From Harm to Robustness: A Principled Approach to Vice Regulation

John Stuart Mill’s harm principle maintains that adult behavior cannot justifiably be subject to social coercion unless the behavior involves harm or a significant risk of harm to non-consenting others. The absence of harms to others, however, is one of the distinguishing features of many manifestations of “vices” such as the consumption of alcohol, nicotine, recreational drugs, prostitution, pornography, and gambling. It is with respect to vice policy, then, that the harm principle tends to be most constraining, and some current vice controls, such as prohibitions on drug possession and prostitution, violate Mill’s precept. In the vice arena, we seem to be willing to accept social interference with what Mill termed “self-regarding” behavior. But does that willingness then imply that any social intervention into private affairs is justifiable, that the government has just as much right to outlaw Protestantism, or shag carpets, or spicy foods, as it does to outlaw drugs? In this paper I argue that advances in neuroscience and behavioral economics offer strong evidence that vices and other potentially addictive goods or activities frequently involve less-than-rational choices, and hence are exempt from the full force of the harm principle. As an alternative guide to vice policy, and following some guidance from Mill, I propose the “robustness principle”: public policy towards addictive or vicious activities engaged in by adults should be robust with respect to departures from full rationality. That is, policies should work pretty well if everyone is completely rational, and policies should work pretty well even if many people are occasionally (or frequently) irrational in their vice-related choices. The harm and robustness principles cohere in many ways, but the robustness principle offers more scope for policies that try to direct people “for their own good,” without opening the door to tyrannical inroads upon self-regarding behavior

Family Leave and the Gender Wage Gap

In this article, I argue that the key to achieving greater gender equality in the workplace is finding a way to change the behavior of men with respect to the care of children. Until now, most suggestions have focused on changing the behavior of women or employers, but women continue to face significant disadvantages in the workplace despite substantial changes in their labor force behavior. In the first part of the article, I analyze the latest data and conclude that the gender pay gap reflects both women\u27s actual labor market behavior, which still differs from men\u27s, and employers\u27 exaggerated responses to the expectation that women will leave the workforce to have and to raise children. Through a short empirical analysis, I then demonstrate that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) falls far short of providing the kind of relief that might improve gender inequality, and in the last section I propose that the leave law be amended with an eye on equality. In particular, I propose that we create a contract set-aside program tied to employers establishing generous and successful leave policies