IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/feb/framed/00765.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Judging Nudging: Understanding the Welfare Effects of Nudges Versus Taxes

Author

Listed:
  • John List
  • Matthias Rodemeier
  • Sutanuka Roy
  • Gregory Sun

Abstract

While behavioral non-price interventions ("nudges") have grown from academic curiosity to a bona fide policy tool, their relative economic efficiency remains under-researched. We develop a unified framework to estimate welfare effects of both nudges and taxes. We showcase our approach by creating a database of more than 300 carefully hand-coded point estimates of non-price and price interventions in the markets for cigarettes, influenza vaccinations, and household energy. While nudges are effective in changing behavior in all three markets, they are not necessarily the most efficient policy. We find that nudges are more efficient in the market for cigarettes, while taxes are more efficient in the energy market. For influenza vaccinations, optimal subsidies likely outperform nudges. Importantly, two key factors govern the difference in results across markets: i) an elasticity-weighted standard deviation of the behavioral bias, and ii) the magnitude of the average externality. Nudges dominate taxes whenever i) exceeds ii). Combining nudges and taxes does not always provide quantitatively significant improvements to implementing one policy tool alone.

Suggested Citation

  • John List & Matthias Rodemeier & Sutanuka Roy & Gregory Sun, 2022. "Judging Nudging: Understanding the Welfare Effects of Nudges Versus Taxes," Framed Field Experiments 00765, The Field Experiments Website.
  • Handle: RePEc:feb:framed:00765
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://s3.amazonaws.com/fieldexperiments-papers2/papers/00765.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hummel, Dennis & Maedche, Alexander, 2019. "How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 47-58.
    2. David Laibson & Andrea Repetto & Jeremy Tobacman, 2005. "Estimating Discount Functions with Consumption Choices over the Lifecycle," Levine's Bibliography 784828000000000643, UCLA Department of Economics.
    3. Sendhil Mullainathan & Joshua Schwartzstein & William J. Congdon, 2012. "A Reduced-Form Approach to Behavioral Public Finance," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 4(1), pages 511-540, July.
    4. Katrina Jessoe & David Rapson, 2014. "Knowledge Is (Less) Power: Experimental Evidence from Residential Energy Use," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(4), pages 1417-1438, April.
    5. Hunt Allcott & Christopher Knittel, 2019. "Are Consumers Poorly Informed about Fuel Economy? Evidence from Two Experiments," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 1-37, February.
    6. Hunt Allcott & Nathan Wozny, 2014. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 779-795, December.
    7. B. Douglas Bernheim, 2009. "Behavioral Welfare Economics," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(2-3), pages 267-319, 04-05.
    8. Hunt Allcott & Todd Rogers, 2014. "The Short-Run and Long-Run Effects of Behavioral Interventions: Experimental Evidence from Energy Conservation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(10), pages 3003-3037, October.
    9. Hunt Allcott & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2015. "Evaluating Behaviorally Motivated Policy: Experimental Evidence from the Lightbulb Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(8), pages 2501-2538, August.
    10. Daniel Hedblom & Brent Hickman & John List, 2019. "Toward an Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility: Theory and Field Experimental Evidence," Natural Field Experiments 00675, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    12. Stefano DellaVigna, 2018. "Structural Behavioral Economics," NBER Working Papers 24797, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    14. Sébastien Houde, 2018. "How consumers respond to product certification and the value of energy information," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(2), pages 453-477, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Antinyan, Armenak & Asatryan, Zareh, 2019. "Nudging for tax compliance: A meta-analysis," ZEW Discussion Papers 19-055, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    2. James Alm & Lilith Burgstaller & Arrita Domi & Amanda März & Matthias Kasper, 2023. "Nudges, Boosts, and Sludge: Using New Behavioral Approaches to Improve Tax Compliance," Economies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Hernández, Francisco & Jaime, Marcela & Vásquez, Felipe, 2024. "Nudges versus prices: Lessons and challenges from a water-savings program," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2023. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_450, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    5. Rodemeier, Matthias, 2023. "Willingness to Pay for Carbon Mitigation: Field Evidence from the Market for Carbon Offsets," IZA Discussion Papers 15939, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Antinyan, Armenak & Corazzini, Luca, 2023. "Breaking the Bag Habit: Testing Interventions to Reduce Plastic Bag Demand in a Developing Country," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2023/7, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    7. Alt, Marius, 2024. "Better us later than me now —," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    8. Löschel, Andreas & Rodemeier, Matthias & Werthschulte, Madeline, 2023. "Can self-set goals encourage resource conservation? Field experimental evidence from a smartphone app," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).

    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. Rodemeier, Matthias & Löschel, Andreas, 2023. "Information Nudges, Subsidies, and Crowding Out of Attention: Field Evidence from Energy Efficiency Investments," IZA Discussion Papers 16141, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Rodemeier, Matthias & Löschel, Andreas, 2020. "The welfare effects of persuasion and taxation: Theory and evidence from the field," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-019, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. S. Ceolotto & E. Denny, 2024. "Putting a New ‘Spin’ on Energy Information: Measuring the Impact of Reframing Energy Efficiency Information on Tumble Dryer Choices in a Multi-country Experiment," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 51-108, March.
    4. Todd D. Gerarden & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Assessing the Energy-Efficiency Gap," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 55(4), pages 1486-1525, December.
    5. Xavier Gabaix, 2017. "Behavioral Inattention," NBER Working Papers 24096, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Beattie, Graham & Ding, Iza & La Nauze, Andrea, 2022. "Is there an energy efficiency gap in China? Evidence from an information experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan, 2020. "Energy efficiency as a credence good: A review of informational barriers to energy savings in the building sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2022. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9999, CESifo.
    9. Daniel Reck & Arthur Seibold, 2023. "The Welfare Economics of Reference Dependence," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2023_450, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    10. Hunt Allcott, 2014. "Paternalism and Energy Efficiency: An Overview," NBER Working Papers 20363, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Boogen, Nina & Daminato, Claudio & Filippini, Massimo & Obrist, Adrian, 2022. "Can information about energy costs affect consumers’ choices? Evidence from a field experiment☆," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 568-588.
    12. Singhal, Puja, 2024. "Inform me when it matters: Cost salience, energy consumption, and efficiency investments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    13. Donald S. Kenkel & Sida Peng & Michael F. Pesko & Hua Wang, 2020. "Mostly harmless regulation? Electronic cigarettes, public policy, and consumer welfare," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(11), pages 1364-1377, November.
    14. Palmer, Karen & Walls, Margaret, 2015. "Does Information Provision Shrink the Energy Efficiency Gap? A Cross-City Comparison of Commercial Building Benchmarking and Disclosure Laws," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-12, Resources for the Future.
    15. Hunt Allcott & Daniel Cohen & William Morrison & Dmitry Taubinsky, 2022. "When do "Nudges" Increase Welfare?," NBER Working Papers 30740, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Goette, Lorenz & Tiefenbeck, Verena & Degen, Kathrin & Fleisch, Elgar & Tasic, Vojkan & Lalive, Rafael & Staake, Thorsten, 2016. "Overcoming Salience Bias: How Real-Time Feedback Fosters Resource Conservation," CEPR Discussion Papers 11480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Matilde Giaccherini & David Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael Price, 2020. "Are Economics and Psychology Complements in Household Technology Diffusion? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00713, The Field Experiments Website.
    18. Cattaneo, Cristina, 2018. "Internal and External Barriers to Energy Efficiency: Made-to-Measure Policy Interventions," CSI: Climate and Sustainable Innovation 269536, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    19. Raj Chetty, 2015. "Behavioral Economics and Public Policy: A Pragmatic Perspective," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 1-33, May.
    20. Dmitry Taubinsky & Alex Rees-Jones, 2018. "Attention Variation and Welfare: Theory and Evidence from a Tax Salience Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 2462-2496.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:feb:framed:00765. 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: Francesca Pagnotta (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.fieldexperiments.com .

    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.