A Little Give and Take

A. Oliver
{"title":"A Little Give and Take","authors":"A. Oliver","doi":"10.31389/lseppr.36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I contend that the behavioural affects that tend to be labelled as errors by most behavioural economists, and as such have served as the justification for a paternalistic direction in behavioural public policy (i.e., policy intervention that aims to protect people from imposing harms on themselves), are in an ecological sense not errors at all. While acknowledging that modern societies are very different from the types of societies in which these affects evolved, I argue that we still cannot conclude that attempts to modify people’s choices in accordance with these so-called errors will improve the lives of those targeted for behaviour change, particularly given the varied and multifarious private objectives and desires that people pursue. Where people are imposing no substantive harms on others, I maintain that policy makers should restrict themselves to protecting and fostering the fundamental motivational force of reciprocity, which serves to benefit the group (which could be the whole society) and, by extension, most of the people who comprise the group, irrespective of their own personal desires in life. However, when one party to any particular exchange actively uses the behavioural affects to benefit themselves and imposes harms on the other party to the exchange, the concept of a free and fair reciprocal exchange has been violated. In these circumstances, there is an intellectual justification to introduce behavioural-informed regulations—a form of negative reciprocity—against activities that impose unacceptable harms on others. My arguments thus call for behavioural public policy to preserve individual autonomy within an overarching policy framework that nurtures reciprocity whilst at the same time regulates against behavioural-informed practices that impose substantive harms on others, rather than focusing on reducing the harms that people supposedly impose on themselves. This would be a major switch in emphasis for one of the most important developments in public policy in modern times. JEL Codes: D91, Z18","PeriodicalId":93332,"journal":{"name":"LSE public policy review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSE public policy review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/lseppr.36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this article, I contend that the behavioural affects that tend to be labelled as errors by most behavioural economists, and as such have served as the justification for a paternalistic direction in behavioural public policy (i.e., policy intervention that aims to protect people from imposing harms on themselves), are in an ecological sense not errors at all. While acknowledging that modern societies are very different from the types of societies in which these affects evolved, I argue that we still cannot conclude that attempts to modify people’s choices in accordance with these so-called errors will improve the lives of those targeted for behaviour change, particularly given the varied and multifarious private objectives and desires that people pursue. Where people are imposing no substantive harms on others, I maintain that policy makers should restrict themselves to protecting and fostering the fundamental motivational force of reciprocity, which serves to benefit the group (which could be the whole society) and, by extension, most of the people who comprise the group, irrespective of their own personal desires in life. However, when one party to any particular exchange actively uses the behavioural affects to benefit themselves and imposes harms on the other party to the exchange, the concept of a free and fair reciprocal exchange has been violated. In these circumstances, there is an intellectual justification to introduce behavioural-informed regulations—a form of negative reciprocity—against activities that impose unacceptable harms on others. My arguments thus call for behavioural public policy to preserve individual autonomy within an overarching policy framework that nurtures reciprocity whilst at the same time regulates against behavioural-informed practices that impose substantive harms on others, rather than focusing on reducing the harms that people supposedly impose on themselves. This would be a major switch in emphasis for one of the most important developments in public policy in modern times. JEL Codes: D91, Z18
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
给予和接受
在这篇文章中,我认为,大多数行为经济学家倾向于将行为影响称为错误,并因此成为行为公共政策中家长式指导的理由(即旨在保护人们免受伤害的政策干预),从生态学意义上讲,这些行为影响根本不是错误。虽然我承认现代社会与这些影响进化的社会类型有很大不同,但我认为,我们仍然不能得出这样的结论,即根据这些所谓的错误来改变人们的选择的尝试将改善那些行为改变目标的人的生活,特别是考虑到人们追求的各种各样的私人目标和欲望。在人们没有对他人造成实质性伤害的情况下,我认为政策制定者应该限制自己保护和培养互惠的基本动机,这有利于群体(可能是整个社会),进而有利于构成群体的大多数人,而不管他们个人的生活欲望如何。然而,当任何特定交易所的一方积极利用行为影响为自己谋利,并对交易所的另一方造成伤害时,就违反了自由和公平的互惠交易所的概念。在这种情况下,引入行为知情条例(一种消极互惠的形式)是有理智的理由的,反对对他人造成不可接受伤害的活动。因此,我的论点呼吁行为公共政策在促进互惠的总体政策框架内保持个人自主性,同时规范对他人造成实质性伤害的行为知情做法,而不是专注于减少人们对自己造成的伤害。这将是现代公共政策最重要发展之一的重点重大转变。JEL代码:D91、Z18
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The International System in the Shadow of the Russian War in Ukraine Who Supports the War? And Who Protests? The Legacies of Tzarist Social Divide in Russia After Merkel: Germany from Peace to War Weaponised Energy and Climate Change: Assessing Europe’s Response to the Ukraine War Europe and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: Where Does the EU Stand?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1