SUMMARY GOVERNMENT & BEHAVIOUR - KNOWLEDGE CLIPS & LITERATURE
WEEK 2:
THEME 1 – POLICY, BEHAVIOUR AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Tummers, L. (2019). Public policy and behavior change. Public Administration
Review, 79(6), 925-930.
Governments need support for behavior change by key stakeholders, because.
Various behavior changes interventions that are not supported by citizens can
backfire. Besides that, the usage of insights from behavioral science can improve the
effectiveness of policy instruments.
- How governments can try to change the behavior of citizens (which
policy instruments are available?):
Government can use policy instruments to do so, including incentives, bans and
mandates, information campaigns, and nudges. Traditionally, public administration
scholars have distinguished the carrot, the whip and the sermon.
- The carrot stands for changing behavior by changing incentives (e.g. financial
incentives, rewarding desired behavior).
- The whip includes bans in public placed or mandates (making unwanted
behavior illegal).
- The sermon includes information campaigns. Educational programs can be
seen as ways of communicating and socializing people into desired behaviors
(tell what desired behavior is).
The carrot, the whip and the sermon are based on rational decision. However, people
do not make completely rational decisions. Policy makers can use the use the
insights of the usage of notions of bounded rationality of behavior change. A fourth
policy instrument is therefore:
- A nudge, which is a way to change behavior without prohibiting options or
changing its costs (choice architecture, make desired behavior easy).
However, changing the default can have negative effect when strong
stakeholders oppose it.
- How 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:
o Effective behavior change – the degree to which the public policy
produces the intended behavior change (to what extent does the public
policy result in behavioral change?)
o Efficient behavior change – the degree to which the public policy uses
minimum resources to produce the intended behavior change (How
much time and money is spent on this policy as compared to its
results?).
And there is support for the policy among. If the behavior change is supported
politically, organizationally and personally, it is POPular:
o Politicians (political support) – the degree to which political parties
back the public policy.
, o Implementing organizations (organizational support) – the degree
to which implementing organizations back the public policy
o Citizens (personal support) – the degree to which public service
providers and citizens back the public policy.
Taking into account the wider institutional context is important. Some interventions
may be very efficient, effective and supported as stand-alone policies, but this may
not be the case when combined with other policies. Besides that, even within one
dimension there can be substantial heterogeneity and therefore only being effective
for one group, and ineffective for another. Ultimately, designing public policies to
stimulate behavior change is a normative activity.
Future research into behavior change by governments
- Public administration scholars must collaborate more intensively with
practitioners. A fruitful way of collaborating would be to conduct experiments to
test behavioral interventions in the field.
- We must collaborate with scholars outside public administration. Potentially
interesting developments on behavior change can be found in different fields.
Many behavior interventions are quite individualistic, but little attention is paid
to the fact that people can feel compassion. It might be more effective to focus
behavioral change on compassion.
Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan, Jilke, Sebastian, Olsen, Asmus and Lars Tummers.
(2017). “Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public
Administration and Psychology”. Public Administration Review, 77(1): 45-56.
- Deepen the dialogue between public administration and psychology by
outlining a distinct approach in public administration that integrates the two
fields of study: behavioral public administration
Behavioral Public Administration (BPA) is the analysis of public administration from
micro-level perspective of individual behavior and attitudes by drawing insight from
psychology on the behavior of individuals and groups. This definition has three main
components:
o Individuals and groups of citizens, employees and managers within the
public sector are the unit of analysis.
o It emphasized the behavior and attitudes of these people.
o It does so by integrating insights from psychology and the behavioral
sciences into the study of public administration.
Behavioral public administration studies the behavioral micro-foundations of public
administration through theories developed in psychology and the behavioral sciences
more broadly.
Behavioral approach to public administration be presenting and connecting four
analyses.
- Historical background on a closer bond between public administration and
psychology and conduct a quantitative analysis of the application of
, psychology informed research
A reemerging call for integration public administration and psychology
the earliest attempt can be found in Herbert Simon’s Administrative Behavior.
Simon’s (1947) scholarship is mostly credited with the concepts of bounded
rationality and satisficing into the study of public administration. These are examples
of how Simon envisioned a much more general and tight interaction between the two
fields. He envisioned a two-way street between the two fields.
Dahl (1947) noted that a science of public administration must be based on an
understanding of a man’s behavior in the area marked off by the boundaries of public
administration.
Waldo (1965) discussed the connection between public administration and
psychology. Psychologists see the man is in small part rational but rather is
motivated by emotional drives and urged, and notices that public administration is
little touched by ideas from psychologists. Along 1950s and 1960s argued for a
tighter integration of the fields. Yet, until recently these calls have been largely
unheard.
Recent developments in the use of Psychology in Public administration
psychology-informed research constitutes a rather small but increasing share of
published researches. A psychology-informed approach is on the rise, but there may
be room for extension. Using psychological insights can be beneficial to our
understanding of various important phenomena in public administration research and
practice.
- Lessons are drawn from neighboring fields, which have witnessed a similar
development.
How political sciences and economics have integrated psychology into their
disciplines and developed psychology-informed subfields.
Utilizing experiences of Political Psychology and Behavioral Economics
Behavioral economics predominantly shows that individual behavior in markets
deviated from the assumption of homo economicus, while political psychology uses
psychology to explain individuals’ political behavior instead of solely examining
institutions at macro-level. Both fields are similar in that they show that there is much
to learn from psychological theories and have integrated this into their own field of
study. However, political science is more akin to the discipline of public
administration. Behavioral economics has focused on providing an alternative to the
dominance of rational choice theory in economics. The pluralistic way political
psychology has developed may fit public administration scholarship better as it
embraces a broader range of psychological theories and methods. This pluralistic
approach reflects current research practice in public administration.
- How a behavioral approach might help add nuance to, support, or criticize
theories in our field
Behavioral Public Administration: Theory and Methods
, Theories for Behavioral Public Administration
A behavioral administration can be beneficial to connect gran macro-level theories
with their micro-level foundations. In this way, a behavioral public administration can
verify, falsify or add nuance to claims made at macro level and thus refine
institutional theories. How would studies that can be classified as belonging in the
realm of a behavioral public administration verify and add nuance to macro-level
theories on transparency and representative bureaucracy.
Transparency
Government transparency is said to strengthen citizen trust and legitimacy. However,
the positive impact of transparency on trust might not be as straightforward as
claimed, and recent research suggests that the effects of transparency on citizen
attitudes depend on contextual and cultural factors.
The integration of psychological theories can explain individual behavior in a public
administration context, and more importantly how it can add nuance to macro-level
theories. It shows that transparency does not automatically lead to higher levels of
trust, assumed by institutional theory, but is conditional on whether the decision
concern controversial areas.
Representative bureaucracy
The idea behind this theory is that a representative composition of the workforce of a
bureaucracy in terms of gender and racial and ethnic diversity can promote
democracy in various ways. One of the (micro-level) key assumptions underlying
representative bureaucracy is symbolic representation. With symbolic representation,
then, attitudes and outcomes can change without any purposeful actions taken by the
representatives other than holding a government office or position.
These two examples show how a behavioral approach to public administration can
add nuance to (transparency case) and support (representative bureaucracy case)
the micro foundations of macro-level theories. It also shows that a behavioral public
administration cannot, and should not, replace “conventional” public administration
research, but it is complementary to it.
A Behavioral approach to Public Administration and Research
Two methodological contributions can be found that research in psychology can
make to the conduct of behaviorally informed public administration research.
Experimentation
Public administration scholars can develop important practical and scientific insights
using experiments. Comparisons between control and treatment groups could
determine what would have happened in absence of the manipulation, while
randomization ensures the statistical equivalence of experimental subjects. What
public administration scholars might want to avoid is experimentation without
replication. This may result in experiments that are not confirmed in other population
contexts.
Measurement
Many public administration studies are prone to various measurement errors, such as
questionnaire wording, social desirability bias, overly complicated questions, data
