King's College London

Policymakers and economists alike have focused on the role of nudges to encourage individuals to adopt behaviours that would be both better for them and for society as a whole.

Indeed, some nudges, such as changing the default for organ donations, have shown promise. But they have also led to ethical debates. A central issue for some scholars is the deliberate nature of nudging, which makes it incompatible with liberal democratic values of transparency and individual autonomy, as nudges are viewed as manipulating people, exploiting their cognitive biases to steer decisions.

Some fear the use of nudging may lead to more coercive means of control, a form of ‘psychological state’.

In this essay, MARINA BARATS (MA International Political Economy) argues that, while nudges are an effective policy tool, the small behavioural changes they elicit can only achieve a fraction of what conventional policy tools can, particularly, in the environmental domain, as they may divert focus from conventional policy and even crowd out support for it. Therefore, policymakers should be mindful of the potential ‘crowding out effect’ of green nudges on conventional environmental policy support and should evaluate their effectiveness as a policy package aimed at a common goal, rather than individually.