The rhetoric of reaction redux

Abstract

In The Rhetoric of Reaction, published in 1991, Albert Hirschman identified three standard objections to reform proposals: perversity, futility and jeopardy. In Hirschman's account, these objections define reactionary rhetoric. A proposal would be “perverse” if it would aggravate the very problem it is meant to solve; it would be “futile” if it would not even dent the problem; it would produce “jeopardy” if it would endanger some other goal or value (such as liberty or economic growth). The rhetoric of reaction comes from both left and right, though in Hirschman's account, it is a special favorite of the right. In recent years, the perversity, futility and jeopardy theses have often been invoked to challenge reforms, including nudges. While the three theses are sometimes supported by the evidence, they are often evidence-free speculations, confirming Hirschman's suggestion that the rhetoric of reaction has “a certain elementary sophistication and paradoxical quality that carry conviction for those who are in search of instant insights and utter certainties.”

Where next for behavioral public policy?

“…Other commentators, rather to our surprise, downplay the conflictual origins of social problems. Indeed Sunstein , fresh from an earlier commentary accusing us of being “reactionaries” (Sunstein, 2022; for our response, Chater & Loewenstein, 2022) now makes the rather mystifying claim that our conflictual analysis can be dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.” Sunstein's charge would, if valid, apply to almost all academic studies of the political and policy-making process, where the conflictual analysis is taken for granted across the ideological spectrum, from Karl Marx (2004/1867) to Chicago School Economics (e.g., Becker, 1983; Stigler, 1971). Indeed, the conflictual perspective is entirely standard in fields such as political science, political economy, public health, climate policy, the sociology of science, and many more (Bartels, 2016; Brownell & Warner, 2009; Mann, 2021; Oreskes & Conway, 2011).…”

Costly Distractions: Focusing on Individual Behavior Undermines Support for Systemic Reforms

“…They outline numerous examples of organizations whose actions are directly linked to adverse policy outcomes funding initiatives designed to assign responsibility to, and identifies solutions as associated with, individual behavior. Responses to their concerns have questioned the strength of empirical evidence documenting such 'crowd-out' (e.g., see Sunstein, 2022).…”

i-Frame interventions enhance s-frame interventions

“…In this commentary, we offer two rebuttals: (1) i-frame interventions can and do increase support for systemic reforms (Sunstein, 2022); and (2) i-frame and s-frame interventions should be pursued in parallel to address key societal issues. Without accompanying i-frame interventions, many s-frame interventions are likely to fail due to low compliance, lack of enforcement, or reactance (Carlsson et al, 2021;Antinyan & Asatryan, 2019;Nwafor et al, 2021;Proudfoot & Kay, 2014).…”