Support for government paternalism in a comparative perspective: Similar patterns, different intensity.

When do individuals prefer coercive paternalism over its non-coercive alternative – nudges? Government paternalism refers to policies that intervene in the individuals’ private sphere and aim to prevent them from inflicting self-harm (as opposed to inflicting harm to others). Theorists and policymakers debate whether the government should use more or less coercive policy tools to promote desired social ends, especially those concerning the private sphere. Examples of such policies include tobacco, alcohol and sugar taxes, mandatory retirement saving, and anti-abortion laws. The global pandemic also highlighted this debate, which peaked recently over the introduction of vaccine mandates (e.g., in the U.S. and Austria). Indeed, coercive paternalistic policies are prevalent in contemporary public policy, although it is commonly considered that citizens prefer less coercion from their government, and therefore non-coercive policies should enjoy more support than coercive measures. In this experimental and comparative study, I examine to what extent and under what circumstances people are willing to accept government paternalism. Particularly, which of the two approaches to paternalism - coercive or non-coercive - do people prefer the government would use, given the choice? I developed a theoretical framework which seeks to explain public support for government paternalism based on the interaction between the coercion level and policy domain in question. Using an original online experiment administered in Israel the U.S., I test the effect of this interaction on public support. In line with my theoretical expectations, in both countries coercive policies dominate nudges in domains that relate to basic needs (e.g., safety and health), while non-coercive policies are generally preferred in domains such as welfare and morals. Whereas patterns of support are strikingly similar in these two countries which are very different from one another culturally, culture seems to shape the intensity of support. In both Israel and the U.S. the majority of respondents supports coercive paternalism, however Israelis’ support was much higher, especially for bans and mandates. The results suggest that culture sets the base level of support for paternalism, but the patterns of support may be generalized across cultures. Being the “hardest” in terms of support for paternalism, the U.S. case suggests that global support for coercive paternalism which promotes safety and health is potentially very broad.