IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pes/ierequ/v11y2016i3p559-584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choice Overload Paradox And Public Policy Design. The Case Of Swedish Pension System

Author

Listed:
  • S³awomir Czech

    (University of Economics in Katowice)

Abstract

In this paper we focus on an adverse effect of extensive choice widely known as ‘choice overload’. We draw on the case of Swedish funded pensions for illustration and analyze the consequences of the design that allowed for maximizing the choice set. The analysis shows limitations of employing the rational choice approach to the real choice decisions biased with common psychological factors and demonstrates that government’s responsibility for the privatized pension system does not end with the design. We also emphasize the need for a decent default option, which would mitigate socially harmful results of adverse behavior effects like procrastination, status quo bias or abstaining from choice. After all, privatized pension systems still belong to the sphere of public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • S³awomir Czech, 2016. "Choice Overload Paradox And Public Policy Design. The Case Of Swedish Pension System," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 11(3), pages 559-584, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:pes:ierequ:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:559-584
    DOI: 10.12775/EQUIL.2016.025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.025
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.12775/EQUIL.2016.025?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilboa, Itzhak, 2012. "Rational Choice," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262518058, December.
    2. Dhar, Ravi, 1997. "Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 215-231, September.
    3. Waldo Tapia & Juan Yermo, 2007. "Implications of Behavioural Economics for Mandatory Individual Account Pension Systems," OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions 11, OECD Publishing.
    4. Barr, Nicholas, 2002. "Reforming pensions: myths, truths, and policy choices," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 286, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Masatlioglu, Yusufcan & Ok, Efe A., 2005. "Rational choice with status quo bias," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 1-29, March.
    6. Mitchell, Olivia S. & Utkus, Stephen P. (ed.), 2004. "Pension Design and Structure: New Lessons from Behavioral Finance," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199273393.
    7. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107015432.
    8. Brigitte C. Madrian, 2014. "Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 6(1), pages 663-688, August.
    9. Ebbinghaus, Bernhard (ed.), 2011. "The Varieties of Pension Governance: Pension Privatization in Europe," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199586028.
    10. Annamaria Lusardi & Olivia S. Mitchell, 2005. "Financial Literacy and Planning: Implications for Retirement Wellbeing," CeRP Working Papers 46, Center for Research on Pensions and Welfare Policies, Turin (Italy).
    11. repec:mpr:mprres:3109 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    13. Richard H. Thaler, 2000. "From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 133-141, Winter.
    14. John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2009. "The Importance of Default Options for Retirement Saving Outcomes: Evidence from the United States," NBER Chapters, in: Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, pages 167-195, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Benjamin Scheibehenne & Rainer Greifeneder & Peter M. Todd, 2010. "Can There Ever Be Too Many Options? A Meta-Analytic Review of Choice Overload," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 37(3), pages 409-425, October.
    16. Nicholas Barr & Peter Diamond, 2009. "Reforming pensions: Principles, analytical errors and policy directions," International Social Security Review, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(2), pages 5-29, April.
    17. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107695122.
    18. Barr, Nicholas & Diamond, Peter, 2009. "Pension Reform: A Short Guide," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195387728.
    19. Iyengar, Sheena S. & Kamenica, Emir, 2010. "Choice proliferation, simplicity seeking, and asset allocation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(7-8), pages 530-539, August.
    20. J. Solnick, Sara & Hemenway, David, 1998. "Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 373-383, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    2. van Dalen, Hendrik Peter & Henkens, Kene, 2018. "Do people really want freedom of choice? : Assessing preferences of pension holders," Other publications TiSEM 448e8a93-9ded-401f-9da0-7, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    4. Georgios Gerasimou, 2016. "Asymmetric dominance, deferral, and status quo bias in a behavioral model of choice," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(2), pages 295-312, February.
    5. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-17, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    6. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Cueva, Carlos & Gerasimou, Georgios, 2014. "Choice, Deferral and Consistency," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-17, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    7. van Rooij, Maarten & Teppa, Federica, 2014. "Personal traits and individual choices: Taking action in economic and non-economic decisions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.
    8. Mitchell, O.S. & Piggott, J., 2016. "Workplace-Linked Pensions for an Aging Demographic," Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, in: Piggott, John & Woodland, Alan (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Population Aging, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 865-904, Elsevier.
    9. Choi, James J. & Haisley, Emily & Kurkoski, Jennifer & Massey, Cade, 2017. "Small cues change savings choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 378-395.
    10. Maltz, Amnon & Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2021. "A model of menu-dependent evaluations and comparison-aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    11. Cox, James C. & Kreisman, Daniel & Dynarski, Susan, 2020. "Designed to fail: Effects of the default option and information complexity on student loan repayment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    12. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    13. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    14. Dorian Jullien & Nicolas Vallois, 2014. "A probabilistic ghost in the experimental machine," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 232-250, September.
    15. Cardella, Eric & Kalenkoski, Charlene M. & Parent, Michael, 2018. "Less Is Not More: Information Presentation Complexity and 401(k) Planning Choices," IZA Discussion Papers 11538, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Christian Schubert, 2021. "Opportunity meets self-constitution," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 68(1), pages 51-65, March.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:282-291 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Marieke Huysentruyt & Eva Lefevere, 2008. "Child Benefit Support and Method of Payment: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Belgium," Working Papers 0802, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    19. Benjamin M. Marx & Lesley J. Turner, 2019. "Student Loan Choice Overload," NBER Working Papers 25905, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Herzenstein, Michal & Dholakia, Utpal M. & Sonenshein, Scott, 2020. "How the number of options affects prosocial choice," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 356-370.
    21. Leandro Carvalho & Dan Silverman, 2019. "Complexity and Sophistication," NBER Working Papers 26036, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    extensive choice; cognitive limitations; market failure; choice architecture; funded pensions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D19 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Other
    • H44 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Goods: Mixed Markets
    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pes:ierequ:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:559-584. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Adam P. Balcerzak (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ibgtopl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.