XVIII — Case studies

Chapitre XVIII

CASE STUDIES: VOLUNTARY DELEGATION IN PRACTICE

The previous chapter described the principle of chosen delegation. This one illustrates it through four real examples—systems, professions, or programs that function today, in different legal and cultural contexts. Each illuminates a facet of the model.

18.1 — Case study (empirical example) #1: Daily Money Managers (United States)

Why it’s emblematic

Daily Money Managers (DMM) constitute a structured profession in the United States, organized within the American Association of Daily Money Managers (AADMM) founded in 1994. They embody chosen delegation in its most everyday form: managing bills, budget, administrative tasks—without court intervention, without declared incapacity.

Concrete mechanism

The DMM intervenes at the client’s home or remotely. They receive mail, open bills, verify amounts, make payments from the client’s account (via limited banking power of attorney), file documents, prepare materials for tax returns.

The client signs a service contract specifying:

• Tasks delegated (explicit list)
• Frequency of interventions (weekly, biweekly)
• Payment method (hourly, monthly flat rate)
• Termination conditions

The DMM has no authority to make major financial decisions. They execute, organize, alert—but do not decide in the client’s place.

What is delegated / what remains under control

Delegated:

• Opening and sorting mail
• Paying recurring bills
• Monitoring bank balance
• Filing and archiving
• Preparing tax documents
• Liaising with administrations

Under client control:

• Purchase or investment decisions
• Choice of providers (insurers, banks)
• Major budget arbitrations
• Full access to accounts and documents

Reversibility

The contract is terminable at any time with short notice (typically 30 days). The DMM must return all documents and revoke powers of attorney. No non-compete clause prevents the client from changing providers.

Safeguards and risks

Existing safeguards:

• AADMM certification with code of ethics
• Mandatory professional liability insurance
• Background checks
• Required continuing education

Identified risks:

• Breach of trust (embezzlement)—rare but documented
• Excessive dependence if the client loses competencies
• Variable quality depending on practitioners (profession not federally regulated)

What this case brings to the proposed model

Daily Money Managers demonstrate that daily, non-judicial, revocable, and compensated delegation can function at large scale. Their clientele—elderly people, overwhelmed workers, people with disabilities, distant caregivers—illustrates the diversity of needs. This is not a system for “incapable” people: it’s a service for anyone who prefers to delegate rather than suffer.

References: American Association of Daily Money Managers (AADMM), founded 1994; Certified Daily Money Manager (CDMM) certification; no specific federal regulation, variable state regulations.

18.2 — Case study (empirical example) #2: The Representative Payee Program (United States)

Why it’s emblematic

The Social Security Administration’s (SSA) Representative Payee Program is an official system whereby a third party manages the social benefits (retirement, disability) of a beneficiary deemed unable to do so themselves. Unlike DMMs, this is state-supervised delegation—but it illustrates possible control mechanisms.

Concrete mechanism

When the SSA determines that a beneficiary cannot manage their benefits (mental illness, dementia, addiction, cognitive disability), it designates a “representative payee”—often a relative, sometimes an accredited organization.

The payee receives benefits into a dedicated account. They must:

• Use the money for the beneficiary’s essential needs (housing, food, healthcare)
• Keep surplus funds for the beneficiary
• Maintain precise accounting
• Submit an annual report to the SSA (Representative Payee Report)

The SSA can revoke the payee in case of abuse and designate another.

What is delegated / what remains under control

Delegated:

• Receipt of SSA benefits
• Allocation to essential needs
• Management of dedicated account
• Accounting and reporting

Under beneficiary control (theoretically):

• Other income and assets
• Non-financial decisions
• Right to contest the designation

Under SSA control:

• Designation and revocation of payee
• Audit of annual reports
• Sanctions for abuse

Reversibility (or its limits)

This is the system’s weak point. Designating a representative payee implies an incapacity determination by the SSA. The beneficiary can contest this determination, but the procedure is cumbersome. Unlike voluntary delegation, the beneficiary did not choose—they are subjected to it.

Reversibility depends on improvement of the situation (remission, recovery) recognized by the SSA.

Safeguards and risks

Existing safeguards:

• Mandatory annual reports
• Random audits by the SSA
• Criminal penalties for misappropriation (up to 5 years in prison)
• Preference for organizational payees (fewer abuses than relatives)

Identified risks:

• Abuse by ill-intentioned relatives—documented and frequent
• Loss of beneficiary autonomy (infantilizing effect)
• Slow SSA bureaucracy in responding to reports
• Beneficiary has no choice over their payee

What this case brings to the proposed model

The Representative Payee Program shows what to avoid as much as what to retain. The reporting and supervision mechanism is useful. But imposition without consent, the burden of contestation, and loss of autonomy are counter-models. This document proposes chosen delegation, not imposed—with the same transparency requirements, but without coercion.

References: Social Security Administration, Representative Payee Program; 42 U.S.C. § 405(j); approximately 5.7 million beneficiaries under representative payee (2020).

18.3 — Case study (empirical example) #3: Supported Decision-Making and Representation Agreements (British Columbia, Canada)

Why it’s emblematic

British Columbia has developed an innovative legal framework: Representation Agreements, administered by the Nidus Personal Planning Resource Centre. This system allows a person to designate “representatives” to help them make decisions—without losing legal capacity. It’s the opposite of guardianship.

Concrete mechanism

A person signs a Representation Agreement designating one or more representatives for specific areas:

• Healthcare
• Personal care
• Routine financial matters
• Routine legal matters

Two types of agreements exist:

• Section 7 (standard): for routine decisions, accessible to everyone
• Section 9 (extended): for major decisions, requires higher capacity at the time of signing

The representative must:

• Consult the person before each decision
• Respect their known wishes
• Act in their interest
• Keep records

The person retains legal capacity. They can continue making their own decisions. The representative intervenes in support, not substitution.

What is delegated / what remains under control

Delegated (in support mode):

• Help understanding options
• Execution of decisions made together
• Representation to third parties (banks, doctors)
• Practical management of designated tasks

Under the person’s control:

• Legal capacity itself
• Right to revoke the representative
• Right to make contrary decisions (within legal limits)
• Modification of the agreement at any time

Reversibility

The agreement is revocable at any time by the person, as long as they retain minimal capacity for understanding. Revocation takes immediate effect. The representative must return all documents and powers.

If the person loses all capacity, a judicial process may intervene—but this is a last resort, not the norm.

Safeguards and risks

Existing safeguards:

• Representative training by Nidus
• Obligation to consult before decisions
• Recourse to the Public Guardian and Trustee in case of abuse
• Possibility of designating a “monitor” (independent supervisor)

Identified risks:

• Undue influence during signing (family pressure)
• Conflict of interest if the representative is also an heir
• Difficulty revoking if the person is isolated or under influence

What this case brings to the proposed model

British Columbia’s Representation Agreements embody Supported Decision-Making—an approach that preserves legal capacity while allowing support. This is exactly the spirit of chosen delegation: no declared incapacity, no guardianship, but formalized, transparent, and revocable support. This model has inspired reforms in other jurisdictions (Australia, Ireland, some U.S. states).

References: Representation Agreement Act (British Columbia, 1996); Nidus Personal Planning Resource Centre; UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 12 (equality before the law and legal capacity).

18.4 — Case study (empirical example) #4: Save More Tomorrow (SMarT) — Thaler & Benartzi

Why it’s emblematic

The Save More Tomorrow (SMarT) program, designed by economists Richard Thaler and Shlomo Benartzi in 2004, illustrates a different form of delegation: automated pre-commitment. The individual delegates not to a person, but to a mechanism—a rule they impose on themselves to circumvent their own biases.

Concrete mechanism

The principle is simple:

1. The employee commits today to save more tomorrow (at their next raise)
2. With each salary increase, the savings rate automatically increases (e.g., +3 percentage points)
3. The increase continues until a predefined cap (e.g., 15%)
4. The employee can opt out of the program at any time

The behavioral trick: we don’t ask for immediate sacrifice (which people refuse), but future sacrifice (which they accept more easily). And when the future arrives, the raise compensates: net income never decreases.

What is delegated / what remains under control

Delegated:

• The decision to increase savings (automated)
• Execution of transfers (automatic)
• Timing of increases (tied to raises)

Under employee control:

• Initial enrollment (voluntary)
• Withdrawal at any time (opt-out)
• Choice of maximum cap
• Allocation of savings (fund selection)

Reversibility

Complete. The employee can leave the program at any time, without penalty. They can also freeze the current rate without going back. Freedom is preserved—this is what distinguishes SMarT from mandatory contributions.

Safeguards and risks

Existing safeguards:

• Free opt-out at any time
• Transparency about rates and projections
• No conflict of interest (the mechanism is neutral)
• Supervision by pension fund regulators (ERISA in the U.S.)

Identified risks:

• Excessive inertia (employee doesn’t opt out even when in their interest)
• Variable quality of underlying pension funds
• Doesn’t solve the problem of very low wages (insufficient savings even with increases)

What this case brings to the proposed model

Save More Tomorrow demonstrates that delegation can be self-imposed and automated. No human third party needed: an algorithm, a rule, a mechanism suffices. This approach—known as “nudge” or “choice architecture”—complements other forms of delegation. It’s particularly suitable for those who want to protect themselves from their own biases without resorting to a human agent.

Thaler received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2017, partly for this work. SMarT has been adopted by thousands of American companies and has significantly increased retirement savings rates [??:economie-comportementale-thaler].

References: Thaler, R. & Benartzi, S. (2004), “Save More Tomorrow: Using Behavioral Economics to Increase Employee Saving”, Journal of Political Economy; Pension Protection Act 2006 (United States) which facilitated SMarT adoption; Richard Thaler, Nobel Prize in Economics 2017.

18.5 — Synthesis: what these cases teach us

These four examples illustrate the diversity of voluntary delegation forms:

The model proposed here draws from the first three for functions, and from the fourth for automation. It rejects imposition (Representative Payee) in favor of voluntarism (DMM, Representation Agreements).

What emerges:

• Delegation works when it is chosen
• It requires transparency and accountability
• It must be revocable without excessive obstacles
• It can be addressed to a human or a system
• It does not imply legal incapacity

Chosen delegation is not a crutch for the weak. It’s a tool for everyone—adapted to circumstances, preferences, and life moments.