Behavioural insights are becoming increasingly popular with policy practitioners. Findings and methods originally provided by cognitive psychology and later behavioural economics have found use in the formulation of public policies. Their most popularised application has emerged under the auspices of libertarian paternalism in the form of 'nudging'. Its proponents claim to provide a new instrument to facilitate the formulation of effective and evidence-based policy, taking people's actual behaviour into account from the outset, while preserving their liberty to choose. This article reviews the origins of libertarian paternalism and the behavioural insights it builds on and takes a critical look at the foundations nudging relies on as a policy tool. It also discusses the ongoing efforts to build policy capacity to integrate behavioural insights and experimental methods in the creation of public policy. Behavioural insights offer a powerful tool to reshape and design new evidence-based policy. However, designers ought to be aware of the underlying assumptions on individual behaviour, the broadness of the mandate the nudging approach claims and the challenges they pose for design effectiveness.
Political decision-making involves the presentation of policy options from opposing points of view and in different lights. We test whether economic policy decisions are subject to equivalency framing by presenting survey participants with binary risky-choice decisions in hypothetical policy scenarios. Potentially mediating influences of expertise on the framing effect are explored using responses of students and professionals. Expertise is thereby defined in line with common education and work experience criteria in the recruitment of public officials. We mostly find unidirectional framing effects in the economic policy scenarios and a similar susceptibility of respondents with different levels of expertise. A logistic regression of the expertise variables on the choice between certain and risky options reveals only the frame to have a systematically significant effect across scenarios. The results indicate that expertise may not necessarily help to make better policy choices under risk, if the available options are framed differently.JEL classifications: D73; D81
Distinct policy options are typically characterized by a number of advantages (or ‘opportunities’) and disadvantages (or ‘threats’). The preference for one option over another depends on how individuals within an organization perceive these opportunities and threats. In this article, we argue that individuals' identification with an organization's core aims and objectives constitutes a key determinant of this perception. We propose that stronger identification shifts individuals' attention towards potential threats rather than opportunities in the payoff distribution, encouraging avoidance of negative outcomes. Moreover, we argue that this ‘prevention focus’ in individuals' motivational basis will be stronger under negative than under positive selection strategies. An original survey experiment with civil servants in the European Parliament finds significant evidence supporting the empirical implications of our argument.
Parliamentarians are often allowed to pursue other work in addition to their mandate. Using data on the 7th European Parliament , we analyze the relationship between the outside earnings of its Members (MEPs) and their parliamentary activities. The supranational nature of the European Parliament thereby allows a novel analysis of 'moonlighting' free of countryspecific bias. We find outside earnings to be negatively correlated with the particularly workintensive production of draft reports and opinions. Utilizing the considerable freedom of Member States in organizing elections, we find this relationship to be dependent on the electoral system under which MEPs are elected. While the effect of the trade-off between outside and parliamentary work is predominantly negative in all other systems, outside earnings of MEPs from centralized but candidate-focused systems correlate positively with their productivity, indicating a possible benefit from selection effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.