The normative and descriptive weaknesses of behavioral economics-informed nudge: depowered paternalism and unjustified libertarianism

Mind and Society 17 (1):53-69 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The article aims to demonstrate that the nudge theory suffers from three main weaknesses stemming from its theoretical dependence on behavioural economics. The first two weaknesses endanger the paternalistic goal, whereas the third does not justify the libertarian attribute. The first weakness lies in the incomplete realistic characterisation of behavioural economics theory that is the central theoretical pillar of Nudge theory. The second weakness is even more relevant. The normative model of behavioural economics is neoclassical rationality. It can be applied to choices in conditions of risk, when it is possible to forecast the probability of the outcomes of one’s choices. On the contrary the real life problems are inside a complex and uncertain environment. In an uncertain environment the neoclassical algorithms are no longer valid, in that they postulate the knowledge of the probability of the outputs. Thus errors and bias, as observed in behavioural economics, are not such in many instances, but they are instead adaptive and therefore rational responses to the context of decision-making. Therefore nudge theory that pursues the normative paternalistic objective of neutralising the bias and judgement errors discovered by behavioural economics and putting paternalistically the citizen on the right track, is in fact proceeding in the wrong direction. The last weakness concerns an assumption of Nudge theory about the duality of mind. System 1 represents the intuitive mind, while System 2 corresponds to the analytical one. System 1 tends to make decisions quickly and unconsciously, while System 2 follows a slow and conscious process. Biases and judgement errors are mainly generated by System 1. However, System 2 may later intervene to correct them. From this premise, the Nudge theory affirms its libertarian character. In this paper I will argue that the dualism of the mind would not entail the reversibility of some nudges, particularly of default states. In this way the fundamental pillar is weakened to justify the libertarian character of the nudge theory.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Ethics of Nudge.Luc Bovens - 2008 - In Mats J. Hansson & Till Grüne-Yanoff (eds.), Preference Change: Approaches from Philosophy, Economics and Psychology. Springer, Theory and Decision Library A. pp. 207-20.
Rethinking Nudge: Not One But Three Concepts.Philippe Mongin & Mikael Cozic - 2018 - Behavioural Public Policy 2:107-124.
The Problematic Welfare Standards of Behavioral Paternalism.Douglas Glen Whitman & Mario J. Rizzo - 2015 - Review of Philosophy and Psychology 6 (3):409-425.
Nudging Utopia.Soren Riis, Evan Selinger & Kyle Powys Whyte - 2010 - Future Orientation, Copenhagen Institute for Future Studies Magazine 1:29-33.
Real Nudge.Luc Bovens - 2012 - European Journal of Risk Regulation 3 (1):43-6.

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-03-24

Downloads
27 (#572,408)

6 months
5 (#652,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?