What do you think?
Rate this book
Paternalism
Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 2014
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 10, 2015
I was fortunate enough to receive an advanced copy of the manuscript of this yet-to-be-published book as one of Julian Le Grand's students at LSE this year.
For me, this book did a fairly good job demystifying paternalism but also defining and explaining it in such a way as to provide an alternative interpretation of the word from its common, evil-nanny-state connotation. The book is heavy on theory and relatively light on real-world examples, but it's definitely worth a read.
My only real intellectual qualm with the book is tangential to its theme and in no way compromises the integrity of the authors' principle claims, but it's worth noting here: in discussing government subsidies, the authors fail to account for the opportunity costs of funding them. The authors argue on more than one occasion that subsidies only increase available choices, thus improving autonomy. However, in this calculation, the authors fail to recognize that subsidies are not actually free. By collecting and spending taxes, they are reducing the resources available to citizens, who presumably know best how to maximize their own utility. Or even if the government decides to print more money to fund its subsidies, this devalues the currency its citizens hold. Moreover, how the government chooses to spend tax dollars is itself paternalistic. By funding certain subsidies and not others (which may be preferred by taxpayers), for example, they are placing their preferences ahead of the taxpayers'. This is precisely the ends-related paternalism the book condemns. Thus, whether subsidies increase or diminish the general wellbeing is not as one-sided as the authors claim.
However, as I said, this is a small gripe in comparison with the highly successful arguments throughout. The authors did succeed in de-bad-word-ifying the word "paternalism" in my eyes, and they elucidated the practical implications for policymakers in the process.
As the book hasn't been published yet, I don't want to give away too much, but this one is definitely worth checking out if you're at all interested in justifying your pet existing or potential government intervention.
For me, this book did a fairly good job demystifying paternalism but also defining and explaining it in such a way as to provide an alternative interpretation of the word from its common, evil-nanny-state connotation. The book is heavy on theory and relatively light on real-world examples, but it's definitely worth a read.
My only real intellectual qualm with the book is tangential to its theme and in no way compromises the integrity of the authors' principle claims, but it's worth noting here: in discussing government subsidies, the authors fail to account for the opportunity costs of funding them. The authors argue on more than one occasion that subsidies only increase available choices, thus improving autonomy. However, in this calculation, the authors fail to recognize that subsidies are not actually free. By collecting and spending taxes, they are reducing the resources available to citizens, who presumably know best how to maximize their own utility. Or even if the government decides to print more money to fund its subsidies, this devalues the currency its citizens hold. Moreover, how the government chooses to spend tax dollars is itself paternalistic. By funding certain subsidies and not others (which may be preferred by taxpayers), for example, they are placing their preferences ahead of the taxpayers'. This is precisely the ends-related paternalism the book condemns. Thus, whether subsidies increase or diminish the general wellbeing is not as one-sided as the authors claim.
However, as I said, this is a small gripe in comparison with the highly successful arguments throughout. The authors did succeed in de-bad-word-ifying the word "paternalism" in my eyes, and they elucidated the practical implications for policymakers in the process.
As the book hasn't been published yet, I don't want to give away too much, but this one is definitely worth checking out if you're at all interested in justifying your pet existing or potential government intervention.
Displaying 1 of 1 review