NEW COLUMN: Professor Marit Skivenes contributed to the column “Paternalistic preferences in the United States”
A new column by Björn Bartling, Alexander Cappelen, Henning Hermes, Marit Skivenes, and Bertil Tungodden examines how Americans view paternalistic interventions—policies aimed at guiding people toward better choices. Based on a large-scale experiment with 14,000 participants, the study explores support for different types of interventions and the trade-off between personal freedom and welfare.
Soft vs. Hard Interventions
The distinguishes between soft interventions, which provide information while preserving choice, and hard interventions, which restrict options to prevent mistakes. Participants acted as spectators deciding whether to intervene when another person faced a financial decision based on incorrect or incomplete information.
Results show that most participants (over 80%) supported soft interventions, while only about one-third favored hard interventions. Notably, whether a mistake stemmed from personal miscalculation or external misinformation did not significantly impact intervention decisions.
Public Attitudes and Policy Implications
While many participants acknowledged that people sometimes make harmful choices, there was widespread skepticism about government-imposed restrictions, particularly among Republican-leaning individuals. However, political affiliation had little effect on behavior in the experiment, suggesting that disagreements over paternalistic policies are more about trust in government competence than fundamental values.
These findings provide insight into public attitudes toward paternalism and highlight the importance of balancing autonomy with welfare in policymaking. Understanding these preferences can help design interventions that are both effective and publicly acceptable.
Read the full column on this link.