I find the concepts of Nudge / CA extremely useful. They provide a simple, jargon-free introduction to the ideas of behavioural psychology. Indeed Cass Suntein and Richard Thaler present a wonderful argument for using Nudge in a number of situations.
To go back to first principles a Nudge is (according to Thaler and Sunstein):
“[...] any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid.”Before I get into my main point I want you to re-read that definition and then consider some of things being discussed as Nudges. Mayor Bloomberg has been called a Nudger, The Future Economist rightfully points out that a Nudger may not know what is best but nonetheless fails to acknowledge that a Nudge should leave room for alternative behaviour. New Scientist misses the mark completely and The Guardian merely uses it as a platform to bash The Conservative party.
What these varies sources all miss is that a) a Nudge is not about forcing people to do what you want them to, b) it's not about banning or even regulation and c) it isn't the exclusive domain of governments.
Let's look at each of these issues in turn.
First of all Nudge is not about forcing people to do what you want. Mayor Bloomberg banning soda or slowing lifts is just not a good example of a Nudge. It's an example of a paternalist. No, in fact the definition states categorically that the "opt out" cost of a nudge should be very low. Believe it or not smoking restrictions would not count as Nudges in any sense of the word (more like a great big, well-meaning shove).
Secondly Nudging isn't about banning or regulating; if there is one thing the twentieth century put to rest it's that out-and-out state control just doesn't work. Not just in a broader survival-of-the-country sense but in terms of individual behaviour. Note that 60 years on from the start of the crusade against smoking people still smoke and people still start smoking. As horrible as those pictures are on the side of cartons, as expensive as it has now become and as very real lung cancer is alone those things just don't have the impact we want. So no, a Nudge is not about banning or regulating something (arguments for banning and regulating should be sustained outside of the context of Nudge). A Nudge should only be used to redirect behaviour in a net-positive way for the individual.
Thirdly and finally I think Nudge is done a great disservice by being tied ideologically to governments. Yes Governments can (and should) make use of the benefits associated with Nudge but they are hardly the only benefactors. My own work shows how business and private individuals can benefit monumentally from Nudge theory.
To be honest I get incredibly annoyed with ill-educated commentators assuming anything they dislike being proposed by government can be labelled Nudge. However a second issue I want to address also riles me up no end. This is a more theoretical point but is very important to consider.
Few people these days make any effort to distinguish between political power and economic power. A private business can use economic power to appeal to individuals and Nudge them appropriately. Soft drinks manufacturers, for example, can advertise and promote the refreshing nature of their product, or the variety, or stimulating effect or whatever they wish. They cannot, however, ban you from buying other drinks, nor make it more difficult for you to obtain them, nor in anyway force you to do anything (after all you are still free not to purchase their product). This is what we call economic power. Political power, on the other hand, is the ability to force or coerce. For example a government can simply ban a product it doesn't want you to use, similarly it can mandate the use of another product (for example driving insurance). Similarly it can avoid an outright ban and simply tax something to control consumption (for example fuel / alcohol / tobacco). If the government wishes you to do something it can - at the extreme end - force you to do it on pain of incarceration, we may quip that we are - for example - free to not pay taxes, but try not paying them one time and see what happens.
More often than not - especially in the context of Nudge - these two forms of power are used interchangeably with little consideration. For example one author (whose article I have unfortunately lost...) made a comment about how unfair it was that Pepsi could marshal vast amounts of advertising budget to "make" people buy their product, to level the playing field this author suggested that the Govt. should simply tax and restrict the sale of soft drinks - fair trade, right? Wrong.
The author clearly equates the power of Pepsi to advertise with the power of the Govt. to restrict but note that Pepsi can not do anything but make Pepsi seem appealing - by making it tasty, cheap, widely available etc... whereas the Govt. has to make no such consideration, it simply has to mandate a certain behaviour and through force of punishment use the power of negative reinforcement to get the behavioural result it wants.
Why am I banging on about this? to clarify a point. If you want to talk about Nudge you need to get ideas like "banning", "taxing" and "restricting" out of your head. These are not compatible with Nudge theory. Remember that a private business can only offer you something you want and so Nudge can unlock the potential of a business to help provide better service, higher quality staff care and be generally better for the economy and the consumer base. On the other hand if you are not careful you can easily start promoting ideas like restrictive policy and rationalising it away as merely Nudge when in actuality it's nothing of the sort.
