On Saturday, Slate.com posted a critique of Sunstein and Thaler’s nudge policy. Not only do libertarians complain that “a nudge is like a shove” in disguise, but the article argues that nudges may not even work. The article’s author claims that nudges are not the free lunch Sunstein and Thaler hoped for, at least with respect to opt-out systems:
“Thaler and Sunstein’s claims about the benefits of opt-out schemes are belied by little evidence it increase donations. According to Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, differences in donation rates are better explained by differences in organizational effectiveness than differences in opt-in/opt-out. It is not clear that opt-out would increase donations; unsexy but crucial reforms to regional schemes would almost certainly work better.”
The article does have a glimmer of hope for public policy, however. It mentions political scientist Suzanne Mettler at Cornell, who argues that “ordinary people can understand complicated policy questions and reach considered conclusions, as long as they get enough information.” If people can understand and form opinions on complicated questions, are nudges selling the American people short?
On the other hand, the article fails to answer the question of whether people want to think about complex policy questions. In cases where the issues are uninteresting, are nudges still the best policy?
No comments:
Post a Comment