:It is crucial for policymakers to focus their attention on social norms if they want to improve policy outcomes, but doing so brings in new normative questions about the appropriate role of the state. Indeed, I argue that efforts to reduce coercion at the state level can create potentially pernicious and difficult to eliminate forms of coercion at the informal level. This creates a new normative challenge for thinking about the broader regulatory apparatus, and complicates our approach in utilizing social norms for democratic policy ends. I will distinguish between two forms of social norms orientations in policy: a diagnostic approach and a design approach. We will see that the diagnostic approach better models a Humean approach to supporting social norms, and a design approach has a more Millian character. While it is easier to justify a design approach in the abstract, as it has very little room for abuses of state authority, if Mill is right that social norms can be a source of coercive power that runs afoul of the harm principle, then a design approach will sometimes be necessary to counter this form of tyranny. However, this latter approach is complex, and as such we may want to take a recommendation from Mockus to focus on deliberative approaches to norm change.

中文翻译：

---

理解规范并改变它们

: 如果政策制定者想要改善政策结果，将注意力集中在社会规范上是至关重要的，但这样做会带来关于国家适当角色的新规范问题。事实上，我认为在国家层面减少强制的努力可能会在非正式层面产生潜在的有害且难以消除的强制形式。这为思考更广泛的监管机构带来了新的规范挑战，并使我们利用社会规范实现民主政策目的的方法复杂化。我将区分政策中两种形式的社会规范导向：诊断方法和设计方法。我们将看到诊断方法更好地模拟了支持社会规范的休谟方法，而设计方法具有更多的米利特征。虽然抽象地证明设计方法的合理性更容易，因为它几乎没有滥用国家权力的空间，如果米尔是正确的，即社会规范可以成为违反伤害原则的强制力量的来源，那么设计有时需要采取措施来对抗这种形式的暴政。然而，后一种方法很复杂，因此我们可能希望听取 Mockus 的建议，将重点放在规范变更的审慎方法上。