Libertarian Paternalism: The Nudge Theory of Governance

[Lemur]

Here's an interesting essay 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.