Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) have gained prominence in government as policy advisors and are increasingly linked to the way policy instruments are designed. Despite the rise of BITs as unique knowledge brokers mediating the use of behavioral insights for policymaking, they remain underexplored in the growing literature on policy advice and advisory systems. The article emphasizes that the visible impact that BITs have on the content of policy instruments, the level of political support they garner and their structural diversity in different political departments, all set them apart from typical policy brokers in policy advisory systems connecting the science–policy divide.
AfifZ.IslanW. W.Calvo-GonzalesO. (2019). Behavioral science around the world: Profiles of 10 countries (English). The World Bank.
2.
BinghamL. B.NabatchiT.O’LearyR. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
CampbellJ. L.PedersenO. K. (2014). The national origins of policy ideas: Knowledge regimes in the United States. France, Germany, and Denmark. Princeton University Press.
6.
CashoreB.HowlettM. (2007). Punctuating which equilibrium? Understanding thermostatic policy dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry. American Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 532–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00266.x
7.
ChristensenJ.VelardeK. S. (2019). The role of advisory bodies in the emergence of cross-cutting policy issues: Comparing innovation policy in Norway and Germany. European Politics and Society, 20(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2018.1515864
8.
CraftJ.HalliganJ. (2015). Looking back and thinking ahead: 30 years of policy advisory system scholarship. Conference Paper, International Conference on Public Policy Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Milan, 1-4 July, 2015. Available at: https://www.ippapublicpolicy.org/file/paper/1433946881.pdf.
9.
CraftJ.HalliganJ. (2017). Assessing 30 years of Westminster policy advisory system experience. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 47–62.
10.
CraftJ.HowlettM. (2012). Policy formulation, governance shifts and policy influence: Location and content in policy advisory systems. Journal of Public Policy, 32(2), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X12000049
EichbaumC.ShawR. (2007). Ministerial advisers and the politics of policy-making: Bureaucratic permanence and popular control. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00556.x
14.
European Commission (EC). (2010). Questions & Answers: New energy labels for televisions, refrigerators, dishwashers and washing machines. MEMO/10/451. European Commission, Brussels.
European Commission. (2019b). Fact sheet. New energy efficiency labels explained.
19.
FeitsmaJ. N. P. (2018). The behavioural state: Critical observations on technocracy and psychocracy. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 387–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-018-9325-5
GiestS.HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2015). The relevance of the academic study of public policy. In StokerG.PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), The relevance of political science (pp. 121–135). Palgrave.
22.
HaasE. (2007). False equivalency: Think tank references on education in the news media. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(1), 63–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560709336537
23.
HaasP. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
24.
HalliganJ. (1995). Policy advice and the public service. Governance in a Changing Environment, 2, 138–172.
25.
HallP. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/422246
26.
HalpernD. (2015). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. Random House.
27.
HaynesL.ServiceO.GoldacreB.TorgersonD.2013. Test, Learn, Adapt: Developing Public Policy with Randomised Control Trials. Cabinet Office Behavioural Insight Team.
28.
HeinzleS. L.WüstenhagenR. (2012). Dynamic adjustment of eco-labeling schemes and consumer choice—The revision of the EU energy label as a missed opportunity?Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.722
29.
HowlettM. (2002). Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: Evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990-2000. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 35(2), 235-267.
30.
HowlettM. (2011). Designing public policies: Principles and instruments. Routledge.
31.
HowlettM. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34(3), 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.09.002
32.
HowlettM. (2019). Comparing policy advisory systems beyond the OECD: Models, dynamics and the second-generation research agenda. Policy Studies, 40(3–4), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1557626
33.
HowlettM.CashoreP. B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: Understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 11(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802648144
34.
HowlettM.MigoneA. R. (2013). Searching for substance: Externalization politicization and the work of Canadian policy consultants 2006-2013. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 112–133.
35.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2017). Handbook of policy formulation. Edward Elgar.
36.
HowlettM.MukherjeeI. (2018). Routledge handbook of policy design. Routledge.
37.
HowlettM.NewmanJ. (2010). Policy analysis and policy work in federal systems: Policy advice and its contribution to evidence-based policy-making in multi-level governance systems. Policy and Society, 29(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.03.004
38.
HowlettM.RameshM.PerlA. (2009). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and subsystems. Oxford University Press.
39.
HustedtT.VeitS. (2017). Policy advisory systems: Change dynamics and sources of variation. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 41–46.
JohnP. (2014). Policy entrepreneurship in UK central government: The behavioural insights team and the use of randomized controlled trials. Public Policy and Administration, 29(3), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076713509297
42.
JohnP. (2016a). Behavioral approaches: How nudges lead to more intelligent policy design. In Guy PetersB.ZittounP. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to public policy: Theories, controversies and perspectives (pp. 113–131). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50494-4_7
43.
JohnP. (2016b). Behavioural science, randomised evaluations and the transformation of public policy: The case of the UK government. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315680248-14
44.
JohnP. (2018). How far to nudge?: assessing behavioural public policy. Cheltanham, Edward Elgar Publishing.
KnightC.LyallC. (2013). Knowledge brokers: The role of intermediaries in producing research impact. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9, 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426413X671941
48.
KokP. S. (2017). Nudging: Why, how and what next?Ethos (17). Journal of the Civil Service College, Singapore.
LightowlerC.KnightC. (2013). Sustaining knowledge exchange and research impact in the social sciences and humanities: Investing in knowledge broker roles in UK universities. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 9(3), 317–334. https://doi.org/info:doi/10.1332/174426413X662644
51.
LindquistE. A. (1990). The third community, policy inquiry and social scientists. In BrooksS.GagnonA. C. (Eds.), In social scientists, policy and the state (pp. 21–52). Praeger.
LourençoJ. S.CirioloE.AlmeidaS. R.TroussardX. (2016). Behavioural insights applied to policy—Country overviews 2016 (No. JRC100547). European Commission Joint Research Centre.
55.
MacRaeD.WhittingtonD. (1997). Expert advice for policy choice analysis and discourse. In RabeB.TierneyJ. (Eds.), American Governance and Public Policy Series (p. 448). Georgetown University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1q8jjc4
56.
MaleyM. (2000). Conceptualising advisers’ policy work: The distinctive policy roles of ministerial advisers in the Keating government, 1991–96. Australian Journal of Political Science, 35(3), 449–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/713649346
57.
MannC.SimonsA. (2015). Local emergence and international developments of conservation trading systems: Innovation dynamics and related problems. Environmental Conservation, 42(4), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892914000381
58.
McGannJ. G.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Comparative think tanks, politics and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing.
59.
MukherjeeI.HowlettM. (2015). Who is a stream? Epistemic communities, instrument constituencies and advocacy coalitions in public policy-making. Politics and Governance, 3(2), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v3i2.290
60.
NutleyS. M.WalterI.DaviesH. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services (1st ed.). Bristol University Press; Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgwt1
61.
OliverA. (2015). Nudging, shoving, and budging: Behavioural economic-informed policy. Public Administration, 93(3), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12165
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). Behavioural insights and public policy: Lessons from around the world. http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270480-en
64.
PageE.WrightV. (Eds.) (2007). From the Active to the Enabling State: The Changing Role of Top Officials in European Nations. Palgrave Macmillan.
65.
SabatierP. A. (1998). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2/3), 129–168.
Van DeunH.van AckerW.FobéE.BransM. (2018, March26–28). Nudging in public policy and public management: A scoping review of the literature [Conference session]. Political Studies Association 68th Annual International Conference, Cardiff University, United Kingdom.
71.
VeselýA. (2013). Externalization of policy advice: Theory, methodology and evidence. Policy and Society, 32(3), 199–209.
72.
VeselýA. (2017). Policy advice as policy work: A conceptual framework for multi-level analysis. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 139–154.
73.
VoßJ.-P.SimonsA. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation: The social life of emissions trading. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923625
74.
WeaverK. (2002). Guidance for governance: An overview. In WeaverR. K. (Ed.), Guidance for governance: Comparing alternative sources of public policy advice (pp. 1–30). Nihon Kokusai Koryu Center.
75.
WebberD. J. (1983). Obstacles to the utilization of systematic policy analysis: Conflicting world views and competing disciplinary markets. Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 4(4), 534–560.
76.
WebberD. J. (1991, December). The distribution and use of policy knowledge in the policy process. Knowledge and Policy, 4, 6–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692779
77.
WeissC. H. (1986). The circuitry of enlightenment: Diffusion of social science research to policymakers. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 8(2), 274–281.
78.
WuX.RameshM.HowlettM. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
