IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0841.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How Much Liberty Should We Have? Citizens versus Experts on Regulating Externalities and Internalities

Author

Listed:
  • Carlsson, Fredrik

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Johansson-Stenman, Olof

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

  • Kataria, Mitesh

    (Department of Economics, School of Business, Economics and Law, Göteborg University)

Abstract

Based on a tailor-made survey, we find that experts – academics and civil servants – are much more willing than citizens in Sweden to accept liberty-reducing regulations. Moreover, both citizens and experts are more supportive of regulating negative internalities (in terms of health) than negative externalities (in terms of climate change). While less liberty-reducing policy instruments receive more support, around 20 percent of citizens and experts support very intrusive measures such as non-transferable individual quotas for air travel and unhealthy foods. Both experts and citizens prefer encouraging to discouraging information provision, while experts are more positive than citizens to tax instruments.

Suggested Citation

  • Carlsson, Fredrik & Johansson-Stenman, Olof & Kataria, Mitesh, 2024. "How Much Liberty Should We Have? Citizens versus Experts on Regulating Externalities and Internalities," Working Papers in Economics 841, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:gunwpe:0841
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/79569
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    2. Fredrik Carlsson & Christina Gravert & Olof Johansson-Stenman & Verena Kurz, 2021. "The Use of Green Nudges as an Environmental Policy Instrument," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(2), pages 216-237.
    3. Fredrik Carlsson & Dinky Daruvala & Henrik Jaldell, 2012. "Do administrators have the same priorities for risk reductions as the general public?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 79-95, August.
    4. Paola Sapienza & Luigi Zingales, 2013. "Economic Experts versus Average Americans," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(3), pages 636-642, May.
    5. Sandro Ambuehl & B. Douglas Bernheim & Axel Ockenfels, 2021. "What Motivates Paternalism? An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 787-830, March.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2011. "Do EPA Administrators Recommend Environmental Policies That Citizens Want?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(1), pages 60-74.
    7. Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch & Julius Rauber, 2018. "A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 3-22, March.
    8. B. Douglas Bernheim & Antonio Rangel, 2009. "Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-Theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(1), pages 51-104.
    9. D. Wade Hands, 2021. "Libertarian Paternalism: Making Rational Fools," Review of Behavioral Economics, now publishers, vol. 8(3-4), pages 305-326, December.
    10. Jung, Janice Y. & Mellers, Barbara A., 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.
    11. Nicholas Stern, 2022. "A Time for Action on Climate Change and a Time for Change in Economics," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(644), pages 1259-1289.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    14. Bernheim, B. Douglas, 2016. "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: A Unified Approach to Behavioral Welfare Economics1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 12-68, April.
    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. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    2. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    3. Meier, Johanna & Andor, Mark A. & Doebbe, Friederike C. & Haddaway, Neal R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Leonhard Lades & Federica Nova, 2022. "Ethical Considerations when using Behavioural Insights to Reduce Peoples Meat Consumption," Working Papers 202209, Geary Institute, University College Dublin.
    5. Franz Dietrich & Antonios Staras & Robert Sugden, 2021. "Savage’s response to Allais as Broomean reasoning," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 143-164, April.
    6. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    7. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    8. Elias Bouacida & Daniel Martin, 2021. "Predictive Power in Behavioral Welfare Economics," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 1556-1591.
    9. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    10. Eugen Dimant & Tobias Gesche, 2021. "Nudging Enforcers: How Norm Perceptions and Motives for Lying Shape Sanctions," CESifo Working Paper Series 9385, CESifo.
    11. Giorgos Meramveliotakis & Manolis Manioudis, 2024. "Default Nudge and Street Lightning Conservation: Towards a Policy Proposal for the Current Energy Crisis," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 9228-9237, June.
    12. Hunt Allcott & Benjamin B. Lockwood & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2019. "Should We Tax Sugar-Sweetened Beverages? An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 202-227, Summer.
    13. V. Kerry Smith & Carol Mansfield & H. Allen Klaiber, 2022. "Terrorist threats, information disclosures, and consumer sovereignty," Chapters, in: The Economics of Environmental Risk, chapter 16, pages 231-240, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Daniel J. Benjamin & Mark Alan Fontana & Miles S. Kimball, 2020. "Reconsidering Risk Aversion," NBER Working Papers 28007, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Ambuehl, Sandro & Blesse, Sebastian & Doerrenberg, Philipp & Feldhaus, Christoph & Ockenfels, Axel, 2023. "Politicians' social welfare criteria - An experiment with German legislators," ZEW Discussion Papers 23-013, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    16. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca, 2025. "Breaking the bag habit: Testing interventions to reduce plastic bag demand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    17. repec:hal:wpaper:halshs-01489252 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. David A. Comerford & Leonhard K. Lades, 2022. "Responsibility utility and the difference between preference and desirance: implications for welfare evaluation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 58(2), pages 201-224, February.
    19. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2021. "Reconciling normative and behavioural economics: the problem that cannot be solved," Post-Print halshs-03418228, HAL.
    20. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca, 2023. "Breaking the Bag Habit: Testing Interventions to Reduce Plastic Bag Demand in a Developing Country," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2023/7, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    21. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    externalities; internalities; paternalism; experts; citizens;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D04 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation; Evaluation
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:gunwpe:0841. 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: Jessica Oscarsson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/naiguse.html .

    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.