The article in the url below is a critical review of a new book (titled On Freedom) by Cass Sunstein, most famously of the "nudge" phenomenon. The author of the review begins with an overview of "what is means for people to be free." Presenting a balance between the liberty we require to pursue our self-interest (however we define that), with the (most obviously legal) constraints necessary to ensure one person's pursuit of their self-interest does not unnecessarily harm or limit anyone else's pursuit of their self-interest:
"No one thinks that any coherent notion of liberty lets everyone do just what they want, the rest of the world be damned. …. Even in a free society, [the] basic rules of the game have to be defined and imposed collectively. But there are limits. To echo the famous words of John Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty,' it won't do to say baldly that no individual is allowed to do any act that harms another. By that measure, market competition would need to end, because it harms losing competitors."
OK, so far so good. The author (of the review) then goes on to critique Sunstein for, first, not covering this basic overview, but also for the content he does focus on. In essence, Sunstein suggests that, if 'freedom' requires free choice, then what happens if there is too much choice? The answer, he argues, is that many "individuals lose their way," which, ultimately, means they are less free. In short, too much freedom leads to too much choice, which leads to decision-making paralysis (i.e., reduced freedom). In response, he offers his framework of "navigability," which relies on "nudges" and "choice architecture" to find their way out of this circular trap of the modern world:
"By nudges, Mr. Sunstein means interventions that supposedly leave individuals freedom of choice but subtly steer them in certain desirable directions. … Mr. Sunstein's notion of 'choice architecture' [is defined] loosely as 'the environment in which choices are made.'"
This brings us to the reviewer's central criticism – that it is all well and good saying that people can be lightly coerced into making the 'correct' choices, but who is to say what is correct? And, perhaps more importantly from the reviewer's perspective, how can we stop someone using such influence over others for Machiavellian ends?
"But which social planners should be allowed to play the role of shaping that environment and how long can they keep that role? What institutional norms and safeguards will protect everyone else against these overseers' own cognitive impairments, ideological blind spots or corrupt motivations? Mr. Sunstein never tells us who is fit to correct the mistakes of others."
Ignoring the obvious point that politicians get elected to make such political/social/ethical choices for us all the time, I think this point is important because it applies to much of what I see as wrong with the mainstream CSR debate. Much of that debate is conducted in absolute terms – i.e., firms must pay their employees $15 an hour, or they must stop using sweatshop labor, or they must not pollute, etc. Such absolute statements ignore the fact that many parts of society (if not the majority) like cheap hamburgers, love to shop for $5 t-shirts, and don't mind pollution (as long as it is not in their backyard or they can't see it). We cannot ignore basic economic theory or human psychology in analyzing the problem and before we start suggesting solutions. To do so is to waste everyone's time. In critiquing Sunstein, therefore, the reviewer is also critiquing much of what passes for debate in the CSR world. More importantly, however, he is missing the obvious answer – that we all have individual values and agendas and are pursuing them in a vast marketplace of ideas. The 'winners' of those debates (whether politicians or academics writing textbooks) are exactly the people who get to define the 'solutions' that society attempts to implement. And, as with many aspects of life, the competition is not meritocratic. In other words, the 'best' idea is defined by the person who is the most persuasive, or best connected, or simply the luckiest in terms of timing – not necessarily the one that would benefit the most people or lead to the 'best' society (whatever that means).
Take care
David
Instructor Teaching and Student Study Site: https://study.sagepub.com/chandler4e
Strategic CSR Simulation: http://www.strategiccsrsim.com/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: https://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Nudged to be free
By Richard A. Epstein
February 28, 2019
The Wall Street Journal
Late Edition – Final
A15
