tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post7161341702883221318..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: Happiness and PaternalismMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-44131963481926747352012-04-03T19:18:57.911+00:002012-04-03T19:18:57.911+00:00Using evidence that individuals do systematically ...Using evidence that individuals do systematically make bad decisions to argue against devotees of individual sovereignty may be arguing against a straw man when it comes to the debate over well-being (or happiness) and paternalism. Those in favour of individual sovereignty do not necessarily rest their claims on the fact that individuals always make good decisions – such a doctrine would be hard to defend. Rather, individual sovereignty is often defended on other grounds, either deontological (i.e., the state has no right to interfere with individuals’ autonomous choices) or consequentialist (i.e., it would be better in the long-term if the state didn’t interfere with individuals’ autonomous choices). <br /><br />Now, I suspect that most (non-libertarian) economists are consequentialists, rather than deontologists, when it comes to these kinds of issues, and indeed utilitarians at that (i.e., that it is only consequences that make a difference to people’s well-being which matter). I agree that many economists may resist paternalism on the suspicion that, if the government starts to act paternalistically in some respects (such as with the ‘nudge’ example) it will be increasingly likely to act paternalistically in more ominous situations (such as introducing a ‘consumption tax,’ favoured by ‘happiness economists’ Robert Frank and Richard Layard). I agree with you that, even if this is a reasonable fear, it should not be taken too far.<br /><br />But concentrating only on this kind of (utilitarian) viewpoint misses an alternative, and perhaps more important, kind of (utilitarian) justification for individual sovereignty. This justification harks back to John Stuart Mill (perhaps the most influential of all utilitarians) who argued that utility will be maximized overall by restricting the exercise of coercion over adults to that which is required to prevent harm to others. The important point is that Mill regarded utility in the largest sense, “grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being”. It is in people’s interest to progress in terms of the development of their human capacities, including being autonomous individuals. According to Mill, paternalism prevents this progression from happening in the most efficient way possible. Note that this may often not be the case for a particular individual (whereby utility may well be maximized through paternalistic means), but is likely to be the case, according to Mill, for society as a whole. In general, that is, restrictions on coercion over adults will prevent society as a whole from progressing in the most efficient way. <br /><br />Of course, Mill could turn out to be wrong. But it may not be as obvious as you make out that the state is right to act paternalistically, even in terms of seemingly innocuous nudges (would it be better, for instance, for a society of individuals to (a) wear seatbelts out of fear of being arrested, or (b) collectively overcome the particular cognitive bias you mentioned and wear them out of a sense of safety?). Whereas ‘nudge tactics’ may favour direct intervention by government via corrective taxes or other means, an alternative, more Millian (and perhaps more mainstream economics) approach, may favour giving individuals the insights and means to best solve the particular decision problems they are faced with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-13810776786668158292012-04-02T13:16:54.822+00:002012-04-02T13:16:54.822+00:00I remember the seat belt idea from one of my first...I remember the seat belt idea from one of my first econ courses. I've never really looked at studies about the subject, but thinking back, it seemed like my professor may have argued from the perspective that it increased the deaths of pedestrians as a result of moral hazard.gfdgsdfghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04631669639540296899noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-28346461745290063782012-04-01T19:02:03.952+00:002012-04-01T19:02:03.952+00:00"The answer they suggest is that the IEA, and..."The answer they suggest is that the IEA, and many of its contributors, have a fear that happiness data will be used by governments to do things government thinks will make people happier, rather than allowing individuals themselves to decide what makes them happy. "<br /><br />When reading this I couldn't help thinking of a Yes Minister (or Primeminister, I don't remember which) where Sir Humphrey defends government policy by declaring "people don't know what they want". <br /><br />I realise thats not what you were aiming for, but it just reminded me of it.Jason Ravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982146028010358415noreply@blogger.com