What do you think?
Rate this book
Why Nudge?: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism
The bestselling author of Simpler offers a powerful, provocative, and convincing argument for protecting people from their own mistakes
Based on a series of pathbreaking lectures given at Yale University in 2012, this powerful, thought-provoking work by national best-selling author Cass R. Sunstein combines legal theory with behavioral economics to make a fresh argument about the legitimate scope of government, bearing on obesity, smoking, distracted driving, health care, food safety, and other highly volatile, high-profile public issues. Behavioral economists have established that people often make decisions that run counter to their best interests—producing what Sunstein describes as “behavioral market failures.” Sometimes we disregard the long term; sometimes we are unrealistically optimistic; sometimes we do not see what is in front of us. With this evidence in mind, Sunstein argues for a new form of paternalism, one that protects people against serious errors but also recognizes the risk of government overreaching and usually preserves freedom of choice.
Against those who reject paternalism of any kind, Sunstein shows that “choice architecture”—government-imposed structures that affect our choices—is inevitable, and hence that a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. He urges that there are profoundly moral reasons to ensure that choice architecture is helpful rather than harmful—and that it makes people’s lives better and longer.
Based on a series of pathbreaking lectures given at Yale University in 2012, this powerful, thought-provoking work by national best-selling author Cass R. Sunstein combines legal theory with behavioral economics to make a fresh argument about the legitimate scope of government, bearing on obesity, smoking, distracted driving, health care, food safety, and other highly volatile, high-profile public issues. Behavioral economists have established that people often make decisions that run counter to their best interests—producing what Sunstein describes as “behavioral market failures.” Sometimes we disregard the long term; sometimes we are unrealistically optimistic; sometimes we do not see what is in front of us. With this evidence in mind, Sunstein argues for a new form of paternalism, one that protects people against serious errors but also recognizes the risk of government overreaching and usually preserves freedom of choice.
Against those who reject paternalism of any kind, Sunstein shows that “choice architecture”—government-imposed structures that affect our choices—is inevitable, and hence that a form of paternalism cannot be avoided. He urges that there are profoundly moral reasons to ensure that choice architecture is helpful rather than harmful—and that it makes people’s lives better and longer.
208 pages, Hardcover
First published March 25, 2014
23 people are currently reading
1191 people want to read
About the author
Cass R. Sunstein
166 books731 followersCass R. Sunstein is an American legal scholar, particularly in the fields of constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and law and behavioral economics, who currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. For 27 years, Sunstein taught at the University of Chicago Law School, where he continues to teach as the Harry Kalven Visiting Professor. Sunstein is currently Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where he is on leave while working in the Obama administration.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
September 20, 2014
Libertarian Paternalism????? What a complete oxymoron...
December 29, 2014
It seems a little churlish to complain that this book is dense — after all it’s based on lectures given to Yale Law students, not the general public. But still, the whole thing reads as a giant counter-example to everything in Steven Pinker’s recent book on how to present this sort of argument. Throughout, I found myself never quite sure whether I’m actually disagreeing with the author, or simply not quite understanding him.
This starts right at the very beginning, where he gives an example to which he’ll keep returning: that of The Daily Grill, a restaurant with a special menu highlighting 600-calorie meals. These certainly aren’t the only meals available at this restaurant — merely a separate, highlighted section of the menu. Sunstein asks us: “Is this paternalistic?” (with all the negative connotations that this would be presumed to carry). “Maybe not”, he suggests. “Maybe it is merely catering to what people want, and letting its health-conscious customers know that it has what they are seeking. Maybe it believes that people’s preferences are not static, and maybe it is seeking to alter those preferences in order to attract additional business. But maybe it believes that customers would be better off if they chose healthful, low-calorie meals, and maybe it is hoping to help customers to do exactly that, even if they would not choose such meals without a little help from The Daily Grill.”
So far, so good. But then he goes on: “Suppose that as a matter of fact, the last explanation is the right one.”
Now I’m confused. To me it seems that the first explanation is clearly the most likely. The restaurant knows that many customers will appreciate them clearly offering low-calorie meals, so not only offers those, but highlights them as a marketing tool. That seems like little more than basic business sense. Proposing that I simply accept that they have a public health agenda instead does little more than make me wonder how much damage working in government does to an author's common sense.
In reality, I suspect this is simply poor writing, rather than poor argument. I think that what he’s really saying here is: “The first of these is probably the most likely. But let’s imagine instead that actually it’s the last one, and the restaurant owners really do want to actively encourage us to eat more healthily. Would that be objectionable? And if not, would it become so if a government cafeteria were to do the same?”
This becomes a better expression of the argument, and raises quite an interesting question. But as the original is put forward in a way that causes me to stumble over the framing, it’s a lot more work than it should be to get to the question. And, unfortunately this is a recurring pattern throughout. Concepts are often introduced half-formed — at one point he claims “The Simply 600 menu is certainly a nudge; so is a GPS”, but the subsequent explanation for why a GPS might be considered so doesn’t appear until several chapters later. Or sometimes reference will be made to something I assumed would become a key strand of the argument, but then simply disappears, like in a reference to Google introducing nudges towards healthier eating in its own campus cafeterias. In this example it’s explicitly noted that this was introduced as a direct response to customer complaints, which seems like it’s going to be an important distinction from them simply imposing their own preferences on how employees eat — but no, that’s simply ignored.
Sunstein also seems remarkably tone-deaf at times to how word-choice can reframe an argument. In the abstract, he should be aware of this: he discusses examples like the different reactions to a doctor telling someone that ninety out of a hundred previous patients who underwent a particular operation are still alive after five years, versus telling them that ten died. But yet, when talking about encouraging shoppers to bring reusable bags, he frames the choice in terms of “a five-cent tax for using a plastic bag” and in subsequent discussion also refers to this as a fine. This is very odd to me. A shop doesn’t fine me or tax me fifty cents for a banana — that’s misrepresenting the nature of a commercial transaction. So why is different if it charges me ten cents for a plastic bag? There’s certainly an interesting debate to be had around prices that are mandated by government rather than the market, but that's not what's going on here, where his focus is on the psychology of loss aversion. So this sort of language is simply a stumbling block again, as I can’t tell whether he’s deliberately mis-framing the issue in pursuit of a point, reflecting a pre-politicised discussion that used these terms, making an argument en passant that charges, taxes, and fines are all essentially the same thing anyway, or is simply muddled in his thinking.
And this betrays my biggest problem. With a lot of hard work and deep study a careful reader could probably tease a coherent argument out of the book and even if they disagreed with it, they could still honestly say that they understood that position a lot better. But they shouldn’t have to do that. The very nature of this sort of book should be to make that easy, not difficult — especially when a core plank of your argument is that one of the reasons we should give people better default choices is that most of the time, most people won’t really put that much work into things.
As for me, I’m certainly sympathetic to some of the “Nudge” ideas and ideals, which at their most basic level are little more than a wider application of the old software-engineering truism that simply offering customisation options is the lazy way out of making good design decisions in the first place, especially as the vast majority of users never change the defaults. But I start to get very uncomfortable when people lay out visions like this one:
Sunstein seems to be positing this un-ironically as some sort of utopian state. To me it seems more like a perfect dystopia.
This starts right at the very beginning, where he gives an example to which he’ll keep returning: that of The Daily Grill, a restaurant with a special menu highlighting 600-calorie meals. These certainly aren’t the only meals available at this restaurant — merely a separate, highlighted section of the menu. Sunstein asks us: “Is this paternalistic?” (with all the negative connotations that this would be presumed to carry). “Maybe not”, he suggests. “Maybe it is merely catering to what people want, and letting its health-conscious customers know that it has what they are seeking. Maybe it believes that people’s preferences are not static, and maybe it is seeking to alter those preferences in order to attract additional business. But maybe it believes that customers would be better off if they chose healthful, low-calorie meals, and maybe it is hoping to help customers to do exactly that, even if they would not choose such meals without a little help from The Daily Grill.”
So far, so good. But then he goes on: “Suppose that as a matter of fact, the last explanation is the right one.”
Now I’m confused. To me it seems that the first explanation is clearly the most likely. The restaurant knows that many customers will appreciate them clearly offering low-calorie meals, so not only offers those, but highlights them as a marketing tool. That seems like little more than basic business sense. Proposing that I simply accept that they have a public health agenda instead does little more than make me wonder how much damage working in government does to an author's common sense.
In reality, I suspect this is simply poor writing, rather than poor argument. I think that what he’s really saying here is: “The first of these is probably the most likely. But let’s imagine instead that actually it’s the last one, and the restaurant owners really do want to actively encourage us to eat more healthily. Would that be objectionable? And if not, would it become so if a government cafeteria were to do the same?”
This becomes a better expression of the argument, and raises quite an interesting question. But as the original is put forward in a way that causes me to stumble over the framing, it’s a lot more work than it should be to get to the question. And, unfortunately this is a recurring pattern throughout. Concepts are often introduced half-formed — at one point he claims “The Simply 600 menu is certainly a nudge; so is a GPS”, but the subsequent explanation for why a GPS might be considered so doesn’t appear until several chapters later. Or sometimes reference will be made to something I assumed would become a key strand of the argument, but then simply disappears, like in a reference to Google introducing nudges towards healthier eating in its own campus cafeterias. In this example it’s explicitly noted that this was introduced as a direct response to customer complaints, which seems like it’s going to be an important distinction from them simply imposing their own preferences on how employees eat — but no, that’s simply ignored.
Sunstein also seems remarkably tone-deaf at times to how word-choice can reframe an argument. In the abstract, he should be aware of this: he discusses examples like the different reactions to a doctor telling someone that ninety out of a hundred previous patients who underwent a particular operation are still alive after five years, versus telling them that ten died. But yet, when talking about encouraging shoppers to bring reusable bags, he frames the choice in terms of “a five-cent tax for using a plastic bag” and in subsequent discussion also refers to this as a fine. This is very odd to me. A shop doesn’t fine me or tax me fifty cents for a banana — that’s misrepresenting the nature of a commercial transaction. So why is different if it charges me ten cents for a plastic bag? There’s certainly an interesting debate to be had around prices that are mandated by government rather than the market, but that's not what's going on here, where his focus is on the psychology of loss aversion. So this sort of language is simply a stumbling block again, as I can’t tell whether he’s deliberately mis-framing the issue in pursuit of a point, reflecting a pre-politicised discussion that used these terms, making an argument en passant that charges, taxes, and fines are all essentially the same thing anyway, or is simply muddled in his thinking.
And this betrays my biggest problem. With a lot of hard work and deep study a careful reader could probably tease a coherent argument out of the book and even if they disagreed with it, they could still honestly say that they understood that position a lot better. But they shouldn’t have to do that. The very nature of this sort of book should be to make that easy, not difficult — especially when a core plank of your argument is that one of the reasons we should give people better default choices is that most of the time, most people won’t really put that much work into things.
As for me, I’m certainly sympathetic to some of the “Nudge” ideas and ideals, which at their most basic level are little more than a wider application of the old software-engineering truism that simply offering customisation options is the lazy way out of making good design decisions in the first place, especially as the vast majority of users never change the defaults. But I start to get very uncomfortable when people lay out visions like this one:
“Consider a thought experiment or perhaps a little science fiction. We should be able to agree that government would focus only on means, and indeed would not be paternalistic at all, if it could have some kind of access to every person’s internal concerns and provide them with accurate information about everything that already concerns each of them.”
Sunstein seems to be positing this un-ironically as some sort of utopian state. To me it seems more like a perfect dystopia.
August 2, 2019
Šiek tiek kartojasi. Kokiu vienu skyriumi būtų galima sutrumpinti knygą.
September 1, 2018
As many others pointed out, the writing style isn't great and the structure could be better. Nevertheless, the point comes across well and is valuable.
Sunstein's intellectual opponent in this book is John Stuart Mill, defender of the Harm principle. This well-known principle has it that freedom should prevail, unless harm is caused to an innocent bystander. Freedom from the state and freedom from others in general. Mill's argument for freedom from the state is epistemic: individuals themselves know best what is good for them, the state has insufficient information and therefore should not attempt to regulate people's lives with sweeping laws that do not fit particulars. A good argument, Sunstein recognizes this, but sees a problem from his background in behavioral psychology: People sometimes aren't always rational and don't always do what is best for themselves. They agree with things they didn't read, don't take the effort to gather information, are unreasonably optimistic, etc.; all examples of 'behavioral market failures' which may trump the Harm principle. In these cases soft regulations are in place and could take the form of nudges such as warnings, appropriate default rules, disclosure of information. It manipulates the choice architecture of certain situations people are in for their own good. And while that sounds bad, choice architecture is always already there whether regulated or not; and in many cases choices and decisions are already made for us without our opinions being asked, and that's a very good thing for society (I don't know what safety standard medicine should abide by) and our own free time.
But of course, the issue of heterogeneity remains, why would a single nudge be beneficial to everyone? True point, but not in all cases (limiting cigarette use is universally desirable) and there is room for personalization based on age, gender, living district, etc. A second big deal is of course the fact that it concerns government intervention. Civil servants make mistakes just as well, by accident or by "accident", but in a large organization where regulation passes many hurdles (and a scrutinizing public eye) before being passed, things might not be as bad. Nonetheless, transparency is key, especially in the case of often subtle nudges. The weak point to my mind is Sunstein's refutation of the argument from autonomy. He tries to put a desire for autonomy aside as a cognitive heuristic that is actually about welfare. In Kahneman's vocabulary: A system 1 response to what system 2 recognizes is of real importance. A bit too easy a response for real worries to me.
Sunstein's intellectual opponent in this book is John Stuart Mill, defender of the Harm principle. This well-known principle has it that freedom should prevail, unless harm is caused to an innocent bystander. Freedom from the state and freedom from others in general. Mill's argument for freedom from the state is epistemic: individuals themselves know best what is good for them, the state has insufficient information and therefore should not attempt to regulate people's lives with sweeping laws that do not fit particulars. A good argument, Sunstein recognizes this, but sees a problem from his background in behavioral psychology: People sometimes aren't always rational and don't always do what is best for themselves. They agree with things they didn't read, don't take the effort to gather information, are unreasonably optimistic, etc.; all examples of 'behavioral market failures' which may trump the Harm principle. In these cases soft regulations are in place and could take the form of nudges such as warnings, appropriate default rules, disclosure of information. It manipulates the choice architecture of certain situations people are in for their own good. And while that sounds bad, choice architecture is always already there whether regulated or not; and in many cases choices and decisions are already made for us without our opinions being asked, and that's a very good thing for society (I don't know what safety standard medicine should abide by) and our own free time.
But of course, the issue of heterogeneity remains, why would a single nudge be beneficial to everyone? True point, but not in all cases (limiting cigarette use is universally desirable) and there is room for personalization based on age, gender, living district, etc. A second big deal is of course the fact that it concerns government intervention. Civil servants make mistakes just as well, by accident or by "accident", but in a large organization where regulation passes many hurdles (and a scrutinizing public eye) before being passed, things might not be as bad. Nonetheless, transparency is key, especially in the case of often subtle nudges. The weak point to my mind is Sunstein's refutation of the argument from autonomy. He tries to put a desire for autonomy aside as a cognitive heuristic that is actually about welfare. In Kahneman's vocabulary: A system 1 response to what system 2 recognizes is of real importance. A bit too easy a response for real worries to me.
April 28, 2015
I know Sunstein scares Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, but the idea of using behavioral science in government isn't radical or at least shouldn't be. Britain's conservative government created a board to advise govt policymakers with the latest research. It's more helpful than astrology (see Reagan administration).
July 24, 2021
A balanced account on when governments should intervene when behavorial market failures occur. The main idea behind the book is that humans tend to be biased when making decisions that could potentially leave them better welfare over the long run.
Sunstein doesn't want to say it but he implicitly suggests that welfare is more or less having more money, healthier lives and longer lifespans, among other things.
He contends that governments can give nudges and provide default decisions that aim to maximize people's welfare but always promoting autonomy of choosing such that despite the nudge, everyone can opt out or choose otherwise. Some examples of nudges: provide full disclousure of information, say, on food labelling, explicit information on fuel costs for cars, graphic images on cigarette boxes, limiting the size of sugar drinks to nudge towards less consumption or even default signing up into health care plans.
I tend to mildly agree with him and reject the contrary argument that ALL contexts require full freedom. Behavioral market failures are context specific and in some instances, full freedom of active choosing is preferred while in others slight nudges can go along way while preserving the power of opting out. In fact, maybe a framework of direct referendums on which default nudges should be applied considering benefits and pitfalls is the most balanced case for government intervention.
The book is well balanced in that it discusses in detail the arguments of those who disagree with him. Despite this, the book is not well edited, there's a lot of repetition of ideas and his discussuion of the harm principle as a philosophical argument (people should be able to choose because it forces them to think, learn and become better and responsible citizens) is somewhat neglected. He focuses on applied, empirical examples of why nudges work but the main criticism against that view is that this is a philosophical stance rather than an effectiveness policy that we're talking about.
Sunstein doesn't want to say it but he implicitly suggests that welfare is more or less having more money, healthier lives and longer lifespans, among other things.
He contends that governments can give nudges and provide default decisions that aim to maximize people's welfare but always promoting autonomy of choosing such that despite the nudge, everyone can opt out or choose otherwise. Some examples of nudges: provide full disclousure of information, say, on food labelling, explicit information on fuel costs for cars, graphic images on cigarette boxes, limiting the size of sugar drinks to nudge towards less consumption or even default signing up into health care plans.
I tend to mildly agree with him and reject the contrary argument that ALL contexts require full freedom. Behavioral market failures are context specific and in some instances, full freedom of active choosing is preferred while in others slight nudges can go along way while preserving the power of opting out. In fact, maybe a framework of direct referendums on which default nudges should be applied considering benefits and pitfalls is the most balanced case for government intervention.
The book is well balanced in that it discusses in detail the arguments of those who disagree with him. Despite this, the book is not well edited, there's a lot of repetition of ideas and his discussuion of the harm principle as a philosophical argument (people should be able to choose because it forces them to think, learn and become better and responsible citizens) is somewhat neglected. He focuses on applied, empirical examples of why nudges work but the main criticism against that view is that this is a philosophical stance rather than an effectiveness policy that we're talking about.
November 16, 2021
As a citizen, state paternalism is a very annoying concept for me, especially if the government which is in charge of my live is known for its reputation of being incompetent most of the time (guess where I live!). The concept of nudge itself, in my opinion, is an interesting, if not outright sinister for me, manipulative for maintaining the illusion of choice while subconsciously leading people to the preferred option. While I tend to ignore the philosophical and political discussions behind these soft and hard paternalism, In the end I concur that the problem lies not in the paternalism itself, but in the illicit ends behind the governments’ decisions which involve nudge theory in its implementation. I probably will return to this book in the future for better understanding of political considerations and implications of nudge theory-based decisions.
November 22, 2021
Excellent, clear, and crisp book! Especially useful framing on situations warranting paternalism (behavioral market failures) and the choice matrix involved in crafting a "paternalistic" intervention (Soft vs. Hard & Means vs. Ends).
I would characterize the book as focusing heavily on some of the more abstract, philosophical discussions related to nudge policies (especially John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle"). However, there are a few good and practical examples that are referenced, such as Mayor Bloomberg's policies and the backlash it produced (unfortunately, these examples and greater analysis of political actors/motivations are overshadowed in favor of a more general discussion of values and principles centered around Mill's thinking).
I would characterize the book as focusing heavily on some of the more abstract, philosophical discussions related to nudge policies (especially John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle"). However, there are a few good and practical examples that are referenced, such as Mayor Bloomberg's policies and the backlash it produced (unfortunately, these examples and greater analysis of political actors/motivations are overshadowed in favor of a more general discussion of values and principles centered around Mill's thinking).
October 23, 2020
A lot to learn here. Mostly I discovered that I am not remotely a libertarian and am fine with all of the nudges Sunstein discusses. Restaurants, put the healthy menu on the front slate board, car salepeople, give the vehicles A through F ratings for energy efficiency. If 2016-2020 has taught us anything, it's that there is a large population of folks who need to be guided to do the right thing. John Stuart Mill did not anticipate libertarianism becoming what it became.
August 9, 2019
I think the most important point in this book is that in many ways we are surrounded by choices that someone has already made for us, and that having more choices is not always more free. We can spend so much time protecting ourselves from poor choices that we have no time to do anything else. That's not freedom.
Interesting questions. Fewer answers. The writing style is not ideal.
Interesting questions. Fewer answers. The writing style is not ideal.
February 15, 2023
Much more appealing than Conly. Writing a whole essay right now to justify that claim! Let's see how that goes.
February 13, 2025
Written by husband of the drifter that ran USAID. Promotes cancel culture. This book is the must read operations manual of the globalists.
Read
April 4, 2025ibkk
June 17, 2024
"Nudge" is kind of a theme of his.
January 22, 2021
Es un libro repetitivo, de discusión, con el buen atributo que es corto. En 48 horas se lee de portada a portada. Discute las tesis del paternalismo libertario a la luz de los postulados de John Stuart Mill en "On Liberty".
Es un buen libro para repasar las tesis de la economía comportamental y releer las respuestas a las críticas libertarias que llegaron desde la Escuela de Chicago, pero en este libro no hay una sola idea que no se encuentre ya en sus otros libros. No he leído muchos libros de Sunstein, apenas unos 5 o 6 (son pocos si se tiene en cuenta que saca uno al año), pero entre "Nudge" y "On Freedom" estaban el 99% de las premisas que se encuentran en este libro. Eso es un poco molesto, dado el esfuerzo que hace un lector por leer de nuevo a Sunstein.
A la final, este es un buen empaquetamiento en un producto nuevo - nada más que un empaquetamiento - para volver a vender las viejas ideas. El lector que solo ha leído un libro de Sunstein seguro disfrutará esta nueva versión. Quién ha leído más de uno, pierde su tiempo.
Es un buen libro para repasar las tesis de la economía comportamental y releer las respuestas a las críticas libertarias que llegaron desde la Escuela de Chicago, pero en este libro no hay una sola idea que no se encuentre ya en sus otros libros. No he leído muchos libros de Sunstein, apenas unos 5 o 6 (son pocos si se tiene en cuenta que saca uno al año), pero entre "Nudge" y "On Freedom" estaban el 99% de las premisas que se encuentran en este libro. Eso es un poco molesto, dado el esfuerzo que hace un lector por leer de nuevo a Sunstein.
A la final, este es un buen empaquetamiento en un producto nuevo - nada más que un empaquetamiento - para volver a vender las viejas ideas. El lector que solo ha leído un libro de Sunstein seguro disfrutará esta nueva versión. Quién ha leído más de uno, pierde su tiempo.
May 1, 2017
Sunstein's book is, in essence, an attempt to argue why "libertarian paternalism" is not a contradiction in terms, and why John Stuart Mill's ("On Liberty") expression of the freedom of the free individual to make free choices—even those that work against his best interests—is not adumbrated by "nudges." The book has fewer examples of nudges in action than NUDGE, and is clearly intended for a more academic audience. Like NUDGE (which preceded the 2007–8 crash), WHY NUDGE? precedes another seismic change in what we consider the role of government, in that it was published before Trump became president. WHY NUDGE?, therefore, suffers from NUDGE's same Polyannish belief both that government is unimportant enough that a nudge here and there can suffice and that it's filled with decent politicians who are happy to "nudge" people in the right direction. As is clear from the 2007–8 crash and the 2016 election, politics is filled with those who fail to honor their fiduciary responsibilities, are asleep at the wheel, love to elbow and kick and not simply "nudge," and are beholden to special interests, no matter how small or extreme. Sunstein, who served in the Obama administration for a couple of years, might have written a very different book if this had come out in 2017 and not a few years before.
May 23, 2014
Graphic ads on cigarette packs, default savings plan, "Healthier Choice" labels, these are implementations of a type of paternalism our writer, Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar, defines as 'nudges', aiming to persuade individuals to favor certain choices over others. Running against Mill's famous Harm Principle, Sunstein makes a case for 'nudges', even putting the oft-quoted principle into question. Sunstein shows deep understanding in this issue, recognising the inextricable nature of presentation's effect on choices, analysing different cognitive and visceral shortcomings neccessary for authorities to step in, and distinguishing different degrees of paternalism.
Sunstein also shared issues on contension from opposing views championing two major points, namely welfare and autonomy, highlighting their underlying factors and addressing how 'nudges' may promote their causes under certain circumstances. The discussion is highly accessible without being too watered down.
In all, a nuanced composition by a sharp mind. To those interested in public policy and governance, a topic not alien to Sunstein, this book, including his other writings, is highly recommended.
Sunstein also shared issues on contension from opposing views championing two major points, namely welfare and autonomy, highlighting their underlying factors and addressing how 'nudges' may promote their causes under certain circumstances. The discussion is highly accessible without being too watered down.
In all, a nuanced composition by a sharp mind. To those interested in public policy and governance, a topic not alien to Sunstein, this book, including his other writings, is highly recommended.
May 19, 2016
Libertarian paternalism is a clever concept, but the libertarians hate the paternalism and the paternalists don't give a hoot about the libertarian aspect. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need it, and in the real world it seems unlikely to win without a constituency.
This book's contribution was an attempt to refute or at least reframe Mill's harm principle, that only defending someone from harm justifies use of power. Sunstein wants us to believe that experts can have superior knowledge and use that knowledge to justify using power to protect the ignorant from themselves. He made a case, though he didn't convince me. And he seems rather casual about the potential downside of giving such power to experts. I'd like to blog about this and try to counter his arguments. I'm not sure I have enough motivation.
This book's contribution was an attempt to refute or at least reframe Mill's harm principle, that only defending someone from harm justifies use of power. Sunstein wants us to believe that experts can have superior knowledge and use that knowledge to justify using power to protect the ignorant from themselves. He made a case, though he didn't convince me. And he seems rather casual about the potential downside of giving such power to experts. I'd like to blog about this and try to counter his arguments. I'm not sure I have enough motivation.
August 28, 2014
An overreliance on big words and circular analysis derail an otherwise interesting and thoughtful book.
Sunstein’s central premise – arguing for a reinterpretation of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle – is an intriguing and welcome addition to modern political discourse. While reading, I kept thinking that Why Nudge? should be a much-debated work. It’s timely and has the sort of conclusions that encourage discussion.
But my goodness. Put down the thesaurus and just say what you mean. Intelligence is not shown by using big words and long, overly-wordy sentences to make a point. Quasi-recommended.
Sunstein’s central premise – arguing for a reinterpretation of John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle – is an intriguing and welcome addition to modern political discourse. While reading, I kept thinking that Why Nudge? should be a much-debated work. It’s timely and has the sort of conclusions that encourage discussion.
But my goodness. Put down the thesaurus and just say what you mean. Intelligence is not shown by using big words and long, overly-wordy sentences to make a point. Quasi-recommended.
April 12, 2016
En el libro Sunstein argumenta a favor del paternalismo libertario respondiendo a los problemas que plantea el libertarianismo. Su estrategia consiste en criticar "el argumento del daño" de John Stuart Mill, mismo que dice que el gobierno solo puede intervenir en la vida de las personas en casos en que sus acciones hagan daño a los demás. Sunstein argumenta que el gobierno puede intervenir por razones de bienestar social y se muestra a favor de intervenciones suaves en forma de nudges.
A diferencia de "Nudge", este es un libro filosófico. El tema de la economía conductual se repasa, pero no es el propósito del libro.
A diferencia de "Nudge", este es un libro filosófico. El tema de la economía conductual se repasa, pero no es el propósito del libro.
December 21, 2014
Understanding the entire torpedo of controversy surrounding Sunstein and his libertarian paternalism advocacy, this is an informative defense and it does not even focus that much on his tenure in Washington. The academic interest is present - economics, psychology, and political behavior. The most interesting aspects to me are psychology and the overall synthesis of decision-making, but it is a multi-disciplinary work with multi-disciplinary appeal.
August 2, 2015
Libertarian Paternalism may seem like an oxymoron. The author tackles the issue of free choice and what role the state has in stopping people from making bad choices. The author describes these bad choices as behavioural market failures and supports his arguments using recent research from the behavioural sciences. He concludes that some form of paternalism cannot be avoided. This conclusion will be an anathema to doctrinaire libertarians.
December 13, 2017
I don't know, maybe it would be nice to someone completely new to the subject. Otherwise the text is wordy and the reasoning is childish at best. And the point is missing: libertarians are the ones who (at least to them) want more freedom (liberty). Paternalism is usually associated with conservatism and it means deciding for others what they have to do. Sadly, Sunstein wants to say something, but he lacks the brain power to reach that conclusion.
September 8, 2014
There has been ever-lasting debates in economics regarding the role governments should play. This book provides a refreshing perspective as to such a big question. The authors justify the necessary engagement of government, namely "nudge", which aims at preventing cognitive failures of economic agents. An interesting book.
January 13, 2017
I had to read this book among others for my Behavioral Economics module. I really enjoyed the example on political candidates and how people vote in particular. It also has some great examples on means and ends paternalism and how they relate to public policies.
September 19, 2017
This book is to Nudge what the tv show Joey is to Friends — a quick and dirty attempt to milk a cash cow. I really enjoyed Nudge but I don't see why the world also needs this book. Wished they had saved themselves for a follow up to Nudge.
November 12, 2017
It was comparable to the book the author wrote together with Thaler, except the arguments were way better funded and the structure was so much better and it was less childishly written. This should've been the main book, to be honest.
October 1, 2018
This wasn't Sunstein's best. In it, he engages with some of the criticism of the nudge approach, but not very well, often failing to properly understand the criticisms. I found his later book, The Ethics of Influence, to be rather more thoughtful and engaging.
May 21, 2014
Drier than a fresh Cabernet Sauvignon.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews