BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS IN PUBLIC HEALTH: A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF SUFFICIENCY AND EQUITY FOR CHILEAN LAW

Abstract

The growing use of behavioral interventions in health policy, particularly within systems marked by structural inequalities, has reignited the debate over the normative limits of the State’s persuasive power. This article analyzes the normative and legal criteria that determine the legitimacy of nudging techniques in health policy, assessing their compatibility with the standard of health sufficiency, distributive equity, and autonomy in the face of behavioral manipulation. The findings indicate that the legitimacy of nudging requires its grounding in the threshold of normal functioning and the protection of individuals’ range of opportunities, as well as its subjection to legal standards of instrumental necessity, proportionality, transparency, equity, and judicial review. The analysis further establishes the normative priority of boosting as an expression of minimal intrusion upon deliberative autonomy. It is concluded that nudging is justifiable only when it operates as a mechanism that enables agency within a robust regulatory framework capable of preventing manipulation and the deepening of health inequalities.