Changing People’s Preferences by the State and the Law

Q1 Social Sciences
A. Porat
{"title":"Changing People’s Preferences by the State and the Law","authors":"A. Porat","doi":"10.1515/til-2021-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In standard economic models, two basic assumptions are made: the first, that actors are rational, and the second, that actors’ preferences are a given and exogenously determined. Behavioral economics — followed by behavioral law and economics — has questioned the first assumption. This Article challenges the second one, arguing that in many instances, social welfare should be enhanced not by maximizing satisfaction of existing preferences but by changing the preferences themselves. The Article identifies seven categories of cases where the traditional objections to intentional preference change by the state and the law lose force and argues that in these cases, such a change warrants serious consideration. It then proposes four different modes of intervention in people’s preferences, varying in intensity, on the one hand, and in the identity of their addressees, on the other, and explains the relative advantages and disadvantages of each form of intervention.","PeriodicalId":39577,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","volume":"17 1","pages":"215 - 246"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Inquiries in Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2021-0022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In standard economic models, two basic assumptions are made: the first, that actors are rational, and the second, that actors’ preferences are a given and exogenously determined. Behavioral economics — followed by behavioral law and economics — has questioned the first assumption. This Article challenges the second one, arguing that in many instances, social welfare should be enhanced not by maximizing satisfaction of existing preferences but by changing the preferences themselves. The Article identifies seven categories of cases where the traditional objections to intentional preference change by the state and the law lose force and argues that in these cases, such a change warrants serious consideration. It then proposes four different modes of intervention in people’s preferences, varying in intensity, on the one hand, and in the identity of their addressees, on the other, and explains the relative advantages and disadvantages of each form of intervention.
通过国家和法律改变人们的偏好
在标准的经济模型中,有两个基本假设:第一,行为者是理性的;第二,行为者的偏好是给定的和外生决定的。行为经济学——随后是行为法学和经济学——对第一个假设提出了质疑。本文对第二种观点提出了挑战,认为在许多情况下,社会福利不应该通过最大化现有偏好的满足来提高,而应该通过改变偏好本身来提高。文章指出,在七种情况下,反对国家和法律有意改变偏好的传统观点失去了效力,并认为在这些情况下,这种改变值得认真考虑。然后,它提出了四种不同的干预人们偏好的模式,一方面在强度上有所不同,另一方面在他们的对象的身份上有所不同,并解释了每种干预形式的相对优势和劣势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Theoretical Inquiries in Law
Theoretical Inquiries in Law Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Theoretical Inquiries in Law is devoted to the application to legal thought of insights developed by diverse disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, economics, history and psychology. The range of legal issues dealt with by the journal is virtually unlimited, subject only to the journal''s commitment to cross-disciplinary fertilization of ideas. We strive to provide a forum for all those interested in looking at law from more than a single theoretical perspective and who share our view that only a multi-disciplinary analysis can provide a comprehensive account of the complex interrelationships between law, society and individuals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信