Earlier this week I was lucky enough to be at a LSE public
debate entitled the ‘Ethics of Nudge’.
Nudge is the idea that government can influence and improve
individual decision making without reducing the choice that people have. For
example, placing healthy food at eye level in a school canteen is a nudge. It
is proven to help people achieve the goal of being healthy (something everyone
wants to be but lack the will-power to varying extents). Because it doesn’t
reduce choice, nudging is termed libertarian paternalism. The right wing
critique of this is well-known: individual choice is sacrosanct and should be
left alone, but the proponents Nudge are widely accepted to have overcome these arguments.
At the debate George Loewenstein (famous behavioural economist)
gave a left wing critique of nudge. It was new to me and goes something like
this…
The problems that Nudges try to address like obesity are not
old problems. Obesity has only started becoming a problem for society in the
last 30 years, therefore the root cause of obesity is not ‘human nature’. Thus
nudges, which are essentially attempts to counteract human nature, are a second
best solution. The real underlying problems are ones of externalities and
mis-aligned incentives. In the case of obesity, the real economic problem is
that food companies are not accountable for feeding us unhealthy food. McDonald’s
et al. should be held responsible for the economic cost of obesity. Tried and
tested solutions like regulation and taxation are needed. Heavy handed economic
tools are required. Nudges are a distraction.
It’s easier to blame fat people for being fat than fix the
underlying economic problems. Nudge tries to fix fat people. Nudge won’t fix the
fast food industry.
Thoughts?
