default rules and the inevitability of paternalism (February 9, 2009). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1346497.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mann, S., Gairing, M. Does Libertarian Paternalism Reconcile Merit Goods Theory with Mainstream Economics?. For Soc Econ (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12143-010-9084-3
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12143-010-9084-3