Revue de Philosophie Economique

Behavioral Paternalism

Résumé

Un nouveau type de paternalisme s’est développé ces dix dernières années sous l’impulsion de travaux innovateurs de certains économistes comportementaux. Ce nouveau type de paternalisme, que j’appelle ici paternalisme comportemental, s’est popularisé grâce à la théorie du « coup de pouce » de Richard Thaler et Cass Sunstein et remet en question l’idée selon laquelle le paternalisme serait inacceptable dans nos sociétés. L’objet de cet article est d’évaluer sa légitimité morale sans, néanmoins, se limiter à son supposé libertarianisme. Les résultats de mon investigation peuvent se résumer ainsi : bien que le paternalisme comportemental soit généralement reconnu pour son caractère libéral, il ne satisfait pas en fait les conditions de ce que Joel Feinberg nomme le « paternalisme mou ». Néanmoins, il possède des qualités morales sous-estimées par ses partisans. Il résiste d’abord très bien à la critique égalitariste d’Elizabeth Anderson. A la différence des formes traditionnelles de paternalisme, le paternalisme comportemental n’est pas dégradant et n’est pas ostracisant. Le paternalisme comportemental, enfin, peut se targuer d’être véritablement altruiste, à la condition, cependant, d’abandonner les hypothèses principales de Sunstein et Thaler.

Plan

  • Introduction
  • Behavioral paternalism
  • The liberal proviso
  • The egalitarian proviso
  • The altruistic proviso
  • Conclusion

Article

[L’article peut être lu en intégralité sur Cairn]

Références

  • Anderson Elizabeth. 1999. “What Is the Point of Equality?”. Ethics, vol.109 n°2, pp.287-337.
  • En ligneArneson Richard. 1980. “Mill versus Paternalism”. Ethics, vol.90 n°4, pp.470-489.
  • En ligneArneson Richard. 2000. “Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism”. Ethics, vol.110 n°2, pp.339-349.
  • En ligneArneson Richard. 2005. “Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism”. Legal Theory, n°11, pp.259-84.
  • En ligneAriely Dan, George Loewenstein and Drazen Prelec. 2003. “‘Coherent Arbitrariness’: Stable Demand Curves without Stable Preferences”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, n°118, pp.73-105.
  • En ligneBaron Robert A. 1997. “The Sweet Smell of… Helping: Effects of Pleasant Ambient Fragrance on Prosocial Behavior in Shopping Malls”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.23 n°5, pp.498-503.
  • En ligneBaron Robert A., Marna I. Bronfen. 1994. “A Whiff of Reality: Empirical Evidence Concerning the Effects of Pleasant Fragrances on Work-Related Behavior”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol.24 n°13, pp.1179-1203.
  • En ligneBaron Robert A., Jill Thomley. 1994. “A Whiff of Reality: Positive Affect as a Potential Mediator of the Effects of Pleasant Fragrances on Task Performance and Helping”. Environment and Behavior, vol.26 n°6, pp.766-784.
  • Blumenthal-Barby J.S. 2013. “Choice Architecture: A Mechanism for Improving Decisions while Preserving Liberty?”. In C. Coons and M. Weber (eds.), Paternalism. Theory and Practice, pp.178-196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Blumenthal J.A. 2005. “Does Mood Influence Moral Judgment?: An Empirical Test with Legal and Policy Implications”. Law and Psychology Review, n°29, pp.1-28.
  • Blumenthal J.A. 2007. “Emotional Paternalism”. Florida State University Law Review, n°35, pp.1-72.
  • Blumenthal J.A. 2013. “A Psychological Defense of Paternalism”. In C. Coons and M. Weber (eds.), Paternalism. Theory and Practice, pp.197-215. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brink David. 2013. Mill’s Progressive Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Buchanan Allen E. 1978. “Medical Paternalism”. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.7 n°4, pp.371-390.
  • Camerer Colin. 2006. “Wanting, Liking, and Learning: Neuroscience and Paternalism”. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol.73 n°87, pp.87-110.
  • En ligneCamerer Colin. 2007. “Neuroeconomics: Using Neuroscience to Make Economic Predictions”. The Economic Journal, vol. 117 n°519, pp.26-42.
  • Camerer Colin. 2008. “The Case of Mindful Economics”. In A. Caplin and A. Schotter (eds.), The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics: A Handbook: A Handbook, pp. 43-69. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • En ligneCamerer Colin, Samuel Issacharoff, George Loewenstein, Ted O’Donoghue, and Matthew Rabin. 2003. “Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for ‘Asymmetric Paternalism’”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.151 n°3, pp.1211-1254.
  • En ligneCamerer Colin, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2004. “Neuroeconomics: Why Economics Needs Brains”. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, vol.106 n°3, pp.555-579.
  • En ligneCamerer Colin, George Loewenstein, and Drazen Prelec. 2005. “Neuroeconomics: How Neuroscience Can Inform Economics”. Journal of Economic Literature, vol.43 n°1, pp.9-64.
  • En ligneChoi James, David Laibson, Brigitte Madrian, and Andrew Metrick. 2002. “Defined Contribution Pensions: Plan Rules, Participant Decisions, and the Path of Least Resistance”. Tax Policy and the Economy, n°16, pp.67-114.
  • Claeys Gregory. 2013. Mill and Paternalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Damasio Antonio.2004. Looking for Spinoza. Joy, Sorrow and the Feeling Brain. London: Vintage.
  • Doris John M. 2002. Lack of Character. Personality and Moral Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Dworkin Gerald. 1971. “Paternalism”. In Joel Feinberg and Hyman Gross Philosophy of Law, pp. 209-219. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
  • Dworkin Gerald. 1972. “Paternalism”. The Monist, n°1, pp.64-84.
  • Dworkin R.M. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard: Harvard University Press.
  • Economist (The). 2006. “The new paternalism”. The Economist, 6th April.
  • Feinberg Joel. 1983. “Legal Paternalism”. In Rolf Sartorius (ed.), Paternalism, pp.3-18. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Feinberg Joel. 1986. Harm to Self: The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Feinberg Joel. 1989. The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 3: Harm to Self. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gert Bernard and Charles M. Culver. 1976. “Paternalistic Behavior”. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.6 n°1, pp.45-57.
  • En ligneGert Bernard and Charles M. Culver. 1979. “The Justification of Paternalism”. Ethics, vol.89 n°2, pp.199-210.
  • Holt Jim. 2006. “The New, Soft Paternalism”. The New York Times, 3rd December.
  • En ligneIsen A.M. and P.F. Levin. 1972. “Effect of Feeling Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, n°21, pp.384-388.
  • En ligneJolls Christine, Cass R. Sunstein, and Richard Thaler. 1998. “A Behavioral Approach to Law and Economics”. Stanford Law Review, vol.50 n°5, pp.1471-1550.
  • Kahneman Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane.
  • Kleinig J. 1983. Paternalism. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  • En ligneLichtenstein S., and P. Slovic. 2006. The Construction of Preference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Loewenstein George and Daniel Adler. 1995. “A Bias in the Prediction of Tastes”. The Economic Journal, vol.105 n°431, pp.929-937.
  • En ligneLoewenstein G., T. Brennan, K. G. Volpp. 2007. “A Symmetric paternalism to improve health behaviors”. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol.298 n°20, pp.2415-2417.
  • Loewenstein George, F. and Emily Haisley. 2008. “The Economist as Therapist: Methodological Ramifications of ‘Light’ Paternalism”. In Andrew Caplin and Andrew Schotter (eds.), The Foundations of Positive and Normative Economics. A Handbook, pp. 210-245. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • En ligneMadrian Brigitte C. and Dennis F. Shea. 2001. “The Power of Suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) Participation and Savings Behavior”. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol.116 n°4, pp.1149-1187.
  • Mead L.M. 1997. The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington: Brookings Inst Press.
  • Mill John Stuart. 1989. On Liberty and other writings. Edited by Raymond Geuss and Quentin Skinner, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mlodinow Leonard. 2009. The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives. London: Penguin Books.
  • Nagel Thomas. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Rawls John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Rizzo Mario J. 2009. “Little Brother Is Watching You: New Paternalism on the Slippery Slopes”. Arizona Law Review, vol.51 n°3, pp.685-739.
  • Sartorius R.E. 1983. Paternalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  • En ligneShiffrin Seana Valentine. 2000. “Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accomodation”. Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol.29 n°3, pp.205-250.
  • En ligneSugden Robert. 2008. “Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism”. Constitutional Political Economy, vol.19 n°3, pp.226-248.
  • En ligneSunstein Cass R. and Richard H. Thaler. 2003. “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron”. The University of Chicago Law Review, vol.70 n°4, pp.1159-1202.
  • En ligneThaler Richard H. 1980. “Toward a positive theory of consumer choice”. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, vol.1 n°1, pp.39-60.
  • En ligneThaler Richard H. and Cass R. Sunstein. 2003. “Libertarian Paternalism”. The American Economic Review, vol.93 n°2, pp.175-179.
  • Thaler Richard H. and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
  • Tversky Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”. Science, vol.211 n°4481, pp.453-458.
  • Tversky Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1986. “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions”. The Journal of Business, vol.59 n°4, pp.S251-S278.
  • En ligneVan DeVeer D. 1986. Paternalistic Intervention: The Moral Bounds of Benevolence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Wikler Daniel. 1979. “Paternalism and the Mildly Retarded”. Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol.8 n°4.

Classification JEL : A12, D64, I18, I31, K32

Mots-clés

Paternalisme, Comportementalisme, Ethique, Egalité, Autonomie