Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:09:55.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS AND PATERNALISM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2017

Daniel M. Hausman
Daniel M. Hausman*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5197 Helen C. White Hall, 600 N. Park Street, Madison, WI 53706-1474. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Contemporary behavioural economics has documented common failures of reasoning that apparently make possible policies that benefit individuals by contravening or correcting their judgements. These policies appear to be paternalistic, even though a traditional view would deny that they are paternalistic on the grounds that policies such as nudges do not restrict individual liberty. It appears to many that a new definition of paternalism that takes its cue from behavioural economics is needed. Furthermore, if one revises the definition of paternalism, one must revisit traditional views concerning whether paternalist policies are wise. In Government Paternalism, Julian Le Grand and Bill New make a valuable start, although some corrections are needed. This essay provides a general setting for revising the definition of paternalism and suggests a revised definition of paternalism.

Keywords

paternalismnudgebehavioural economicsliberty
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 53 - 66
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Arneson, R. 1980. Mill versus paternalism. Ethics 90: 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G. 1972. Paternalism. Monist 56: 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G. 1988. Paternalism: some second thoughts. In The Theory and Practice of Autonomy, 121–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, G. 2006/2016. Paternalism. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/.Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1971. Legal paternalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1: 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to Self. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. and Welch, B.. 2010. To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 123–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. and New, B.. 2014. Government Paternalism: Helpful Friend or Nanny State? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1978 [1859].On Liberty. Rpt. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1975. Preference and urgency. Journal of Philosophy 72: 655–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiffrin, S. 2000. Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29: 205–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. 2004. The opportunity criterion: consumer sovereignty without the assumption of coherent preferences. American Economic Review 94: 1014–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, A. and Weimer, D.. 2010. An assessment of important issues concerning the application of benefit-cost analysis to social policy. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 1. ISSN (Online) 2152–2812. doi: https://doi.org/10.2202/2152-2812.1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar