Abstract

The article examines the relationship between prohibition and persuasion in contemporary regulation. It suggests, in light of the analysis of the unfair commercial practices and that of the measures contrasting pandemics, that prohibition and persuasion are jointly used to promote behavioral changes. The hypothesis is that prohibition deploys primarily incentives, including both sanctions and rewards, whereas persuasion is grounded on the motivational systems of individuals and organizations. However, the complementary use of both prohibition and persuasion does not lead to a crowding out of persuasion when the latter is concerned with the suggested behavior whereas the former focuses on the prohibited behavior. The conclusions are subject to further empirical and experimental research aimed at verifying how complementarity operates in various regulatory domains and whether crowding out occurs