IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/may/mayecw/n289-17.pdf.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Marginal Cost of Transparency: Do honest nudges work?

Author

Listed:
  • John S.M Gustavsson

    (Department of Economics, Finance and Accounting, Maynooth University.)

Abstract

Libertarian paternalism (LP), a term which refers to the practice of “nudging” consumers into making “good” decisions, has grown steadily in popularity in recent years as an alternative to sin taxes and other traditional forms of paternalism. Critics however believe that relying on psychological manipulation is inherently unethical as consumers are typically unaware of the nudge and the intention behind it. While proponents of LP insist that they want LP interventions to be conducted in an ethical manner, there is so far little evidence that LP interventions, when conducted in such a manner, still have the desired effect. In this paper I introduce the term Marginal Cost of Transparency (MCoT), the difference in treatment effect of an LP and what I call a Transparent Libertarian Paternalism (TLP) intervention; a type of LP intervention where consumers are made aware of the nudge and why it is there. The results indicate that the MCoT is not statistically significant from zero and that the answer to the question “Do honest nudges work?” is Yes. Moreover, the results indicate that Autonomy-enhancing paternalism (AEP), a type of paternalist interventions that work to enhance the autonomy of consumers (mainly by providing information) and unlike LP do not rely on psychological manipulation, fares at least as well as the LP/TLP treatments when stakes are high.

Suggested Citation

  • John S.M Gustavsson, 2017. "The Marginal Cost of Transparency: Do honest nudges work?," Economics Department Working Paper Series n289-17.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    • Handle: RePEc:may:mayecw:n289-17.pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repec.maynoothuniversity.ie/mayecw-files/N289-17.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Gustavsson, 2016. "The Marginal Benefit of Manipulation: Investigating paternalistic interventions in the context of intertemporal choice," Economics Department Working Paper Series n276-16.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    2. Matthew Rabin & Ted O'Donoghue, 1999. "Doing It Now or Later," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(1), pages 103-124, March.
    3. Robin Cubitt & Daniel Read, 2007. "Can intertemporal choice experiments elicit time preferences for consumption?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(4), pages 369-389, December.
    4. Richard H. Thaler & Cass R. Sunstein, 2023. "Libertarian paternalism," Chapters, in: Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch (ed.), Research Handbook on Nudges and Society, chapter 1, pages 10-16, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Harrell Chesson & Jami Leichliter & Gregory Zimet & Susan Rosenthal & David Bernstein & Kenneth Fife, 2006. "Discount rates and risky sexual behaviors among teenagers and young adults," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 217-230, May.
    6. Nathan Berg & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2010. "As-if behavioral economics: neoclassical economics in disguise?," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 18(1), pages 133-166.
    7. Jayson L. Lusk, 2014. "Are you smart enough to know what to eat? A critique of behavioural economics as justification for regulation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(3), pages 355-373.
    8. 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.
    9. Wiji Arulampalam & Alison L. Booth & Mark L. Bryan, 2007. "Is There a Glass Ceiling over Europe? Exploring the Gender Pay Gap across the Wage Distribution," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 60(2), pages 163-186, January.
    10. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    11. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    12. Maribeth Coller & Melonie Williams, 1999. "Eliciting Individual Discount Rates," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 2(2), pages 107-127, December.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:202-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    15. Paul A. Samuelson, 1937. "A Note on Measurement of Utility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 4(2), pages 155-161.
    16. Martin Binder, 2014. "Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 515-539, July.
    17. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    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. John Gustavsson, 2016. "The Marginal Benefit of Manipulation: Investigating paternalistic interventions in the context of intertemporal choice," Economics Department Working Paper Series n276-16.pdf, Department of Economics, National University of Ireland - Maynooth.
    2. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2020. "Non-stationary additive utility and time consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-14.
    3. Maria Alessandra Antonelli & Valeria De Bonis & Angelo Castaldo & Alessandrao Gandolfo, 2022. "Sin goods taxation: an encompassing model," Public Finance Research Papers 52, Istituto di Economia e Finanza, DSGE, Sapienza University of Rome.
    4. Ubfal, Diego, 2016. "How general are time preferences? Eliciting good-specific discount rates," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 150-170.
    5. Eduard Marinov, 2017. "The 2017 Nobel Prize in Economics," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 6, pages 117-159.
    6. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2017. "Richard H. Thaler: Integrating Economics with Psychology," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2017-1, Nobel Prize Committee.
    7. James Andreoni & Michael Callen & Karrar Hussain & Muhammad Yasir Khan & Charles Sprenger, 2023. "Using Preference Estimates to Customize Incentives: An Application to Polio Vaccination Drives in Pakistan," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 21(4), pages 1428-1477.
    8. Uttara Balakrishnan & Johannes Haushofer & Pamela Jakiela, 2020. "How soon is now? Evidence of present bias from convex time budget experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 294-321, June.
    9. Robert French & Philip Oreopoulos, 2017. "Applying behavioural economics to public policy in Canada," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 599-635, August.
    10. 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.
    11. Preuss, Malte, 2021. "Intra-individual stability of two survey measures on forward-looking attitude," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 201-227.
    12. Stephan Meier & Charles Sprenger, 2010. "Present-Biased Preferences and Credit Card Borrowing," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(1), pages 193-210, January.
    13. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Meissner, Thomas & Faure, Corinne, 2019. "A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 377-393.
    14. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2015. "In Search of Lost Nudges," Post-Print halshs-01426493, HAL.
    15. James Andreoni & Christina Gravert & Michael A. Kuhn & Silvia Saccardo & Yang Yang, 2018. "Arbitrage Or Narrow Bracketing? On Using Money to Measure Intertemporal Preferences," NBER Working Papers 25232, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Scholten, Marc & Read, Daniel, 2006. "Beyond discounting: the tradeoff model of intertemporal choice," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22710, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Marco Casari & Davide Dragone, 2015. "Choice reversal without temptation: A dynamic experiment on time preferences," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 119-140, April.
    18. James Andreoni & Michael Callen & Muhammad Karrar Hussain & Muhammad Yasir Khan & Charles Sprenger, 2017. "Creating Investment Scheme with State Space Modeling ," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-1039, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
    19. Manzini, Paola & Mariotti, Marco, 2007. "Choice Over Time," IZA Discussion Papers 2993, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Cameron Hepburn & Stephen Duncan & Antonis Papachristodoulou, 2010. "Behavioural Economics, Hyperbolic Discounting and Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(2), pages 189-206, June.

    More about this item

    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:may:mayecw:n289-17.pdf. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demayie.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.