Libertarian paternalism

You are currently browsing articles tagged Libertarian paternalism.

De gustibus non est disputandum

April 7, 2008 in Economics - General, Public Policy | Permalink

Eric Crampton argues against the paternalistic view some economists have taken in a recent editorial in Health Economics. Here’s an excerpt:

“Of course, most economists would disagree vehemently [that taxing unhealthy behaviors is a good thing]. Raising taxes does tend to reduce consumption and, where consumption generates large negative externalities (costs borne by uninvolved parties) can even be efficient: Pigovean taxes (taxes proportionate to those external costs) can push us closer to socially-optimal outcomes. But, there is no inefficiency caused by people choosing to live lifestyles they view as preferable despite the health costs.

If I decide to enjoy a shorter life rather than eek out a miserable existence without wonderfully-marbled steaks, a beer or several, or even the occasional cigar, zero inefficiency is induced thereby.

…what evidence there is suggests that to the extent smoking induces a “fiscal externality,” the sign of the effect is wrong: smokers pay more in cigarette taxes than they ever cost the public purse. They die earlier of cheaper diseases and collect less in superannuation than do non-smokers. And, as a 10% increase in cigarette taxes correlates with a 2% increase in obesity, one wonders whether increased cigarette taxes consequently require further increases in taxes on fatty foods.

Crampton supports the idea of “De gustibus non est disputandum,” we should not criticize individuals’ preferences.

Tags: , , ,

Health Economics advocates paternalism

April 7, 2008 in Economics - General, Public Policy | Permalink

“‘Libertarian paternalism’, ‘optimal paternalism’ and ‘cautious paternalism’ have been promulgated by prominent economists.” A recent Health Economics editorial by Jody L. Sindelar contradicts the economist conventional wisdom that correcting externalities, providing information and protecting youths are the only role for the government in the health policy arena.

I agree with Sindelar that making general economic theory more flexible to the practicalities of the real world is important. For instance, she cites the effectiveness of the PROGRESA program in Mexico. The program has been so sucessful that it has been adopted in New York City. The authors also cite the fact that small conditional cash payments conditional on drug abstinence have also been effective in help those addicted to drugs quit their habit.

Nevertheless, we must be careful how much believe the government should manipulate our lives. Sindelar claims that smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and overeating all are examples of irrational behavior. While these activities are harmful, many people do enjoy having a cigarette, getting intoxicated, or eating copious amounts of desserts and the decision to smoke, drink, overeat or use drugs is likely not irrational. I do not believe that these activities should be taxed or prohibited just because they are harmful to the individual. Only if they lead to harm in other individuals (i.e.: externalties, such as second hand smoke, drunk driving, etc.) would specific tax be merited.

In my view, I do not believe that all government action is bad. Yet, I believe that the burden of proof should be that government action is truly beneficial. In the criminal court, people are “innocent until proven guilty.” In the public policy arena, there should be no government action, unless the government action has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be effective.

Tags: ,