Behavioural interventions are deemed to be more than just another tool in the policy toolbox. Adopting a behavioural lens throughout the policy process may lead to a reassessment of policymaking and needs, therefore, to be comprehensively analysed from a political science perspective. This requires to establish a broad understanding of Behavioural Public Policy (BPP) that draws from behavioural and social sciences and is based on pluralistic methods and evidence. Such a notion of advanced BPP would allow a broader, and more radical use of behavioural insights that includes a wide range of behaviours in various policy contexts. In addition, rather than being a stand-alone-concept, BPP calls for efforts of policy integration in order to be most effective. The suggested paper suggests a comprehensive concept of BPP that is embedded in existing policy frameworks and serves multiple purposes (i.e. beyond individual behaviour change). The paper’s line of argumentation unfolds in two parts.
A pluralistic scientific and methodological foundation is considered to be a significant cornerstone of advanced BPP. While Thaler and Sunstein’s (2008) nudge concept and the bulk of the activities of Behavioural Insights Teams (BITs) draw almost exclusively from behavioural economics and psychology, a broader version of BPP also utilizes behavioural insights emanating from social sciences such as anthropology or sociology. Thus, in the first part of the paper, we will sketch out the landscape of disciplines that theoretically could be involved in the shaping of BPP. Moreover, we will pay attention on the production and role of evidence for behavioural interventions. In this view, three dimensions seem of utmost importance: BPP’s preferred methodological basis for evidence production (RCTs and/or mixed methods?), the relationship between evidence producers and policy-makers (instrumental or cooperative?) and the actual timing of evidence use in the policy process (policy design or policy implementation phase?).
The second part of the paper makes the case for an extension of BPP’s scope and scale. As shown on the example of ‘conventional’ nudges, so far, behavioural policy-makers tend to focus on easier problems (‘low-hanging fruits’) while insufficiently respond to more complex problem structures (e.g. childhood obesity) that cannot be traced back solely to individual behaviour alone but needs a focus on social determinants. Hence, we will ask whether (and if so, how) behavioural insights may be used to tackle, both, individual and structural dimensions of policy problems. In addition, we will move beyond behavioural policies that nudge individuals’ behaviours by assessing the potential of interventions that seek to influence the (collective) behaviour of public servants and organisations (‘Behavioural Public Administration’).
Finally, the paper will discuss how moving beyond individual behaviour and broadening the disciplinary references of BPP have an effect on dealing with complex policy problems.
