REGULATION FOR CONSERVATIVES: BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS AND THE CASE FOR “ASYMMETRIC PATERNALISM” COLIN CAMERER, SAMUEL ISSACHAROFF, GEORGE LOEWENSTEIN, † TED O’DONOGHUE, AND MATTHEW RABIN INTRODUCTION Regulation by the state can take a variety of forms. Some regulations are aimed entirely at redistribution, such as when we tax the rich and give to the poor. Other regulations seek to counteract externalities by restricting behavior in a way that imposes harm on an individual basis but yields net societal benefits. A good example is taxation to fund public goods such as roads. In such situations, an individual would be better off if she alone were exempt from the tax; she benefits when everyone (including herself) must pay the tax. In this paper, we are concerned with a third form of regulation: paternalistic regulations that are designed to help on an individual basis. Paternalism treads on consumer sovereignty by forcing, or preventing, choices for the individual’s own good, much as when parents limit their child’s freedom to skip school or eat candy for dinner. Recent research in behavioral economics has identified a variety of decision-making errors that may expand the scope of paternalistic regula-

Professor Camerer is the Rea and Lela Axline Professor of Business Economics, California Institute of Technology; Professor Issacharoff is the Harold R. Medina Professor of Procedural Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School; Professor Loewenstein is a Professor of Economics and Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University; Ted O’Donoghue is an Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University; and Professor Rabin is a Professor of Economics, University of California at Berkeley. Our thanks to participants at the University of Pennsylvania Law School Symposium on Preferences and Rational Choice, the University of Southern California Olin Workshop, the Columbia Law School faculty