Do we have too much choice?

How much choice do we need? And how important should freedom of choice be as a value in institutional design? Several theorists argue that we only require enough freedom of choice (Blake 2001; Dworkin 1982; Raz 1986). Accordingly, institutions designed to promote autonomy need not try to maximise or put much weight on increasing choices, provided they ensure individuals have enough. What is more, recent psychology research even suggests more choice can often leave us worse off (Schwartz 2009). Citizens in today’s affluent countries – outside of pandemic lockdowns – have many more choices available than citizens in previous times. But are we better off? Distinguish two questions. Does a concern with wellbeing give us reason to further expand people’s options? Does a concern with people’s freedom and autonomy support further increases? I argue that the answer is yes for both questions. We do not have ‘enough’ choice as it stands. To make that case, I first try to provide a better conceptual understanding of freedom of choice and its contribution to human wellbeing and freedom. Second, I argue that ‘sufficiency arguments’ underestimate the value of choice expansions that are still possible. I also sketch some policy ideas on how to prevent that more choice reduces our wellbeing.