Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism¶
Sugden, R. (2008). Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(3), 226-248.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Mandatory vs. Default Norms
- This creates a long-running normative dispute: Conly (2013) argues that systematic cognitive limitations justify "coercive paternalism" that overrides consensual choices for the chooser's own good, while Hausman and Welch (2010) and Sugden (2008) counter that even soft, default-based nudges raise serious autonomy concerns and that incoherent or mutable preferences do not, by themselves, license third-party override.
This sourceArgues that the empirical fact that individual preferences are often incoherent or context-dependent does not, by itself, license third-party override of consensual choice; an autonomy-respecting framework must be built on something other than preference-coherence assumptions.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Sugden's own abstract contests the inference from incoherent preferences to paternalism, holding that a non-paternalistic principle of mutual advantage does not require coherent preferences.
“This paper reviews and contests these arguments. It argues that markets operate according to a normatively defensible and non-paternalistic principle of mutual advantage, and that this principle does not require preferences to be coherent.”
- This creates a long-running normative dispute: Conly (2013) argues that systematic cognitive limitations justify "coercive paternalism" that overrides consensual choices for the chooser's own good, while Hausman and Welch (2010) and Sugden (2008) counter that even soft, default-based nudges raise serious autonomy concerns and that incoherent or mutable preferences do not, by themselves, license third-party override.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c21c569b0d66 · see in the full table