Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g98kq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T19:18:59.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where next for behavioral public policy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Nick Chater Open the ORCID record for Nick Chater [Opens in a new window]  and
George Loewenstein
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK nick.chater@wbs.ac.uk; https://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/nick-chater/
George Loewenstein
Affiliation:
Department of Social and Decision Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA gl20@andrew.cmu.edu; https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/people/faculty/george-loewenstein.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our target article distinguishes between policy approaches that seek to address societal problems through intervention at the level of the individual (adopting the “i-frame”) and those that seek to change the system within which those individuals live (adopting the “s-frame”). We stress also that a long-standing tactic of corporations opposing systemic change is to promote the i-frame perspective, presumably hoping that i-frame interventions will be largely ineffective and more importantly will be seen by the public and some policy makers as a genuine alternative to systemic change. We worry that the i-frame focus of much of behavioral science has inadvertently reinforced this unhelpful focus on the individual. In this response to commentators, we identify common themes, build on the many constructive suggestions to extend our approach, and reply to concerns. We argue, along with several commentators, that a key role of behavioral public policy is to clarify how to build support for systemic reforms for which there is a broad consensus in the policy community, but which are opposed by powerful special interests.

Information

Type
Authors' Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 46 , 2023 , e181
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bak-Coleman, J. B., Alfano, M., Barfuss, W., Bergstrom, C. T., Centeno, M. A., Couzin, I. D., … Weber, E. U. (2021). Stewardship of global collective behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 118(27), e2025764118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, L. M. (2016). Unequal democracy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Becker, G. S. (1983). A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), 371–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., … Galing, S. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging?. Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2012). Behavioral economic engineering. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(3), 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brownell, K. D., & Warner, K. E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food?. The Milbank Quarterly, 87, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism". University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211–1254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2016). The under-appreciated drive for sense-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 126, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The rhetoric of reaction, extended. Behavioural Public Policy, 7(3), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, T. L., Kallbekken, S., Kroll, S., & McEvoy, D. M. (2021). Does solar geoengineering crowd out climate change mitigation efforts? Evidence from a stated preference referendum on a carbon tax. Climatic Change, 165, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, D. (2016). Engines of liberty: The power of citizen activists to make constitutional law. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Deaton, A. (2020). Randomization in the tropics revisited: a theme and eleven variations (No.w27600). National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018a). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science and Medicine, 210, 2–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018b). Reflections on randomized control trials. Social Science and Medicine, 210, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fancy, T. (2021). BlackRock hired me to make sustainable investing mainstream. Now I realize it's a deadly distraction from the climate-change threat. Globe and Mail. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-sustainable-investing-is-a-deadly-distraction-from-actually-averting/Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, M. P., Lamberton, C. P., & Walsh, M. F. (2016). Will i pay for your pleasure? Consumers’ perceptions of negative externalities and responses to Pigovian taxes. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 1(3), 355–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, D., & Rucker, D. D. (2022). Experimental validation bias limits the scope and ambition of applied behavioural science. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagmann, D., Ho, E. H., & Loewenstein, G. (2019). Nudging out support for a carbon tax. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 484–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagmann, D., Liao, Y., Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2023). Costly distractions: Focusing on individual behavior undermines support for systemic reforms. SSRN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassel, A., Naczyk, M., & Wiß, T. (2019). The political economy of pension financialisation: Public policy responses to the crisis. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(4), 483–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, E. J. (2022). The elements of choice: Why the way we decide matters. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Koerth, M. (2023). Why most gun laws aren't backed up by evidence. FiveThirtyEight (February 6, 2023). https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/absence-of-evidence-gun-laws/Google Scholar
Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (1991). The politics of government decision-making: A theory of regulatory capture. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1089–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, L. (2019). They don't represent us: Reclaiming our democracy. HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., & Chater, N. (2017). Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, M. E. (2021). The new climate war: The fight to take back our planet. Hachette.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (2004). Capital (Vol. 1) (original work published 1867). Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukand, S., & Rodrick, D. (2018). The divided public heart. Aeon, June 6, 2018, https://aeon.co/essays/how-do-elites-manage-to-hijack-voters-ideas-of-themselvesGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, G. (2021). The case for exploratory social sciences. New Institute. https://thenew.institute/media/pages/documents/3068e866a2-1659617825/geoff_mulgan_discussion_paper.pdfGoogle Scholar
Newall, P. W. S., Walasek, L., Ludvig, E. A., & Rockloff, M. J. (2022). Nudge versus sludge in gambling warning labels: How the effectiveness of a consumer protection measure can be undermined. Behavioral Science & Policy, 8(1), 17–23.Google Scholar
Oliver, A. (2023). A political economy of behavioural public policy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing USA.Google Scholar
Saccardo, S., Dai, H., Han, M., Raja, N., Vangala, S., & Croymans, D. (2022). Assessing nudge scalability: Two lessons from large-scale RCTs. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3971192 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3971192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanger, M. B., & Levin, M. A. (1992). Using old stuff in new ways: Innovation as a case of evolutionary tinkering. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 11(1), 88–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, R., Morral, A. R., Ramchand, R., Charbonneau, A., Williams, J., Smucker, S., … Xenakis, L. (2023). The science of gun policy: A critical synthesis of research evidence on the effects of gun policies in the United States (3rd edn). Rand. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA243-4.htmlGoogle Scholar
Standage, T. (2021). A brief history of motion: From the wheel, to the car, to what comes next. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. J., Mosleh, M., Diakonova, M., Arechar, A. A., Rand, D. G., & Plotkin, J. B. (2019). Information gerrymandering and undemocratic decisions. Nature, 573(7772), 117–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stigler, G. J. (1971). The theory of economic regulation. The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 3, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. (2017). Do people really want to be nudged towards healthy lifestyles? International Review of Economics, 64(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Green defaults can combat climate change. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(5), 548–549.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2022). The rhetoric of reaction redux. Behavioural Public Policy, 7(3), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, G. O., Sautkina, E., Poortinga, W., Wolstenholme, E., & Whitmarsh, L. (2019). The English plastic bag charge changed behavior and increased support for other charges to reduce plastic waste. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tor, A., & Klick, J. (2022). When should governments invest more in nudging? Revisiting Benartzi et al. (2017). Review of Law & Economics, 18(3), 347–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar