Market nudges and autonomy

Abstract

Behavioural techniques or ‘nudges’ can be used for various purposes. In this paper, we shift the focus from government nudges to nudges used by for-profit market agents. We argue that potential worries about nudges circumventing the deliberative capacities or diminishing the control of targeted agents are greater when it comes to market nudges, given that these (1) are not constrained by the principles that regulate government nudges (mildness, sensitivity to people’s interests and public justifiability) and (2) are often ‘stacked’ – they come in great numbers that overwhelm agents. In addition, we respond to possible objections and derive several policy suggestions.

It's time we put agency into Behavioural Public Policy

“…While this is an exaggerated risk we suggest, there is some credence in the position that there are risks associated with placing too much emphasis on approaches which do not build and develop reasoning abilities. In summary, our agency-enhancing frameworks help address many efficacy and ethical challenges identified in some of the critical discussion of nudge (John, 2018;Schmidt and Engelen, 2020;Allcott et al, 2022;Ivanković and Engelen, 2022;List et al, 2022;Maier et al, 2022;Szaszi et al, 2022). We, therefore, call for a greater focus on empowering citizens in designing BPP interventions going forward.…”

“…Sometimes, they may even weaken it by harnessing causal pathways to behavioural change that cannot be (or typically are not) understood and accepted by individuals as their reasons for this behaviour. For this reason, these toolkits face ethical and effectiveness challenges, as has been highlighted recently by many scholars (John, 2018;Schmidt and Engelen, 2020;Allcott et al, 2022;Ivanković and Engelen, 2022;List et al, 2022;Maier et al, 2022;Szaszi et al, 2022). Nonetheless, given the manifold advantages of these BPPs, such as their ease of delivery and cost-effectiveness (Benartzi et al, 2017), can they be modified to enhance citizens' agency to overcome their limitations whilst still retaining their practical advantages?…”

It's Time We Put Agency into Behavioural Public Policy

“…Third, agency-enhancing interventions can limit concerns of manipulation that have been raised against conventional toolkits of BPP like nudges (Bovens, 2009;Sugden, 2009;Wilkinson, 2013;Sunstein, 2015;Nys and Engelen, 2017;Sugden, 2018;Schmidt and Engelen, 2020;Ivanković and Engelen, 2022). As discussed earlier, manipulation is always possible when policy-makers hold the reins, which is common for top-down behaviour change interventions like nudges.…”

“…While this is an exaggerated risk we suggest, there is some credence in the position that there are risks associated with placing too much emphasis on approaches which do not build and develop reasoning abilities. In summary, our agency-enhancing frameworks help address many efficacy and ethical challenges identified in some of the critical discussion of nudge (John, 2018;Schmidt and Engelen, 2020;Allcott et al, 2022;Ivanković and Engelen, 2022;List et al, 2022;Maier et al, 2022;Szaszi et al, 2022). We, therefore, call for a greater focus on empowering citizens in designing BPP interventions going forward.…”

“…Sometimes, they may even weaken it by harnessing causal pathways to behavioural change that cannot be (or typically are not) understood and accepted by individuals as their reasons for this behaviour. For this reason, these toolkits face ethical and effectiveness challenges, as has been highlighted recently by many scholars (John, 2018;Schmidt and Engelen, 2020;Allcott et al, 2022;Ivanković and Engelen, 2022;List et al, 2022;Maier et al, 2022;Szaszi et al, 2022). Nonetheless, given the manifold advantages of these BPPs, such as their ease of delivery and cost-effectiveness (Benartzi et al, 2017), can they be modified to enhance citizens' agency to overcome their limitations whilst still retaining their practical advantages?…”