A collage of images, featuring most prominently a person holding a sign reading "no justice no peace"

Monthly Archive: May 2025

Economics / General / Liberty / Rights

 by 

ARE NUDGES FAILING VULNERABLE POPULATIONS?

In this post, Viviana Ponce de León Solís discusses her article recently published in the Journal of Applied Philosophy on  how nudging interventions can have uneven effects on low-income individuals, potentially worsening inequalities.

Image by Reinhard Dietrich from Wikimedia Commons

Nudges can be powerful tools for influencing behavior, but their impact on vulnerable populations—especially low-socioeconomic status groups (SES)—remains a topic of debate. Research reveals three possible outcomes: these groups may respond more strongly, less strongly, or similarly to nudges compared to the general population. While the type of nudge—cognitive, affective, or behavioral—matters, the real key to success lies in the intervention’s design and its ability to address the unique barriers faced by the target audience. Without careful consideration, “one-size-fits-all” nudges risk deepening inequalities or stigmatizing vulnerable communities.

The rise of nudging: a subtle tool for big change

Nudging, a concept popularized by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, has become a go-to strategy for influencing behavior without restricting choice or altering incentives. By subtly reshaping the “choice architecture”—the context in which decisions are made—nudges aim to promote better outcomes in areas like health, finance, and sustainability. Major institutions like the World Bank, the OECD, and the United Nations have integrated nudging into their policies, recognizing its potential to drive social progress. But as its use expands, a critical question emerges: Are nudges truly equitable, or do they inadvertently favor certain groups over others?

Why one size doesn’t fit all

At its heart, nudging leverages insights from dual process theory and bounded rationality, acknowledging that people often rely on instinctive, automatic thinking rather than careful deliberation. However, this approach assumes a uniform response to nudges, overlooking the diverse ways different groups—especially those from low-SES backgrounds—interact with these interventions. For these individuals, factors like financial stress, cognitive load, and limited resources can significantly shape their responses.

The good, the bad, and the unexpected

Some studies reveal that emotionally driven nudges, such as those appealing to feelings of security or community, or behavior-based nudges like default options (e.g., automatic enrollment in energy-saving programs), often resonate strongly with low-SES groups. These interventions simplify decision-making, easing the mental burden for those facing daily financial pressures. In contrast, cognitively oriented nudges, which rely on information dissemination, tend to fall short. For example, a health app encouraging physical activity might fail to reach individuals with limited access to technology or lower digital literacy. Interestingly, some nudges show no significant difference in effectiveness across SES groups, suggesting that equitable outcomes are possible with the right approach.

Ethical dilemma: are nudges fair?

These varied responses raise important ethical questions. If some nudges disproportionately benefit the privileged, they risk widening existing inequalities. For low-SES individuals, barriers like limited resources or systemic inequities can make it harder to adopt these interventions. Moreover, nudges that focus on behavior change without addressing underlying systemic issues may inadvertently stigmatize vulnerable populations, portraying them as deficient or in need of correction. Even the low cost of nudges can backfire, as financial burdens may fall heaviest on those least able to afford them.

Designing nudges that work for everyone

To overcome these challenges, nudges must be carefully tailored to the realities of low-SES populations. Policymakers need to consider cognitive, material, and social barriers, ensuring interventions are accessible and effective for all. Expanding research to include diverse groups in real-world settings is essential, as it provides deeper insights into how nudges function across different contexts. By grounding nudges in evidence and designing them with inclusivity in mind, we can create interventions that truly empower the people they aim to help.

The future of nudging: inclusive and equitable design

The promise of nudging lies not in universal application but in thoughtful, context-aware design. By recognizing the diverse needs of different social groups and addressing the specific barriers faced by disadvantaged communities, we can craft nudges that are both effective and equitable. Longitudinal studies tracking the long-term impact of nudges, combined with qualitative research exploring the lived experiences of those affected, will be invaluable in refining these interventions.

Conclusion: nudging toward a fairer future

In conclusion, as nudging becomes a cornerstone of policy design, its success will depend on our ability to appreciate and address the diverse needs of all societal groups. By designing nudges with inclusivity and contextual awareness at their core, we can unlock their full potential as a force for positive, equitable change. With a commitment to fairness and evidence-based approaches, nudging can help build a future that is not only more effective but also more just for everyone.

Economics / General / Moral values / Work

 by 

What’s so bad about workism?

In this post, Matthew Hammerton (Singapore Management University) discusses his article recently published in the Journal of Applied Philosophy on the phenomenon and value of people making work the primary source of meaning in their life.

Created with DeepAI

Some people center their life on work. They identify with their job and derive most of their life’s meaning from it. The writer Derek Thompson coined the term ‘workism’ to describe this phenomenon. Other people center their life on family (think of a stay-at-home parent who finds raising children deeply meaningful), a hobby, or something else entirely. Finally, some people don’t center their life on any single thing. Instead, they try to live a well-rounded life, drawing meaning and identity from a plurality of sources.

Are each of these lifestyles reasonable ways to live a life, or are some of them mistakes that lead to less fulfilling lives? In recent years, workism has come under fire and been dismissed as an especially poor life choice. In my article ‘What is wrong with workism?’ I challenge that view and defend workism as a viable way to live a good life. In case you are wondering, I am not a workist myself—I find meaning from a plurality of sources. Still, from a philosophical perspective, I don’t see what’s wrong with some people choosing to center their lives on work.  

Why balance isn’t everything

Many critics of workism reject it on the grounds that living a ‘balanced’ life is inherently better. However, this argument moves too quickly. If hedonism is true, then living an ‘unbalanced’ life is fine—as long as it brings you more pleasure. If preferentialism is true, then living an ‘unbalanced’ life is fine if it better satisfies your preferences.

To really press the objection, we have to appeal to Aristotelian perfectionism—the idea that the good life for humans consists of developing various goods that are fundamental to our nature. Furthermore, we have to appeal to the popular perfectionist idea that it is important to have a balanced mix of these goods. According to this view, we should avoid living a lopsided life that overemphasizes one good while neglecting others. Such a life, even if rich in total good, remains fundamentally incomplete.

There are several issues with this kind of argument against workism, but let me focus on one. Suppose the perfectionist is right: a well-rounded life is better for us. Still, it doesn’t follow that it’s a mistake to live an unbalanced life. That’s because life isn’t just about maximizing well-being. In addition to living well for ourselves, we also want our lives to be meaningful—significant, purposeful, and impactful.

But here’s the thing: as I’ve argued elsewhere, balance doesn’t matter when it comes to meaning. Just look at some of the most meaningful human lives—Albert Einstein, Frida Kahlo, Mother Tersea, Nelson Mandela. These weren’t well-rounded lives. They were lopsided. They prioritized a single cause or form of excellence in order to achieve great things. We might call these figures ‘workists with a noble cause’. This suggests that meaning in life is simply about having the biggest positive impact you can on the world, which doesn’t require living a well-rounded life.

The upshot is that workism can be a reasonable choice for those seeking meaning. If perfectionism is right, then workists may lose some well-being by opting for an ‘unbalanced’ life. However, this loss can be offset by the meaning their lives gain.  

Too many eggs in one basket

Another common objection to workism is that it’s risky. If your life is centered on work then a major setback—a layoff, burnout, failure—can leave you emotionally disoriented and lacking purpose. A well-rounded life, in contrast, offers more fallback options.

This is a fair point. But it’s often overstated. The critique assumes a comparison between the well-rounded life and a cartoonish version of workism, where work is the only thing that matters. And sure, in that extreme, workism looks dangerous. But in real life, that version is rare. Humans are social creatures. Most people—even those who center their lives on work—still value relationships, hobbies, and causes beyond the office.

So the more realistic comparison is between the well-rounded life and moderate workism—where work is the main source of meaning, but not the only one. In this more grounded scenario, the difference in emotional resilience isn’t that stark. Yes, well-rounded folks may have stronger relationships and more hobbies to fall back on. But moderate workists usually have those too—just not to the same degree. And that difference isn’t necessarily decisive.

If choosing a life of moderate workism allows you to make a greater positive impact on the world, then that gain in meaning might be worth the small extra risk you take on.

There’s no one-size-fits-all good life

Elsewhere, I’ve considered other objections to workism. What is interesting about the two we’ve discussed is that they don’t just apply to work—they apply to any life centered on one thing: family, art, activism, sport, you name it. They all push us toward the ideal of a well-rounded life.

I agree that there is much to recommend in such a life. However, we shouldn’t assume that this makes it ideal for everyone. People are different. Some people have dispositions, talents, preferences, or life circumstances that make them suited to a narrowly focused life. Others thrive on variety. The key is recognizing that there are many ways to live well. Rather than pushing a single ideal, we should embrace pluralism about the good life.