Ps. Those interested might usefully read recent pieces by Bob Sugden - one of the leading behavioural economists in the world, and a very strong critic of nudge policies. People are trying to reduce behav econ down into something that it is not, or at least that it is not necessarily. Adam Smith defined many of the concepts of behvaioural economics before psychology existed as a discipline - in fact, before economics existed as a discipline. The contribution of modern behavioural economists - in part - has been to empirically demonstrate some of these phenomena, many of which are not at all 'obvious'. Economics-minded psychologists have of course contributed to this effort, but most behavioural economists are trained economists, and yet behavioural economics is still very heavily marginalised by most of the mainstream economics community. A few facts, rather than lazy speculation, may help.



On 13 Apr 2012, at 13:06, "Oliver,AJ" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Tom
> 
> You are very, very wrong about many of the points you make (re. where behav econ came from, what it comprises, and what it intends to do), but I have a cold, so i'll leave others to debate it. Suffice to say that commentary from those who really know nothing about behav econ is the main reason why the nudge agenda is such a mess. 
> 
> 
> 
> On 13 Apr 2012, at 12:59, "Tom Foubister" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Adam, I agree with Michael, excellent piece. I'm also with Michael in questioning the novelty of behavioural economics (and, I would add, the kind of policy making it supports). But I disagree with the suggestion that behavioural economics has been perverted in its use - that use was always what behavioural economics promised.
>> 
>> I guess that there are two novel things about behavioural economics.
>> 
>> First, it is an economics-informed critique of 'standard' economics (or a critique of economics from within); this is a valuable contribution, and 'standard' economics only stands to benefit from this.
>> 
>> Second - though this is really a contribution of psychology rather than behavioural economics - it gives an experimental-scientific basis to the downright obvious. The real value of providing a scientific basis to the obvious, however, lies mainly in supporting behavioural economics as a form of critique.
>> 
>> Aside from the above, this development - the emergence of behavioural economics as a field and its re-shaping of what policy is and how policy is made - is worrying.
>> 
>> Someone once said to me: "in the Soviet Union, you had no freedom of speech, but you had freedom of thought; in the West you had freedom of speech, but no freedom of thought".
>> 
>> I don't think he was making an entirely straightforward empirical observation (and it would be a little exaggerated if he were), but rather an important point about, on my reading anyway, the distinction between freedom and autonomy.
>> 
>> It seems to me that behavioural-economics-informed policy represents an insidious assault on the person's autonomy, whilst proclaiming and celebrating its leaving-untouched our freedom. I think it is the job of government to act on freedom (what else could the sphere of government action be?), but to leave autonomy well alone.
>> 
>> Government policy should be up-front and transparent about what it is doing, and thereby open itself up to debate, argument, criticism, support, rejection. Government policy should not be manipulative and opaque; proclaiming (and celebrating) that it leaves our freedom intact whilst assaulting our autonomy; and lending support to ideologists of the 'small state' whose only interest is to expand or re-shape the state in wholly illegitimate, nefarious, self-serving ways. The traditional distinction between left and right in politics may indeed come down to this (among other things) - left governments transparently act on freedom and we like what they do or we don't; right governments insidiously act on autonomy, and much of the time what is being done simply passes us by.
>> 
>> Behavioural economics may be taking us (or more accurately supporting those who want to take us) into a nasty brave new world. Sure, improvement in public health (perhaps the major focus of behavioural economics and policy) is important, but so too is how you get there - and let's not infantilise the population in our efforts.
>> 
>> (Meanwhile, behavioural policy approaches serve as a very nice fig leaf to cover/enable absence of action where action should indeed be being taken in what can be called 'traditional' government-action ways - action on the food industry, on the advertising industry, on access to sports and playing fields at schools, on free as opposed to paid access to swimming pools, on poverty and inequality...)
>> 
>> This isn't meant to be a rant against behavioural economics - which has value; but an expression of concern about what behavioural-economics-led policy making means for the nature of government. Maybe I exaggerate the case... But in the spirit of dialogue, as Michael says.
>> 
>> Tom
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:         Michael Gusmano <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sender:       Anglo-American Health Policy Network <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date:         Thu, 12 Apr 2012 18:45:33 
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To:     Michael Gusmano <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: Behavioural econ policy
>> 
>> Thanks Adam. I read this quickly (and at 6 AM Singapore time), but enjoyed it very much. Your claim that the rhetoric around informed choices helps to explain its current popularity seems plausible and makes it even less surprising that it has been perverted in use. The claim that it should should be used to complement regulation reminded me of the argument in Larry Brown and Larry Jacob's book, The Private Abuse of The Public Interest, in which they explain why it is a mistake to view market-based interventions as a substitute for government...etc.
>> 
>> The nice summary of insights from behavioral economics made me wonder how much of this is really new? The reference to Simon's concept of satisficing, in particular, gave  it an "old wine in new bottles" feeling....though, if correct, I suppose that's not unique to this, is it? "Deliberative democracy" is just as popular in policy circles as behavioral economics ( perhaps even more so in the US where a reference to it seems obligatory in most government reports!), but that too feels like a cute re-branding of older ideas. Perhaps there is something new in both? Or perhaps the new jargon helps to reinvigorate intellectual and policy debates about old, but still useful ideas ( or maybe I am just tired and grouchy because it is 6 AM and I am about to spend my fifth straight day interviewing doctors in Singapore about end of life care)? Anyway, thanks again for sharing. Perhaps my simultaneous attack on popular concepts in economics and political science will stir a bit of dialogue :)
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Apr 13, 2012, at 1:07 AM, "Adam Oliver" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> For anyone who can bear to read anything else by me (assuming, of
>>> course, that you've read anything by me before), I have a little blog on
>>> behavioural economic policy that has just come online at:
>>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/healthandsocialcare/ 
>>> 
>>> I wrote the piece at the end of last year I think (I was slow in getting
>>> it put online), and on re-reading just now there are a couple of things
>>> slightly out of date (e.g. the nudge unit has released more than two
>>> reports). I've been thinking quite a bit about this policy area just
>>> lately (with a view to write a proper article on it), and, frankly, the
>>> field is a mess. Politicians throughout the world are misusing it to
>>> advance their own ideologies, the original meaning of, and accepted
>>> limitations of, the approach are largely being lost, etc etc. 
>>> 
>>> Anyway, apologies for the unsolicited emails from me. I set up these
>>> lists to facilitate dialogues in various areas. But perhaps I've turned
>>> them into monologues (Am I concerned? Perhaps, a bit - can this be
>>> counted as a dialogue?). 
>>> 
>>> Best, 
>>> Adam
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
>> 
>> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer
> 
> Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer

Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://lse.ac.uk/emailDisclaimer