UC-Berkeley, Jurisprudence and Social Policy, 2240 Piedmont Ave., Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2018 Aug;24(4):1279-1295. doi: 10.1007/s11948-017-9944-9. Epub 2017 Jul 4.
Critics frequently argue that nudges are more covert, less transparent, and more difficult to monitor than traditional regulatory tools. Edward Glaeser, for example, argues that "[p]ublic monitoring of soft paternalism is much more difficult than public monitoring of hard paternalism". As one of the leading proponents of soft paternalism, Cass Sunstein, acknowledges, while "[m]andates and commands are highly visible", soft paternalism, "and some nudges in particular[,] may be invisible". In response to this challenge, proponents of nudging argue that invisibility for any given individual in a particular choice environment is compatible with "careful public scrutiny" of the nudge. This paper offers the first of its kind experimental evidence that tests whether nudges are, in fact, compatible with "careful public scrutiny". Using three sets of experiments, the paper argues that, even when entirely visible, nudges attract less scrutiny than their "hard law" counterparts.
批评者经常认为，与传统监管工具相比，推动因素更隐蔽、透明度更低、更难监测。例如，爱德华·格莱泽（Edward Glaeser）认为，“[软家长主义]的公众监督比硬家长主义的公众监督困难得多”。作为软家长主义的主要支持者之一，卡斯·桑斯坦（Cass Sunstein）承认，“虽然[强制命令]非常明显”，但软家长主义，特别是“一些推动因素”可能是“看不见的”。为了应对这一挑战，推动因素的支持者认为，在特定的选择环境中，对于任何特定个体的不可见性与对推动因素的“仔细的公众审查”是兼容的。本文提供了第一个此类实验证据，测试了推动因素是否确实与“仔细的公众审查”兼容。通过三组实验，本文认为，即使是完全可见的推动因素，也会比其“硬法”对应物受到更少的审查。
