Reading Comprehension Quiz
19 questions · no time limit
0:00
DETAILS AND ROLES
Question 1 of 19
No time limit
Current
Answered
Flagged
Not seen
PASSAGE
In recent years, policymakers have increasingly relied on "behavioral" interventions—such as default enrollment, simplified forms, and targeted reminders—to increase participation in public programs. Advocates argue that these measures respond to predictable features of human decision making, including inattention and procrastination, and thus can improve welfare without restricting choice. Critics reply that such interventions may obscure genuine disagreement about policy goals by presenting contested outcomes as if they were merely technical problems of implementation.
A central point of contention concerns the status of the "default." When a retirement plan automatically enrolls employees unless they opt out, the state (or employer) is not simply offering a menu of options; it is selecting one option as the starting point. Defenders of defaults emphasize that some starting point is unavoidable, since forms must be designed and choices must be organized. In their view, the relevant question is not whether to have a default but which default best tracks participants' own long-run preferences.
Skeptics counter that the inevitability of some starting point does not justify treating any particular default as neutral. They note that defaults may be chosen for administrative convenience, fiscal savings, or political palatability rather than for fidelity to participants' values. Moreover, even if many individuals later endorse the outcome produced by a default, that endorsement may reflect adaptation to a decision already made rather than an independent judgment. Still, the skeptics' objection is not that defaults are always illegitimate; it is that the justificatory burden should be higher when the default is likely to be sticky and the costs of opting out are unevenly distributed.
A more productive evaluation, therefore, examines the conditions under which behavioral interventions approximate, rather than replace, deliberative choice. Interventions that reduce informational barriers, make opt-out procedures symmetrical, and disclose the rationale for the default can be defended as facilitating agency. By contrast, interventions that exploit confusion or conceal tradeoffs risk converting a tool for assistance into a mechanism of quiet coercion. The debate is thus less about whether "nudges" can ever be acceptable than about the institutional safeguards that determine what, and whose, preferences the nudge ultimately serves.
The primary function of the third paragraph is to
YOUR PROGRESS
19
QUESTIONS
Ready when you are
Answer in any order. Your progress shows here as you go.
QUESTIONS
KEYBOARD
Pick an answer ABCDE
Next question ↵→
Previous ←
Flag for review F
Answers save as you go · flagged questions come back at the end