Why Are Some Theories Not Recognized, While Others Are Succesful? «Meritorious Paternalism» of R. Musgrave and «Libertarian Paternalism» of R. Thaler

A. Rubinstein
{"title":"Why Are Some Theories Not Recognized, While Others Are Succesful? «Meritorious Paternalism» of R. Musgrave and «Libertarian Paternalism» of R. Thaler","authors":"A. Rubinstein","doi":"10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article considers two theories that are half a century apart from each other, justifying state intervention in market relations – Richard Musgrave's «Theory of Meritorious Goods» and Richard Thaler's «Libertarian Paternalism». Within the framework of a comparative metho­dological study, the sources and prerequisites of these theoretical constructions, the design of state intervention characteristic of each of them, as well as criticism of the meritorious and li­bertarian paternalism, are discussed. The thesis that both theories are based on the same initial assumptions is substantiated, they assume the same goals of state intervention and the conclusion is formulated – in these theories there is more in common than different. They are distinguished only by the institutional design of «pushing»: in one case, it is about creating economic incentives for the right individual choice, in the other – the manipulation of the «default option», which uses an arsenal of psychological tools. It is shown that with all the novelty, «new paternalism» is, in fact, a «new meritorics», based not only on the assumption of irrationality of individuals, but its psychological explanation, created by behavioral economists and which has become part of the mainstream, which determines the answer to the question of article. At the same time, this answer does not create a holistic picture, and the negative connotation of paternalism is still preserved in economic science. The article formulates an additional consideration, revealing another side of the success of libertarian paternalism: the «language game», inherent in Musgrave’s theory was outdated in the early 1950s, and, therefore, this theory was among the «forgotten» ones, and the concept of Thaler and his colleagues corresponds to the new «language game», the key elements of which are the word «liberalism» and speech constructions, corresponding to the modern language and terminology of the mainstream of economic theory.","PeriodicalId":37657,"journal":{"name":"HSE Economic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HSE Economic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The article considers two theories that are half a century apart from each other, justifying state intervention in market relations – Richard Musgrave's «Theory of Meritorious Goods» and Richard Thaler's «Libertarian Paternalism». Within the framework of a comparative metho­dological study, the sources and prerequisites of these theoretical constructions, the design of state intervention characteristic of each of them, as well as criticism of the meritorious and li­bertarian paternalism, are discussed. The thesis that both theories are based on the same initial assumptions is substantiated, they assume the same goals of state intervention and the conclusion is formulated – in these theories there is more in common than different. They are distinguished only by the institutional design of «pushing»: in one case, it is about creating economic incentives for the right individual choice, in the other – the manipulation of the «default option», which uses an arsenal of psychological tools. It is shown that with all the novelty, «new paternalism» is, in fact, a «new meritorics», based not only on the assumption of irrationality of individuals, but its psychological explanation, created by behavioral economists and which has become part of the mainstream, which determines the answer to the question of article. At the same time, this answer does not create a holistic picture, and the negative connotation of paternalism is still preserved in economic science. The article formulates an additional consideration, revealing another side of the success of libertarian paternalism: the «language game», inherent in Musgrave’s theory was outdated in the early 1950s, and, therefore, this theory was among the «forgotten» ones, and the concept of Thaler and his colleagues corresponds to the new «language game», the key elements of which are the word «liberalism» and speech constructions, corresponding to the modern language and terminology of the mainstream of economic theory.
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
为什么有些理论不被认可,而另一些却很成功?马斯格雷夫的《值得表扬的家长制》和塞勒的《自由意志家长制》
这篇文章考虑了两个相距半个世纪的理论,为国家干预市场关系辩护——理查德·马斯格雷夫的《功绩商品理论》和理查德·塞勒的《自由意志家长制》。在比较方法论研究的框架内,讨论了这些理论建构的来源和先决条件,每个理论建构的国家干预特征的设计,以及对功绩和自由主义家长制的批评。这两种理论都基于相同的初始假设的论点得到了证实,它们假设了相同的国家干预目标,并得出了结论——在这些理论中,共同点多于不同点。它们的区别只在于“推动”的制度设计:在一种情况下,它是关于为正确的个人选择创造经济激励,在另一种情况下-操纵“默认选项”,它使用了一系列心理学工具。文章表明,尽管“新家长制”具有种种新奇之处,但它实际上是一种“新功绩论”,它不仅基于对个人非理性的假设,而且基于行为经济学家创造的对其的心理学解释,并已成为决定文章问题答案的主流的一部分。与此同时,这个答案并没有创造一个全面的图景,家长制的负面内涵仍然保留在经济科学中。这篇文章提出了一个额外的考虑,揭示了自由意志家长制成功的另一面:马斯格雷夫理论中固有的“语言游戏”在20世纪50年代早期已经过时,因此,这一理论是“被遗忘”的理论之一,而塞勒及其同事的概念对应于新的“语言游戏”,其关键要素是“自由主义”一词和话语结构,与主流经济理论的现代语言和术语相对应。
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
HSE Economic Journal
HSE Economic Journal Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The HSE Economic Journal publishes refereed papers both in Russian and English. It has perceived better understanding of the market economy, the Russian one in particular, since being established in 1997. It disseminated new and diverse ideas on economic theory and practice, economic modeling, applied mathematical and statistical methods. Its Editorial Board and Council consist of prominent Russian and foreign researchers whose activity has fostered integration of the world scientific community. The target audience comprises researches, university professors and graduate students. Submitted papers should match JEL classification and can cover country specific or international economic issues, in various areas, such as micro- and macroeconomics, econometrics, economic policy, labor markets, social policy. Apart from supporting high quality economic research and academic discussion the Editorial Board sees its mission in searching for the new authors with original ideas. The journal follows international reviewing practices – at present submitted papers are subject to single blind review of two reviewers. The journal stands for meeting the highest standards of publication ethics.
期刊最新文献
Illiquidity Effects in the Russian Stock Market Building a GVAR Model for the Russian Economy Impact of Geographical Diversification on Credit Risk of Microfinance Organizations in Armenia A Nexus Among Technology Input, Research Activity, Innovation, and Economic Growth: A vis-à-vis Analysis between Asia and Europe On the Stochastic Forecasting in the Deterministic Model of the Russian Banking System
×
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