A Critical re-Reading of Behavioral Policy; Reflections to Take Advantage of an Emerging Model in Public Policy

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Management, Imam Sadiq University,Tehran, Iran

2 Phd Candidate in Policy making, Imam Sadiq University,Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The main goal of public policies is to change the behavior of the public in line with public interests. In the traditional policy approaches, policy goals were pursued mainly by using coercive mechanisms and by issuing instructions or using economic mechanisms such as price changes and taxation. But in recent years, the models presented in "behavioral politics" have gone towards the use of more complex methods that, while controlling and directing social behaviors, seek more satisfaction of citizens. But the use of this model in policy-making has been accompanied by criticism. The purpose of this article is to identify and explain in detail the challenges proposed regarding this growing pattern in the field of policy making. The results of this research, show that 15 important challenges threaten the efficiency of this policy model, which can be considered under two general headings: the challenges of the guardianship approach and the challenges specific to behavioral mechanisms.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdukadirov, S. (Ed.). (2020). Nudge Theory in Action: behavioral design in policy and markets. translated by Mahdi Habiballahi. Tehran; shaffaf [in Persian].
  2. Abedi Jafari, H. Taslimi, M. Faqihi, A. Sheikhzadeh, M. (2011). Theme analysis &theme network: a simple method to explain patterns in qualitative data, Strategic Management Thought 5(2) [in Persian].
  3. Baron, R. A., Byrne, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (2018). Social psychology, translated by Yousef Karimi, Tehran; Ravan [in Persian].
  4. Danaee Fard, H. (2016). Implication studies methodology in Social Sciences and Humanities: definitions, approaches & implication. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities Journal. Vol.22, No.86, PP 39-71 [in Persian].
  5. Hansen, Tory. (2016) “An Analysis of the Design and Implementation of Behaviourally Informed Laws, Regulation, and Decisions to ‘Nudge’ in New Zealand.” Victoria University of Wellington Legal Studies Research Paper Series.
  6. Hansen, P., & Jespersen, A. (2013). Nudge and the Manipulation of Choice: A Framework for the Responsible Use of the Nudge Approach to Behaviour Change in Public Policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3-28. doi:10.1017/S1867299X00002762
  7. John, Peter, Stoker, Gerry. (2019).From nudge to nudge plus: behavioural public policy for a self-guiding society. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  8. Korobkin, R.B. (2009), ‘Libertarian welfarism’, California Law Review, 97 (6), 1651–1685.
  9. Lepenies, R. and Małecka, M., (2019). The ethics of behavioural public policy. In The Routledge Handbook of Ethics and Public Policy (pp. 513-525). Routledge.
  10. OECD (2019), Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights: The BASIC Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea76a8f-en.
  11. Oliver, adam. (2017) The Origins of Behavioural Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.
  12. Rahbar, farhad &. Amiri meysam (2014): Behavioral Economics and Public policy. In imps 19 (4), pp. 147–182. Available online at http://jpbud.ir/article-1-1043-fa.html [in Persian].
  13. Rebonato,Riccardo(2012). Taking Liberties – A Critical Examination of Libertarian Paternalism (New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  14. Ruggeri, Kai. (2019) Behavioral Insights for Public Policy Concepts and Cases. New York: Routledge.
  15. Schmidt AT, Engelen B. The ethics of nudging: An overview. Philosophy Compass. 2020;15:e12658. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12658
  16. Schneider, Anne, Ingram, Helen.(1990). Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools, JOURNAL OF POLITICS, Vol. 52, No. 2, May 1990.
  17. Simon, H. A. (1997). Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic reason (Vol. 3). MIT press.
  18. Straßheim, Holger; Beck, Silke. (2019) Handbook of Behavioural Change and Public Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Stirling, A. J. (2001), “Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research”, Qualitative Research, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 385-405.
  20. Sugden, R. (2008), ‘Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism’, Constitutional Political Economy, 19 (3), 226–248.
  21. Sunstein, Cass R. (2016). The ethics of influence: government in the age of behavioral science, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R., & Balz, J. P. (2013). Choice architecture (Vol. 2013). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  23. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. translated by Mehri Modabadi. Tehran; hurmazd[in Persian].
  24. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1978). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. In Uncertainty in economics (pp. 17-34). Academic Press.
  25. Vallgårda, S. (2012). Nudge—A new and better way to improve health?. Health policy, 104(2), 200-203.
  26. Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
Iranian Journal of Public Policy
Volume 9, Issue 1
2023
Pages 47-63

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics