Knowledge, behaviour, and policy: questioning the epistemic presuppositions of applying behavioural science in public policymaking

The aim of this article is to question the epistemic presuppositions of applying behavioural science in public policymaking. Philosophers of science who have examined the recent applications of the behavioural sciences to policy have contributed to discussions on causation, evidence, and randomised controlled trials. These have focused on epistemological and methodological questions about the reliability of scientific evidence and the conditions under which we can predict that a policy informed by behavioural research will achieve the policymakers’ goals. This paper argues that the philosophical work of Helen Longino can also help us to have a better and fuller understanding of the knowledge which the behavioural sciences provide. The paper advances an analysis of the knowledge claims that are made in the context of policy applications of behavioural science and compares them with the behavioural research on which they are based. This allows us to show that behavioural policy and the debates accompanying it are based on an oversimplified understanding of what knowledge behavioural science actually provides. Recognising this problem is important as arguments that justify reliance on the behavioural sciences in policy typically presume this simplification.

Rethinking the Origin of the Behavioural Policy Cube With Nudge Plus

This chapter goes beyond classic nudges in introducing public policy practitioners and researchers worldwide to a wide range of behavioural change interventions like boosts, thinks, and nudge pluses. These policy tools, much like their classic nudge counterpart, are libertarian, internality targeting and behaviourally informed policies that lie at the origin of the behavioural policy cube as originally conceived by Oliver. This chapter undertakes a review of these instruments, in systematically and holistically comparing them. Nudge pluses are truly hybrid nudge-think strategies, in that they combine the best features of the reflexive nudges and the more deliberative boosts (or, think) strategies. Going forward, the chapter prescribes the consideration of a wider policy toolkit in directing interventions to tackle societal problems and hopes to break the false synonymity of behavioural based policies with nudge-type interventions only.

Co-designing behavioural public policy: lessons from the field about how to ‘nudge plus’

Background: Behavioural public policies, known as nudges, suffer from lack of citizen consent and involvement, which has led to an argument for more reflective nudges, known as ‘nudge plus’.Aims and objectives: How can more citizen reflection be introduced in a way that is not itself top-down and paternalist in spite of good intentions? How might these ‘nudge pluses’ develop on the ground?Methods: This paper reports a mixed-methods case study.Findings: In the case study, there was an intervention that started off as a top-down nudge, using a randomised controlled trial. The nudge then evolved into a bottom-up initiative with citizen input aided by a design lab approach.Discussion: One way to address tensions between top-down and bottom-up approaches is to let in the messiness and loss of direct control implied in a design lab, whereby nudge pluses might evolve naturally and without expert direction. The success of the eventual initiative points the way to more design-based nudge plus interventions.Conclusion: Nudge pluses may emerge naturally as a result of the evolutionary co-design process. There is potential for replication, with cross-fertilisation between different traditions by introducing behaviour change policies with a design-based approach.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Expert-led behaviour change can be paternalistic; participatory alternatives have been small-scale and costly.</li><br /><li>Nudge plus is trans-disciplinary; citizen reflection and technical expertise shape behavioural public policies.</li><br /><li>Design principles complement nudge plus through multiple forms of expertise, and iterative learning-by-doing.</li><br /><li>Greater crossover is possible than exists between behaviour change and design labs in designing behavioural policy.</li></ul>

Rethinking the Role of Experts and Expertise in Behavioural Public Policy

Nudge and behavioural public policy tools have won support from governments across the world for improving the effectiveness of public interventions. Yet nudge still attracts strong criticisms for promoting paternalism and manipulation as legitimate government actions. To move beyond this divide, this paper offers a comprehensive reorientation, which is necessary because the intellectual foundations of the policy are at fault. A more secure foundation can be achieved by expanding the cognitive scope of behavioural policy, and ensuring that it does not rely on the narrow assumption that intuitive reasoning is flawed and that expert advice is always preferable. This shift in the cognitive range of nudge moves behavioural policy toward citizen reflection and initiative, pointing away from expert-led interventions. It amounts to more than incremental advances in nudge practice. As a result, nudge can escape the charge of not respecting individual autonomy. What we call 'nudge plus' would link more closely with other types of governmental intervention that embrace citizen involvement.

Complexity as an opportunity and challenge for behavioural public policy

This paper is a response to Sanders, Snijders and Hallsworth (2018). The challenges and opportunities of behavioural public policy Sanders, Snijders and Hallsworth discuss highlight a conundrum for the field: the impact of behavioural interventions is difficult to measure accurately in complex situations, and yet complexity is inherent in the very areas in most need of impact. Behavioural interventions will be only one tool of many to work towards broader organisational, systems and social change. As a field, we should be looking to other disciplines, inviting them into the fold of discussions on how to achieve these changes. Finally, while the mantra of nudge for good is a useful beacon, intentions are only part of the equation, and a number of questions should be asked when considering a behavioural policy intervention.