Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes

The classical economic approach to policy analysis assumes that people always respond optimally to the costs and benefits of their available choices. A great deal of evidence suggests, however, that in some contexts people make errors that lead them not to behave in their own best interests. Economic policy prescriptions might change once we recognize that humans are humanly rational rather than superhumanly rational, and in particular it may be fruitful for economists to study the possible advantages of paternalistic policies that help people make better choices. We propose an approach for studying optimal paternalism that follows naturally from standard assumptions and methods of economic theory: Write down assumptions about the distribution of rational and irrational types of agents, about the available policy instruments, and about the government’s information about agents, and then investigate which policies achieve the most efficient outcomes. In other words, economists ought to treat the analysis of optimal paternalism as a mechanism-design problem when some agents might be boundedly rational. This approach has many advantages. First and foremost, by explicitly addressing when and how people do and don’t pursue their own best interests, economists will be better able to contribute to policy debates. To contribute to debates over regulating private financial decisions, we must study whether financial decisions are based on fallacious statistical reasoning and whether self-control problems lead people to borrow too heavily; to contribute to debates over teenage smoking, we must study whether teenagers become smokers against their long-run best interest. Economists will and should be ignored if we continue to insist that it is axiomatic that constantly trading stocks or accumulating consumer debt or becoming a heroin addict must be optimal for the people doing these things merely because they have chosen to do it. A second advantage of our approach is that it forces us to look for the best feasible policy. Our

[1]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism , 2019, Encyclopedia of Law and Economics.

[2]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for 'Asymmetric Paternalism' , 2003 .

[3]  Matti Tuomala,et al.  Non-Welfarist Optimal Taxation and Behavioural Public Economics , 2004, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[4]  Matthew Rabin,et al.  Procrastination in Preparing for Retirement , 1998 .

[5]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review , 2002 .

[6]  H. Aaron Behavioral dimensions of retirement economics , 1999 .

[7]  Robert A. Rogowsky,et al.  Offprint Order Form for International Economics Review Number of Pages Charge per 50 Copies*** Charge per 100 Copies International Economic Review Ier Lawrence Klein Lecture: the Case against Intellectual Monopoly * , 2004 .

[8]  Matthew Rabin,et al.  Choice and Procrastination , 2000 .

[9]  C. Hepburn,et al.  Declining Discount Rates: The Long and the Short of it , 2005 .

[10]  Ted O’Donoghue,et al.  Doing It Now or Later , 1999 .

[11]  Jukka Pirttila,et al.  Reforms and Confidence , 2005 .

[12]  Sanna Tenhunen,et al.  Pawns and queens revisited: public provision of private goods when individuals make mistakes , 2005, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[13]  F. Ramsey A Contribution to the Theory of Taxation , 1927 .

[14]  David I. Laibson,et al.  Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting , 1997 .

[15]  J. Moake,et al.  This article has been cited by other articles , 2003 .

[16]  R. Thaler,et al.  Libertarian Paternalism is Not an Oxymoron , 2003 .