Read the following passage carefully:
The institutionalization of behavioral economics within public policy frameworks—popularized as 'nudging'—has increasingly migrated from regulatory micro-adjustments to the primary mechanics of social governance. Proponents contend that altering choice architecture offers a fiscally conservative, non-coercive instrument for steering citizen behavior toward socially desirable outcomes, such as retirement savings or preventive health compliance. However, an exclusive reliance on psychological nudging risks obscuring the systemic drivers of socio-economic vulnerability. By conceptualizing administrative failures as mere cognitive deficits of individual citizens, state architectures inadvertently privatize systemic risk and deprioritize structural redistribution. Nudges manipulate decision-making contexts while leaving the underlying asymmetry of material conditions intact, thereby offering a technocratic illusion of progress. Furthermore, when public agencies substitute behavioral interventions for hard legislative mandates or infrastructure investments, they erode the democratic mandate of state responsibility. Consequently, while choice architecture may serve as a complementary tactical tool, elevating it to a surrogate for structural reform undermines the foundational socio-economic obligations of public administration.
Which of the following options best captures the central theme of the author's argument?
- Behavioral nudging should remain a secondary tactical tool rather than replacing structural state interventions, as relying solely on choice architecture privatizes systemic inequality.Cevap
- BBehavioral economics is inherently undemocratic because altering choice architecture deprives citizens of their constitutional right to personal autonomy and free-market participation.
- CPublic administration must completely abolish behavioral nudges due to their malevolent manipulation of citizen decision-making contexts.
- DThe primary failure of modern choice architecture lies in its inability to generate fiscal savings for public welfare programs.