biuroe319

Nudge is written from the self-professed standpoint of two "libertarian paternalists". Basically, they prefer that government allow markets to work when they work, but is in favor of structuring the "choice architecture" (a phrase ubiquitous in this book) to optimize the outcomes for folks when markets aren't doing a good job. Thaler is one of the founding fathers of behavioral finance, so this isn't a big surprise. The reasons that such nudges are needed, they argue, is that some decisions are made rarely, and with little feedback so as to prevent the deciders from getting good enough at making the choices well (and therefore, the market doesn't reach that economic nirvana of efficiency & equilibrium). In these situations, predictable human biases lead to outcomes that are suboptimal. For example, how many times do you save for retirement or pick a health plan? Fairly rarely. Therefore, you are less likely to do it well. Data from the Medicare prescription plan and Sweden's retirement privatization back up their hypothesis. Additionally, they look at organ donation, and how better defaulting could lead to fewer people dying. Definitely some provocative ideas in there. If the way the choice architecture is structured drastically alters the selections people make, does it somehow subvert their "true intentions"? Can "true intentions" even be known if the choosers' responses can be so wildly influenced by the choice architecture? It's an entertaining read, with enough Simpson's references to make you forget that it was written by economists. It very pragmatic. I would've liked to more references to the social psych literature (there is tons of stuff out there about how increasing choice does not equal increased happiness). But an enjoyable book about interesting ideas.

2022-10-21 05:47