A small but growing literature in experimental economics finds that principals can shift responsibility for blameworthy behavior to agents, even when those agents are effectively powerless. Prior work in this field measures blameworthy behavior only indirectly, however. It uses modified dictator games to measure attributions of blame for inequitable allocations of wealth. Yet participants might find inequitable allocations of wealth not blameworthy. Thus, such indirect measures leave open the possibility that prior work is not measuring blame shifting at all. This article corrects for a crucial shortcoming by providing a direct measure of blame-shifting behavior. It reports and discusses first-of-its-kind experimental evidence that shows that principals can delegate to powerless intermediaries in order to evade blame.

Critics frequently argue that nudges are more covert, less transparent, and more difficult to monitor than traditional regulatory tools. Edward Glaeser, for example, argues that "[p]ublic monitoring of soft paternalism is much more difficult than public monitoring of hard paternalism". As one of the leading proponents of soft paternalism, Cass Sunstein, acknowledges, while "[m]andates and commands are highly visible", soft paternalism, "and some nudges in particular[,] may be invisible". In response to this challenge, proponents of nudging argue that invisibility for any given individual in a particular choice environment is compatible with "careful public scrutiny" of the nudge. This paper offers the first of its kind experimental evidence that tests whether nudges are, in fact, compatible with "careful public scrutiny". Using three sets of experiments, the paper argues that, even when entirely visible, nudges attract less scrutiny than their "hard law" counterparts.

No abstract

No abstract