Libertarian Paternalism: The Nudge Theory of Governance

[Lemur]

Here's an interesting essay (http://www.newsweek.com/id/142638/output/print) from George Will about the "nudge" theory of governance, as cooked up by some University of Chicago eggheads.


Such is the power of inertia in human behavior, and the tendency of individuals to emulate others' behavior, that there can be huge social consequences from the clever framing of the choices that nudgeable people—almost all of us—make. Choice architects understand that every choice is made in a context, and that contexts are not "neutral"—they inevitably encourage certain outcomes. Organizing the context can promote outcomes beneficial to choosers and, cumulatively, to society. [...]

By a "nudge" Thaler and Sunstein mean a policy intervention into choice architecture that is easy and inexpensive to avoid and that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing an individual's economic incentives. "Putting the fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not." [...]

Thaler and Sunstein say the premise of libertarian policy is that people should be generally free to do what they please. Paternalistic policy "tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves." So "libertarian paternalism is a relatively weak, soft, and nonintrusive type of paternalism because choices are not blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened."

Thaler and Sunstein stress that if "incentives and nudges replace requirements and bans, government will be both smaller and more modest.

Two thoughts: "Nudging" would take a lot more cleverness than shoving. From a legal perspective, it's much simpler to outlaw starving your dog than to "nudge" dog owners into being more responsible. Sure, nudging would be better, but stupid lawyers and lazy lawmakers would be at wits' end.

Secondly, is this even desirable? Do we want to government trying to be clever in this way?

Thoughts appreciated.

[Whacker]

Do we want to government trying to be clever in this way?

Bold emphasis mine. I think you just broke some laws of reality/physics/common sense by using those two words in the same sentence.

:balloon2:

[woad&fangs]

I guess if politicians are enacting minor changes for large benefits, the chances of them causing large negatives is pretty small. :shrug:

I guess its effectiveness mostly comes down to who is in charge.

Also, I like the idea of making organ donation "opt out" instead of "opt in".

[Don Corleone]

Ten years ago, I would have said the idea made perfect sense. Sadly, I've lost my faith the common sense and the level of responsibility exhibited by the average citizen. I'm really starting to plumb the depths of the sad testimony to Western civilization that "The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute chat with the average voter".

I don't know about other places, but sadly, I don't think you can say that people will "get it" and do the right thing. Hell, just look at drunk driving. Does anybody think 'nudging' would work at reducing that?

[CountArach]

This stinks too much of brainwashing to me. Call me paranoid, but there it is.

[woad&fangs]

It's more like marketing than brainwashing.

[CountArach]

It's more like marketing than brainwashing.
You clearly don't understand my views on marketing.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

It's mildly better than straight up fiat, at least when we are aware that they are making such policy changes. I don't think I trust the government to only set up good "nudges", however.

Also, why are the tags for this "octosquid gangsta"?

[drone]

I like it, but it would never work in practice. An incumbent politician could never run on his record of encouraging proper behavior. Ground breaking "think of the children" policies are more memorable and sexy and get the voters out.

[Pannonian]

There are other agencies who are better at nudging than any government is. Putting the apple at eye level may be an example of nudging, but it's likely to be ineffective in the face of a sustained marketing campaign that paints junk food as the lifestyle of choice. Also, people like their governments to be open in what they do, rather than have to question the intention of their every action. If the government is doing some nudging, the people need to know they're being nudged, and this automatically reduces its effectiveness.

[rotorgun]

What is so libertarian about your government leading the lemmings to nudge the other lemmings off the precipice like some sort of Pied Pieper flouting the rats over the cliff? Whatever happened to "It's my life, and I'll live it the way that suits me" theory of libertarianism? What a bunch of elitist bunk!