If a Pigovian tax is desirable for some reason, whether to nudge healthier behavior or to raise needed revenue, is there a way to make it more acceptable?
For these types of behavior change, we need an expanded nudge toolkit--what we'll call Nudge 2.0. These strategies go beyond
I recently attended a fascinating talk on the topic of Behavioral Engineering by my friend Shira Abel. Post that talk, I had an opportunity to ask her a few questions on the same topic.
In "Signs of a Truce in the Mommy Wars," Claire Cain Miller surfaced some fascinating new research that showed that the perception
When we ignore the limitations of human rationality and the systematic errors those limitations produce, we end up designing policies that are logical but don't end up working well for the people they're supposed to serve.
Governments should be obligated to disclose how behavioral science and technology are used in public policy.
As January kicks off, close to half of Americans will make resolutions on the perennial quest for self-improvement. Predictably, losing weight continues to be the top goal for 2015. Money-related resolutions, however, rank among the favorites.
'Nudging' -- intentionally designing our environments to make certain decisions more likely than others -- can be an effective and ethically sound tool to help people make better decisions for themselves and for society at large.
There is one policy that seems to bridge the gap between the type of non-intrusive nudges Sunstein champions and the type of policies he knows are ultimately necessary to do something about global warming. They're called bag taxes.
But making choices involves more than pondering the alternatives. Evgeny Morozov's picture of autonomy and choice hearkens back to decayed ideas from centuries past.