Julian
I think this question presents a challenge to the perspective I presented - or at least to any claim it has to being clear-cut. If I may, I'd like to have a stab at answering it.
Basically, the perspective I presented (and it can probably be shot down - it just expresses a sense of disquiet) has it that to make a law requiring seat belt use, or a law banning smoking in public buildings, is legitimate - there are no dark arts here: you may consider that law to be an outrageous infringement of freedom, but your autonomy is not affected. The policy represents a change to your 'choice environment' rather than to the mechanics of your 'choosing process'. Adam's article talks about an approach to policy which I take to be further towards the other end of the scale.
The examples you give, Julian, are tricky do deal with. There are three parts to my response to your question.
First, a system which has people opt in rather than opt out clearly treats people as adults, respecting their right, responsibility, and capacity to choose, even if they make choices you disagree with or which are demonstrably welfare-reducing, whether to themselves or to society. If you think there are 'information problems' or 'information-literacy' problems which lead to bad choices, then there are other ways to tackle these (even if the practicalities of doing so successfully are likely to be insurmountable; but in principle there are other ways).
Second, the welfare gain from pursuing a policy which infringes autonomy may be so great that to pursue that policy is acceptable - in a world of trade-offs among different important things, perhaps nothing is sacrosanct so long as it's not traded-off all the way down.
And third, because the two policies you mention are universally applicable, transparent, and laws, although they are based on 'behavioural insights', they have the character of legitimate policy (I should say that, of course, there is no reason why clear, environment-changing laws - or actions on freedom - should not be based on good behavioural insights of some kind; I suppose many probably are in one way or another).
So, there are arguments both ways (the first and third above), and I would say the balance could be decided by the middle point - is welfare significantly, and sufficiently, enhanced over all? I think that in the case of automatic enrollment in pensions it probably is, and that this policy is probably justified. In the case of organ donation I'm more doubtful, as this issue is invested with meaning for many people in a way the pensions issue is not.
Anyway, I know I need to make a clearer case for the point of view I'm putting forward.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Legrand <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Behavioural Public Policy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:28:03
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Behavioural econ policy
One thought prompted by Tom's infantilising point below. Is the
behavioural economics idea of changing the default (from opt-in to
opt-out for pensions, organ donation etc. ) infantilising - or indeed
subject to some of Tom's other criticisms, such as lack of transparency?
After all, there has to be a default; is one more infantilising or less
transparent than another? One often does seem to be (opt-out for both
these examples): but I find it difficult to articulate exactly why that
should be. Any ideas?
Julian
-----Original Message-----
From: Behavioural Public Policy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Tom Foubister
Sent: 13 April 2012 12:59
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Behavioural econ policy
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
|
