کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
5068261 | 1476903 | 2011 | 10 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |

In the literature on paternalism that has grown out of the behavioural economics 'revolution', a distinction is drawn between 'hard' and 'soft' policies. Although this hard/soft distinction seems to be motivated by the thought that the two policy types might have different implications for individual liberty, there is a claim that 'hard' policies are normatively superior to 'soft' for 'efficiency' reasons. We show, by appeal to an esteem-based model of 'soft' policy that this claim is not valid in general. We also expose a number of conceptual mistakes in what many seem to have identified as the normative implications of behavioural economics.
Research highlightsâºShow in an esteem model that 'hard' are not necessarily superior to 'soft' policies. âºExpose a number of conceptual mistakes in normative behavioural economics. âºArgue that when it comes to welfare analysis, the correct model matters.
Journal: European Journal of Political Economy - Volume 27, Issue 4, December 2011, Pages 601-610