In the past decade, behavioural approaches to policy design have spread across jurisdictions and policy areas. While the number of studies on successful behavioural interventions continuously increases, scholars are reporting unintended side effects and other forms of policy failures associated with behavioural public policy. The paper aims at getting a better understanding of the various mechanisms of behavioural change and their impact on the success or failure of policies. Behavioural public policy failures seem to be the result of a deficit in understanding the links between cognitive and social mechanisms on multiple levels. It is being argued that systematically linking the mechanisms underlying behavioural change will help us to get a better understanding of the biases and unintended effects of policy design. The paper concludes by drawing more general lessons for the design of behavioural instruments.
BagoBNeysWD (2017) Fast logic?: Examining the time course assumption of dual process theory. Cognition158: 90–109.
2.
BaldwinR (2014) From regulation to behaviour change: Giving nudge the third degree. Modern Law Review77(6): 831–857.
3.
BelléNCantarelliPBelardinelliP (2018) Prospect theory goes public: Experimental evidence on cognitive biases in public policy and management decisions. Public Administration Review78(6): 828–840.
4.
BIT (2011) Behaviour Change and Energy Use, London: Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team.
5.
BIT (2018) Behavioural Government. Using Behavioural Science to Improve How Governments Make Decisions, London: Behavioural Insights Team.
6.
BIT and BIS (2011) Better Choices: Better Deals. Consumers Powering Growth, London: Cabinet Office Behavioural Insights Team/Department for Business, Innovation & Skills.
7.
BoswellC (2009) The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge. Immigration Policy and Social Research, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
BovensL‘t HartP (2016) Revisiting the study of policy failures. Journal of European Public Policy23: 653–666. .
9.
DattaSMullainathanS (2014) Behavioural design: A new approach to development policy. Review of Income and Wealth60(1): 7–35.
10.
Deaton A and Cartwright N (2016) Understanding and Misunderstanding Randomized Controlled Trials. NBER working paper no. 22595. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
11.
DunlopCA (2017) Pathologies of policy learning: What are they and how do they contribute to policy failure?. Policy & Politics45(1): 19–37.
12.
DunlopCARadaelliCM (2015) Overcoming illusions of control: How to nudge and teach regulatory humility. In: AlemannoASibonyA-L (eds) Nudge and the Law. A European Perspective, London: Hart: Oxford, pp. 139–160.
13.
FiedlerKvon SydowM (2015) Heuristics and biases: Beyond Tversky and Kahneman's (1974) judgment under uncertainty. In: EysenckMWGroomeD (eds) Cognitive Psychology: Revisiting the Classical Studies, Los Angeles, CA/London/New Delhi/Singapore: Sage, pp. 146–161.
14.
GiddensA (1984) The Constitution of Society, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
15.
GigerenzerG (2002) Intelligente heuristiken: Rationalität aus darwinistischer Sicht. In: EngelCHalfmannJSchulteM (eds) Wissen-Nichtwissen-Unsicheres Wissen, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 162–189.
16.
GigerenzerGGaissmaierW (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology62: 451–482.
17.
GigerenzerGGoldsteinGD (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review103(4): 650–669.
18.
Grüne-YanoffTHertwigR (2016) Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory?. Minds and Machines26: 149–183.
HedströmPYlikoskiP (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology36: 49–67.
21.
House of Lords (2011) Behaviour Change (HL Paper 179). London: House of Lords (Science and Technology Select Committee).
22.
HowlettM (2012) The lessons of failure: Learning and blame avoidance in public policy. International Political Science Review33: 539–555.
23.
HowlettMMukherjeeI (2014) Policy design and non-design: Towards a spectrum of policy formulation types. Politics and Governance2(2): 57–71.
24.
JasanoffS (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers, Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press.
25.
JohnP (2018) How Far to Nudge? Assessing Behavioural Public Policy, Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
26.
JohnPSmithGStokerG (2009) Nudge nudge, think think: Two strategies for changing civic behaviour. The Political Quarterly80(3): 361–370.
27.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow, London: Penguin Books.
28.
KahnemanDFrederickS (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: GilovichTGriffinDKahnemanD (eds) Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–81.
29.
Kahneman D and Tversky A (1982 [1974]) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P and Tversky A (eds) (1982) Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge/New York/Sydney: Cambridge University Press, pp.3–20.
30.
KelmanM (2011) The Heuristics Debate, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
KemmerlingAMakszinK (2018) When does policy diffusion affect political instability? Cases of excessive policy volatility in welfare policies in East Central Europe. In: BatoryACartwrightAStoneD (eds) Policy Experiments, Failures and Innovations, Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 26–44.
32.
KennedyD (2016) A World of Struggle. How Power, Law, and Expertise Shape Global Political Economy, Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
33.
Le MensGDenrellJ (2011) Rational learning and information sampling: On the “naivety” assumption in sampling explanations of judgment biases. Psychological Review118(2): 379–392.
34.
LepeniesRMaleckaM (2015) The institutional consequences of nudging – Nudges, politics, and the law. Review of Philosophy and Psychology6: 427–437.
35.
LizardoOMowryRSepulvadoB, et al. (2016) What are dual process models? Implications for cultural analysis in sociology. Sociological Theory34(4): 287–310.
36.
LodgeMWegrichK (2016) The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law & Policy38(3): 250–267.
37.
LourencoJSCirioloEAlmeidaSR, et al. (2016) Behavioural Insights Applied to Policy: European Report 2016, Brussels: Joint Research Centre .
MerrittACEffronDAMoninB (2010) Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass4: 344–357.
40.
MolsFHaslamASJettenJ, et al. (2015) Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 81–98.
41.
NairSHowlettM (2017) Policy myopia as a source of policy failure: Adaptation and policy learning under deep uncertainty. Policy and Politics45(1): 103–118.
42.
OliverA (2015) Nudging, shoving, and budging: Behavioural economic-informed policy. Public Administration93(3): 700–714.
43.
PearceWRamanS (2014) The new randomised controlled trials (RCT) movement in public policy: Challenges of epistemic governance. Policy Science47: 387–402.
44.
ReischLAZhaoM (2017) Behavioural economics, consumer behaviour and consumer policy: State of the art. Behavioural Public Policy1: 190–206.
45.
SamsonAVoyerBG (2012) Two minds, three ways: Dual system and dual process models in consumer psychology. Academy of Marketing Science2012: 48–71.
46.
SchützA (1959) Tiresias, or our knowledge of future events. Social Research26: 71–89.
47.
SentE-M (2004) Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. History of Political Economy36(4): 735–760.
48.
ShefferLLoewenPSorokaS, et al. (2018) Select nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. American Political Science Review112: 302–321.
49.
StraßheimH (2015) Politics and policy expertise: Towards a political epistemology. In: FischerFTorgersonDDurnováA, et al. (eds) Handbook of Critical Policy Studies, Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, pp. 319–340.
50.
Straßheim H and Beck S (eds) (2019) Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy (Handbooks of Research on Public Policy, ed. by Frank Fischer). Cheltenham/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar (in press).
51.
StraßheimHKettunenP (2014) When does evidence-based policy turn into policy-based evidence? Configurations, contexts and mechanisms. Evidence & Policy10: 259–277.
52.
StraßheimHKorinekR-L (2015) Behavioural governance in Europe. In: DoubledayRWilsdonJ (eds) Future Directions for Scientific Advice in Europe, London: University of Cambridge/University of Sussex et al., pp. 153–160.
53.
SunsteinCR (2017) Nudges that fail. Behavioural Public Policy1: 4–25.
54.
Taranu V and Verbeeck G (2016) Overview of dual process behavioural models and their implications on decision-making of private dwellers regarding deep energy renovation. In: Conference paper for the CIB World Building Congress 2016, Tampere, Finland, Hasselt University.
55.
TetlockPE (2005) Expert Political Judgement. How Good Is It? How Can We Know?, Princeton, NJ/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
56.
ThalerRHBernatziS (2004) Save more tomorrow. Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy112: 164–187.
57.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2008) Nudge. Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness, London: Penguin Books.
58.
TiefenbeckVStaakeTRothK, et al. (2013) For better or for worse? Empirical evidence of moral licensing in a behavioural energy conservation campaign. Energy Policy57: 160–171.
59.
United Nations (2016) Behavioural Insights at the United Nations. Achieving Agenda 2030, New York: United Nations Development Program.
60.
United Nations (2017) Consuming Differently, Consuming Sustainably: Behavioural Insights for Policymaking, New York: United Nations Environment Programme.
61.
WangMRiegerMOHensT (2017) The impact of culture on loss aversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30: 270–281.
62.
WeaverRK (2010) Paths and forks or chutes and ladders? Negative feedbacks and policy regime change. Journal of Public Policy30(2): 137–162.
63.
WeaverK (2016) Getting people to behave: Research lessons for policy makers. Public Administration Review75(6): 806–816.
64.
Wellstead A, Cairney P and Oliver K (2018) Reducing ambiguity to close the science-policy gap. Policy Design and Practice 1(2): 115–125.
65.
World Bank (2015) Mind, Society and Behavior, Washington, DC: World Bank.
66.
ZürnM (2018) A Theory of Global Governance. Authority, Legitimacy, and Contestation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
