Nudge or Shove? Debating the Merits of Behavioral Economics in Policymaking

In designing policies that reduce negative externalities or public "bads" (as opposed to public "goods") such as the ills associated with the rise of obesity or carbon pollution, governments have borrowed many instruments from the behavioral economist tool kit.

The recent health care measures in the US that mandate the printing of caloric content of food in menus and packages is one example; so is the use of peer pressure in the billing systems of regulated energy companies that use informational cues (smiley faces) to instruct customers of their relative efficient use of power (compared to that of other customers).

These approaches try to influence irrational decision-making by some without necessarily limiting the choices of those for whom they are intended and without imposing unnecessary costs on others whose decisions are perfectly sound and rational. A more direct and appropriate approach to resolve these problems according to Lowenstein and Ubel in a recent NY Times piece entitled Economics Behaving Badly would be to increase the relative cost of consumption whether of fatty processed foods  by withdrawing subsidies to their key ingredients like corn oil or that of energy by putting a price on carbon.

The two pillars of the behavioural economist school argue that policymakers have taken the politically expedient route of utilising the light touch or "nudges" espoused by their field when the more direct but unpopular approach of applying subsidies and taxes prescribed by traditional economists or "shoves" would guarantee the desired outcomes more effectively.

Not so, counter Sunstein and Thaler, authors of the influential book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Both traditional and behavioural approaches are needed to influence decisions by rational and irrational actors. The fault they say lies in the politics of the situation, not the economics of it.