Public Policy and Behavior Change

Abstract

Changing behavior is often necessary to tackle societal problems, such as obesity, alcohol abuse, and debt problems. This article has two goals. First, it aims to highlight how governments can try to change the behavior of citizens. Government can use policy instruments to do so, including incentives, bans and mandates, information campaigns, and nudges. However, the government should not be a manipulator that applies policy instruments without societal support. Therefore, the second goal of the article is to provide a conceptual framework that helps analyze whether public policies to stimulate behavior change are effective and supported by key stakeholders. This conceptual framework has five criteria indicating the extent to which there is effective and supported behavior change: the policy is (1) effective and (2) efficient, and there is support for the policy among (3) politicians, (4) implementing organizations, and (5) citizens. The article ends with suggestions to study public policy aimed at behavior change.

Why Do Countries Respond Differently to COVID-19? A Comparative Study of Sweden, China, France, and Japan

“…Gelfand et al (2011) have illustrated that the looseness–tightness cultural orientation can impact individuals’ adherence to social norms and subsequently influence their perception of responsibility in state–citizen interactions (Gelfand et al, 2011; Trnka & Trundle, 2014). As suggested by behavioral public administration studies (Tummers, 2019; F. Zhang et al, 2018), the adoption of policy measures across different countries by and large depends on the public’s attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and willingness to cooperate in regard to containing the pandemic (X.…”

“…Sweden’s COVID-19 response is a good example of a nudge strategy, which is designed to change behaviors without prohibiting options or imposing upon individuals’ freedom of choice, so as to steer people in a particular direction (Hertwig & Grüne-Yanoff, 2017; Tummers, 2019). It ranks the weakest on the stringency index among the four countries.…”

Employees’ Change Support in the Public Sector—A Multi‐Time Field Study Examining the Formation of Intentions and Behaviors

“…In such cases, when recipients perceive that the significant others are supportive of the change, this will positively contribute to their own intentions and subsequent behaviors (Jimmieson et al 2008). The importance of social influence for the interpretation of events in organizational change processes has been strongly recognized in the public administration literature (e.g., Giauque 2015; Kelman 2005; Tummers 2019; Zayim‐Kurtay and Zhu 2019). Tenkasi and Cesmore (2003), for instance, suggested that change management can, and should, capitalize on the social networks in organizations in order to create alliances and power bases that are sources for sense‐making during times of change.…”

Nudging in perspectief

“…Een nudge verbiedt geen opties, zoals een zweep, en verandert de kosten van een keuze niet significant, zoals een wortel. En in tegenstelling tot een preek gaat een nudge niet uit van een perfecte, maar van een begrensd rationeel beslissende burger (Tummers, 2019b). Naast twee zogenaamde harde beleidsinstrumenten (regels en financiële prikkels) verschijnen dan twee zachtere of softere instrumenten: communicatie die inzet op het bewuste, en communicatie die inzet op het onbewuste keuzeproces (House of Lord Report, 2011; Mont et al, 2015).…”