Encyclopedia of Law and Economics

2019 Edition
| Editors: Alain Marciano, Giovanni Battista Ramello

Nudge

A Critical Perspective
  • Angela AmbrosinoEmail author
  • Valeria Faralla
  • Marco Novarese
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7753-2_631

Abstract

In recent years, the nudge approach and the choice architecture design have become popular in policy and academic circles. The aim of this entry is to present a general overview of the theory of nudges and a critical appraisal of its application to practice, in policy and program as well as in research design, also with respect to possible alternative approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bovens L (2009) The ethics of nudge. In: Grüne-Yanoff T, Hansson SO (eds) Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Theory and decision library A(42). Springer, New York, pp 207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cialdini RB (2001a) The science of persuasion. Sci Am 284(2):76–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cialdini RB (2001b) Influence: science and practice. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Colander D, Chong AQL (2010) The choice architecture of choice architecture: toward a Non-paternalistic nudge policy. Department of Economics Middlebury College Middlebury, Middlebury college economics discussion paper no. 10–36. Available at http://sandcat.middlebury.edu/econ/repec/mdl/ancoec/1036.pdf
  5. Elster J (1979) Ulysses and the sirens. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Grüne-Yanoff T, Hertwig R (2016) Nudge versus boost: how coherent are policy and theory? Minds Mach 26(1):149–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: a perspective on intuitive judgement and choice. Am Econ Rev 93(2):162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kahneman D (2012) Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Kahneman D, Schkade D, Sunstein C (1998) Shared outrage and erratic awards: the psychology of punitive damages. J Risk Uncertain 16(1):49–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loewenstein G, Ubel P (2010) Economics behaving badly. N Y Times, July 14. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15loewenstein.html
  11. Loewenstein G, Bryce C, Hagmann D, Rajpal S (2015) Warning: you are about to be nudged. Behav Sci Policy 1(1):35–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McCaffery EJ, Kahneman D, Spitzer ML (1995) Framing the jury: cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Rev 81(5):1341–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Nudge Blog (2010) The Nazis nudged. [Blog post], August 10. Retrieved from http://nudges.org/2010/08/11/the-nazis-nudged/
  14. Parisi F, Smith VL (2005) The law and economics of irrational behavior. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Rayner G, Lang T (2011) Is nudge an effective public health strategy to tackle obesity? No. Br Med J 342:d2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rebonato R (2012) Taking liberties: a critical examination of libertarian paternalism. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Sunstein CR (2014) Why nudge? The politics of libertarian paternalism. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  18. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  19. Vallgårda S (2012) Nudge: a new and better way to improve health? Health Policy 104(2):200–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1947) Theory of games and economic behaviour. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Ambrosino
    • 1
    Email author
  • Valeria Faralla
    • 2
  • Marco Novarese
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de MartiisUniversity of TurinTorinoItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza e Scienze Politiche, Economiche e SocialiUniversità del Piemonte OrientaleAlessandriaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Law and EconomicsUniversity of Eastern Piedmont, Centre for Cognitive EconomicsAlessandriaItaly