When Do People Accept Paternalism? Experimental Evidence

• In Event: Experimental Methods in Public Policy

Abstract

Under what conditions are people willing to accept paternalistic government interventions? In recent years, the use of nudges, also known as 'Libertarian Paternalism', has gained popularity and captured the attention of scholars and policy-makers alike. The chief idea underlying nudges is that a well-designed choice architecture can improve individuals’ decision-making, while also preserving their freedom of choice. A central underlying assumption in advancing nudge-type governmental interventions is that the public prefers them over “classic” paternalistic policies, which are more coercive in nature. This paper studies the extent and conditions under which this assumption is justified, arguing that the claim for the preeminence of nudges is overstated. I develop a theoretical framework to account for the conditions under which people accept paternalism, and then test the theory using an online experiment among a national U.S. sample. I show that in certain theoretically-predictable contexts, the public is willing to embrace classic paternalism over nudge interventions. Furthermore, I show that individuals' attitudes on various types of governmental interventions can be systematically explained by the interaction between level of coercion and the policy domain in question.

Author

• Clareta Treger, Tel Aviv University