Two headlines are making the rounds in the media: New York City ban on trans fats effective July 2008; and the state of Texas mandates, beginning in September 2008, that girls entering the six grade – girls age 11 and 12 – will have to be vaccinated against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.
The two issues although differ in terms of their effects on the health of the intended subject, both reek of the smell of paternalism. What is wrong with paternalistic legislations? In the first case, the ban on trans fats protect us from artery-clogging artificial trans fats, helps fight “obesity”, cut down on the time and the cost of dieting, going to the gym, visits to weight watchers clinics, and so on. Just like “Popeye” telling kids to eat spinach to build their strength and mothers telling their kids to eat their vegetables, the government is telling us not to eat food cooked in trans fats. Both at the private and public level, the intent appears to be the same – to protect us from ourselves. What is wrong with that? I will address the question later.
The second case, mandating girls 11/12 years old to be vaccinated against cervical cancer, although at the outset appears to be no more no less than mandating school-age children to be vaccinated against chickenpox, typhoid, whooping cough, the acts are not one and the same. The mandate in the cancer vaccine case is predicated on the assumption that teen age girls need to be protected from themselves – cervical cancer is a sexually transmitted disease, whereas in the second case no such protection is the justification for the vaccine.
The debate in media, print, the airway and on the internet, provide us with the opportunity to look closely at ourselves in relation to our government.
Economists, like people in other walks of life, have entered into the debate for they do have a stake in the outcome. The concern goes beyond a debate over whether a ban on trans fats or a vaccine against cervical cancer promote good health, but it goes to the heart of what the economic discipline is all about. Put differently: is the individual rational? Is the individual choice optimal? Economists are not all of one mind. Some of us are libertarian, championing free choice and individual responsibility, others are somewhat paternalistic who have and continue to argue that the individual may not always make choices that are in his/her best interest.
The ban on trans fats and the vaccine mandate could not have come at a better time for our profession. Economists have long maintained that government intervention that falls under the heading of “paternalistic” intervention is justified when “externalities” or third party effects are present. Cases like banning smoking in buildings is for the protection of non-smokers once it was established that second-hand smoking affects the health of non-smokers. In this and other third-party effect cases, economists argued that government involvement may be called for in situations where the party to the act does not bear the full costs associated with the action. Even there economists, notably Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase, find the government case weak when the possibility of bargaining between the parties involved is possible.
Third-party effect is not present in either the trans fats or the cancer vaccine cases. Not everyone will agree with this assessment. The argument will be advanced that obesity has a third-party effect. It imposes cost on society in terms of “national image”, crowding out in the delivery of health care, and misallocation of the economy resources. Likewise in the case of cervical cancer, the third-party effect can be measured by the cost to society for the loss of life of young girls and the resources that need to be allocated for the afflicted individuals.
The third-party argument, whether or not one accepts it, does not fall under the “paternalistic” ideology. Paternalism is predicated on the assumption that someone else knows what is best for you. That someone may be your mother or father or “big brother”. For parent to mandate that their children eat vegetable or abstain from performing a certain activity they have to back their act by coercion when persuasion fails (which most often does). Paternalism, in the form of a ban or mandate, carry with it coercion. This is the question that ought to be at the heart of the debate.
A new generation of economists has put forth the proposition that paternalistic intervention by governments or other institutions are needed to correct problems of self control. Paternalism is advocated by this group with or without coercion and independently of whether or not self control problems give rise to third-party effects.
Individuals are said to exhibit “bounded rationality”, “lack of self control”, do not always act in their best interest and the faster the profession acknowledge this, the better we should be able to accept paternalistic intervention, whether that be asymmetric, optimal or libertarian.
The jury is still out on which of these views will end up in main stream economics. For my part, I cannot dismiss entirely the notion of paternalism. As a mother I often dictated for my daughter rules that have to live by. For me, on behalf of my daughter and myself, I do not accept paternalistic intervention by the state that overrides choices I make for myself or for my child, given that such choices do not infringe on the choices of others or place costs (deprive others from the benefits) on them because of my action or lack of action.
In banning trans fats and mandating vaccines we seem to have forgotten individual and parents’ responsibility.
For those of us who argue for freedom of choice we by no mean overlook the fact that freedom has a price. That price is the responsibility of the act that we have chosen. If the individual lacks self control, he/she is undoubtly not free. Mandates and bans, paternalistic or not, will not restore his/her freedom. What we should be worrying about is how to enhance and not to curtail the freedom of those who are not fortunate enough to be able to exercise it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A Response to “Mandates and Bans: Is It Paternalism or “Petty Tyranny?”
Bonnie Orcutt, Ph.D. Worcester State College
The debate about paternalistic behavior seems to be one about degree – one about what is acceptable paternalistic action and when has the paternalistic agent crossed the line infringing on the individual’s freedom of choice. How do we ascertain when individual choices are not welfare maximizing, are a result of an individual’s lack of self-control and require paternalistic intervention? How are we to judge an individual’s choice as irrational?
And, the case of children is one where the lack of paternalistic behavior may go as far as to be viewed as parental neglect. But, at what point does paternalistic behavior create dependency?
Similarly, at what point should a paternalistic government abandon that role and allow citizens the right to choose and bear the costs of those choices?
As noted by Dr. Ott, mandates and laws do not restore freedom any more than the absence of mandates and laws bestow freedom. Bans on actions do not allow individuals to move beyond bounded rationality. They do not alter the way in which individuals assess the benefits and costs of choices. They do not develop self-control – if that is the desired goal. Given access to information and the education needed to allow the information to be incorporated into the decision-making process, the individual may on his/her own be equipped to make choices that are indeed rational. Individuals with an understanding of the welfare losses resulting from an inability to demonstrate self-control have the freedom of choice to seek external controls or the freedom of choice to suffer losses in welfare. That being their right.
Post a Comment