Abstract
While the ethics and politics of nudging have received a great deal of attention, the legality of non-coercive interventions aimed at changing human behaviour has not been the object of much study. In this contribution, I examine firstly which limits, if any, the principle of proportionality (‘Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz’) as applied by the German Federal Constitutional Court imposes on governmental ‘choice architects’. While nudges as such generally do not interfere with fundamental rights, including the very broad ‘right of personal development’ of Art. 2(1) Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, their implementation will often interfere with the fundamental rights of citizens other than the decision makers and therefore trigger constitutional scrutiny. Since paternalistic motives are – in principle – not accepted as legitimate ends that may justify an interference with fundamental rights, nudges solely intended to protect the decision maker from self-harm may not pass the proportionality test. Secondly, I examine whether the necessity prong of the proportionality principle may force the legislator to choose a non-coercive nudge over a more traditional coercive measure. Given the empirical evidence of the limited effectiveness of nudges in changing behaviour compared to traditional regulatory means, I come to the conclusion that the proportionality principle does not compel the use of nudges.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
An exhaustive overview of the literature is impossible, some starting points are Camerer et al. 2003; Thaler and Sunstein 2003; Rachlinski 2003; Glaeser 2006; Hill 2008; Sugden 2008; Bovens 2009; Hausman and Welch 2010; White 2010; Selinger and Whyte 2011; Blumenthal-Barby and Burroughs 2012; Goodwin 2012; Sunstein 2014; 2015 and the contributions by Bruno S. Frey/Jana Gallus, Peter G. Kirchschläger and Mark D. White in this volume; from a German perspective van Aaken 2006; Schnellenbach 2011; Kirchgässner 2013; Neumann 2013; Fischer and Lotz 2014.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Tversky and Kahneman 1981.
- 7.
Wansink and van Ittersum 2006.
- 8.
Read and van Leeuwen 1998.
- 9.
- 10.
Johnson and Goldstein 2003.
- 11.
The chapter headings in Pohl 2004 give an overview over the most widely studied fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory.
- 12.
- 13.
Thaler and Sunstein 2003, p.175.
- 14.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 237.
- 15.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 3.
- 16.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 6.
- 17.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 2.
- 18.
- 19.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 2.
- 20.
Dayan and Bar-Hillel 2011.
- 21.
Rozin et al. 2011.
- 22.
Since the government is largely free to set contract terms (as long as they are not discriminatory), contracting only with companies that agree to adhere to ‘behavioral food presentation’ may not trigger any constitutional concerns. It is easy to imagine, however, that the government would try to mandate these measures for all restaurants, which would clearly entail coercion.
- 23.
Koch 2003, pp. 39 sq.
- 24.
Koch 2003, pp. 45 sq.
- 25.
Schlink 2001, p. 445.
- 26.
- 27.
Arai-Takahashi 2002, pp. 14 sq.
- 28.
- 29.
- 30.
- 31.
See Art. 3(2), 5(2), 8(2), 12(1) Basic Law, and more often. For the understanding of ‘law’ as parliamentary act see Pieroth 2014, paras. 272 et sq.
- 32.
Pieroth 2014, paras. 285 et sq.
- 33.
Peters 1963, pp. 47 et sq.
- 34.
BVerfGE 6, 32, pp. 36 sq. – ‘Elfes decision’.
- 35.
BVerfGE 54, p. 143 – ‘pigeon feeding’; BVerfGE 80, 137, pp. 152 et sq. – ‘riding in the forest’.
- 36.
- 37.
See the references cited in Cremer 2003, p. 81.
- 38.
Möller 2014, p. 163.
- 39.
Zippelius and Würtenberger 2008, p. 244.
- 40.
Christman 21.3.2015, 1.1 Basic Distinctions.
- 41.
- 42.
- 43.
- 44.
BVerfGE 105, 252, p. 268 – ‘glycol warning ’.
- 45.
BVerfGE 105, 252, p. 267 – ‘glycol warning ’.
- 46.
Lüdemann 2004, pp. 123 et sq.
- 47.
Lüdemann 2004, pp. 127 et sq.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
For an overview see Lichtenstein and Slovic 2006.
- 53.
Thaler and Sunstein 2003, p. 175.
- 54.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 237.
- 55.
More careful Sunstein 2015, p. 38.
- 56.
Blumenthal-Barby 2013, p. 190.
- 57.
Yeung 2012, p. 134.
- 58.
Kelly 2013, p. 220.
- 59.
- 60.
Bateson et al. 2006.
- 61.
As long as it is reasonably easy to opt-out. For a view of default options as effective mandates see Bubb and Pildes 2014, pp. 1616 et sq.
- 62.
For a different view see van Aaken 2015a, p. 10.
- 63.
Castleman et al. 2014.
- 64.
BVerfGE 95, p. 173 – ‘warnings on cigarette packaging’. The plaintiffs also argued that their freedom of speech was affected, the Constitutional Court denied this, id. at 181.
- 65.
Allcott 2011.
- 66.
According to van Boom and Ogus 2010, p. 2. I am not even sure I would call this a nudge at all.
- 67.
- 68.
e.g., Hufen 2014, p. 119.
- 69.
Instead of many Sodan and Ziekow 2014, p. 229.
- 70.
Dworkin 2013, p. 29.
- 71.
- 72.
The protection from self-harm of people considered incapable of fully using their mind is considered autonomy -preserving, van Aaken 2015b, p. 3. ‘Soft paternalistic’ measures are widely considered legitimate and will not be considered further here.
- 73.
BVerGE 22, 180, pp. 219 et sq. – ‘youth welfare’.
- 74.
Not all nudges are paternalistic, of course. Non-paternalistic nudges will generally pass the legitimate aim prong, van Aaken 2015a, p. 20.
- 75.
Feinberg 1986, pp. 9 et sq.
- 76.
Enderlein 1996, p. 136.
- 77.
van Aaken 2015a, p. 20.
- 78.
BVerfGE 90, 145, p. 172 – ‘cannabis’.
- 79.
In BVerfGe 60, 123, p. 132 – ‘transgender I’, it even held without further elaboration that protection from ‘serious’ self-inflicted harm is a legitimate end.
- 80.
BVerfGE 59, p. 275 – ‘motorcycle helmet’; BVerfG, NJW 1987, p. 180 – ‘seat belt law’.
- 81.
BVerfGE 115, p. 276 – ‘sports betting’.
- 82.
But see Ueltzhöffer 2005, p. 17.
- 83.
BVerfGE 59, p. 275 – ‘motorcycle helmet’.
- 84.
BVerfGE, NJW 1987, p. 180 – ‘seat belt law’.
- 85.
Möller 2005.
- 86.
van Aaken 2015a, p. 21.
- 87.
Art. 437(3) in connection with Art. 474 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.
- 88.
Warranty is used in the sense of ‘Gewährleistung’, i.e., the vendor must only warrant that the good was not defective when the risk passed. If the defect occcurs within 6 months after the passing of the risk, it is presumed that it existed when the risk passed, Art. 476 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch.
- 89.
BVerfGE 81, 242, p. 255 – ‘sales agents’; BVerfGE 89, 214, p. 232 – ‘debt guarantee’.
- 90.
BVerfGE 89, 214, p. 235 – ‘debt guarantee’; BVerfGE NJW 1999, pp. 2749 et sqq.; BVerfGE 60, 329, p. 345 – ‘pension adjustment’.
- 91.
Enderlein 1996, p. 143.
- 92.
See also van Aaken 2015a, p. 21, who considers the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence ‘evasive’ and ‘less rigorous’ than the doctrine.
- 93.
BVerfGE 115, 267, p. 308 – ‘old debts’.
- 94.
BVerfGE 30, 292, p. 316 – ‘oil reserves’.
- 95.
Michael 2001b, p. 656.
- 96.
BVerfGE 67, 157, p. 175 – ‘surveillance law’. For a critique see Bickenbach 2014, pp. 320 et sq. and the references cited therein.
- 97.
Hufen 2014, p. 119.
- 98.
BVerfGE 67, 157, p. 176 – ‘surveillance law’.
- 99.
BVerfGE 53, 135, p. 145 – ‘chocolate easter bunny’; Sodan and Ziekow 2014, p. 230.
- 100.
Schlink 2001, p. 458, argues that the burden of proof that the measure is required lies with the state, therefore, if there remain doubts, the measure is not justified.
- 101.
Michael 2001b, pp. 656 et sqq.
- 102.
- 103.
Michael and Morlok 2014, para. 620.
- 104.
Health warnings on cigarette packaging may be covered by special sleeves, thereby preventing exposure to the warning . There is no legal way to avoid paying tobacco tax, however. The provision of sleeves by tobacco companies may be illegal, but nobody seems to argue that the end consumer is prohibited from using such sleeves, Wilson et al. 2006.
- 105.
van Aaken 2015b, pp. 31 et sqq.
- 106.
Englerth 2007, p. 239.
- 107.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 8.
- 108.
- 109.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 19.07.2011, see id. Box 7 at para. 5.3 for the role of the Behavioural Insights Team. Today, the Behavioural Insights Team is a private enterprise – partially owned by the UK government – “whose mission is to help organisations in the UK and overseas to apply behavioural insights in support of social purpose goals”, see www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us (last visited 8 February 2016).
- 110.
See list of witnesses in House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 19.07.2011, Appendix 2.
- 111.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 19.07.2011, Table 1 at para. 2.3.
- 112.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 19.07.2011, paras. 5.8, 8.14.
- 113.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee 19.07.2011, paras. 5.15, 8.16.
- 114.
Willis 2013, p. 1186, p. 1228.
- 115.
Willis 2013, p. 1161.
- 116.
Willis 2013, p. 1229.
- 117.
Bronchetti et al. 2011.
- 118.
Bubb and Pildes 2014, pp. 1647 et sqq. and more often.
- 119.
Bubb and Pildes 2014, pp. 1596 et sqq.
- 120.
- 121.
- 122.
BVerfGE 118, 168, p. 195 – ‘basic account data’: “Dieses Gebot verlangt, dass die Schwere des Eingriffs bei einer Gesamtabwägung nicht außer Verhältnis zu dem Gewicht der ihn rechtfertigenden Gründe stehen darf”.
- 123.
BVerfGE 115, 320, pp. 345 et sq. – ‘dragnet search II’.
- 124.
BVerfGE 118, 168, p. 195 – ‘basic account data’.
- 125.
BVerfGE 100, 226, p. 242 – ‘heritage site preservation’.
- 126.
- 127.
Schlink 2001, p. 458.
- 128.
- 129.
- 130.
- 131.
Klement 2008, p. 761.
- 132.
Jestaedt 2012, pp. 164 et sqq.
- 133.
- 134.
‘Vorbehaltlose Grundrechte’ in German. In this context this means that the German Constitution does not expressely state that these rights may be abridged by a law, as it does for many fundamental rights.
- 135.
- 136.
Alexy 2003, p. 789.
- 137.
The scope of protection of the ‘Berufsfreiheit’ is far reaching, see Ipsen 2014, paras. 634 et sq.
- 138.
Ipsen 2014, paras. 656 et sq.
- 139.
Payandeh 2011, p. 607 (for inconsistent legislation).
- 140.
BVerfGE 115, 267, p. 310 – ‘sports betting’; BVerfGe 121, 317, pp. 362 et ssq – ‘smoking in bars’.
- 141.
Bumke 2010, pp. 87 et sq.
- 142.
BVerfGe 121, 317, p. 385 – ‘smoking in bars’ (Mansing dissenting).
- 143.
Payandeh 2011, p. 606.
- 144.
BVerfGE 121, 317, pp. 355 et sq. – ‘smoking in bars’.
- 145.
Michael 2008.
- 146.
Michael 2008, p. 878.
- 147.
Petersen 2013.
- 148.
BVerfGE 115, 276, pp. 303 et sqq. – ‘sports betting’.
- 149.
BVerfGE 115, 276, pp. 309 et sqq. – ‘sports betting’.
Bibliography
Alemanno, Alberto, and Alessandro Spina. 2014. Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation. International Journal of Constitutional Law 12(2): 429–456.
Alexy, Robert. 2003. Die Gewichtsformel. In Gedächtnisschrift für Jürgen Sonnenschein. 22. Januar 1938 bis 6. Dezember 2000, ed. Jürgen Sonnenschein, Joachim Jickeli, Peter Kreutz, and Dieter Reuter, 771–792. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.
Allcott, Hunt. 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics 95(9–10): 1082–1095.
Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka. 2002. The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Antwerp: Intersentia.
Bateson, Melissa, Daniel Nettle, and Gilbert Roberts. 2006. Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters 2(3): 412–414.
Bickenbach, Christian. 2014. Die Einschätzungsprärogative des Gesetzgebers. Analyse einer Argumentationsfigur in der (Grundrechts-)Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Blumenthal-Barby, J.S. 2013. Choice architecture: A mechanism for improving decisions while preserving liberty? In Paternalism. Theory and practice, ed. Christian Coons and Michael Weber, 178–196. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Blumenthal-Barby, J.S., and Hadley Burroughs. 2012. Seeking better health care outcomes: The ethics of using the ‘Nudge’. The American Journal of Bioethics 12(2): 1–10.
Bovens, Luc. 2009. The ethics of nudge. In Preference change. Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology, ed. Till Grüne-Yanoff and Sven Ove Hansson, 207–219. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bronchetti, Erin Todd, Thomas S. Dee, David B. Huffman, and Ellen Magenheim. 2011. When a nudge isn’t enough. Defaults and saving among low-income tax filers, NBER Working Paper Series (16887). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge (Mass.), USA.
Bubb, Ryan, and Richard H. Pildes. 2014. How behavioral economics trims its sails and why. Harvard Law Review 127: 1595–1678.
Bumke, Christian. 2010. Die Pflicht zur konsistenten Gesetzgebung. Der Staat 49: 77–105.
Camerer, 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, 151(3): 1211–1254.
Castleman, Benjamin L., and Lindsay C. Page. 2014. Summer nudging: Can personalized text messages and peer mentor outreach increase college going among low-income high school graduates? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115:144–160.
Christman, John. 2015 March 21. Autonomy in moral and political philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/autonomy-moral.
Classen, Claus Dieter. 2012. Das Prinzip der Verhältnismäßigkeit im Spiegel europäischer Rechtsentwicklungen. In Der grundrechtsgeprägte Verfassungsstaat. Festschrift für Klaus Stern zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Michael Sachs and Helmut Siekmann, 651–667. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Cohen-Eliya, Moshe, and Iddo Porat. 2009. The hidden foreign law debate in Heller: The proportionality approach in American Constitutional Law. San Diego Law Review 46: 367–415.
Costa-Font, Joan, David R. Just, Barbara Fasolo, and Nattavudh Powdthavee. 2014. Nudging ourselves? The limits of incentivizing ‘Good Behavior’. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 36(1): 1–5.
Cremer, Wolfram. 2003. Freiheitsgrundrechte. Funktionen und Strukturen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Dayan, Eran, and Maya Bar-Hillel. 2011. Nudge to nobesity II: Menu positions influence food orders. Judgment and Decision Making 6(4): 333–342.
Dworkin, Gerald. 2013. Defining paternalism. In Paternalism. Theory and practice, ed. Christian Coons and Michael Weber, 25–38. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Enderlein, Wolfgang. 1996. Rechtspaternalismus und Vertragsrecht. München: C.H. Beck.
Endicott, Timothy. 2014. Proportionality and incommensurability. In Proportionality and the rule of law. Rights, justification, reasoning, ed. Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, and Grégoire C.N. Webber, 311–342. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Englerth, Markus. 2007. Vom Wert des Rauchens und der Rückkehr der Idioten – Paternalismus als Antwort auf beschränkte Rationalität? In Recht und Verhalten. Beiträge zu behavorial law and economics, ed. Christoph Engel, Markus Englerth, Jörn Lüdemann, and Indra Spiecker, 231–258. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to self. The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Kai. 1997. Die Zulässigkeit aufgedrängten staatlichen Schutzes vor Selbstschädigung. Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang.
Fischer, Mira, and Sebastian Lotz. 2014. Ist sanfter Paternalismus ethisch vertretbar? Eine differenzierende Betrachtung aus Sicht der Freiheit. Sozialer Fortschritt 63(3): 52–58.
Glaeser, Edward L. 2006. Paternalism and psychology. Regulation 29(2): 32–38.
Goodwin, Tom. 2012. Why we should reject ‘Nudge’. Politics 32(2): 85–92.
Hausman, Daniel M., and Brynn Welch. 2010. Debate: To nudge or not to nudge*. Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1): 123–136.
Hill, Claire. 2008. Anti-anti-anti paternalism. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty 2: 444–454.
Hillgruber, Christian. 1992. Der Schutz des Menschen vor sich selbst. München: F. Vahlen.
House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee. 2011July 19. Behaviour Change. Report. HL Paper 179. London.
Hufen, Friedhelm. 2014. Staatsrecht. München: Beck.
Ipsen, Jörn. 2014. Staatsrecht. Neuwied: Luchterhand.
Ito, Koichiro, Takanori Ida, and Makoto Tanaka. 2015. The persistence of moral suasion and economic incentives. Field experimental evidence from energy demand, NBER Working Paper Series (No. 20910).
Jestaedt, Matthias. 2012. The doctrine of balancing – strengths & weaknesses. In Institutionalized reason. The jurisprudence of Robert Alexy, ed. Matthias Klatt, 152–172. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, Eric J., and Daniel G. Goldstein. 2003. Do defaults save lives? Science 302: 1338–1339.
Kelly, Jamie. 2013. Libertarian paternalism, utilitarism, and justice. In Paternalism. Theory and practice, ed. Christian Coons and Michael Weber, 216–230. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Kirchgässner, Gerhard. 2013. Sanfter Paternalismus, meritorische Güter, und der normative Individualismus. In Grenzen der Konsumentensouveränität, ed. Martin Held, Gisela Kubon-Gilke, and Richard Sturn, 41–62. Marburg: Metropolis.
Klement, Jan Henrik. 2008. Vom Nutzen einer Theorie, die alles erklärt. Robert Alexys Prinzipientheorie aus der Sicht der Grundrechtsdogmatik. JuristenZeitung: 63(15–16):756–763.
Koch, Oliver. 2003. Grundsatz der Verhältnismässigkeit in der Rechtsprechung des Gerichtshofs der europäischen Gemeinschaften. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Lichtenstein, Sarah, and Paul Slovic. 2006. The construction of preference. An overview. In The construction of preference, ed. Sarah Lichtenstein and Paul Slovic, 1–40. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lüdemann, Jörn. 2004. Edukatorisches Staatshandeln. Steuerungstheorie und Verfassungsrecht am Beispiel der staatlichen Förderung von Abfallmoral. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Marteau, T.M., D. Ogilvie, M. Roland, M. Suhrcke, and M.P. Kelly. 2011. Judging nudging: Can nudging improve population health? BMJ (British Medical Journal) 342: d228.
Mensink, Ronald P., Peter L. Zock, Arnold D.M. Kester, and Martijn B. Katan. 2003. Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: A meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 77(5): 1146–1155.
Micha, Renata, Sarah K. Wallace, and Dariush Mozaffarian. 2010. Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121(21): 2271–2283.
Michael, Lothar. 2001a. Die drei Argumentationsstrukturen des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Zur Dogmatik des Über- und Untermaßverbotes und der Gleichheitssätze. JuS 41(2): 148–155.
Michael, Lothar. 2001b. Grundfälle zur Verhältnismäßigkeit. JuS 41(7): 654–659.
Michael, Lothar. 2008. Folgerichtigkeit als Wettbewerbsgleichheit. Juristenzeitung 63: 875–882.
Michael, Lothar, and Martin Morlok. 2014. Grundrechte. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Miller, Franklin G., and Luke Gelinas. 2013. Nudging, autonomy, and valid consent: Context matters. The American Journal of Bioethics 13(6): 12–13.
Möller, Kai. 2005. Paternalismus und Persönlichkeitsrecht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
Möller, Kai. 2014. Proportionality and rights inflation. In Proportionality and the rule of law. Rights, justification, reasoning, ed. Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, and Grégoire C.N. Webber, 155–172. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Nessmith, William E., Stephen P. Utkus, and Jean A. Young. 2007. Measuring the effectiveness of automatic enrollment. Vanguard Center for Retirement Research 31: 1–19.
Neumann, Robert. 2013. Libertärer Paternalismus. Theorie und Empirie staatlicher Entscheidungsarchitektur. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Payandeh, Mehrdad. 2011. Das Gebot der Folgerichtigkeit: Rationalitätsgewinn oder Irrweg der Grundrechtsdogmatik? Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 136(4): 578–615.
Peters, Hans. 1963. Das Recht auf freie Entfaltung der Persönlichkeit in der höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Petersen, Niels. 2013. Gesetzgeberische Inkonsistenz als Beweiszeichen. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 138: 108–134.
Pieroth, Bodo. 2014. Grundrechte. Heidelberg/München: Müller.
Pohl, Rüdiger (ed.). 2004. Cognitive illusions. A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgement and memory. Hove/New York: Psychology Press.
Porat, Iddo. 2014. Mapping the American debate over balancing. In Proportionality and the rule of law. Rights, justification, reasoning, ed. Grant Huscroft, Bradley W. Miller, and Grégoire C.N. Webber, 397–416. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J. 2003. The uncertain psychological case for paternalism. Northwestern University Law Review 97: 1165–1225.
Rayner, Geof, and Tim Lang. 2011. Is nudge an effective public health strategy to tackle obesity? No. BMJ (British Medical Journal) 342(5): d2177.
Read, Daniel, and Barbara van Leeuwen. 1998. Predicting hunger: The effects of appetite and delay on choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76(2): 189–205.
Rozin, Paul, Sydney Scott, Megan Dingley, Joanna K. Urbanek, Hong Jiang, and Mark Kaltenbach. 2011. Nudge to nobesity I: Minor changes in accessibility decrease food intake. Judgment and Decision Making 6(4): 323–332.
Russell, Jacob Hale. 2015. The separation of intelligence and control. The retirement savings crisis and the limits of soft paternalism. William & Mary Business Law Review 6: 35–87.
Salazar, Alberto. 2012. Libertarian paternalism and the danger of nudging consumers. King’s Law Journal 23(1): 51–67.
Saurer, Johannes. 2012. Die Globalisierung des Verhältnismässigkeitsgrundsatzes. Staat 51: 3–33.
Schlink, Bernhard. 2001. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. In Festschrift 50 Jahre Bundesverfassungsgericht. Zweiter Band, ed. Peter Badura and Horst Dreier, 445–465. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Schnellenbach, Jan. 2011. Wohlwollendes Anschubsen: Was ist mit liberalem Paternalismus zu erreichen und was sind seine Nebenwirkungen? Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 12(4): 445–459.
Selinger, Evan, and Kyle Whyte. 2011. Is there a right way to nudge? The practice and ethics of choice architecture. Sociology Compass 5(10): 923–935.
Sodan, Helge, and Ziekow. 2014. Grundkurs Öffentliches Recht. Staats- und Verwaltungsrecht. München: Beck.
Stein, Ekkehart, and Götz Frank. 2010. Staatsrecht. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Sugden, Robert. 2008. Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy 19(3): 226–248.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2014. Why nudge?: The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2015. Nudging and choice architecture: Ethical considerations, Yale Journal on Regulation Forthcoming.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2003. Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review 93(2): 175–179.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481): 453–458.
Ueltzhöffer, Christian. 2005. Die staatliche Einflussnahme auf den Tabakkonsum von Kindern und Jugendlichen in Deutschland. Wien: Springer.
van Aaken, Anne. 2006. Begrenzte Rationalität und Paternalismusgefahr. In Paternalismus und Recht. In memoriam Angela Augustin (1968–2004), ed. Michael Anderheiden, Peter Bürkli, Hans Michael Heinig, Stephan Kirste, and Kurt Seelmann, 109–144. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
van Aaken, Anne. 2015a. Constitutional limits to nudging. A proportionality assessment. University of St. Gallen Law & Economics Working Paper (2015–03): 1–27.
van Aaken, Anne. 2015b. Judge the nudge. In search of the legal limits of paternalistic nudging in the EU. University of St. Gallen Law & Economics Working Paper (2015–01): 1–35.
van Boom, Willem H., and Anthony Ogus. 2010. Introducing, defining and balancing autonomy v. paternalism. Erasmus Law Review 3: 1–5.
Wahl, Rainer. 2013. Der Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit. Ausgangslage und Gegenwartsproblematik. In Verfassungsstaatlichkeit im Wandel. Festschrift für Thomas Würtenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Dirk Heckmann, Ralf P. Schenke, and Gernot Sydow, 823–854. Berlin: Duncker et Humblot.
Wansink, Brian, and Koert van Ittersum. 2006. The visual illusions of food: Why plates, bowls, and spoons can bias consumption volume. The FASEB Journal 20(4): A618.
White, M.D. 2010. Behavioral law and economics: The assault on consent, will, and dignity. In Essays on philosophy, politics & economics. Integration & common research projects, ed. Christi Favor, Gerald F. Gaus, and Julian Lamont, 201–224. Stanford: Stanford Economics and Finance.
Wienbracke, Mike. 2013. Der Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz. Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium 2: 148–155.
Wilkinson, T.M. 2013. Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies 61(2): 341–355.
Willis, Lauren E. 2013. When nudges fail. Slippery defaults. University of Chicago Law Review 80: 1155–1229.
Wilson, Nick, George Thomson, Philippa Howden-Chapman, and Louise Signal. 2006. Regulations should ban the sale of cigarette pack covers of health warnings. The New Zealand Medical Journal 119(1243): U2251.
Yeung, Karen. 2012. Nudge as fudge. The Modern Law Review 75(1): 122–148.
Zippelius, Reinhold, and Thomas Würtenberger. 2008. Deutsches Staatsrecht. Ein Studienbuch. München: C.H. Beck.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schweizer, M. (2016). Nudging and the Principle of Proportionality. In: Mathis, K., Tor, A. (eds) Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29562-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29562-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29560-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29562-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)