From libertarian paternalism to liberalism: behavioural science and policy in an age of new technology

Abstract

Behavioural science has been effectively used by policy makers in various domains, from health to savings. However, interventions that behavioural scientists typically employ to change behaviour have been at the centre of an ethical debate, given that they include elements of paternalism that have implications for people's freedom of choice. In the present article, we argue that this ethical debate could be resolved in the future through implementation and advancement of new technologies. We propose that several technologies which are currently available and are rapidly evolving (i.e., virtual and augmented reality, social robotics, gamification, self-quantification, and behavioural informatics) have a potential to be integrated with various behavioural interventions in a non-paternalistic way. More specifically, people would decide themselves which behaviours they want to change and select the technologies they want to use for this purpose, and the role of policy makers would be to develop transparent behavioural interventions for these technologies. In that sense, behavioural science would move from libertarian paternalism to liberalism, given that people would freely choose how they want to change, and policy makers would create technological interventions that make this change possible.

Two steps forward, one step back: negative spillovers in water conservation

“…Lastly, we posited that moral licensing could account for this behaviourthat users compensate for their restrictive behaviours in showering by using more water elsewhere. Given this, policymakers will need to systematically evaluate any potential spillovers (positive or negative) (Krpan and Urbaník, 2021) with future research that could focus on further uncovering the mechanism of such spillovers as well as policy implications such as the need to compensate for these negative spillovers by raising awareness of water consumption in non-showering areas. For instance, by tweaking the nudges into socially minded nudges (Van Der Linden, 2018), such as by informing people how many referent others are participating in the same initiative (installing smart water devices in their homes).…”

Behavioural public policies for the social brain

“…Cognitive processes, as such, are defined over the extended mind, rather than what one has bodily control over. In recent times, technology has made such an idea more relevant, with techno-human interactions being proposed as modes of behaviour change (Krpan & Urbaník, 2020). In addition, theories of situated cognition (see Lindblom & Ziemke, 2003) have resonated similar ideas of extrinsic influences, albeit from the actions of other human beings.…”

Untitled

“…Algunos autores ya han sugerido que los nudges deberían funcionar con otros tipos de intervenciones y siempre con enfoques educativos (Hortal, 2020b). El objetivo de un nudge es mejorar la toma de decisiones y los resultados sin limitar la libertad o la elección, por lo que pueden considerarse libertarios, ya que no eliminan opciones y son paternalistas (Epstein, 2018;Hansen, 2016;Krpan y Urbaník, 2021), pues influyen en el comportamiento de las personas. En lo que respecta a la violencia de género, estas intervenciones suelen dirigirse a víctimas, supervivientes, sus amigos y familiares o instituciones en un esfuerzo por facilitar los comportamientos deseados (denunciar, apoyar, aguantar mientras se espera una respuesta, asistir a juicios, etc.).…”