voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2013-10-28-46voprecotest-579Research ArticleВОПРОСЫ ТЕОРИИISSUES OF THEORYПоведенческая экономика и «новый» патернализм. Часть IIBehavioral Economics and New Paternalism (Part II)КапелюшниковР. И.KapeliushnikovR.

д. э. н., главный научный сотрудник ИМЭМО РАН, замдиректора Центра трудовых исследований НИУ ВШЭ (Москва)

rostis@hse.ruИМЭМО РАН; НИУ ВШЭ (Москва)РоссияInstitute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia); Centre for Labour Market Studies, National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow, Russia)Russian Federation2013201020130102846Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20132013Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/579

Работа посвящена критическому анализу нормативной программы поведенческой экономики, известной под названием «нового» патернализма. Во второй части работы обсуждаются основные эмпирические и концептуальные недостатки этого подхода, а также приводятся аргументы в защиту альтернативной нормативной традиции, основывающейся не на идее благосостояния, а на идее свободы.

The paper provides a critical appraisal of the normative program of behavioral economics known as new paternalism. Part II of the paper discusses main empirical and conceptual drawbacks of this approach and provides arguments for the alternative non-welfarist normative tradition based on the idea of freedom.

поведенческая экономикаэкономика благосостоянияновый патернализмнормативный анализbehavioral economicswelfare economicsnew paternalismnormative analysisReferencesХайек Ф. А. (2000). Индивидуализм и экономический порядок. М.: ИзографHayek F. (2000). Individualism and Economic Order. Moscow: Izograf.Berg N., Gigerenzer G. (2010). As-if Behavioral Economics: Neoclassical Economics in Disguise? // History of Economic Ideas. Vol. 18, No 2. P. 133—166.Berg N., Gigerenzer G. (2010). As-if Behavioral Economics: Neoclassical Economics in Disguise? // History of Economic Ideas. Vol. 18, No 2. P. 133—166.Boettke P., Caceres W. Z., Martin A. (2013). Error Is Obvious, Coordination Is the Puzzle // Hayek and Behavioral Economics / R. Frantz, R. Leeson (eds.). L.: Palgrave Macmillan.Boettke P., Caceres W. Z., Martin A. (2013). Error Is Obvious, Coordination Is the Puzzle // Hayek and Behavioral Economics / R. Frantz, R. Leeson (eds.). L.: Palgrave Macmillan.Camerer C., Issacharoff S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. (2003). Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism” // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 151, No 1. P. 1211—1254.Camerer C., Issacharoff S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T., Rabin M. (2003). Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the Case for “Asymmetric Paternalism” // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Vol. 151, No 1. P. 1211—1254.Glaeser E. L. (2004). Psychology and the Market // American Economic Review. Vol. 94, No 2. P. 408—413.Glaeser E. L. (2004). Psychology and the Market // American Economic Review. Vol. 94, No 2. P. 408—413.Grüne-Yanoff T. (2012). Old Wine in New Casks: Libertarian Paternalism Still Violates Liberal Principles // Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 38, No 4. P. 635—645.Grüne-Yanoff T. (2012). Old Wine in New Casks: Libertarian Paternalism Still Violates Liberal Principles // Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 38, No 4. P. 635—645.Harsanyi J. (1982). Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour // Utilitarianism and Beyond / A. Sen, B. Williams (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 39—62.Harsanyi J. (1982). Morality and the Theory of Rational Behaviour // Utilitarianism and Beyond / A. Sen, B. Williams (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 39—62.Jolls C., Sunstein C. R. (2006). Debiasing through Law // The Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 35, No 1. P. 199—242.Jolls C., Sunstein C. R. (2006). Debiasing through Law // The Journal of Legal Studies. Vol. 35, No 1. P. 199—242.Knetsch J. L. (1989). The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves // American Economic Review. Vol. 79, No 5. P. 1277—1184.Knetsch J. L. (1989). The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves // American Economic Review. Vol. 79, No 5. P. 1277—1184.Leonard T. C. (2008). Review of “Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” // Constitutional Political Economy. Vol. 19, No 4. P. 356—360.Leonard T. C. (2008). Review of “Richard H. Thaler, Cass R. Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness” // Constitutional Political Economy. Vol. 19, No 4. P. 356—360.Levitt S. D., List J. A. (2007). Viewpoint: On the Generalizability of Lab Behavior to the Field // Canadian Journal of Economics. Vol. 40, No 2. P. 347—370.Levitt S. D., List J. A. (2007). Viewpoint: On the Generalizability of Lab Behavior to the Field // Canadian Journal of Economics. Vol. 40, No 2. P. 347—370.McQuillin B., Sugden R. (2012). Reconciling Normative and Behavioural Economics: The Problem to Be Solved // Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 38, No 4. P. 553—567.McQuillin B., Sugden R. (2012). Reconciling Normative and Behavioural Economics: The Problem to Be Solved // Social Choice and Welfare. Vol. 38, No 4. P. 553—567.Plott Ch. R., Zeiler K. (2007). Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory? // American Economic Review. Vol. 97, No 4. P. 1449—1466.Plott Ch. R., Zeiler K. (2007). Exchange Asymmetries Incorrectly Interpreted as Evidence of Endowment Effect Theory and Prospect Theory? // American Economic Review. Vol. 97, No 4. P. 1449—1466.Plott Ch. R., Zeiler K. (2011). The Willingness to Pay — Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect”, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Reply // American Economic Review. Vol. 101, No 4. P. 1449—1466.Plott Ch. R., Zeiler K. (2011). The Willingness to Pay — Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect”, Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations: Reply // American Economic Review. Vol. 101, No 4. P. 1449—1466.Rizzo M. J., Whitman D. G. (2009). The Knowledge Problem of the New Paternalism // Brigham Young University Law Review. No 4. P. 905—968.Rizzo M. J., Whitman D. G. (2009). The Knowledge Problem of the New Paternalism // Brigham Young University Law Review. No 4. P. 905—968.Saint-Paul J. (2011). The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Role of Paternalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Saint-Paul J. (2011). The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Role of Paternalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Sunstein C., Thaler R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron // University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 70, No 4. P. 1159—1202.Sunstein C., Thaler R. (2003). Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron // University of Chicago Law Review. Vol. 70, No 4. P. 1159—1202.Thaler R. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice // Marketing Science. Vol. 4, No 1. P. 199—214.Thaler R. (1985). Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice // Marketing Science. Vol. 4, No 1. P. 199—214.Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Waldfogel J. (2005). Does Consumer Irrationality Trump Consumer Sovereignty? // The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 87, No 4. P. 691—696.Waldfogel J. (2005). Does Consumer Irrationality Trump Consumer Sovereignty? // The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 87, No 4. P. 691—696.Wright D. J., Ginsburg D. H. (2012). Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Its Fatal Flaws, and Its Implications for Liberty // Northwestern University Law Review. Vol. 106, No 3. P. 1—106.Wright D. J., Ginsburg D. H. (2012). Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Its Fatal Flaws, and Its Implications for Liberty // Northwestern University Law Review. Vol. 106, No 3. P. 1—106.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.