Bill New

Paternalism and Public Policy

Wherever a government or state is concerned with the welfare of its citizens, there will probably also exist policies which compel the individual citizen to undertake or abstain from activities which affect that citizen alone. The set of theories behind such policies is collectively known as ‘paternalism’. It is not hard to understand why this term has developed strong pejorative overtones. Policies of this type appear to offend a fundamental tenet of liberal societies: namely, that the individual is best placed to know what is in his or her interests. Paternalistic policies imply, and are concerned with correcting, failures of precisely this kind of judgement. And yet, at the same time, there is a popular consensus that compelling people to wear a seat belt when driving a car is a reasonable restriction of personal liberty. Paternalism may be difficult to accept in principle, but it is equally difficult to avoid in practice.Not surprisingly, the literature reveals a long heritage of debate in a wide range of academic disciplines. This debate reveals a failure to make progress in two areas in particular. First, analyses of paternalism often confuse policies which are actually concerned with correcting failures of market exchange — in particular, those concerned with insufficient or imperfect information — with those which are genuinely paternalistic. One objective of this paper will be to clarify the difference between these two kinds of policy.

Monopoly in sports broadcasting

Abstract There is an important current policy debate about the social role of major sporting events and their availability on television in the UK. This paper draws attention to a key argument that has not been made in the debate so far. This is that sporting events and championships are natural monopolies. That is, it is not possible for new firms’ to enter the industry and supply an identical ‘product’, such as a duplicate FA (Football Association) Cup competition. In consequence, broadcasters who gain rights to these events are monopoly suppliers to their viewers. Now monopolies in general restrict supply and raise prices to levels which exploit consumers and are not socially efficient. In the case of broadcasting in the UK, the emergence of satellite television has provoked a price war for the right to monopolise sporting rights, with monopoly pricing passed off to the consumer via subscription charges. To rectify this, this paper recommends a new regulatory agency that would control the pricing activ...