Inside the behavioural state

Abstract

1.1 Initiation into the behavioural state The emerging behavioural state: promise, pressure or phantom? How confident is present-day government? Not too confident, it would seem. Solving public problems is generally seen as an arduous challenge. Our late modern society doesn't lend itself to be 'engineered'. It has only become more uncertain, complex, and 'liquid' (Bauman 1999) than before (e.g. Beck 1992; Giddens 1998). This acknowledgement of complexity reflects how today's policymakers think, 'see' and act. They commonly acknowledge that some policy issues have become 'wicked' (Head 2008): so convoluted and contested-both substantively and procedurally, empirically and normatively-that they can at best be 'tamed'. Also, today's policymakers-part of the New Public Governance paradigm-generally realize that they are heavily dependent on other societal actors to get things done and that forging strong and unified public-private networks is far from easy. So they buckle up, strengthen their tolerance for uncertainty and nonperformance, and confess that public problem-solving simply isn't easy. And yet, in the past two decades a policy trend has emerged that goes in the opposite direction of a modest state. This trend has given birth to a type of state that seems all too confident about its ability to shape society. This confidence is drawn from the opportunities discovered by recent advances in the behavioural sciences. A body of 'behavioural insights' (e.g. Dolan et al. 2010; OECD 2017; Lourenço et al. 2016) has developed rapidly, showing how humans often don't make decisions in wholly rational, but often more automatic ways. These insights have given rise to an unorthodox policy style, which subtly intervenes in the everyday spaces of society based on rigorous behavioural analyses and experiments (e.g.

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

“…Despite being labelled as a ‘quiet revolution’ (John, 2016: 113) that has enjoyed support from across the political spectrum, behavioural insights have also provoked a good deal of criticism. For the purpose of this paper, the conceptual, methodological, ethical and ideological strands of criticism of the use of nudges (see also Feitsma, 2019; John, 2018; Leggett, 2014) are theoretically differentiated, although in practice these strands often overlap and reinforce one another. As we shall see, much of the criticism of the use of nudges stems from its narrow scope as a policy approach and the insufficient extent to which behavioural insights are related and intertwined with existing policy approaches and tools.…”

“…A key finding to be drawn from the interviews is that while nudging has become mainstream, BPP remains a provisional concept that is still in the making (see also Feitsma, 2019: 224–227). While there is broad consensus that BPP goes much further than nudging and individual behaviour change, the conceptual features and guiding rationales of advanced BPP remain unclear and require further specification.…”

“…On the other hand, there is little empirical evidence on ‘nudge plus’ interventions yet. While Feitsma (2019) discusses some inspiring nudge initiatives from the Netherlands that are being developed and owned by citizens, the overall picture looks less rosy (Whitehead et al., 2019). By and large, behavioural insights are, and will presumably remain, a tool of those who govern and not those who are governed.…”

“…As a first step, the debate on behavioural insights needs to be depoliticised and the unrealistic expectations that have accompanied BPP need to be countered. Besides evidencing what BPP can achieve and what it cannot, citizen-owned examples of behavioural interventions (nudge plus), tested and promoted by non-governmental organisations (Feitsma, 2019), have the potential to revitalise public policy by making it more responsive and better tailored to public needs. A less ideological notion of BPP could also draw on past debates on how to approach behavioural change.…”

“…(2004: 4) concluded that ‘[t]o be effective and acceptable, such approaches need to be built around co-production and a sense of partnership between state, individuals and communities.’ Rather than a political project to increase individual responsibility, at that time behavioural change was perceived as a common endeavour to be achieved through co-production – a civic-minded policy paradigm to renew state-citizen relations and public service delivery through a strong emphasis on participation and dialogue (Brandsen et al., 2018). Since co-production concerns the design and implementation of social services, this could serve as a blueprint for the joint development of atypical behavioural interventions behind the scenes of BPP (Feitsma, 2019). Reconciling both these policy paradigms – behavioural insights and co-production – and their academic and practice communities could strengthen the legitimacy and ideological foundations of advanced BPP.…”