Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:14:13.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some challenges to the new paternalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

JULIAN LE GRAND
JULIAN LE GRAND*
Affiliation:
Professor of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
*
*Correspondence to: Marshall Institute, London School of Economics, 5 Lincoln's Inn Fields, LondonWC2A 3BP, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Behavioural public policy analysts have examined cases of individuals’ failures of reason or judgement to attain their ends and have used these to justify ‘means’ paternalism: a form of government intervention that tries to save individuals from the consequences of those reasoning failures and to enable them better to achieve those ends. This has been challenged on a number of grounds, including too great a focus on choice-preserving interventions such as nudges, the privileging of future preferences over current ones and the possibility of state failures as damaging to individual well-being as the original reasoning failure. This paper summarizes the principal arguments in favour of means paternalism and then addresses these challenges.

Type
Annual LSE Behavioural Public Policy Lecture
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 160 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O'Donoghue, T. and Rabin, M. (2003), ‘Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case of ‘Asymmetric Paternalism’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1151: 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. (1960), ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conly, S. (2013), Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Le Grand, J. (2007), The Other Invisible Hand: Delivering Public Services Through Choice and Competition. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Le Grand, J. (2018), ‘Future Imperfect: behavioural economics and government paternalism’, Review of Behavioral Economics, 5(3–4): 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Grand, J. and New, B. (2015), Government Paternalism: Nanny State or Helpful Friend? Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859/1972), On Liberty. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Pennington, M. (2016), ‘Paternalism, Behavioural economics, Irrationality and State Failure’, European Journal of Political Theory, 18(4): 565–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. (2018), The Community of Advantage: A Behavioral Economist's Defence of the Market. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2003), ‘Libertarian Paternalism’, American Economic Review, 93: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar