The ethics of behavioural public policy

Lepenies, Robert; Małecka, Magdalena

doi:10.4324/9781315461731-41

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 1 outlines the interdisciplinary forms of engagements that characterize BPP and the complementary, but largely unintegrated disciplines from which additional perspectives could be gleaned. It shows how BPP is interdisciplinary in certain ways, but simultaneously points to the scientific territory in which it appears to lack substantive interdisciplinary engagement (see also Lepenies & Malecka, 2018; Pykett, 2018; Jones et al , 2013). Notwithstanding BPP's valuable contributions to refining cognitive and behavioural accounts of human decision-making, its interdisciplinarity thus seems to be of a relatively comfortable kind.…”

Section: Bpp In a Critical Interdisciplinary Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notwithstanding this, our primary goal is to contribute towards and extend critical theoretical perspectives on this movement (Furedi, 2011; Davies, 2014; Leggett, 2014; Lepenies & Malecka, 2016; Mulderrig 2017; Pedwell, 2017; Feitsma, 2018a, 2018b). 1 We ultimately claim that the interdisciplinary zone associated with BPP is characterized by a pronounced lack of engagement with a broad range of social sciences, which share similar concerns, but employ very different analytical and methodological perspectives (e.g., Shove 2010; Jones et al , 2013; Mols et al , 2015; Lepenies & Malecka, 2018; Pykett, 2018). There are many ways of demonstrating the critical contribution that the broader social sciences could make to behavioural policy-making.…”

Section: Introduction: Behavioural Public Policy and Bounded Interdis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies

Feitsma

Whitehead

2019

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A behavioural public policy movement has flourished within the global policy realm. While this movement has been deemed interdisciplinary, incorporating behavioural science theories and methods in a neoclassical economics-governed policy process, this paper analyses the bounded form of interdisciplinarity that characterizes it. We claim that an engagement is missing with the broader sweep of social sciences, which share similar concerns but deploy different analytical perspectives from those of behavioural public policy. Focusing on two central concepts (context and evidence), we aim to show how behavioural public policy's bounded interdisciplinarity implies constrained understandings of context and evidence, thereby limiting its complex problem-solving abilities. At the same time, we highlight some alternative examples of behavioural public policy practice that do explore new critical interdisciplinary horizons.

show abstract

Section: Bpp In a Critical Interdisciplinary Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction: Behavioural Public Policy and Bounded Interdis...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies

Feitsma

Whitehead

2019

Behav. Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But note that the claim is merely that nudging is amenable to democratic control, not that all current nudge practices fully meet democratic standards. For example, some worry that the part‐privatization of the British nudge organization—the Behavioural Insights Unit—has led to a gap in democratic accountability (Niker, ; Lepenies & Małecka, , pp. 9–10).…”

Section: Arguments Against Nudgingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of nudging: An overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

So‐called nudge policies utilize insights from behavioral science to achieve policy outcomes. Nudge policies try to improve people's decisions by changing the ways options are presented to them, rather than changing the options themselves or incentivizing or coercing people. Nudging has been met with great enthusiasm but also fierce criticism. This paper provides an overview of the debate on the ethics of nudging to date. After outlining arguments in favor of nudging, we first discuss different objections that all revolve around the worry that nudging vitiates personal autonomy. We split up this worry into different dimensions of autonomy, such as freedom of choice, volitional autonomy, rational agency, and freedom as nondomination. We next discuss worries that nudging is manipulative, violates human dignity, and prevents more important structural reform. Throughout, we will present responses that proponents of nudging can muster. On the whole, we conclude that the objections fail to establish that the nudge program as a whole should be rejected. At the same time, they give us important guidance when moving towards an ethical assessment of nudges on a case‐by‐case basis. Towards the end, we provide some possible ways forward in debates around the ethics of nudging.

show abstract

“…There is a consensus that if BPP is to become a standard component in mainstream policymaking, basic agreement on its ethical foundations needs to be reached. But the debate on ethics in BPP, which goes far beyond the debate that has already been conducted around nudging, has just begun (see, by way of an introduction, Lepenies and Małecka, 2019). For now, we can conclude that the sheer variety of ways of applying behavioural insights to different sectors of public policy demands ethical standards that are sensitive to context and case.…”

Section: Towards Advanced Bppmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour: Towards a broader understanding of Behavioural Public Policy

Ewert

2019

Public Policy and Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Behavioural interventions are much more than 'just another policy tool'. Indeed, the use of behavioural science has the potential to lead to a wide-ranging reassessment of policymaking and public administration. However, Behavioural Public Policy remains a policy paradigm 'under construction'. This paper seeks to contribute to this development process by investigating the conceptual features of advanced Behavioural Public Policy that go beyond the now familiar notion of nudging individual behavioural change. It thus seeks to provide more illumination in a debate which currently seems to have become stuck on the pro and cons of nudging citizens' individual behaviours. In reality, Behavioural Public Policy should be seen as a pluralist, non-deterministic and multipurpose approach that allows the application of behavioural insights 'throughout the policy process' and in combination with regulatory policies. The paper's line of argument unfolds in three steps. First, it explores the policy rationales that have driven nudge techniques and also summarises the conceptual, methodological, ethical and ideological criticisms that have made of it. In a second step, state-of-the-art Behavioural Public Policy, which claims to be more substantial and wide-ranging than today's nudge techniques, is empirically examined through interviews conducted with global thinkers (academics and practitioners) in the field of behavioural

show abstract

The ethics of behavioural public policy

Cited by 11 publications

References 59 publications

Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies

Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies

The ethics of nudging: An overview

Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour: Towards a broader understanding of Behavioural Public Policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About