IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v6y2022i4p578-596_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Odd bedfellows: how choice architecture can enhance autonomy and mitigate inequality

Author

Listed:
  • TULLY, KENDRA

Abstract

The concept and use of choice architecture in public policy arouses warranted suspicion among scholars and the general public. Liberal scholars fear that without limitations, the contemporary wave of nudge theory and policies threaten individual autonomy. In this paper, I argue that the use of choice architecture in particular policy areas can not only enhance individual autonomy, but also work to mitigate larger social inequalities. Research demonstrates that too much choice leads to ‘choice paralysis’, especially in instances where knowledge is low and stakes are high. By limiting and nudging choices in these contexts, individuals are likely to feel less overwhelmed and more in control. A stronger sense of control and additional resources elevates the experience of autonomy felt by vulnerable populations (those with low knowledge and resources). This paper offers a theoretically robust defense of choice architecture by examining the relationship between choice architecture and autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Tully, Kendra, 2022. "Odd bedfellows: how choice architecture can enhance autonomy and mitigate inequality," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(4), pages 578-596, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:6:y:2022:i:4:p:578-596_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X19000368/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:6:y:2022:i:4:p:578-596_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.