Suchergebnisse

Paternalism is an attempt to influence individuals' decisions for their own benefit, even if there are no third parties involved. This seems to contradict normative individualism, which provides the general orientation to our modern democracies. Soft or libertarian paternalism accepts the necessity of paternalism due to the existence of behavioural anomalies, but intends to apply only such measures that do not restrict the decision leeway of individuals. Nevertheless, the same objections that can be raised against its strong version can also be raised against soft paternalism. On the other hand, as soon as we accept that human beings are able to reflect not only about their actions but also about the preferences guiding their actions, there is no longer a necessary contradiction between paternalism and normative individualism. As far as we know today, the possibilities to successfully apply soft paternalistic measures are rather limited. On the other hand, while some criticisms of it are justified, others largely overshoot the mark and seem to be at least partly ideologically motivated.

Paternalism is an attempt to influence individuals' decisions for their own benefit, even if there are no third parties involved. This seems to contradict normative individualism, which provides the general orientation to our modern democracies. Soft or libertarian paternalism accepts the necessity of paternalism due to the existence of behavioural anomalies, but intends to apply only such measures that do not restrict the decision leeway of individuals. Nevertheless, the same objections that can be raised against its strong version can also be raised against soft paternalism. On the other hand, as soon as we accept that human beings are able to reflect not only about their actions but also about the preferences guiding their actions, there is no longer a necessary contradiction between paternalism and normative individualism. As far as we know today, the possibilities to successfully apply soft paternalistic measures are rather limited. On the other hand, while some criticisms of it are justified, others largely overshoot the mark and seem to be at least partly ideologically motivated.

SummaryUsing a framework that distinguishes short‐term consumer preferences, individual reflective preferences and political preferences, we discuss from a constitutional economics perspective whether individuals find it in their common constitutional interest to endow representatives and bureaucrats with the competence to impose soft paternalist policies. The focus is specifically on soft paternalist policies, because these often work with non‐transparent "nudges" that are considered as manipulative in some contributions to the literature. We show that those soft paternalist policies that are manipulative indeed collide with three criteria of consumer sovereignty, reflective sovereignty, and citizen sovereignty that can be argued to represent common constitutional interest of citizens. On the other hand, we argue that the set of paternalist policies that is deemed acceptable on the constitutional level is restricted to non‐manipulative instruments, and their application as government policies is limited to cases with stable and very homogenous preferences. However, we also argue that competitive markets are capable of supplying many mechanisms that allow individuals to cope with problems in their decision‐making processes on a private level.

Using a framework that distinguishes short-term consumer preferences, individual reflective preferences and political preferences, we discuss from a constitutional economics perspective whether individuals find it in their common constitutional interest to endow representatives and bureaucrats with the competence to impose soft paternalist policies. The focus is specifically on soft paternalist policies, because these often work with non-transparent 'nudges' that are considered as manipulative in some contributions to the literature. We show that those soft paternalist policies that are manipulative indeed collide with three criteria of consumer sovereignty, reflective sovereignty and citizen sovereignty that can be argued to represent common constitutional interest of citizens. On the other hand, we argue that the set of paternalist policies that is deemed acceptable on the constitutional level is restricted to non-manipulative instruments, and their application as government policies is limited to cases with stable and very homogenous preferences. However, we also argue that competitive markets are capable of supplying many mechanisms that allow individuals to cope with problems in their decision-making processes on a private level. ; In diesem Papier wird untersucht, ob und in welchem Umfang paternalistische politische Maßnahmen gerechtfertigt werden können, sofern diese nicht mit klaren Regeln arbeiten, sondern Schwachpunkte individueller Entscheidungsprozesse nutzen, wie sie aus der Verhaltensökonomik bekannt sind. Die zur Beurteilung herangezogenen Kriterien sind aus der verfassungsökonomischen Theorie abgeleitet. Im Ergebnis zeigt sich, dass der sogenannte 'weiche' Paternalismus nur in sehr seltenen Fällen verallgemeinerbaren Interessen der Bürger entspricht, nämlich dann, wenn seine Instrumente vollständig transparent und nicht manipulativ sind, sowie die Entscheidungsautonomie des Einzelnen gewahrt bleibt.

This paper discusses soft (or libertarian) paternalism, as proposed among others by Thaler and Sunstein (2008). It is argued that soft paternalism should not be understood as an efficiency-enhancing, but as a redistributive concept. The relationship between soft paternalism and social norms is discussed in detail. In particular, it is argued that soft paternalism increases the stability of given social norms, which in turn need not be efficient, nor in the material self-interest of a majority of individuals. Soft paternalism is argued to be an essentially conservative concept of policy-making in the sense that it tends to increase the longevity of status quo social norms. [Copyright Elsevier B.V.]

[EN] Privacy Risk in Online Social Networks (OSNs) is one of the main concerns that has increased in the last few years. Even though social network applications provide mechanisms to control risk, teenagers are not often aware of the privacy risks of disclosing information in online social networks. The privacy decision-making process is complex and users often do not have full knowledge and enough time to evaluate all potential scenarios. They do not consider the audience that will have access to disclosed information or the risk if the information continues to spread and reaches an unexpected audience. To deal with these issues, we propose two soft-paternalism mechanisms that provide information to the user about the privacy risk of publishing information on a social network. That privacy risk is based on a complex privacy metric. To evaluate the mechanisms, we performed an experiment with 42 teenagers. The proposed mechanisms were included in a social network called Pesedia. The results show that there are significant differences in teenagers¿ behaviors towards better privacy practices when the mechanisms are included in the network. ; This work is partially supported by the Spanish Government project TIN2017-89156-R and the FPI grant BES-2015-074498. ; Alemany-Bordera, J.; Del Val Noguera, E.; Alberola Oltra, JM.; García-Fornes, A. (2019). Enhancing the privacy risk awareness of teenagers in online social networks through soft-paternalism mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 129:27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.008 ; S ; 27 ; 40 ; 129

27 40 129 ; S ; [EN] Privacy Risk in Online Social Networks (OSNs) is one of the main concerns that has increased in the last few years. Even though social network applications provide mechanisms to control risk, teenagers are not often aware of the privacy risks of disclosing information in online social networks. The privacy decision-making process is complex and users often do not have full knowledge and enough time to evaluate all potential scenarios. They do not consider the audience that will have access to disclosed information or the risk if the information continues to spread and reaches an unexpected audience. To deal with these issues, we propose two soft-paternalism mechanisms that provide information to the user about the privacy risk of publishing information on a social network. That privacy risk is based on a complex privacy metric. To evaluate the mechanisms, we performed an experiment with 42 teenagers. The proposed mechanisms were included in a social network called Pesedia. The results show that there are significant differences in teenagers¿ behaviors towards better privacy practices when the mechanisms are included in the network. This work is partially supported by the Spanish Government project TIN2017-89156-R and the FPI grant BES-2015-074498. Alemany-Bordera, J.; Del Val Noguera, E.; Alberola Oltra, JM.; García-Fornes, A. (2019). Enhancing the privacy risk awareness of teenagers in online social networks through soft-paternalism mechanisms. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 129:27-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.03.008

"Paternalism" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract
Living in an era of technological innovations, we must understand and trust them to benefit from these new technologies. In this context, paternalism is renewed as the so-called "soft-" or "Libertarian paternalism". How can we face it and ensure freedom in the vortex of wellmeaning advice and persuasion? This paper will discuss 1. the characteristics of freedom since the 18th century from the perspective of the Enlightenment discourse in Germany by Mendelssohn and Kant, 2. the conditions for freedom in the contemporary age of accelerating technological innovation, and 3. from trans-modernism, rethinking the dichotomy between otherness and autonomy, coercion and freedom, by the idea of 融通無碍 Yuzu-Muge, tactfulness in 華厳学 Hua-Yan Philosophy.