Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:23:31.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nudges that should fail?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2019

AVISHALOM TOR
AVISHALOM TOR*
Affiliation:
Notre Dame Law School, Notre Dame, IN, USA and University of Haifa Faculty of Law, Haifa, Israel
*
*Correspondence to: Professor of Law and Director, Research Program on Law and Market Behavior, Notre Dame Law School (ND LAMB), 1100 Eck Hall of Law, Notre Dame, IN46556, USA. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Professor Sunstein (2017) discusses the possible causes for and policy implications of the failure of nudges, with special attention to defaults. Though he focuses on nudges that fail when they should succeed, Sunstein recognizes that some failures reveal that a nudge should not have been attempted to begin with. ‘Nudges that fail’, however, does not consider fully the relationship between the outcomes of nudging and their likely welfare effects, most notably neglecting the troubling case of nudges that succeed when they should fail. Hence, after clarifying the boundaries of legitimate nudging within a libertarian-paternalistic approach and noting the fourfold relationship between the efficacy of nudging and its normative desirability, this article evaluates more fully the case of failed nudges and examines the hitherto unaddressed problem of successful yet undesirable nudges. This analysis shows that the failure of nudging bears only limited diagnostic value, while the success of a nudge is even less indicative of its normative status. The article concludes with recommendations for policy-makers who wish to employ nudges that are not only efficacious, but also likely to advance the subjective well-being of the individuals they target.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 316 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, M. D. and Posner, E. A. (2006), New Foundations of Cost-Benefit Analysis, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Gill, O., Schkade, D. and Sunstein, C. R. (2018), ‘Drawing False Inferences from Mandated Disclosures’ Behavioural Public Policy, available online at https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2017.12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes Truelove, H., Carrico, A. R., Weber, E. U., Raimi, K. T. and Vandenbergh, M. P. (2014), ‘Positive and Negative Spillover of Pro-Environmental Behavior: An Integrative Review and Theoretical Framework’, Global Environmental Change, 29: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beshears, J., Choi, J., Laibson, D. and Madrain, B. (2010), ‘The Limitations of Defaults’, Unpublished manuscript, Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/programs/ag/rrc/NB10-02,%20Beshears,%20Choi,%20Laibson,%20Madrian.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bubb, R. and Pildes, R. (2014), ‘How Behavioral Economics Trims Its Sails and Why’, Harvard Law Review, 127(6): 1593–1678.Google Scholar
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O'donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (2003), ‘Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism”‘, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3): 1211–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conly, S. (2013), Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
de Wijk, R., Holthuysen, N., Maaskant, A., Polet, I., van Kleef, E. and Vingerhoeds, M., (2016), ‘An In-Store Experiment on the Effect of Accessibility on Sales of Wholegrain and White Bread in Supermarkets’, PLOS ONE, 11(3), Article e0151915. Retrieved from http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0151915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, P. and Galizzi, M. M (2015), ‘Like Ripples on a Pond: Behavioral Spillovers and Their Implications for Research and Policy’, Journal of Economic Psychology, 47: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. (2006), ‘Paternalism and Psychology’, University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1): 133–56.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W. and Hogarth, R. (1997), ‘Judgment and Decision Research: Some Historical Context’, in Goldstein, W. & Hogarth, R. (eds.), Research on Judgment and Decision Making: Currents, Connections, and Controversies, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3–65.Google Scholar
Halpern, D. (2015), Inside the Nudge Unit, London, UK: WH Allen.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. (2012), Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. J. and Goldstein, D. G. (2013), ‘Decisions By Default’, in Shafir, E. (ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 417–27.Google Scholar
Jolls, C. and Sunstein, C. R. (2006), ‘Debiasing through Law’, Journal of Legal Studies, 35(1): 199–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klayman, J. and Brown, K. (1993), ‘Debias the Environment Instead Of the Judge: An Alternative Approach to Reducing Error in Diagnostic (and Other) Judgment.’ Cognition, 49(1–2): 97–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klick, J. and Mitchell, G. (2006), ‘Government Regulation of Irrationality: Moral and Cognitive Hazards’, Minnesota Law Review, 90: 1620–63.Google Scholar
Lehwinson-Zamir, D. (2015), ‘The Importance of Being Earnest: Two Notions of Internalization’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 65: 37–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, M. and Whitman, D. (2009), ‘The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism’, Brigham Young University Law Review, 2009: 905–68.Google Scholar
Sibony, A. L. and Alemanno, A. (2016), ‘The Emergence of Behavioural Policy-Making’, in Alemanno, A. & Sibony, A. L. (eds.), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective, Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 1–25.Google Scholar
Shafir, E. (ed.) (2013), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K., Topiak, M. and West, R. (2008), ‘The Development of Rational Thought: A Taxonomy of Heuristics and Biases’, Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 36: 251–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2013), ‘The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism’, Yale Law Journal, 122: 1826–99.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2014), ‘Nudges v. Shoves’, Harvard Law Forum, 127: 210–17.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2016), ‘The Council of Psychological Advisors’, Annual Review of Psychology, 67: 713–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2017), ‘Nudges That Fail’, Behavioral Public Policy, 1(1): 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018a), ‘“Better Off, As Judged By Themselves”: A Comment on Evaluating Nudges’, International Review of Economics, 65(1): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2018b), The Cost-Benefit Revolution, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. H. (2003), ‘Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron’, University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4): 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talor, S. E. and Brown, J. D. (1988), ‘Illusion and Well-Being: A Social Psychological Perspective on Mental Health’, Psychological Bulletin, 103(2): 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. and Sunstein, C. R. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, New York, NY: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Tor, A. (2008), ‘The Methodology of the Behavioral Analysis of Law’, Haifa Law Review, 4: 237–327.Google Scholar
Tor, A. (2014), ‘Understanding Behavioral Antitrust’, Texas Law Review, 92(3): 573–667.Google Scholar
Tor, A. (2015), ‘The Next Generation of Behavioural Law and Economics’, Mathis, K. (ed.), European Perspectives on Behavioural Law and Economics, Switzerland: Springer, 17–30.Google Scholar
Tor, A. (2016), ‘The Critical and Problematic Role of Bounded Rationality in Nudging’, in Mathis, K. & Tor, A. (eds.), Nudging – Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics, Switzerland: Springer, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tor, A. (2017), ‘All Nudges Are Not the Same: Why Rationality Matters for Welfare’, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Tor, A. (2019), ‘Cost–Benefit Analysis of Behavioral Policies’, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Weimer, D.L. (2017), Behavioral Economics for Cost-Benefit Analysis: Benefit Validity When Sovereign Consumers Seem to Make Mistakes, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willis, L. (2013), ‘When Nudges Fail: Slippery Defaults’, University of Chicago Law Review, 80(3): 1155–1229.Google Scholar
Zamir, E. (1998), ‘The Efficiency of Paternalism’, Virginia Law Review, 84: 229–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamir, E. and Medina, B. (2010), Law, Economics, and Morality, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamir, E. and Teichman, D. (2018), Behavioral Law and Economics, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar