DOCSLIB.ORG

Never Mind the %

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Never Mind the % RESEARCH-DRIVEN INSIGHTS ON BUSINESS, POLICY, AND MARKETS WINTER / The University of Chicago Booth School of Business 5807 S. Woodlawn Ave. Chicago, IL 60637 NEVER MIND THE % LET’S TALK HOW TO CREATE MIDDLE-CLASS JOBS WHY PEOPLE MISMANAGE CREDIT-CARD DEBT LET’S TALK ABOUT THE .% Page ABOUT THE 0.0 % Plus: Raghuram G. Rajan WINTER / on populist politics FALL Plus: Why policyThe makers private-equity What fund venture of capitalists can Advice from the father should nudgefunds more that earns itslearn fees from ‘racist’ rats of ecient markets “It’s almost as if people couldn’t decide whether we had cancer, or maybe a fungal infection. We decided to treat them both, and the problem went away, but maybe that had nothing to do with the treatment.” Page 14 EDITORS’ LETTER n the book Nudge: Improving Decisions articles and videos about research by CAN WE about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, people who have won—or could yet win— I Chicago Booth’s Richard H. Thaler distinguished prizes such as the Nobel. and Harvard’s Cass R. Sunstein discuss In this issue, you’ll also find comments NUDGE YOU how it’s possible to structure policies from Chicago Booth’s Eugene F. Fama, a and programs in ways that encourage 2013 Nobel laureate, on topics ranging TO READ THIS people to make particular choices, and from corporate governance to algorithmic how governments and organizations trading (page 45). can use nudges to help people make Online, we have a video of Thaler MAGAZINE? better decisions. For example, when giving NFL draft advice, and one of Fama new hires are presented with a company explaining the role of the government in retirement-savings plan, they may the subprime-mortgage meltdown. We receive a form indicating that they will also have both researchers together, in be automatically enrolled unless they an absorbing episode of The Big Question, take steps to opt out, so that the default our monthly video series, in which the option is to participate. two Nobel laureates discuss whether Thaler’s observations (they extend markets are efficient. Fama developed On the cover: well beyond nudging) have transformed the efficient-markets hypothesis, which Average annual behavioral economics, which explores says asset prices fully reflect all available income of top US how human psychology and other information. Thaler’s work has challenged households since nonmathematic factors affect economic this notion. Part of our mission at CBR is 1950. Read more decisions. When Thaler was awarded the to facilitate such conversations between about the “1 percent of the 1 percent” 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic big economic thinkers. on page 24. Sciences in October, Peter Gärdenfors, a If you’re not already receiving our member of the prize committee, said that email newsletters, sign up on our website, Top 0.01% Thaler has “made economics more human.” and follow us on social media. Through of households Thaler is the eighth Booth faculty research summaries, articles, videos, Top 1% member to win the Nobel Memorial essays, and briefings, we hope to bring (including Prize in Economic Sciences. The prize you information that can help you make the 0.01%) celebrates distinguished work that has decisions that are thoughtful, informed, been completed. But Thaler’s research is and ultimately, better. $40M ongoing—which is why you’ll see a write- up of recent research he coauthored, Hal Weitzman on the cost-benefit analysis of nudges, Executive director, Intellectual Capital $20M explored in this issue (page 7). Editor-in-chief, Chicago Booth Review At CBR, we try to bring you the best [email protected] $0 and latest insights in business research, Emily Lambert 1950 2015 from our faculty and faculty at other Director, Intellectual Capital institutions. We do that in the magazine, Editor, Chicago Booth Review Piketty and Saez, 2016 as well as online, where we have [email protected] Editor-in-chief Designer Chris Gash Jeff Sciortino Hal Weitzman Nicole Dudka Dee Gill Vanessa Sumo Editor Video editor Howard R. Gold Sebastien Thibault Emily Lambert Elena Guobyte Glen Gyssler Alex Verkhivker Deputy editor Contributors Edmon de Haro Brian Wallheimer Jeff Cockrell Peter Arkle John Kenzie Alice G. Walton Data editor Roger Beale Michael Maiello John Wasik Chuck Burke Boggy Amy Merrick Faculty advisory Social media editor Michael Byers Carl Miller committee Blake Goble Matt Chase David J. Phillips John R. Birge Distribution manager Marty Daks Kyle Platts Lubos Pastor Katheryn Edwards Daniella Deluna The Project Twins Jane L. Risen Copy chief Giorgio Donghi Nicolas Rapp Molly Heim Thomas Finnegan Gregory Reid Multimedia producer Carla Fried Ed Robinson Josh Stunkel Tiago Galo Chana R. Schoenberger Review.ChicagoBooth.edu Winter 2017/18 Chicago Booth Review 1 CONTENTS DEPARTMENTS Editors’ letter Feedback The Equation DATAPOINTS COVER STORY ­ Why policy makers Whoops! China’s NEVER MIND THE PERCENT should nudge more stimulus plan boosted Summers: Why you shadow banking Let’s talk about should avoid chasing Companies don’t wait the crowd for legislation to react the 0.01 percent Credit shocks boost to politics By Howard R. Gold economies, but beware Meaningless numbers the fall can boost people’s How health-insurance performance subsidies can help Holier than thou? No, FEATURES patients and hospitals just less evil What Tweets and Yelp Money might infl uence Why we should teach people how to lie reviews are revealing people less than believed In some situations, it’s better to be dishonest To reduce food waste, Do corporate whistle- By Chana R. Schoenberger build more stores blower laws actually The rise of corporate saving Douglas W. Diamond deter fraud? Household saving has declined relative to GDP, but says the next crisis will Why people mismanage companies have picked up the slack be diff erent credit-card debt By Boggy How to save struggling banks: Get tough with high-risk borrowers Trump supporters say they’re optimistic—but they’re not spending Page 1 7 24 33 Featured Faculty Richard H. Thaler, Charles R. Eric Zwick, assistant professor Walgreen Distinguished Service of fi nance and James S. Kemper Professor of Behavioral Science and Foundation Faculty Scholar, Economics, won the 2017 Nobel studies the interaction between Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. public policy and corporate His research is being used to inform behavior, with a focus on public policies worldwide. The day fi scal stimulus, taxation, and he won the Nobel, Thaler taught his housing policy. He is particularly regularly scheduled Chicago Booth interested in the problems faced class on choice architecture, a term by new ventures and small- and originally coined by Thaler and medium-sized private companies. Harvard’s Cass Sunstein. (Page 7) (Page 24) 2 Chicago Booth Review Winter 2017/18 FOOTNOTES Embrace passive management already By Eugene F. Fama What venture capitalists can learn from ‘racist’ rats By Waverly Deutsch With Whole Foods, can Amazon fi ll your every need? By Pradeep K. Chintagunta ­ The real questions the Fed should ask itself By John H. Cochrane What’s the matter with handouts? By John Paul Rollert It’s time to rethink Milton Friedman’s ‘shareholder value’ argument By Asher Schechter, Oliver Hart, and Luigi Zingales The market power of ‘superstar’ companies is growing By Ram Shivakumar ­ Watergate and presidential power in America By Philip B. Kurland ­ What contributed most to the fi nancial crisis? The IGM Panel ­ How can we improve social mobility? The Big Question 40 80 Emma Levine, assistant professor Eugene F. Fama, Robert R. of behavioral science and Charles McCormick Distinguished E. Merrill Faculty Scholar, studies Service Professor of Finance, interpersonal trust and ethical is a 2013 Nobel laureate. He decision-making, especially the is widely recognized as the tension between honesty and “father of modern fi nance,” kindness. To explore the importance having devised the effi cient- of dishonesty in everyday markets hypothesis. He joined communication, she and her the Booth faculty in 1963 and is coauthors asked research subjects to chairman of the school’s Center tell the truth in every interaction for for Research in Security Prices. three full days. (Page 34) (Page 45) FACULTY ILLUSTRATIONS BY JOHN KENZIE KENZIE JOHN BY ILLUSTRATIONS FACULTY CHASE MATT BY ILLUSTRATION COMPASS Winter 2017/18 Chicago Booth Review 3 Go to Review.ChicagoBooth.edu to fi nd the articles to which these ANOTHER LOOK AT PARTISAN ON COMBATING comments refer. PERFORMANCE CORRUPTION In response to ‘Why are stock returns lower In response to ‘Should we stop the under Republicans?’ (July 2017) “revolving door”?’ (Fall 2017) WE WELCOME I enjoyed the video based on Chicago Research on the effects of the ‘revolving Booth’s Lubos Pastor and Pietro Veronesi’s door’ is pointless if we ignore the LETTERS research. Their analysis looks specifi cally at the similar effect of pay-to-play, i.e. bribery of our We welcome your comments. US president and his political party. That begs government offi cials in the form of campaign Send email to a question about the other partisan branch of fi nancing, collateral benefi ts accrued by their [email protected] government, Congress. relatives and friends, etc. or send letters addressed to It’s a different story if you include Congress. Transparency (i.e. the opposite of Chicago Booth Review at any of Stock markets during Republican-controlled opacity) is overrated when there is an the following addresses: Congresses outperform Democrat-controlled almost complete absence of enforcement of Congresses by about percent annually. If current laws and regulations and, in cases S. Woodlawn Ave. you look at stock markets when a Republican where there is any enforcement, criminals Chicago, IL president serves with a Republican Congress, get away with a slap on the wrist and that combination outperforms a Democrat taxpayers bear a big portion of the burden Woolgate Exchange president–Democrat Congress by about of the consequences.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Featured Topic Social & Behavioral Science Interventions at the Federal Level in This Issue Nudging People to Get Flu Vaccinations
    a publication of the behavioral science & policy association volume 2 issue 2 2016 featured topic social & behavioral science interventions at the federal level in this issue Nudging people to get flu vaccinations behavioralpolicy.org founding co-editors disciplinary editors Craig R. Fox (UCLA) Behavioral Economics Sim B Sitkin (Duke University) Senior Disciplinary Editor Dean S. Karlan (Yale University) bspa executive director Associate Disciplinary Editors Oren Bar-Gill (Harvard University) Colin F. Camerer (California Institute ofTechnology) Kate B.B. Wessels M. Keith Chen (UCLA) advisory board Julian Jamison (World Bank) Paul Brest (Stanford University) Russell B. Korobkin (UCLA) David Brooks (New York Times) Devin G. Pope (University of Chicago) John Seely Brown (Deloitte) Jonathan Zinman (Dartmouth College) Robert B. Cialdini (Arizona State University) Adam M. Grant (University of Pennsylvania) Cognitive & Brain Science Daniel Kahneman (Princeton University) Senior Disciplinary Editor Henry L. Roediger III (Washington University) James G. March (Stanford University) Associate Disciplinary Editors Yadin Dudai (Weizmann Institute & NYU) Jeffrey Pfeffer (Stanford University) Roberta L. Klatzky (Carnegie Mellon University) Denise M. Rousseau (Carnegie Mellon University) Hal Pashler (UC San Diego) Paul Slovic (University of Oregon) Steven E. Petersen (Washington University) Cass R. Sunstein (Harvard University) Jeremy M. Wolfe (Harvard University) Richard H. Thaler (University of Chicago) Decision, Marketing, & Management Sciences executive committee Senior Disciplinary Editor Eric J. Johnson (Columbia University) Associate Disciplinary Editors Linda C. Babcock (Carnegie Mellon University) Morela Hernandez (University of Virginia) Max H. Bazerman (Harvard University) Katherine L. Milkman (University of Pennsylvania) Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon University) Daniel Oppenheimer (UCLA) John G. Lynch (University of Colorado) Todd Rogers (Harvard University) John W.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Insights from Across the Pond: How Nudging Tools from the U.K
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Boston University Institutional Repository (OpenBU) Boston University OpenBU http://open.bu.edu Theses & Dissertations Boston University Theses & Dissertations 2015 Behavioral insights from across the pond: how nudging tools from the U.K. won't help reduce obesity In the U.S. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/15717 Boston University BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THESIS BEHAVIORAL INSIGHTS FROM ACROSS THE POND: HOW NUDGING TOOLS FROM THE U.K. WON’T HELP REDUCE OBESITY IN THE U.S. by ALISON M. DORSI B.A., Boston University, 2015 M.A., Boston University, 2015 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2015 © Copyright by ALISON M. DORSI 2015 Approved By First Reader ______________________________________________ Graham Wilson, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science Second Reader ______________________________________________ Douglas Kriner, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Political Science To my Mother and Father iv BEHAVIORAL INSIGHTS FROM ACROSS THE POND: HOW NUDGING TOOLS FROM THE U.K. WON’T HELP REDUCE OBESITY IN THE U.S. ALISON M. DORSI ABSTRACT Obesity has become a major issue in advanced societies having serious impacts on various social as well as economic levels. In addition to the personal costs of obesity leading to serious and chronic diseases, obesity projects additional burdens upon society including lack of productivity, often resulting in increased dependence on governmental benefits, as well as increasing health care costs, most of which are paid for by taxes. This phenomenon has become especially prevalent in the United States and the United Kingdom, with both countries attempting to reduce obesity levels with programs that utilize varying levels of paternalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Behavioral Science to Nonprofit Program Delivery
    RESEARCH to ACTION LAB Applying Behavioral Science to Nonprofit Program Delivery Testing a Behavioral Insights Implementation Process with Urban Alliance Justin Milner Matthew Gerken Brett Theodos JANUARY 2021 01 APPLYING BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE TO NONPROFIT PROGRAM DELIVERY NSIGHTS FROM BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE offer an opportunity for nonprofits seeking to improve their program delivery and Ioverall impact. Urban Institute collaborated with Urban Alliance, a high-performing nonprofit organization, to adapt behavioral science insights to the unique challenges of the organization. In this brief, we document our behavioral insights implementation process, or BIIP, and how we tested that approach with Urban Alliance to improve a key component of its program model. We offer this approach as a resource for other organizations looking to leverage behavioral science. INTRODUCTION Nonprofit organizations are increasingly focused on demonstrating outcomes and impact of their work, not just providing services (Liket, Rey-Garcia, and Maas 2014). The reward for showing their effectiveness is clear: government and philanthropy often target contracts and grants to the interventions most likely to deliver positive outcomes (Haskins 2018; Zhang et al. 2017). For nonprofits moving in this evidence- based direction, most of their efforts will be focused on improving the core work of their programs— better counseling services or improved education supports, for example. However, nonprofits should also consider complementary interventions to improve their work’s overall impact. Behavioral science offers a unique opportunity for nonprofits seeking to pursue this approach and improve program delivery and overall impact (Richburg-Hayes et al. 2014). Behavioral science takes a microscope to human behavior, focusing on how people make decisions and then act on those decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Finance Papers Wharton Faculty Research 2017 Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Shlomo Benartzi John Beshears Katherine L. Milkman University of Pennsylvania Richard H. Thaler Maya Shankar See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/fnce_papers Part of the Finance and Financial Management Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?. Psychological Science, 28 (8), 1041-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/fnce_papers/75 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Abstract Governments are increasingly adopting behavioral science techniques for changing individual behavior in pursuit of policy objectives. The types of “nudge” interventions that governments are now adopting alter people’s decisions without coercion or significant changes ot economic incentives. We calculated ratios of impact to cost for nudge interventions and for traditional policy tools, such as tax incentives and other financial inducements, and we found that nudge interventions often compare favorably with traditional interventions. We conclude that nudging is a valuable approach that should be used more often in conjunction with traditional policies, but more calculations are needed to determine the relative effectiveness of nudging. Disciplines Business | Finance and Financial Management | Social and Behavioral Sciences Author(s) Shlomo Benartzi, John Beshears, Katherine L. Milkman, Richard H. Thaler, Maya Shankar, Will Tucker-Ray, William J.
    [Show full text]
  • Projective Paternalism
    Projective Paternalism Sandro Ambuehl, B. Douglas Bernheim, and Axel Ockenfels.∗ July 12, 2019 Abstract We study experimentally when, why, and how people intervene in others' choices. Choice Archi- tects (CAs) construct opportunity sets containing bundles of time-indexed payments for Choosers. CAs frequently prevent impatient choices despite opportunities to provide advice, believing Choosers benefit. We consider several hypotheses concerning CAs' motives. A conventional behavioral wel- farist acts as a correctly informed social planner; a mistakes-projective paternalist removes options she wishes she could reject when choosing for herself; an ideals-projective paternalist seeks to align others' choices with her own aspirations. Ideals-projective paternalism provides the best explanation for interventions in the laboratory and rationalizes support for actual paternalistic policies. ∗Ambuehl: University of Toronto, UTSC, and Rotman School of Management, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3E6, Canada, [email protected]. Bernheim: Stanford University, Department of Economics, 579 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA, [email protected]. Ockenfels: University of Cologne, Department of Economics, Universit¨atsstrasse22a, 50923 Cologne, Germany, [email protected]. We thank Joshua Knobe, Yoram Halevy, Armin Falk, Glenn W. Harrison, Kiryl Khalmetski, Frank Schillbach, Cass Sunstein, Dmitry Taubinsky, Stefan Trautmann, and seminar and conference audiences in Berkeley, Copenhagen, Cork, Cornell, Heidelberg, Innsbruck, Nijmegen, NYU, Stanford, Toronto, and Zurich for helpful comments and discussions. Max Rainer Pascal Grossmann and Yero Samuel Ndiaye provided excellent research assistance. Ambuehl gratefully acknowledges support through a University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award and the University of Toronto Scarborough Wynne and Bertil Plumptre Fellowship. Parts of this paper were written while Ambuehl visited the briq Institute in Bonn.
    [Show full text]
  • Nudging:  a Very Short Guide
    NUDGING: A VERY SHORT GUIDE † CASS R. SUNSTEIN ABSTRACT: This brief essay offers a general introduction to the idea of nudging, along with a list of ten of the most important nudges. It also provides a short discussion of the question whether to create some kind of separate behavioral insights unit, capable of conducting its own research, or instead to rely on existing institutions. KEYWORDS: Behavioral Economy; Libertarian Paternalism; Stimulus; Social Rights; Liberty. RESUMO: Este breve ensaio oferece uma introdução geral à ideia de nudging juntamente com uma lista de dez dos mais importantes nudges. Também será apresentada uma sucinta discussão sobre a criação de algum tipo de grupo de insights comportamentais, capaz de conduzir a sua própria investigação ou, ao invés, confiar nas instituições existentes. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Economia Comportamental; Paternalismo Libertário; Estímulos; Direitos Sociais; Liberdade. Originally published at 37 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY 4 (2014) and republished herein with author’s permission. † Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University. Special thanks to Lucia Reisch, Maya Shankar, and Richard Thaler for valuable comments and suggestions, and to Thaler For many years of collaboration on these questions; none of them should be held responsible for any errors or infelicities here. REVISTA ESTUDOS INSTITUCIONAIS TABLE OF CONTENT: I. LIBERTY-PRESERVING APPROACHES ............................................. 1037 1. Nudges maintain freedom of choice .................................. 1037 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Projective Paternalism
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PROJECTIVE PATERNALISM Sandro Ambuehl B. Douglas Bernheim Axel Ockenfels Working Paper 26119 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26119 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2019 We thank Joshua Knobe, Yoram Halevy, Armin Falk, Glenn W. Harrison, Kiryl Khalmetski, Frank Schillbach, Cass Sunstein, Dmitry Taubinsky, Stefan Trautmann, and seminar and conference audiences in Berkeley, Copenhagen, Cork, Cornell, Heidelberg, Innsbruck, Nijmegen, NYU, Stanford, Toronto, and Zurich for helpful comments and discussions. Max Rainer Pascal Grossmann and Yero Samuel Ndiaye provided excellent research assistance. Ambuehl gratefully acknowledges support through a University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award and the University of Toronto Scarborough Wynne and Bertil Plumptre Fellowship. Parts of this paper were written while Ambuehl visited the briq Institute in Bonn. This research has been approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (protocol 10279). Ambuehl and Bernheim gratefully acknowledge funding from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation (grant number G-2017-9017). Ambuehl and Ockenfels gratefully acknowledge funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 741409); the results reflect only the authors' views; the ERC is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: a Systematic Review
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences Capstones Behavioral and Decision Sciences Program 8-9-2019 Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review Anuradha Raghuram University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Raghuram, Anuradha, "Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review" (2019). Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences Capstones. 14. https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds/14 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds/14 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review Abstract Over the past decade, the U.S. insurance industry has faced stagnant growth due to limited technological advancement, information asymmetry and waning customer satisfaction. Collectively, these factors, among many other structural drivers, impede incumbent players to attract and retain their customer base. In recent years, a number of insurance technology “insurtech” firms have emerged, seeking to disrupt and make existing activities within the insurance value chain more efficient, primarily through digital innovation. The discussion in this white paper is structured twofold. First, I walk through the current U.S. insurance landscape, innovations, and challenges within the value chain. In particular, I focus on the underwriting and claims activities in the context of property & casualty insurance. Second, I illustrate how behavioural science serves as a valuable use-case to improve customer engagement and retention. Through a combination of meta-study methods and case studies, I identify five key areas of behavioural change: reducing switching behaviour, managing uncertainty, increasing trust, encouraging accurate information disclosure, and providing customer autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Nudging: a Very Short Guide
    Nudging: A Very Short Guide The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Cass R. Sunstein, Nudging: A Very Short Guide, 37 J. Consumer Pol'y 583 (2014). Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16205305 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Preliminary draft 9/22/14 all rights reserved Preferred citation: 37 J. CONSUMER POL’Y 583 (2014) Nudging: A Very Short Guide Cass R. Sunstein* Abstract This brief essay offers a general introduction to the idea of nudging, along with a list of ten of the most important “nudges.” It also provides a short discussion of the question whether to create some kind of separate “behavioral insights unit,” capable of conducting its own research, or instead to rely on existing institutions. I. Liberty-Preserving Approaches Some policies take the form of mandates and bans. For example, the criminal law forbids theft and assault. Other policies take the form of economic incentives (including disincentives), such as subsidies for renewable fuels, fees for engaging in certain activities, or taxes on gasoline and tobacco products. Still other policies take the form of nudges – liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way. In recent years, both private and public institutions have shown mounting interest in the use of nudges, because they generally cost little and have the potential to promote economic and other goals (including public health).
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making
    Missouri Law Review Volume 82 Issue 3 Summer 2017 - Symposium Article 12 Summer 2017 Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance): an Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Adam C. Smith, Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance): an Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making, 82 MO. L. REV. (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol82/iss3/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Smith: Utilizing Behavioral Insights Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance) An Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith* ABSTRACT Behavioral economics has been employed in a number of policy applica- tions over the last decade. From energy requirements to tax compliance to consumer finance, policymakers are increasingly operating under the assump- tion that people consistently fail to make rational choices. While the benefit of this policy trend remains an open debate, behavioral economists have long ne- glected a complementary examination of public decision-makers themselves. Comparison of two public agencies influenced by behavioral economics, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.K. Behavioural Insights Team, demonstrates how different institutions create divergent policy out- comes across the two agencies in a way that cannot be accounted for without incorporating public choice theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance) an Inquiry Into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making
    Working Paper1 October 2016 Utilizing Behavioral Insights (without Romance) An Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith, Visiting Scholar2 The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center ABSTRACT Behavioral economics has been employed in a number of policy applications over the last decade. From energy requirements to tax compliance to consumer finance, policymakers are increasingly operating under the assumption that people consistently fail to make rational choices. While the benefit of this policy trend remains an open debate, behavioral economists have long neglected a complementary examination of public decision-makers themselves. By comparing two public agencies influenced by behavioral economics, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.K. Behavioral Insights Team, I show how different institutions create divergent policy outcomes across the two agencies in a way that cannot be accounted for without incorporating public choice theory. I argue that improvement of private choice architecture must be accompanied by careful understanding of the public choice 1 This comment reflects the views of the author, and does not represent an official position of the GW Regulatory Studies Center or the George Washington University. The Center’s policy on research integrity is available at http://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/policy-research-integrity. 2 Adam C. Smith is an Associate Professor of Economics at Johnson & Wales University. The author gratefully acknowledges Susan Dudley and the George Washington Regulatory Studies Center for their support of this research, and to Erik Kimbrough, Brian Mannix, Sofie Miller, Bruce Yandle, and Todd Zywicki for helpful feedback. The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center ◆ 1 architecture in which policies are rendered if behavioral economics is to be a successful foundation for welfare-improving policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard H. Thaler1 University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, IL, USA
    488 THE NOBEL PRIZES From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics Prize Lecture, December 8, 2017 by Richard H. Thaler1 University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, IL, USA. in the beginning there were stories. People think in stories, or at least I do. My research in the feld now known as behavioral economics started from real life stories I observed while I was a graduate student at the University of Rochester. Economists often sneer at “anecdotal data” and I had less than that – a collection of anecdotes without a hint of data. Yet, each story captured something about human behavior that seemed inconsistent with the economic theory I was struggling to master in graduate school. Here are a few examples: • At a dinner party for fellow economics graduate students I put out a large bowl of cashew nuts to accompany drinks while waiting for dinner to fnish cooking. In a short period of time, we devoured half the bowl of nuts. Seeing that our appetites (and waistlines) were in danger I removed the bowl and left it in the kitchen pantry. When I 1. This is not the time or place to thank all the people that contributed to me being awarded this prize, especially but not limited to all my co-authors. We all know this was a team efort. For help preparing this written version of my lecture, special thanks for useful comments go to Stefano DellaVigna, Raife Giovinazzo, Alex Imas, Emir Kamenica, Kristy Kim, and, as usual, Linnea Gandhi was indispensable. Richard H.
    [Show full text]