Undercover Economist

David Leonhardt writes in the New York Times:

When you look at their policies as a whole, you see that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have actually laid out two competing economic philosophies. The fight over health insurance is just one part of their disagreement…
The easiest way to describe Senator Clinton’s philosophy is to say that she believes in the promise of narrowly tailored government policies, like focused tax cuts. She has more faith that government can do what it sets out to do, which is a traditionally liberal view. Yet she also subscribes to the conservative idea that people respond rationally to financial incentives.
Senator Obama’s ideas, on the other hand, draw heavily on behavioral economics, a left-leaning academic movement that has challenged traditional neoclassical economics over the last few decades. Behavioral economists consider an abiding faith in rationality to be wishful thinking. To Mr. Obama, a simpler program — one less likely to confuse people — is often a smarter program.

The whole thing is worth reading. To find out more about behavioural economics, start with Richard Thaler or Daniel Ariely. But since both views of the world are broadly compatible (people usually, but not always, respond rationally to economic incentives) it would be lovely to see a presidental candidate with an experimental, incremental view of policy.