IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/ecnphi/v15y1999i01p63-83_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paternalism and Public Policy

Author

Listed:
  • New, Bill

Abstract

Wherever a government or state is concerned with the welfare of its citizens, there will probably also exist policies which compel the individual citizen to undertake or abstain from activities which affect that citizen alone. The set of theories behind such policies is collectively known as ‘paternalism’. It is not hard to understand why this term has developed strong pejorative overtones. Policies of this type appear to offend a fundamental tenet of liberal societies: namely, that the individual is best placed to know what is in his or her interests. Paternalistic policies imply, and are concerned with correcting, failures of precisely this kind of judgement. And yet, at the same time, there is a popular consensus that compelling people to wear a seat belt when driving a car is a reasonable restriction of personal liberty. Paternalism may be difficult to accept in principle, but it is equally difficult to avoid in practice.Not surprisingly, the literature reveals a long heritage of debate in a wide range of academic disciplines. This debate reveals a failure to make progress in two areas in particular. First, analyses of paternalism often confuse policies which are actually concerned with correcting failures of market exchange — in particular, those concerned with insufficient or imperfect information — with those which are genuinely paternalistic. One objective of this paper will be to clarify the difference between these two kinds of policy.

Suggested Citation

  • New, Bill, 1999. "Paternalism and Public Policy," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(1), pages 63-83, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:ecnphi:v:15:y:1999:i:01:p:63-83_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S026626710000359X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas Barr & Peter Diamond, 2006. "The Economics of Pensions," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 22(1), pages 15-39, Spring.
    2. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    3. Elizabeth Prior Jonson & Margaret Lindorff & Linda McGuire, 2012. "Paternalism and the Pokies: Unjustified State Interference or Justifiable Intervention?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 259-268, October.
    4. Julian Le Grand, 2003. "Individual Choice and Social Exclusion," CASE Papers 075, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    5. Calcott, Paul, 2004. "Government warnings and the information provided by safety regulation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 71-88, March.
    6. Adrian Park & Andrew Harris & Jonathan Parke & Jane Rigbye & Alex Blaszczynski, 2014. "Facilitating Awareness And Informed Choice In Gambling," Journal of Gambling Business and Economics, University of Buckingham Press, vol. 8(3), pages 6-20.
    7. Jolad, Shivakumar & Ravi, Chaitanya, 2021. "Addressing the dilemma of India’s state dependency on Alcohol: ‘New-Soft’ Paternalism approach," SocArXiv 7pnh5, Center for Open Science.
    8. Mann, Stefan, 2005. "Trade Restrictions on Farmland - a Utilitarian Analysis of Paternalistic Laws," Working Papers 30709, Agroscope Reckenholz Tanikon (ART).
    9. Le Grand, Julian, 2003. "Individual choice and social exclusion," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4645, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Robert Goldfarb & Thomas Leonard & Steven Suranovic, 2001. "Are rival theories of smoking underdetermined?," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 229-251.
    11. Severine Deneulin, 2002. "Perfectionism, Paternalism and Liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum's Capability Approach," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(4), pages 497-518.
    12. Hae Young Lee, 2013. "A Policy Paradox from Paternalism to Populism: The Case of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in South Korea," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(3), pages 233-256, December.
    13. Hanson, Robin, 2003. "Warning labels as cheap-talk: why regulators ban drugs," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 2013-2029, September.

    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:ecnphi:v:15:y:1999:i:01:p:63-83_00. 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/eap .

    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.