ABSTRACT
The aim of this chapter is to critically assess the argument advanced in behavioral welfare economics (BWE) that preference inconsistency and violations of rational choice theory are the result of errors and to offer a direct justification for paternalistic regulations. I argue that (i) this position relies on a psychologically and philosophically problematic account of agency, (ii) the normative argument in favor of coherence is considerably weaker than what is usually considered, and (iii) BWE fails to justify why agents ought to be coherent by neoclassical standards. I conclude by discussing how BWE could still justify paternalistic regulations by endorsing a more institutionalist perspective.
