« Daniel Kahneman on happiness and wealth | Main | Planes to Nowhere »
The economic philosophies of Hillary and Obama
By David Leonardt, here: Obama and his advisors have been more influenced by behavioral economics, Hillary relies more on targeted incentives. This article makes for a very interesting read.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 1, 2008 at 11:47 PM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
But it seems to contradict itself. That is, exhibits Obama contradicting himself, and then praises him for consistency. The argument seems to be:
1. Obama supports opt-out savings programs for good behavioral-economics reasons.
2. Obama supports voluntary (presumably opt-in) healthcare.
3. Therefore, Obama is consistent.
Am I missing something?
Posted by: Matt at Jan 2, 2008 4:56:41 AM
Since this is an article about economics, I wonder where the marginal
thinking is. Both Obama and Clinton want broad changes in health,
education, and savings. Both candidates took the time to talk to me,
and I like both. I can't wait for Thursday night where Iowa will
caucus.
Posted by: Mike Fladlien at Jan 2, 2008 7:23:39 AM
I am puzzled by the view that behavioral economics is somehow left leaning. First, this is not obvious to me as an empirical claim about the politics of those who commit behavioral economics. Second, it is not at all obvious that the policy conclusions, such as they are at this very early stage of the sub-field, that flow out of the existing behavioral literature are particularly left or right, especially once you take the important step of also subjecting government behavior to behavioral analysis.
As always, I do not read the NYT often, but when I do, often via links on this blog, they never really seem to know what they are talking about.
Posted by: Jeff Smith at Jan 2, 2008 8:57:31 AM
I enjoyed the article, and the success of behavioral economics in high places ... but as I wrote at my small blog, I'm put off by the times labeling behavioral economics as "left-leaning."
Maybe a real economist can explain to me how a field that is built on experiment and real-world data can be accused of such a bias.
Posted by: odograph at Jan 2, 2008 10:01:09 AM
I guess it was described as left-leaning because in this particular context it seems to support a left-leaning conclusion (i.e. force everyone into one programme!).
Posted by: johnleemk at Jan 2, 2008 1:12:48 PM
I thought the behavioral aspect was what supported free choice (rather than Clinton's "everybody in"): default in, but allow opt-out.
It's the same freedom as "default out" but relies on status-quo bias to keep people who are wishy-washy in a group which will benefit them. (Presumably people who know this is wrong for them would opt-out.)
Posted by: odograph at Jan 2, 2008 1:22:09 PM
Regarding whether "behavioral economics" is left-leaning or not, this
may partly depend on whether one identifies experimental economics with
it or not. Thus, many experimental economists are quite pro-free market,
with the poster boys for this being the crowd that has been at George Mason
for the last several years, but which is mostly going to pull up stakes and
move to Chapman University, namely the Interdisciplinary Economic Science
group associated with Nobelist Vernon Smith.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Jan 2, 2008 2:33:46 PM
What an awful article; would it have killed the writer to actually illustrate the difference in philosophy by picking a couple of issues and then comparing proposals? If you support 401k plans, apparently the company match part is a "targeted incentive" and the default opt-in part is "behavioral economics." Now since Clinton only supports the former and Obama only supports the latter, it is crystal clear who you should vote for!
Posted by: LN at Jan 2, 2008 3:25:43 PM
"I'm put off by the times labeling behavioral economics as "left-leaning." Maybe a real economist can explain to me how a field that is built on experiment and real-world data can be accused of such a bias."
^^ What he said. I don't think Becker and Thaler would like to hear the "left-leaning" words too much when talking about behavioral economics.
Posted by: Samir Nurmohamed at Jan 2, 2008 9:50:43 PM
Right-wing = "criticizing (much less regulating) credit-card companies is silly because credit-card customers are just rational individuals who are maximizing their utility."
This is why some people might think behavioral economics is left-wing. Thinking people might have subtle views, but I'd be surprised if readers of this blog had never come across reflexive free-market apologists.
Posted by: LN at Jan 3, 2008 5:51:40 AM
提供钢管无缝钢管数据恢复心理咨询心理辅导与心理治疗bjxlzx.cn等服务
Posted by: baom at Feb 9, 2008 1:32:46 AM
