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 Peter Dixon, Principal Researcher, Centre of Policy Studies,
Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University (Australia); and Daniel Griswold, Director, Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute.
As Congress prepares to tackle immigration reform, a new study from the Cato Institute estimates that the difference in the impact on U.S. households between the most and least restrictive policies would be about a quarter of a trillion dollars. Using a model of the U.S. economy developed for the Department of Homeland Security and other U.S. agencies, economists Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer conclude that increased restriction of illegal immigration would cost U.S. households $80 billion a year, while legalization through a temporary visa program would raise incomes by $180 billion. Professor Dixon will explain the findings and answer questions about the methodology of the study, and Cato scholar Daniel Griswold will share the results of his new study on immigration and the underclass.