{"title":"为什么有些理论不被认可,而另一些却很成功?马斯格雷夫的《值得表扬的家长制》和塞勒的《自由意志家长制》","authors":"A. Rubinstein","doi":"10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article considers two theories that are half a century apart from each other, justifying state intervention in market relations – Richard Musgrave's «Theory of Meritorious Goods» and Richard Thaler's «Libertarian Paternalism». Within the framework of a comparative methodological study, the sources and prerequisites of these theoretical constructions, the design of state intervention characteristic of each of them, as well as criticism of the meritorious and libertarian paternalism, are discussed. The thesis that both theories are based on the same initial assumptions is substantiated, they assume the same goals of state intervention and the conclusion is formulated – in these theories there is more in common than different. They are distinguished only by the institutional design of «pushing»: in one case, it is about creating economic incentives for the right individual choice, in the other – the manipulation of the «default option», which uses an arsenal of psychological tools. It is shown that with all the novelty, «new paternalism» is, in fact, a «new meritorics», based not only on the assumption of irrationality of individuals, but its psychological explanation, created by behavioral economists and which has become part of the mainstream, which determines the answer to the question of article. At the same time, this answer does not create a holistic picture, and the negative connotation of paternalism is still preserved in economic science. The article formulates an additional consideration, revealing another side of the success of libertarian paternalism: the «language game», inherent in Musgrave’s theory was outdated in the early 1950s, and, therefore, this theory was among the «forgotten» ones, and the concept of Thaler and his colleagues corresponds to the new «language game», the key elements of which are the word «liberalism» and speech constructions, corresponding to the modern language and terminology of the mainstream of economic theory.","PeriodicalId":37657,"journal":{"name":"HSE Economic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Are Some Theories Not Recognized, While Others Are Succesful? «Meritorious Paternalism» of R. Musgrave and «Libertarian Paternalism» of R. Thaler\",\"authors\":\"A. Rubinstein\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article considers two theories that are half a century apart from each other, justifying state intervention in market relations – Richard Musgrave's «Theory of Meritorious Goods» and Richard Thaler's «Libertarian Paternalism». Within the framework of a comparative methodological study, the sources and prerequisites of these theoretical constructions, the design of state intervention characteristic of each of them, as well as criticism of the meritorious and libertarian paternalism, are discussed. The thesis that both theories are based on the same initial assumptions is substantiated, they assume the same goals of state intervention and the conclusion is formulated – in these theories there is more in common than different. They are distinguished only by the institutional design of «pushing»: in one case, it is about creating economic incentives for the right individual choice, in the other – the manipulation of the «default option», which uses an arsenal of psychological tools. It is shown that with all the novelty, «new paternalism» is, in fact, a «new meritorics», based not only on the assumption of irrationality of individuals, but its psychological explanation, created by behavioral economists and which has become part of the mainstream, which determines the answer to the question of article. At the same time, this answer does not create a holistic picture, and the negative connotation of paternalism is still preserved in economic science. The article formulates an additional consideration, revealing another side of the success of libertarian paternalism: the «language game», inherent in Musgrave’s theory was outdated in the early 1950s, and, therefore, this theory was among the «forgotten» ones, and the concept of Thaler and his colleagues corresponds to the new «language game», the key elements of which are the word «liberalism» and speech constructions, corresponding to the modern language and terminology of the mainstream of economic theory.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37657,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HSE Economic Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HSE Economic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HSE Economic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8691-2019-23-3-345-364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why Are Some Theories Not Recognized, While Others Are Succesful? «Meritorious Paternalism» of R. Musgrave and «Libertarian Paternalism» of R. Thaler
The article considers two theories that are half a century apart from each other, justifying state intervention in market relations – Richard Musgrave's «Theory of Meritorious Goods» and Richard Thaler's «Libertarian Paternalism». Within the framework of a comparative methodological study, the sources and prerequisites of these theoretical constructions, the design of state intervention characteristic of each of them, as well as criticism of the meritorious and libertarian paternalism, are discussed. The thesis that both theories are based on the same initial assumptions is substantiated, they assume the same goals of state intervention and the conclusion is formulated – in these theories there is more in common than different. They are distinguished only by the institutional design of «pushing»: in one case, it is about creating economic incentives for the right individual choice, in the other – the manipulation of the «default option», which uses an arsenal of psychological tools. It is shown that with all the novelty, «new paternalism» is, in fact, a «new meritorics», based not only on the assumption of irrationality of individuals, but its psychological explanation, created by behavioral economists and which has become part of the mainstream, which determines the answer to the question of article. At the same time, this answer does not create a holistic picture, and the negative connotation of paternalism is still preserved in economic science. The article formulates an additional consideration, revealing another side of the success of libertarian paternalism: the «language game», inherent in Musgrave’s theory was outdated in the early 1950s, and, therefore, this theory was among the «forgotten» ones, and the concept of Thaler and his colleagues corresponds to the new «language game», the key elements of which are the word «liberalism» and speech constructions, corresponding to the modern language and terminology of the mainstream of economic theory.
HSE Economic JournalEconomics, Econometrics and Finance-Economics, Econometrics and Finance (all)
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍:
The HSE Economic Journal publishes refereed papers both in Russian and English. It has perceived better understanding of the market economy, the Russian one in particular, since being established in 1997. It disseminated new and diverse ideas on economic theory and practice, economic modeling, applied mathematical and statistical methods. Its Editorial Board and Council consist of prominent Russian and foreign researchers whose activity has fostered integration of the world scientific community. The target audience comprises researches, university professors and graduate students. Submitted papers should match JEL classification and can cover country specific or international economic issues, in various areas, such as micro- and macroeconomics, econometrics, economic policy, labor markets, social policy. Apart from supporting high quality economic research and academic discussion the Editorial Board sees its mission in searching for the new authors with original ideas. The journal follows international reviewing practices – at present submitted papers are subject to single blind review of two reviewers. The journal stands for meeting the highest standards of publication ethics.