Abstract
This paper considers the significance of the growth of knowledge for the efficacy of paternalistic intervention. Three cases are examined. The first is government intervention in the consumption of fatty food. Second is the evolution of knowledge that occurred after a law mandated the use of cycle helmets. The third examines information flows that characterised the smoking debate. This paper argues that although knowledge continues to evolve, inertia, path dependency and expert bias can impede the removal of paternalistic laws that do not raise welfare but continue to restrict individual agency.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
