Issues

Applying behavioural science to policy

The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Dublin, Ireland.Pete Lunn considers the pros and cons of the behavioural insight approach and its potential to improve policy outcomes for citizens.

In late January, the OECD organised an international workshop in Paris entitled ‘Behavioural Insights and New Approaches to Policy’. This meeting brought together researchers and policy-makers from around the world who share one thing in common. They are trying to use recent advances in behavioural science to improve public policy.

The basic idea is simple enough. Scientific progress has given us a better understanding of how people make decisions in their daily lives. We have new insights into how individuals decide what to buy, what to eat, whether to follow rules, where to go and how to get there, how hard to work, whether to give to charity, and so on. These insights tell us that the decisions people make do not depend only on their preferences, but also on the context in which they make the decision. Since public policy can change that context, policies informed by behavioural science have the potential to help citizens to make better decisions.

Internationally speaking, the pioneers in applying behavioural science to policy are the UK and the USA. The UK Behavioural Insights Team (UKBIT) was formed in 2010. It began with just a handful of researchers based in the Cabinet Office. Five years on, the results have proved successful enough that UKBIT has been established as a separate entity and expanded to over 50 staff, with small satellite teams embedded in 12 British government departments.

Here is an example of the kind of work they do. When drivers pay their motor tax online, they have the opportunity to sign up to the organ donor register. Most decide not to. Behavioural science suggests that whether people engage in altruistic acts partly depends on how they are asked. UKBIT conducted an experiment to test eight different ways to ask drivers to sign up.

The most successful involved putting a single sentence on the web page that appealed to reciprocity: “If you needed an organ transplant would you have one? If so, please help others.” Following this experiment, it is estimated that the adoption of the new wording has added 100,000 organ donors to the register.

Application
UKBIT has now done many similar studies that have improved specific policy outcomes. The method used is to study the context in which people make decisions, look to the findings of behavioural science for interventions that might lead to the desired outcome, then test the interventions in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) or pilot. Sometimes they don’t work, but often they do. Among others, the team has successfully tested ways to get the unemployed back into work more quickly, to increase charitable donations, to improve tax compliance, to reduce missed appointments in the Health Service and to increase domestic energy efficiency.

Many countries are copying or adapting the British approach. The White House now has a US Social and Behavioural Sciences Team. A similar operation has been set up in Australia. The government in the Netherlands has developed a behavioural insights network. France and Germany are also establishing specialised government units to apply behavioural science.

Denmark has an interesting approach. It has an independent organisation (iNudgeYou) that works with government departments, agencies and businesses to devise and test behavioural interventions. Among other projects, iNudgeYou is reorganising systems in Copenhagen Airport to make it easier to navigate for passengers, to speed up boarding times and reduce the number of missed planes.

While much of this work concerns relatively small interventions in public service design and delivery, rather than major policy changes, it may have a lot of potential to improve the experiences of individuals and enterprises when they interact with public services and regulatory systems. Furthermore, some of the work does surround the more important decisions people make in their lives, such as whether they continue their education, whether they take out a pension, or whether they commit a crime.

Role of the state
At the Paris workshop, a number of issues were raised regarding the application of behavioural science to policy.
First, there are important debates to be had about when it is legitimate for government to intervene in citizens’ autonomous decision-making, and when it is not. Most people accept that the government has a role in, say, reducing smoking, increasing pension coverage, or raising the numbers who choose to go on into higher education. But there is less consensus about whether the state should be involved in people’s diets, their choices of mortgage products, or how they raise their children. In each case, government already plays some role but advances in behavioural science mean that it could do more. Should it?

Secondly, there are ethical issues surrounding the use of experiments and RCTs. Some people instinctively dislike the idea of government conducting experiments on citizens. Others worry about the unequal treatment inherent in conducting an RCT. But where the outcome of an experiment gives clear guidance on how to improve a system for everyone’s benefit, the end may justify the means. Most scientists in the field think transparency is crucial. People might be happier for the state to experiment on citizens provided it is open about what it is doing and why.
Thirdly, there are issues of capacity and expertise. Those countries that are leading the way have all set up units or networks dedicated to applying behavioural science and to spreading the word about its potential across government. These initiatives have brought researchers and policy-makers closer together, either by embedding researchers within government or via more formal networks and research collaborations.

Some universities have responded by adapting what they teach to allow economists and other social scientists to develop the skills required to apply the science to policy.

In Ireland, we have been slower to apply this new science although awareness and interest in it is now growing. We have the advantage of being able to learn from developments in other countries, but as a small nation, we have fewer resources and specialists to play with. This is where organisations like the OECD can help. It remains early days in the application of behavioural science to policy but delegates left Paris full of optimism about its potential.

Pete Lunn is a Senior Research Officer with the Economic and Social Research Institute.

Show More
Back to top button