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

Abstract

Local public managers increasingly use behavioral policy instruments to influence the behavior of citizens. However, despite their increased reliance on these instruments, there is little evidence on why local public manager would prefer behavioral instruments over classic stick, carrot or sermon-type instruments. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a stated-preference survey and two focus groups, to examine whether senior local public managers (directors and deputy directors) in Flanders prefer behavioral policy instruments over classic stick, carrot and sermon-type instruments, and explore whether their trust in citizens (perceptions of citizen's ability, benevolence and integrity) affects these preferences for policy instruments. The results indicate that in some policy areas, such as health, public nuisance and road safety, public managers appear more willing to use behavioral policy instruments than classic sticks and carrots, but not sermons. Furthermore, we find that public managers’ trust in citizens does not appear to significantly affect their preferences for policy instruments, but that political and economic motives do play a role in their preferences for behavioral policy instruments. Finally, the results also indicate that the simultaneous use of behavioral and classic policy instruments (packaging) can help mediate the perceived risks of citizens’ non-compliance with behavioral policy instruments.

Driven by head or heart? Testing the effect of rational and emotional anti-speeding messages on self-reported speeding intentions

“…This entanglement was already analyzed extensively in the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (Reason et al, 1990) and further deepened through a wide range of driving behavior research based on theoretical frameworks such as Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991;Elliott et al, 2005;Elliott and Thomson, 2010;Paris and Van den Broucke, 2008;Warner and Åberg, 2006) and Protection Motivation Theory (Cathcart and Glendon, 2016;Glendon et al, 2018;Glendon and Walker, 2013;Maddux and Rogers, 1983). A more recent strand of this behavioral lens can be found in the increasing application of nudging interventions (Choudhary et al, 2022;Migchelbrink and Raymaekers, 2022;Rubaltelli et al, 2021).…”

Nudging People to Pay Their Parking Fines on Time. Evidence from a Cluster-Randomized Field Experiment

“…One way to increase timely payment rates is by applying nudging techniques and behavioral interventions. Nudges are low-cost and effective policy instruments designed to subtly alter people's behavior without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives (Migchelbrink & Raymaekers, 2022;Thaler & Sunstein, 2008;Tummers, 2019). When applied to government communications such as brochures, application forms, and notification letters, nudges can sometimes lead to sizable effects at modest cost (Benartzi et al, 2017;Hummel & Maedche, 2019;John, 2018;Mertens et al, 2022).…”