From mechanism to virtue: Evaluating Nudge theory

Abstract

Ever since Thaler and Sunstein published their influential book Nudge, the book and the theory it presents have received great praise and opposition. Nudge theory, and more particularly, nudging may be considered an additional strategy providing some novel instruments to the already rich governance toolbox. But what is its value? The current debates on Nudge theory are often highly normative or ideologically driven and pay limited attention to more practical aspects of the theory. Is nudging evaluable as a theory and a practice, and if so how? Is there solid evidence available of nudge success over other governance interventions? What is to be considered a nudge success? What data and evaluative techniques may assist in evaluating nudging beyond individual cases? The current article seeks to explore these questions.

Understanding and applying principles of social cognition and decision making in adaptive environmental governance

“…As previously described, loss aversion is also incorporated into environmental law (Doremus and Hanemann 2007). Reframing will not help these structural manifestations of loss aversion; they must be addressed with changes to the legal system itself (Craig 2010, Huber 2011, Kosters and Van der Heijden 2015.…”

An introduction to the special issue on “the behavioural turn in public policy: new evidence from experiments”

“…2 As reported in Lunn (2015, p. 316 and 318-319), the expression 'behavioural market failure' was first coined by Bar-Gill (2008) and then used by Sunstein (2013) and by Bubb and Pildes (2014) everywhere, lately the tone is more critical. This literature is correct as with regards to the fuzziness of the 'nudge' concept (Oliver 2015;Kosters and Van der Heijden 2015) which cause both a lack of a clear taxonomy of interventions (by type of intervention and context/domain) that could be used to cumulate homogenous empirical evidence for meta-evaluations, and the indiscriminate application of nudges in all sorts of policy and regulatory situations. A second group of critiques worth taking seriously is on the reductively individualistic approach that Nudge inherit from BE (Frerichs 2011;Gigerenzer 2015;Rebonato 2014;Streeck 2010).…”

Standing back and looking forward: Editors’ reflections on the 20th Anniversary of Evaluation

“…At a macro level we have also published a great deal about policy, policy making and governance. Articles about evaluating 'nudge theory' (Kosters and Heijden, 2015), legislation (Fitzpatrick, 2012), diplomacy (Kleistra and Willigen, 2010), network governance (Hertting and Vedung, 2012), federalism (Stame, 2008), accountability (Zapico-Goñi, 2007), would all fall into those categories. Often these articles highlight contentions and innovation pressures in policy thinking.…”