Congruence and Divergence in Public and Elite Opinions on Government Paternalism

• In Event: Elites and Public Opinion

Abstract

Government paternalism includes policies that intervene in the individual’s private sphere to prevent self-harm or promote self-benefiting behaviors. Examples include mandatory helmets, food labeling, sugar taxes, retirement savings mandates, and euthanasia restrictions. While a significant body of research examines public attitudes toward paternalistic policies with varying coercion levels, there is limited understanding of how politicians, who shape and promote these policies, perceive them. Additionally, little is known about their beliefs regarding public opinion on such policies. This study examines the attitudes of sitting politicians toward government paternalism, their perceptions of public opinion on such policies, and actual public preferences using original survey data from Israel and Canada. The findings reveal that politicians generally prefer non-coercive paternalism, such as information provision, across various policy issues. They also believe that the public shares similar preferences and, if anything, supports coercive measures less than they do. However, actual public support for paternalism is higher than politicians perceive, and on certain issues, the public favors more coercive policies. This discrepancy indicates that politicians frequently misperceive public preferences, in line with the idea that less coercion is generally preferable but contrary to actual public sentiment. This misalignment suggests a representation gap, potentially leading to suboptimal policy outcomes.

Authors

• Clareta Treger, University of Toronto

• Lior Sheffer, Tel Aviv University