Choice Architecture in Democracies
Is “nudging” – as outlined by Cass Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler in their controversial concept of libertarian paternalism – a modern and efficient tool of governance or a dangerous attack on freedom and individual autonomy? Legal, economic and other experts will discuss the political, ethical and constitutional ramifications of nudging in a two-day conference at Berlin, beginning with a public lecture delivered by Cass Sunstein.
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Photos and a video of the discussion.
Continue reading >>
Welcome remarks by Mark Speich (Vodafone Stiftung Deutschland) and Christoph Möllers (HU Berlin, Verfassungsblog).
Continue reading >>
Cass Sunstein's key note lecture in the BBAW Leibniz Hall, Berlin 2015 Jan 12th.
Continue reading >>
Europe has largely been absent from the US-dominated debate surrounding the introduction of nudge-type interventions in policy-making. As the EU and its Member States are exploring the possibility of embracing nudging, it appears desirable to reframe such a debate so as to adapt it to the legal and political realities of the European Union.
Continue reading >>
In three respects, behaviorally informed governance faces much deeper uncertainty […]
Continue reading >>
The concept of materiality – in the EU known as […]
Continue reading >>
While the general approach of choice architecture of altering the […]
Continue reading >>
Nudging is about effective solutions for social problems and a parallel case to other regulatory approaches. It fits into the tradition of rational policy-making. It requires a political decision on whether or not nudging should be chosen as an instrument to remedy the social costs entailed with risky behavior. And from a legal point of view it has to be reviewed whether the measure chosen is not a disproportionate loss of freedom for the individual. This requires balancing the interests. As nudging is a matter of politics we have to discuss it in the political arena.
Continue reading >>
Disclosure mandates are often considered to be the least paternalistic of all regulatory techniques. Indeed, information provision is believed to enhance both autonomy and efficiency by facilitating more informed decisionmaking. According to this traditional approach, disclosure regulation – a key instrument in the Nudge toolbox – is beyond reproach. Legitimacy concerns might be raised with respect to other Nudge-type interventions (specifically, the setting of default rules), but not disclosure. I propose a two-pronged challenge to this conventional wisdom.
Continue reading >>
Nudges with paternalistic aims pose special legal problems in liberal States. Surprisingly, the discussion on regulation-by-nudging has not focused on the constitutional limits to nudging. Although the property rights of firms potentially infringed by nudging measures are dealt with in the literature and by (international) courts (e.g. the tobacco cases), the potential infringement of the rights of those being nudged is neglected. But judges may at one point be confronted with a nudge regulation challenged by the individuals being nudged; and even before reaching a court, the legality of nudging should be scrutinised by legislators. I explore the legal limits of paternalistic nudging under the German Constitution, especially the right to freedom of action and self-determination under Art. 2 (1) German Basic Law.
Continue reading >>Liberal political philosophy has two alternative options in principle: It can either stick to its original theorems such as the harm principle or the separation of law and morals and from here try to prove large parts of present social and political reality as wrong, illegitimate, dangerous etc. The other option is trying to adjust the original theorems to the apparent needs of modern societies, which is what I would prefer in the long run.
Continue reading >>
Three theses on the justification and moral problems of soft paternalism.
Continue reading >>
The German basic law’s concept of constitutional liberties is difficult to reconcile with an idea of citizens who need to be told by the state what is better for them. Insofar as nudges and incentives affect fundamental rights, the government has to invoke public interests and cannot justify its measures on grounds of the assumed interests of the addressees.
Continue reading >>
Cass Sunstein’s "Why Nudge?" presents a proposal for nudging as an alternative to traditional regulatory mandates and economic incentive-based regulation. I shall suggest that nudging creates considerable tensions with thick conceptions of human dignity.
Continue reading >>Now as ever, I agree with Cass Sunstein’s views on many matters. I above all agree that nudging is compatible with any defensible liberal idea of autonomy, and especially with the undeniable claim that nudges can often enhance autonomy in the empire of caveat emptor. Indeed, my concern is that libertarian paternalism is too libertarian, not too paternalistic.
Continue reading >>
Politically as well as from the point of view of constitutional law, I see neither good reasons to generally reject health-related nudging towards less self-damaging behavior, nor good reasons to issue a general clearance certificate on the grounds that nudging always leaves the addressee “at liberty”. The state is not prohibited from taking sides in matters of public health – neither generally, nor specifically insofar as self-damaging behavior of accountable persons is concerned. However, claiming that people who are just being nudged remain free to resist the nudge falls far short of the constitutional law problems that nudges can raise.
Continue reading >>
The last decade has seen a rapid growth of interest in choice-preserving, low-cost regulatory tools, sometimes termed "nudges." Especially in light of that interest, it is important to obtain an understanding of the nature and weight of the ethical concerns.
Continue reading >>Is “nudging” – as outlined by Cass Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler in their controversial concept of libertarian paternalism – a modern and efficient tool of governance or a dangerous attack on freedom and individual autonomy? Legal, economic and other experts will discuss the political, ethical and constitutional ramifications of nudging in a two-day conference at Berlin, beginning with a public lecture delivered by Cass Sunstein.
Continue reading >>Ist Nudging – also die Steuerung individueller Entscheidungen im wohlverstandenen Interesse des Entscheidenden – nicht nur eine Frage des Könnens, sondern des Sollens? Cass Sunstein, einer der Protagonisten der Nudging-Debatte, war letzte Woche bei einer Veranstaltung des Bundesjustizministeriums zu Gast. Doch die Frage nach der Rechtfertigung von Nudging tauchte kaum auf. Antworten wird hoffentlich die Nudging-Konferenz des Verfassungsblogs im Januar liefern.
Continue reading >>Is nudging – the act of pushing someone in a certain direction in his or her own interest – not just a matter of "could" but of "should"? Cass Sunstein, one of the protagonists of the nudging debate, spoke last week at a conference held by the Federal Department of Justice. The question of the legitimacy of nudging hardly mattered at that conference, though – a question that will be hopefully addressed more comprehensively at the Verfassungsblog Nudging conference in January.
Continue reading >>
Obama hat es getan, Cameron hat es getan, und jetzt […]
Continue reading >>Obama did it, Cameron too, and now Germany seems determined […]
Continue reading >>
