Libertarian Paternalism Research Articles

ВНЕСОК COVID-19 В ПОТЕНЦІЙНІ ЕКОНОМІЧНІ ВТРАТИ ВРП ПРИЧОРНОМОРСЬКОГО ЕКОНОМІЧНОГО РЕГІОНУ

The urgency of the study is related to the extremely devastating impact of the COVID-19 pandemic not only on the world economy, but also on the socio-economic situation of Ukraine, in particular the Black Sea economic region. The aim of the article is to study the contribution of the COVID-19 pandemic to the potential economic losses of the Black Sea Economic Region. The subject of the study is to assess the potential economic losses for the FER economy from premature mortality in the age group 16–59 years. Research method – the method of potential demography. The forecast of economic decline rates in Europe and Central Asia, in particular in Ukraine, based on the results of the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic and the dynamics of changes in Ukraine's real GDP are analyzed. The proportion of people who died of COVID-19 in the total number of people who fell ill in some countries, Ukraine and the Black Sea economic region was calculated. The calculation of potential losses in man-years in the Black Sea economic region from premature mortality from COVID-19 in the age group 16–59 years, in particular in terms of its components. The calculation of potential economic losses in the Black Sea economic region due to premature mortality from COVID-19 in the age group 16–59 years, in particular in terms of its components. The contribution of COVID-19 to the potential economic losses of GRPs of the Black Sea Economic Region and Ukraine is calculated. It is hypothesized that the fall in real GRP of Ukraine due to the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic could be reduced to 3,97%, and for FER to – 5,65%, subject to full vaccination of the population of Ukraine, increase funding for health care motivation of the population to maintain health, introduction of health insurance, etc. It is proposed to change the vector of public policy from the principle of paternalism to libertarian paternalism with the parallel introduction of a motivational mechanism for maintaining and promoting health for all categories of the population, especially the economically active.

From libertarian paternalism to liberalism: behavioural science and policy in an age of new technology

AbstractBehavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people's freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.

When do people accept government paternalism? Theory and experimental evidence

AbstractUnder what conditions are people willing to accept paternalistic government policies? The use of libertarian paternalism (“nudges”) has gained popularity and captured the attention of scholars and policy‐makers alike. A central underlying assumption in advancing governmental nudges is that the public prefers them over classic paternalistic policies, which, unlike nudges, are coercive. This paper studies the extent and circumstances under which this assumption is justified, arguing that the claim for the preeminence of nudges is overstated. I develop a theoretical framework to account for the conditions under which people prefer coercive and non‐coercive paternalism, and test it experimentally among a national U.S. sample. I find that in certain theoretically predictable contexts, individuals not only tolerate, but even prefer coercive paternalism over nudges. These attitudes are systematically explained through the interaction between the coercion level and policy domain in question.

ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT OF “LIBERTARIAN PATERNALISM” IN SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE: SOCIAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECT

In the article, the authors attempt to analyze the various origins of libertarian paternalism - political, social, cultural, and try to explore the essence of this social and social phenomenon. Libertarian paternalism has both positive and negative features, which are actualized, in turn, by modern planetary challenges.The aim and the tasks: analysis of the essence of the social phenomenon of libertarian paternalism, and the study of its origins - political, social, cultural. Research methods are historical, structural and functional, systemic and equitable.For the revision of specific projects, it is also the principle of consistency, objectivity, convergence from the abstract to the concrete. Research results: Democracy and human rights have found themselves in the grip of challenges, to which both the government and the private sector of the economy in particular react in a peculiar way. In the civilized world, the problem of social protection is acute; an ordinary person dramatically perceives the massive pressure of advertising, the media, certain structures that are interested, first of all, in the early sale of their products - material, spiritual and social. Libertarian paternalism is seen by the authors as a possible way to reconcile these issues, especially from the point of view of protecting the human rights and freedoms. Discussion. In this regard, other authors note that in the practical implementation of Nudge technology, people rarely follow the ideal interpretation of private well-being in terms of full satisfaction of needs. Opponents suggest in this regard that people can be guided by temporary benefits in terms of irrational consumer behavior, that is, the socio-psychological bases of consumerism are affected. Conclusion. Libertarian paternalism was created as a reaction to political, economic and sociocultural changes in society under the impact of globalization, informatization and revision of social programs in the governments.The concept of libertarian paternalism and its practical implementation of nudge technology is relevant and promising in the context of a constant increase in the level of welfare of citizens. Libertarian paternalism affects the most subtle sociophilosophical, socio-psychological elements of the consciousness of an individual who has become hostage to government programs and private projects. The price of a rational choice of an individual is his own freedom, in the context of modern realities of social life.

Nudging Humans

ABSTRACT Nudging is the ascendant social engineering agenda pioneered by economist Richard Thaler and law professor Cass Sunstein. It has crept into the design of human-computer interfaces, affecting billions of individuals’ decisions daily. The foundational principles of nudging are simple: First, behavioral studies and data should inform the design of private and public choice architectures. Second, choice architects should steer people toward outcomes that make them better off. Third, Thaler and Sunstein’s ethical framework, libertarian paternalism, should provide sufficient ethical constraints on choice architects. This essay develops two novel criticisms of nudging, one focused on nudge creep and another based on normative myopia. Nudge creep describes how nudges justified and used to serve one purpose often are extended subtly. Normative myopia concerns the convenient, but unjustified, prioritization of certain normative values over others. Against creep and normative myopia, the essay proposes ‘active choosing by design’ as a default rule for nudges where social learning and related developmental consequences are relevant. This default rule sets a reasonable baseline for choice architects. It entails friction and that will rub efficiency-minded social engineers the wrong way. But friction is often necessary for human development and meaningful engagement with each other and our techno-social environments.

Reconciling the liberal tradition in normative economics with the findings of behavioural economics: on J.S. Mill, libertarian paternalism and Robert Sugden’s The Community of Advantage

ABSTRACT In The Community of Advantage, Robert Sugden reconstructs and defends an account of the liberal tradition (LT) in normative economics in the light of the findings of Behavioural Economics (BE). In this paper, the LT in neo-classical welfare economics which has roots in J.S. Mill’s thought is contrasted with Sugden’s account. Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler’s Libertarian Paternalism (LP) arguably attempts to reconcile the LT in neo-classical welfare economics with the findings of BE and to provide it with a Millian pedigree. To the extent that it attempts this, LP is unsuccessful. While Sugden abandons core elements of traditional normative economics – notably the ‘view from nowhere’, welfarism and the preference satisfaction view of welfare – which have a Millian pedigree and advances a contractarian alternative, he successfully reconciles his reconstruction of the LT with the findings of BE and also provides it with a sound Millian pedigree.

Sugden’s community of advantage

ABSTRACT Starting from a behavioural-economics critique of standard rational choice theory Sugden seeks to restate the case for classical liberalism. That case has three strands: a refutation of libertarian paternalism; a restatement of standard welfare theorems of economics in terms of opportunity sets; and underlining the role that ‘exchange’ plays in supporting civil liberal society. We explore questions about Sugden’s arguments in connection to all three strands and to relevant pieces of Adam Smith and James Buchanan to which Sugden appeals. Without substantive assumptions Sugden either adopts a view from nowhere or has to implicitly rely on non-negotiable interpersonal respect norms.

Regulating high-cost short-term credit in the UK: is there scope for ‘libertarian paternalism’ based provisions?

AbstractThe regulatory protection of credit consumers, in general, is paramount due to the considerable use of credit, the imbalanced bargaining positions of the contracting parties and the adverse effect of over-indebtedness on individuals and society alike. These concerning factors are worsened in the case of High-Cost Short-Term Credit (HCSTC) consumers owing to their disadvantaged financial position and other recognised vulnerabilities. In this respect, the paper argues that direct regulatory intervention, despite its importance, is not always a silver bullet. Through the analysis of the overhauling of the UK HCSTC regulatory framework, this paper demonstrates the shortfalls of these regulatory changes. Accordingly, the paper shifts the argument towards improving the decision-making mechanisms of HCSTC consumers, ie the role of ‘libertarian paternalism’-based interventions. By using a bespoke experimental survey, the paper demonstrates the type of behavioural interventions that can assist in this endeavour and which the regulator could possibly mandate.

Post-Neoliberalism? An Introduction

This article provides an introduction to the special issue on post-neoliberalism. It does so by considering challenges to the neoliberal order that have come, post-financial crisis, from the political right. It looks closely at the relation of neoliberalism to conservatism, on one hand, and libertarianism, on the other, in order to address the threat posed to the neoliberal order by paleoconservatism, neoreactionary politics, ordonationalism, libertarian paternalism, and different forms of sovereignty and elite power. The final section of this introduction reflects on the challenge to the neoliberal orthodoxy posed by the current COVID-19 crisis. For while events of 2020–21 have facilitated new forms of privatization of many public services and goods, they also signal, potentially, a break from the neoliberal orthodoxies of the previous four decades, and, in particular, from their overriding concern for the market.

Модели потребительского поведения на примере поколений

The article considers modern models of consumer behavior depending on the market situation in society: models of a rational consumer of the neoclassical school, a model of a socio-economic person, neoinstitutionalism, the doctrine of "libertarian paternalism" and a marketing model of a black box. A method for substantiating consumer behavior based on the concept of marketing experiences is proposed. The behavioral characteristics of people are considered on the example of generations BB, X, Y and Z. It is substantiated that it is the value basis that has formed among representatives of generations BB and Y that continues to have a significant impact on social networks and “opinion leaders”.

Libertarian Paternalism And Susan Hurley's political philosophy

ABSTRACT As the use of nudges by governmental agencies becomes more common, the need for normative guidelines regarding the processes by which decisions about the implementation of specific nudges are taken becomes more acute. In order to find a justified set of such guidelines one must meet several theoretical challenges to Libertarian Paternalism that arise at the foundational level. In this paper, I identify three central challenges to Libertarian Paternalism, and suggest that Susan Hurley's political philosophy as presented in her Natural Reasons (1989) can be viewed as offering powerful responses to them.

A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness

AbstractIn 2008, the behavioral economist Richard Thaler and the legal scholar Cass Sunstein published a book in which they advocated a novel approach to public policy based on the notion of a “nudge.” Roughly speaking, a nudge is an intervention in the decisional context that steers people's decisions by acting on their cognitive biases. The notion of a nudge generated an intense debate across different disciplines and proved popular with many policy makers around the world. The present article reviews the debate and research on nudges by focusing on three main dimensions: (1) the exact definition of nudges; (2) the justification of nudge policies, with a focus on “libertarian paternalism”; and (3) the effectiveness of nudges, both over time and in comparison with standard policies.

Smart cities and behavioural change: (Un)sustainable mobilities in the neo-liberal city

The smart cities agenda has garnered considerable interest recently as the spread of mobile technologies and notions of ‘big data’ have opened possibilities for promoting greater efficiencies in urban metabolisms. This has been particularly prominent in the realm of environmental sustainability, where smart technologies have been viewed as a way of reducing traffic congestion and delivering energy efficiencies. Key to these aspirations is the way in which technologies are seen to interact with human behaviour and how digital technologies can promote behavioural change through the provision of ‘better’ information. However, smart city programmes adopt a particular intellectual and pragmatic framing of behavioural change that we argue is fundamentally narrow and unambitious, raising concerns about how behavioural science is mobilised, by whom and its potential to promote sustainable urban futures. First, we propose that the focus in smart city narratives on quantitative data and insights from ‘big data’ is methodologically narrow and is representative of a highly individualised, libertarian paternalist perspective that privileges rationalistic and atomised understandings of behaviour. Second, we argue that the logic of smart cities leads city governments towards a focus on superficial change and the language of ‘encouraging’ shifts in individual behaviour that presents a distraction from the urgent need to reconfigure city infrastructures for low carbon forms of living. Third, we explore how such behavioural change approaches are fundamentally didactic and often lapse into assuming that publics are the passive receivers of ‘smarter’ information rather than active citizens who can question, campaign and present alternative visions to those of corporate-government interests. In this way, we argue that the suffusing of the smart cities and behavioural change agendas act as a neo-liberal distraction to the ways in which cities can develop to support the priorities of human and ecological wellbeing.

Nudge Economics as Libertarian Paternalism

Given the growing prominence of nudge economics both within and beyond the academy, it is a timely moment to reassess the philosophical and political arguments that sit at its core, and in particular what Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein call libertarian paternalism. The first half of this paper provides a detailed account of the main features of this form of paternalism, before moving, in the second half, to a critical evaluation of the nudge agenda that questions, among other things, the gendered basis of paternalistic governance; the idea of ‘nudging for good’; and the political values that underpin nudge. The final section of this paper builds on the existing work of John McMahon by asking whether libertarian paternalism should be understood as a new, hybrid form of neoliberalism, or, rather, as a post-neoliberal form of governance that has emerged out of, and flourished in, the post-crisis situation.

A shift to libertarian paternalism in old‐age income security: Discourses on pension privatization reforms in Lithuania 2016–2018

AbstractThis study uses news media discourse analysis to investigate the highly contentious process of pension privatization retrenchment in Lithuania. In 2016, Lithuania began debating reforms on restructuring its poorly performing “second pillar” pension scheme – statutory funded individually defined contribution plans managed by the private sector. Pension reform is here conceptualized as a process of discursive contestation of the orthodox neoliberal consensus that prevailed in designing and introducing a private pension system in the early 2000s. By 2018, when a new Law on Pensions institutionalized a subsidized “nudge‐type” private retirement saving scheme, this process was legitimized by a newly prominent libertarian paternalistic ideology. Impacts of the discursive framing of pension reforms on their outcomes are discussed.

Be Happy: Navigating Normative Issues in Behavioral and Well-Being Public Policy

Psychological science is increasingly influencing public policy. Behavioral public policy (BPP) was a milestone in this regard because it influenced many areas of policy in a general way. Well-being public policy (WPP) is emerging as a second domain of psychological science with general applicability. However, advocacy for WPP is criticized on ethical and political grounds. These criticisms are reminiscent of those directed at BPP over the past decade. This déjà vu suggests the need for interdisciplinary work that establishes normative principles for applying psychological science in public policy. We try to distill such principles for WPP from the normative debates over BPP. We argue that the uptake of BPP by governments was a function of its relatively strong normative and epistemic foundations in libertarian paternalism, or nudging, for short. We explain why the nudge framework is inappropriate for WPP. We then analyze how boosts offer a strict but feasible alternative framework for substantiating the legitimacy of well-being and behavioral policies. We illuminate how some WPPs could be fruitfully promoted as boosts and how they might fall short of the associated criteria.

A Novel Data Governance Scheme Based on the Behavioral Economics Theory

The digital economy has become one of the most important sectors in global GDP. Personal data is the new asset class that creates value through the applications of cybertechnologies and Artificial Intelligence. However, there are increasing concerns over the privacy invasions and human rights violations associated with the exploitation of personal data. Various data laws were made in nations to balance the data fluidity and privacy protections. However, most laws have inherent limitations and underenforcement issues that fail to achieve their aims and protection principles. Utilizing a behavioral economics theoretical framework, this study categorizes the issues and causes to Information Asymmetry, Bounded Rationality, Power Imbalance, and Technical Incapacity. The study makes a novel contribution by proposing a global data governance scheme to address the limitations of data laws. The scheme adopts a Libertarian Paternalism approach and develops seven principles in the framework design. Elements and components in the scheme include individuals, data controllers, privacy rating frameworks, meta-data and privacy configuration, reports, Automated Consent Management (ACM), Bureaus, and signatures, etc. The components will operate on an interoperable and global data management platform. Visual diagrams are developed to describe the various forms of interactions between components and procedures. A balance between privacy protection and data fluidity is found through experimental scenarios such as Ordinary Data Request, Sensitive Data Request, Inconsistency Checks, Data Rights Exercise, Monitored Data Transfer, Broadcast and Notice. The scenarios analyzed are not exhaustive but serve as the meaningful starting point to inspire more designs and discussions from scholars.

BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICIES: SOME INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

The paper aims to inform the domestic public about the basic concepts of behavioural economics, its historical development and intellectual basis, the application of its findings in policymaking, and its effectiveness in current practical application. In the first part of the paper, the author presents the basic concepts of behavioural economics: the nudge, the choice architecture, the libertarian paternalism, cognitive biases, and others. The second part of the paper provides a concise overview of the critiques directed at behavioural economics and libertarian paternalism (Posner's critique, Mitchell's critique), and a review of the empirical validity of certain behavioural economics phenomena. The third part presents the use of behavioural findings to inform the design of public policy in different domains (the behavioural public policy), along with numerous examples, mostly from the practice of the Behavioural Insights Team in the United Kingdom.

Libertarian Paternalism and the Problem of Preference Architecture

AbstractPeople often fail to make the choices that best satisfy their preferences. The design of the social environment inevitably makes some choices easier than others. According to Libertarian Paternalists, these facts justify governments nudging people towards better choices through changes to the so-called choice architecture. This is a form of means paternalism. However, the social environment affects not only people's choices or means, but also the preferences they adopt in the first place. Call this the problem of ‘preference architecture’. This article argues that preference architecture constitutes a fundamental challenge to the justificatory basis of Libertarian Paternalism. More generally, it explores when, if ever, government paternalism that influences preference formation can be justified. While Libertarian Paternalism cannot provide a satisfactory answer, the author defends a contractualist account of paternalism based on a notion of primary goods and democratic deliberation.

Teasing out Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: An Ethical Critique of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Medicine.

The rapid adoption and implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine creates an ontologically distinct situation from prior care models. There are both potential advantages and disadvantages with such technology in advancing the interests of patients, with resultant ontological and epistemic concerns for physicians and patients relating to the instatiation of AI as a dependent, semi- or fully-autonomous agent in the encounter. The concept of libertarian paternalism potentially exercised by AI (and those who control it) has created challenges to conventional assessments of patient and physician autonomy. The unclear legal relationship between AI and its users cannot be settled presently, an progress in AI and its implementation in patient care will necessitate an iterative discourse to preserve humanitarian concerns in future models of care. This paper proposes that physicians should neither uncritically accept nor unreasonably resist developments in AI but must actively engage and contribute to the discourse, since AI will affect their roles and the nature of their work. One’s moral imaginative capacity must be engaged in the questions of beneficence, autonomy, and justice of AI and whether its integration in healthcare has the potential to augment or interfere with the ends of medical practice.