Applying Behavioural Insights to Public Policy: An Example From Rotterdam

Abstract

Worldwide, scholars and public institutions are embracing behavioural insights to improve public policy. Multiple frameworks exist to describe the integration of behavioural insights into policy, and behavioural insights teams (BITs) have specialised in this. Yet, it often remains unclear how these frameworks can be applied and by whom. Here, we describe and discuss a comprehensive framework that describes who does what and when to integrate behavioural insights into policy. The framework is informed by relevant literature, theorising, and experience with one BIT, the Behavioural Insights Group Rotterdam. We discuss how the framework helps to overcome some challenges associated with integrating behavioural insights into policy (an overreliance on randomised control trials, a limited understanding of context, threats to good scientific practice, and bounded rationality of individuals applying behavioural insights).

Do you consider human behaviour to be stable or malleable? Your answer can influence your preferences for policy instruments

“…Therefore, general implicit theories of officials about the changeableness of behaviour may act as biases and we encourage practitioners to carefully reflect on behaviour before making instrument choices in order to avoid misconceptions about behaviour (Bensley & Lilienfeld, 2017). For this, professionals can make use of existing frameworks (for example Dudley & Xie, 2020;Olejniczak et al, 2020) or consult with behavioural experts from behavioural insights teams (e.g., Dewies et al, 2022). A recent and related example of biased decision making is the United Kingdom government's decision to postpone introducing a lockdown amid the spread of Covid-19 in early 2020.…”

Comprehensive Evaluation of the Behavioral Insights Group Rotterdam

“…Resources were inputs required for the BIG'R activities. For role descriptions of the BIG'R management, researchers, and policy domain advisors, see Dewies and colleagues (Dewies et al, 2022) and Figure 2. BIG'R Management. The BIG'R management consisted of a municipal project manager (0.44 FTE) and an academic head (0.20 FTE).…”

“…All policy cases followed a standard procedure of four phases: approval of the case, exploratory research to understand related behaviors, development of solutions, and efforts to stimulate implementation of policy advice from BIG'R. (For more details see Dewies et al, 2022.). During the first phase, policy case teams tightly defined target behaviors to be able to change and measure them.…”

“…Moreover, BIG’R did not pre-commit to any behavioral or methodological framework for analyzing and changing behavior. Rather, it considered behavioral insights a collaborative and integrative effort between policy practitioners and researchers (Dewies et al, 2022). Finally, BIG’R decided to avoid political affiliations and support which is also different from many other BITs (e.g., John, 2014).…”

Public managers’ trust in citizens and their preferences for behavioral policy instruments: evidence from a mixed-methods study

“…The use of behavioral policy instruments in local-level policymaking is on the rise (Feitsma, 2019;Strassheim & Beck, 2019;Dewies et al, 2022). Local governments increasingly rely on behavioral policy instruments to nudge citizens to, for example, stop littering (Merkelbach et al, 2021), drive safely (Graf, 2019) and pay their fines and taxes on time (John & Blume, 2018;Vainre et al, 2020;Raymaekers & Migchelbrink, 2021).…”