Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.
In Bootleggers & Baptists: How Economic Forces and Moral Persuasion Interact to Shape Regulatory Politics, economists Bruce Yandle and Adam Smith explain how money and morality are often combined in politics to produce arbitrary regulations benefiting cronies, while constraining productive economic activities by the general public.
Featuring Steve Simpson,
Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice;
Dick Carpenter, Director of Strategic Research, Institute for Justice;
Associate Director for Policy, Campaign Finance Institute; and
Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute.
Most people support campaign finance disclosure laws–that is, laws that require contributors to political campaigns to disclose to the government and the public their identities, addresses, and, in some cases, employers. According to proponents, disclosure laws combat corruption by exposing campaign contributions to the light of day, and they provide information that assists voters in deciding how to vote. Research supporting these claims is sparse, however, and few studies have considered the impact of disclosure laws on rights to free speech, association, and privacy. At this event, the Institute for Justice will release a new study that examines disclosure laws as they apply to ballot issue campaigns. The results seriously undermine the assumption that forced disclosure contributes to a more informed electorate and underscore the adverse impact of disclosure laws on individual rights.