Jamie Whyte
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
A few hippies aside, everyone agrees that paternalism is a good thing when practised by parents. Children do not know what is good for them. Left to their own devices they would make many bad decisions. Caring parents will threaten, bribe, cajole, trick or otherwise manipulate their foolish offspring into doing the right things.
When practised by governments, however, paternalism is more controversial. The idea that adults do not know what is best for them, and that the government should manipulate them into doing the right thing, strikes libertarians as outrageous.
Yet most politicians find the idea irresistible. The present Government aims to make us change our behaviour in all sorts of ways that libertarians would think none of its business. Among other things, they want to make us smoke less, drink less, eat less, take fewer drugs, exercise more, save more and spend more time with our families. So do David Cameron's new Conservatives.
Treating adults like children is an idea that needs some justification, especially when it is espoused by a political party that until recently claimed to champion the individual against the State.
So you can imagine the delight with which these nannies have received Nudge, a book by the Chicago University professors Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein that claims to provide a new justification for paternalism and new ways of manipulating people that are compatible with libertarianism.
The justification for paternalism is that, like children, adults are too foolish to know what is best for them. This may not strike you as a new idea. Most of us think that other people are fools. What's new, however, is scientific support for this common presumption.
Over the past few decades, “behavioural economists” have been studying how actual human decision making deviates from the perfectly rational ideal assumed in classical economics. Their sad, if unsurprising, conclusion is that we are systematically irrational.
We are apathetic, favouring options that require no action or that preserve the status quo. We are herd followers, doing things that are bad for us simply because others do them. We are hopeless at statistics, buying insurance and lottery tickets even when the odds make them a bad deal. And these are only a few of many irrational biases. It is no wonder that we do all those things that the Government and Mr Cameron wish we would not.
But behavioural economics does not only show that we need external guidance. It also shows how we can be guided. Our irrationality can be exploited to nudge us in the right directions. For example, we can be made to save more if joining a pension plan is the default option when we get a new job - that is, if our employers structure our choices so that we must actively opt out of the plan rather than actively opt in. The right “decision architecture”, as Thaler and Sustein call it, can use our apathy to benefit us.
Or we can be made to file our tax returns on time if the Government publishes statistics about how many of our fellow citizens have already filed theirs. Our herd mentality can be turned to serve our own good.
But here is a simple question. If the Government knows what's best for us, why only nudge us in that direction? Why not give us a mighty shove - as the Australian Government has - by making saving compulsory? Sustein and Thaler reply that nudging is consistent with libertarianism, but shoving is not. And they are libertarians. They advocate what they call “libertarian paternalism”.
Alas, this is as incoherent as its name suggests. Libertarianism is motivated by the idea that a government cannot know what is best for individuals. That is why it is likely to harm us when it attempts to influence our behaviour. Those who favour governmental nudging must think the “central nudger” knows what is good for us. But then they have no reason to be libertarians.
Nor does behavioural economics justify paternalism, because it does not show that the Government knows better than we do what is good for us. The advantage that individuals have over central nudgers in deciding what we should do was never our perfect rationality. It is our superior knowledge of our own preferences and circumstances.
Take a simple example. Should you save more, as our would-be nudgers suggest? The answer depends on your present and likely future incomes, on how much you can expect to inherit, on how long you are likely to live and on your preferences regarding consumption now versus consumption in the future. The Government may know that you are foolish. But it cannot possibly have better information than you on all these matters.
Knowing that someone is irrational does not tell you what they should do, nor that they are at present doing the wrong things. Our would-be nudgers are like doctors who think that they can prescribe the right medicine simply because they know you are a hypochondriac.
Jamie Whyte is the author of Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
As Douglas Jay, who became a Cabinet Minister in the Attlee Government, wrote, "The gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves." Labour's core belief.
Dave, Wrexham,
The government should leave us alone. The welfare state needs to end, taxes need to be stripped down to levels needed for infrastructure and defense, and all these laws that try to regulate solely self-destructive behavior should be abolished.
Pliny, St. Louis,
Ask doctor about an illness then they'd be able to provide the right advice to get better.
Ask a roofer how to tile a roof then they would be able to help.
These questions to each in reverse & the answers given would probably be wrong.
The same goes for politicians. I know how best to run my life
Alex, Cambridge, UK
"making saving compulsory? "
Save WHAT? Food, energy, clothes, all MASSIVELY more expensive than just last year.
I HAVE no money to "save".
I can hardly afford to eat, AND keep warm, NOW.
Von Brandenburg-Preussen.
Ragnar von Spreuth, Berlin, Preussen.
there is a difference between a nudge and a shove.and labour have shoved once to often not happy with making smokers lepers and treated like 3rd class they now want to tell me what to drink, eat, and what to put in my dustbin. they are they going to get shoved back in 2010 right off the map
brian rice, halifax, uk
'we are systematically irrational'
As has been shown by a government that has been systematically malevolant and mendacious to its populace. And we are about to show our irrationality by not irrationally voting them in again, because we are irrational
Avana Beach, London, UK
What a spineless defence of libertarianism! Its nothing to do with whether government or individuals know "best" (whatever that means!). Its about FREEDOM to NOT do "best" if you choose.
The role of government should be only to adjudicate when one persons freedom interferes with anothers.
Nick, France,
Its easier to wage war on smoking, drinking and driving because this is practised by large numbers of law abiding taxpayers. They just pay up to ever increasing tax demands. Real issues like crime and the benefits culture are ignored because that involves effort and expense. Rather milk the cashcow?
Anthony, Brum,
I work for a government having spent years in the private sector. The bureaucracy is stifling and even worst the belief amongst many is they are efficient. They need to be starved of cash to reduce waste but this will inevitably lead to front line services slashed as they protect their cushy numbers
Stuz Graz, London, England
More nonsense from Jamie Whyte dressed us as "clear thinking". It's not anti-libertarian for governments to try to change society, just sound politics. Shoving is anti-libertarian, but nudging is no worse than advertising. Or does Whyte want to protect us all from adverts by banning them?
Bob, London,
The Government should nudge off.
Kay Tie, York, UK
I subscribe 100% to the view that the state exists for my benefit not the other way around. I do not accept that anyone has the right to decide my choices for me, but only to prevent me from doing anything that unacceptably interferes with others freedom and choice.
John Lewis, London, UK
Some nudging and some compulsion is necessary. What is totally unacceptable is its application when it is not. That line was crossed some time ago, that's why this Government is about to receive the biggest nudge of its life.
Ken Leyland, Liverpool, U.K.
I thought, foolishly, that we were here to have fun and other experiences, whatever that might be and that we were given brains to use as we thought fit, however "wrong" that might be. After all when we are dead nothing matters, and as time passes our lives become irrelevant. I am not a sheep.
Mattej, Wadhurst, UK
Trouble is todays nudgers have no life experience outside dodgy uni credentials and tax-funded employment as politicians or their staff; many are cynically hostile to what average voters value. We nudgees need to band together and tell the nudgers to Nick Off, thus frustrating their knavish tricks.
Leonard Colquhoun, Launceston, Tasmania, Australia
would a politician accept being told what to do by some average joe member of public? after all the majority of MPs are just lawyers, so why exactly does that qualify them to tell us how to live our lives.if cabinet members had a relevant qualification, that would make their advice more palatable.
william, Grimsby, uk
But the point is the Govt is foolish.
prime examplesof government stupidity. britain launched its first and only satelitte in the 60s and straight away funding was withdrawn because the govt couldnt see a comercial application for the technology.
the mind boggles at that level of abject idiocy
will, Grimsby, uk
In the UK, the job of Parliament is to examine legislation. The nudgers want to govern without legislating. Parliament would therefore be by-passed. Where have we heard that before? Is that what the nudgers want?
David Moss, London, UK
But nudging is often inevitable. Take the pension scheme example. Employees either have to be automatically enrolled and able to opt out, or automatically not enrolled and able to opt in. It's not about "to nudge or not", it's about making sure the inevitable nudge is in a sensible direction.
Jamie, Knoxville, USA