Nudgital: Critique of Behavioral Political Economy

Authors

  • Julia M. Puaschunder Julia M. Puaschunder Assistant to the Dean The New School The Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis Department of Economics The New School for Social Research 6 East 16th Street, 11th floor, 1129F-99 New York, NY 10003 Julia.Puaschunder@newschool.edu T 001 212 229 5700 4905 M 001 917 929 7038 F 001 212 229 5724 www.juliampuaschunder.com Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Julia.Puaschunder@columbia.edu http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/jmp2265/

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.59.3623

Abstract

Behavioral Economics revolutionized mainstream neo-classical economics.  A wide range of psychological, economic and sociological laboratory and field experiments proved human beings deviating from rational choices as standard neo-classical profit maximization axioms failed to explain how human actually behave.  Human beings rather use heuristics in their day-to-day decision making.  These mental short cuts enable to cope with a complex world yet also often leave individuals biased and falling astray to decision making failures.  What followed was the powerful extension of these behavioral insights for public administration and public policy making.  Behavioral economists proposed to nudge and wink citizens to make better choices for them and the community.  Many different applications of rational coordination followed ranging from improved organ donations, health, wealth and time management, to name a few.  Yet completely undescribed remains that the implicit hidden persuasion opens a gate to deception and is an unprecedented social class division means.  Social media forces are captures as unfolding a class dividing nudgital society, in which the provider of social communication tools can reap surplus value from the information shared of social media users.  The social media provider is outlined as capitalist-industrialist, who benefits from the information shared by social media users, or so-called consumer-workers, who share private information in their wish to interact with friends and communicate to public.  The social media capitalist-industrialist reaps surplus value from the social media consumer-workers’ information sharing, which stems from nudging social media users.  For one, social media space can be sold to marketers who can constantly penetrate the consumer-worker in a subliminal way with advertisements.  But also nudging occurs as the big data compiled about the social media consumer-worker can be resold to marketers and technocrats to draw inferences about consumer choices, contemporary market trends or individual personality cues used for governance control, such as, for instance, border protection and tax compliance purposes.  To draw attention to this implicit struggle within society is important for various reasons:  Addressing the nudgital society allows to better understand the laws of motion of governance in the digital age, leading to the potentially unequal accumulation and concentration of power.  Technological improvement in the age of information has increased the possibilities to control the innocent social media users and reap the benefits of their existence in hidden persuasion.  In the age of populism, nudging can be criticized to be used by the ruling class to exploit the governed populace.  In modern democracies, the right to rule was recently plundered in democratic votes through misguiding information of alternative facts and fake news circulated on social media.  The socio-ethical crises that are rooted in the contradictory class division of the nudgital society are presented in this paper for the first time and from there on demand for further description and research on capitalism and democracy in the digital age.  The paper advocates for a democratisation of information, education about nudges and well-informed distribution of transparent governance control.  

Author Biography

Julia M. Puaschunder, Julia M. Puaschunder Assistant to the Dean The New School The Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis Department of Economics The New School for Social Research 6 East 16th Street, 11th floor, 1129F-99 New York, NY 10003 Julia.Puaschunder@newschool.edu T 001 212 229 5700 4905 M 001 917 929 7038 F 001 212 229 5724 www.juliampuaschunder.com Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Julia.Puaschunder@columbia.edu http://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/jmp2265/

https://juliampuaschunder.com/

References

Akerlof, G. A. (2009). Animal spirits: How human psychology drives the economy, and why it matters for global capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bazerman, M. H. & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Blind spots: Why we fail to do what’s right and what to do about it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bowles, S., Edwards, R. & Roosevelt, F. (2005). Understanding capitalism: Competition, command, and change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Camerer, C. & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Advances in behavioral economics. New York: Russell Sage.

Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for „Asymmetric Paternalism“. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 3, 1211-1254.

Cartwright, E. (2011). Behavioral economics. London: Routledge.

Centeno, M. A., Nag, M., Patterson, T. S., Shaver, A. & Windawi, J. A. (2015). The emergence of global systemic risk. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1-21.

Channel, J. (2017). The Trump effect: Heuristics and electability. Unpublished working paper. The New School: Eugene Lang College and Department of Economics. deRooij, E. A., Green, D. P. & Gerber, A. S. (2009). Field experiments on political behavior and collective action. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 389-395.

Donahue, J. D. & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2011). Collaborative governance: Private roles for public goals in turbulent times. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Camerer, C. & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Advances in behavioral economics. New York: Russell Sage.

Evans, A. M. & Krueger, J. I. (2009). The psychology and economics of trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 6, 1003-1017.

Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk savvy: How to make good decisions. Chapter 1: Are people stupid?. New York: Viking.

Gigerenzer, G. (2016). Towards a rational theory of heuristics. In R. Frantz & L. Marsh (Eds.), Minds, models and milieux: Commemorating the centennial of the birth of Herbert Simon. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heilbroner, R. (1988). Behind the veil of economics: Essays in the worldly philosophy. New York: Norton.

Heilbroner, R. (1999). The worldly philosopher. Chapter 8: The savage society of Thorstein Veblen. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2011). Emotions as moral amplifiers: An appraisal tendency approach to the influences of distinct emotions upon moral judgments. Emotion Review, 3, 237-244.

Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology of behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93, 5, 1449-1475.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Penguin Book.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 2, 263-

Kahneman, D. & Thaler, R. (1991). Economic analysis and the psychology of utility: Applications to compensation policy. American Economic Review, 81, 341-346.

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kurz, H.D. (2016). Zur Politischen Ökonomie des homo mercans: Adam Smith über Märkte. In: Hans-Christoph Schmidt am Busch, Die Philosophie des Marktes: The Philosophy of the Market, pp. 23-48. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

Lerner, J. S., Small, D. A. & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic transactions. Psychological Science, 15, 5, 337-341.

Marglin, S. (1974). What do bosses do? The origins and functions of hierarchy in capitalist production. Review of Radical Political Economics, 6, 60-112.

Marx, K. (1867/1995). Capital: A critique of political economy. Moscow: Progress.

Minsky, H. P. (1977). Banking and a fragile financial environment. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 3, 4, 16-

Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. Journal of European Social Psychology, 18, 3, 211-250.

Paluck, E. L. (2009). What’s in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 594-600.

Puaschunder, J.M. (2010). On corporate and financial social responsibility. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis. University of Vienna, Faculty of Psychology.

Puaschunder, J. M. (2015). On the social representations of intergenerational equity. Oxford Journal of Finance and Risk Perspectives, 4, 4, 78-99.

Puaschunder, J. M. (2016a). Socially Responsible Investment as emergent risk prevention and means to imbue trust in the post-2008/2009 world financial crisis economy. In: O. Lehner (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Social and Sustainable Finance, pp. 222-238, London: Taylor & Francis.

Puaschunder, J. M. (2016b). Trust and reciprocity drive social common goods allocation norms. Proceedings of the Cambridge Business and Economics Conference 2015; Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings.

Roberts, A. S. (2010). The logic of discipline: Global capitalism and the architecture of government. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1949). Economic theory and entrepreneurial history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shaikh, A. (2016). Capitalism: Competition, conflict, crises. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sen, A. (1977). Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6, 4, 317-344.

Simon, H. A. & Bartel, R. D. (1986). The failure of armchair economics. Challenge, 29, 5, 18-25.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 4157, 1124-

Wagner W. & Hayes, N. (2005). Everyday discourse and common-sense: The theory of social representation. New

Puaschunder, J. M. (2017). Nudgital: Critique of Behavioral Political Economy. Archives of Business Research, 5(9), 54-76. York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wagner W., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Mankova, I. & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 1, 95-125.

World Development Report (2015). Mind, society and behavior. Chapter 1 Overview: Human decision making and development policy.

Downloads

Published

2017-09-09

How to Cite

Puaschunder, J. M. (2017). Nudgital: Critique of Behavioral Political Economy. Archives of Business Research, 5(9). https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.59.3623