Behavioral brittleness: the case for strategic behavioral public policy

Abstract

Despite widespread recognition that behavioral public policy (BPP) needs to move beyond nudging if the field is to achieve more significant impact, problem-solving approaches remain optimized to achieve tactical success and are evaluated by short-term metrics with the assumption of stable systems. As a result, current methodologies may contribute to the development of solutions that appear well formed but become ‘brittle’ in the face of more complex contexts if they fail to consider important contextual cues, broader system forces, and emergent conditions, which can take three distinct forms: contextual, systemic, and anticipatory brittleness. The Covid-19 pandemic and vaccination rollout present an opportunity to identify and correct interventional brittleness with a new methodological approach – strategic BPP (SBPP) – that can inform the creation of more resilient solutions by embracing more diverse forms of evidence and applied foresight, designing interventions within ecosystems, and iteratively developing solutions. To advance the case for adopting a SBPP and ‘roughly right’ modes of inquiry, we use the Covid-19 vaccination rollout to define a new methodological roadmap, while also acknowledging that taking a more strategic approach may challenge current BPP norms.

A model for choice infrastructure: looking beyond choice architecture in Behavioral Public Policy

“…The same application of experimental findings to real-world contexts that works well for targeted interventions may be less effective when applied to system challenges, which require solutions to flex according to variable contexts or as new conditions emerge (Howlett, 2020;IJzerman et al, 2020;Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b). In the same way that traditional infrastructure must accommodate different services and usage variability, choice infrastructure must similarly be up to the task of stewarding a wide range of discrete solutions without prescribing the specifics of any individual one (Hallsworth, 2011).…”

“…While incorporating a more principles-based approach into the evidence-based culture of BPP may feel at odds with current norms, there is increasing recognition that complex system conditions in areas such as public health can benefit from mixedmethod and iterative modes of evaluating and refining interventions, rather than relying solely on linear models and demonstrations of causality (Rutter et al, 2017;Bradley et al, 2020;Greenhalgh, 2020). This more pragmatic approach has additional precedent in the recent recognition that public policy benefits from a strategic system design mindset (van Buuren et al, 2020;Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b) and that systems design can contribute a distinct but valuable set of insights to complement more traditional evidence-based approaches, rather than assuming that it must be reduced to 'design science' to be of use (Van Aken & Romme, 2012;Barzelay, 2019;Romme & Meijer, 2020).…”

“…The effective evaluation of choice infrastructure may therefore need to combine several approaches that combine evidence of measurable success with evidence for potential course-corrections (Lewis et al, 2020): for the former, by designating measures for individual improvements that can be captured by more traditional evidencebased mechanisms, and for the latter, through a set of characteristicsboth qualitative and quantitativethat capture attributes of desired system outcomes that can indicate relative progress toward longer-term goals (Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b). Measuring and determining the efficacy of new choice infrastructure may, for example, include the use of indirect modes of evaluation in the form of 'weak signals' (Ansoff, 1975), feedback loops, and leading metrics to supplement more traditional lagging ones (Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b) and prototyping solutions on smaller scales, less to formally evaluate them than to identify opportunities for improvement (Waardenburg et al, 2020).…”

“…Promisingly, several recent perspectives to address these gaps and tendencies have begun to emerge, among them 'advanced' BPP that contributes a more holistic, bottom-up lens to behavioral policy development practices (Ewert, 2019;Ewert & Loer, 2021), the increasing recognition of cultural, structural, and identity-driven aspects of decision-making (MacKay & Quigley, 2018;van Bavel & Dessart, 2018), and the integration of behavioral science with complex, adaptive systems thinking (Lambe et al, 2020;Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b;Bickley & Torgler, 2021). These positions have been bolstered by public health perspectives that recognize solutions within complex systems must look beyond tweaks to immediate choice architecture environments, and instead address the ways in which broader system conditions contribute to individuals' abilities to choose and maintain preferred behaviors (Rutter et al, 2017;Bradley et al, 2020;Greenhalgh, 2020).…”

“…Finally, neglecting to sufficiently examine how underlying infrastructures create system conditions that impact behavior risks overlooking the fact that systems into which solutions are placed may be inherently inequitable, and that system stability does not necessarily equate to system health (Schmidt & Stenger, 2021b). It can also inadvertently presume the presence of universal values, access, and opportunity where they do not exist, and result in solutions that benefit certain communities, solutions, and outcomes over others even while ostensibly promising free choice to all (Winner, 1980;Anderson, 1993).…”