1 / 27

Of Nannies and Nudges: Current State of Obesity Policymaking

Of Nannies and Nudges: Current State of Obesity Policymaking. “Who’s Afraid of the Nanny State?” Rogan Kersh Wake Forest University, USA April 2014. Plan of Presentation. ‘Nanny State’: pejorative frame Extended case study: Obesity politics/policy State responses Retreat: Laissez-faire

cisco
Download Presentation

Of Nannies and Nudges: Current State of Obesity Policymaking

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Of Nannies and Nudges: Current State of Obesity Policymaking “Who’s Afraid of the Nanny State?” Rogan KershWake Forest University, USAApril 2014

  2. Plan of Presentation • ‘Nanny State’: pejorative frame • Extended case study: Obesity politics/policy • State responses • Retreat: Laissez-faire • Submerge: Invisible policies • Divert: Libertarian-paternalist nudges • Advance: Use state’s coercive powers • Reframe: Emphasize ‘nanny’ positives

  3. Obesity: Policy Issue?

  4. Slow-Motion Epidemic 1990 1998 2010 No Data <10% 10–14% 15–19% 20–24% 25–29% ≥30%

  5. Laissez-Faire State • Philosophically familiar • “Consumer sovereignty”: frequent US variant • Obesity-politics context: personal responsibility • Dominant US Political Frame: 2000-06 • Still powerful: Lusk/Ellison (2013)

  6. What Causes Obesity? (US, 2013)

  7. Laissez-Faire State • Philosophically familiar • “Consumer sovereignty”: frequent US variant • Obesity-politics context: personal responsibility • Dominant US Political Frame: 2000-06 • Still powerful: Lusk/Ellison (2013) • Competitor, 2007-present: toxic food environment

  8. Obesity: 2 Primary Frames Average Soda Size, USA: 1970s-Today 16 oz: late 80s 34 oz: 2000s 20 oz: 1990s 8 oz: 1970s 12 oz: 1980s • Personal Responsibility • Dominant, 2000 to ~2006 • “Toxic Food Environment” • Increasing post-’06 • More Subtle Variations in recent years

  9. Typical Sandwich Size, USA 1980 2013 How many calories are in this turkey sandwich? 320 calories 855 calories Difference: 535 calories How to burn 535 calories: Bike for 1 hour 32 minutes How long would you have to bike to burn 535 calories?

  10. Laissez-Faire State • Philosophically familiar • Obesity-politics context: personal responsibility • Dominant US Political Frame: 2000-06 • Still powerful: Lusk/Ellison (2013) • Competitor, 2007-present: toxic food environment

  11. Submerged State Submerged State: Mettler (2012), builds on others Obesity-politics example: Reformulation

  12. Psychological State Libertarian Paternalism: Thaler & Sunstein Canvass of Behavioral Changes: Jones et. al. Obesity-Politics example: Menu Calorie Labeling

  13. Menu Calorie Labeling

  14. Our Evaluation Study • Does NYC labeling influence fast-food choices of individuals in low-income areas? • “Difference-in-Difference” • Examine calories purchased before/after labeling, in NYC & control city (Newark, NJ) • 2 NYC Studies, 2008: Adults and Children • Follow-up, 2011: Philadelphia (Baltimore/control)

  15. No differences seen in response to labeling by: Race/Ethnicity Age Sex Education “Noticed Info” Results: Calories Purchased

  16. policy shock

  17. But What If…

  18. ACA/“Obamacare”

  19. Active (Coercive?) State • US: interest-group politics (PRFC Act) • Elsewhere: more legislative success • Which polic(ies) to choose under constraints? • Impact/Feasibility Studies Ireland, 2009 obesity-policy recs (as of 2013)

  20. Nanny State…Reframed Pejorative… …to Positive: Shift Political Culture US: Millennials/Gen Y

  21. Gen Y: ‘embrace authority’ • Unusual ‘peer networks’ • Highly adult-supervised/curated lives • Responsive to vital cultural messages/change

More Related