April 2010: Slippery Slopes and the New Paternalism

For a new idea, it's got a lot of names — "new" paternalism, "soft" paternalism, even "libertarian" paternalism.

This month at Cato Unbound we're discussing a range of policy choices that purport to bring out what individuals themselves would prefer. They propose to do it all by cleverly — and gently — nudging the presentation of choices, the default options, and the costs of noncompliance, thus taking advantage of the cognitive biases within us all, but using them to our own benefit. Soft paternalism doesn't force anyone to do anything, the argument goes. It merely sets things up so that what we tend to do also tends to coincide with our best interests.

Does it sound too good to be true? Lead essayist Glen Whitman has some doubts. He voices them this month and challenges a select group of behavioral economists and legal scholars to consider that soft paternalism might not be all that it promises. Responding to him will be Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago, Jonathan Klick of the University of Pennsylvania, and Shane Frederick of Yale University.

As always, Cato Unbound readers are encouraged to take up our themes, and enter into the conversation on their own websites and blogs, or on other venues. Trackbacks are enabled. Cato Unbound will search the web for the best commentary on our monthly topic, and, with permission, may publish it alongside our invited contributors. We also welcome your letters. (Send them to wwilkinson at cato.org.)