IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v30y2012i5p924-940.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limits to Libertarian Paternalism: Two New Critiques and Seven Best-Practice Imperatives

Author

Listed:
  • Nick Gill

    (University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4RJ, England)

  • Matthew Gill

    (Financial Services Authority, 25 The North Colonnade, Canary Wharf, London E14 5HS, England)

Abstract

Behavioural economists argue that humans are predictably irrational in various ways, as a result of which there appears to be a role for public policy in improving their decision making. We of er a sympathetic critique of this so-called ‘libertarian paternalist’ approach. As well as reviewing existing critiques, we present two new arguments. First, we question whether policies which are not beneficial to the individuals they target can be justified within a libertarian paternalist framework, even if they contribute to the social good. Second, we highlight the potentially adverse consequences of poorly targeted libertarian paternalist interventions. In the penultimate section we bring together the existing critiques and the new arguments to of er seven best-practice imperatives for the careful application of these powerful, but easily misused, tools of government. We conclude with a brief reflection on what freedom might mean in the context of libertarian paternalist governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Nick Gill & Matthew Gill, 2012. "The Limits to Libertarian Paternalism: Two New Critiques and Seven Best-Practice Imperatives," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(5), pages 924-940, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:30:y:2012:i:5:p:924-940
    DOI: 10.1068/c11149r
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c11149r
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c11149r?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard H. Thaler & Shlomo Benartzi, 2004. "Save More Tomorrow (TM): Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 164-187, February.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    3. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2007. "Psychology Implies Paternalism? Bounded Rationality may Reduce the Rationale to Regulate Risk-Taking," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 28(2), pages 337-359, February.
    5. Harvey, David, 2007. "A Brief History of Neoliberalism," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283279.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    2. van Schie, Ron J.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Donkers, Bas, 2015. "Promoting later planned retirement: Construal level intervention impact reverses with age," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 124-131.
    3. Berg, Nathan, 2010. "Behavioral Economics," MPRA Paper 26587, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    5. Rogers, Todd & Bazerman, Max H., 2008. "Future lock-in: Future implementation increases selection of 'should' choices," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Martin Binder, 2014. "Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 515-539, July.
    7. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    8. J. M. Bauer & L. A. Reisch, 2019. "Behavioural Insights and (Un)healthy Dietary Choices: a Review of Current Evidence," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 3-45, March.
    9. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    10. Piotr Białowolski, 2018. "Hard Times! How do Households Cope with Financial Difficulties? Evidence from the Swiss Household Panel," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 139(1), pages 147-161, August.
    11. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Ross Guest, 2010. "Policy Forum: Saving for Retirement: Policy Options to Increase Retirement Saving in Australia," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 43(3), pages 293-301, September.
    13. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    14. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    15. Ajla Cosic & Hana Cosic & Sebastian Ille, 2018. "Can nudges affect students' green behaviour? A field experiment," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 2(1), pages 107-111, March.
    16. Eiichi Tomiura & Banri Ito & Hiroshi Mukunoki & Ryuhei Wakasugi, 2016. "Individual Characteristics, Behavioral Biases, and Trade Policy Preferences: Evidence from a Survey in Japan," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1081-1095, November.
    17. Kirchgässner, Gebhard, 2012. "Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus," Economics Working Paper Series 1217, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    18. Marianna Baggio & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Experience and History: An Experimental Approach to Generational Heterogeneity," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 5(4), pages 1-23, October.
    19. Francisco Gomes & Michael Haliassos & Tarun Ramadorai, 2021. "Household Finance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 59(3), pages 919-1000, September.
    20. Halit Yanıkkaya & Zeynep Aktaş Koral & Sadettin Haluk Çitçi, 2023. "The Power of Financial Incentives versus the Power of Suggestion for Individual Pension: Are Financial Incentives or Automatic Enrollment Policies More Effective?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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:sae:envirc:v:30:y:2012:i:5:p:924-940. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.