Behaviour architects: a framework for employing behavioural insights in public policy practice
Objectives: Responses to policy initiatives of citizens and organisations often differ from those expected by policy designers. The article offers an analytical framework for holistic mapping of mechanisms driving policy addressees’ behaviours.
Research design & methods: Article uses systematic literature review of policy design and behavioural insights studies to develop the framework. The framework is then empirically tested in a case study of a policy implemented in 2015 by the government of Poland to address the problem of obesity in school children. Methods include in-depth interviews with adults parents, school principals, canteen staff, surveys, and focus groups with parents and teenagers, ethnographic observations in school canteens.
Findings: The empirical test proved the utility of the analytical framework in identifying flaws in policy design. Framework helped: (1) articulating an overall theory of change of regulation; (2) reframing the policy issue in behavioural terms, i.e., stating who, how, and in what context did not comply, and (3) identifying reasons for non-compliance related to capacity, motivation and opportunities of the policy subjects.
Implications / Recommendations: The article proposes that policy designers should work as behaviour architects in order to design more effective public policies and avoid policy failures. They should consider mechanisms facilitating or hampering expected behaviours of policy addressees.
Contribution / Value added: This article contributes to the theory and practice of policy design. It operationalises determinants of policy compliance from the perspective of applied behavioural science. It helps public policy scholars and practitioners to think systematically about policy subjects’ behaviours, decisions, and their determinants when analysing and designing policy solution.
Article classification: theoretical article – conceptual article.
behavioural insight; public policy design; evaluation; behavioural economics
Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.
Bardach, E. (2006). Policy Dynamics. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 336–366). Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press.
Behavioural Insights Team. (2015). Update report 2013–2015. London.
Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L. (2007). Introduction: policy instruments choice and evaluation. In M.-L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons. Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (pp. viii–xxvi). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Binnekamp, R., van Gunsteren, L., & van Loon, P.-P. (2006). Open design, a stakeholder-oriented approach in architecture, urban planning, and project management. Delft: IOS Press.
Bryson, J. M. (2011). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Buse, K., Mays, N., & Walt, G. (2012). Making health policy. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Chen, H. T. (2005). Theory-driven evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 415–419). Thousand Oaks, CA – London: Sage Publications.
Colebatch, H. K. & Hope R. (2018). Introduction. In H. K. Colebatch & R. Hope (eds), Handbook on Policy, Process, and Governing (pp. 131–168). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Colebatch, H. K. (2018). Design as a window on the policy process. In H. K. Colebatch & R. Hope (eds.), Handbook on Policy, Process, and Governing (pp. 131–168). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Coryn, C., Noakes, L., Westine, C., & Schroter, D. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199–226.
Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2012). Behavioral design: a new approach to development policy. CGD Policy Paper, 16 (November), 1–33.
Donaldson, S. I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science: strategies and applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Étienne, J. (2010) La conformation des gouvernes. Une revue de la littérature théorique. Revue française de science politique, 60(3), 493–517.
Evans, J. (2017). Thinking and reasoning. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, F., Miller, G., & Sidney, M. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics and methods. London, New York: CRC Press.
Freeman, E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Gomes, R. C. (2004). Who are the relevant stakeholders to the local government context? Empirical evidences on environmental influences in the decision-making process of English local authorities. Brazilian Administration Review, 1(1), 34–52.
Gooch, G., & Stalnacke, P. (Eds). (2010). Science, policy and stakeholders in water Management. An integrated approach to river basin management. London, Washington D.C.: Earthscan.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2014). Implementing public policy: an introduction to the study of operational governance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: principles and instruments. London – New York: Routledge.
Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2000). A behavioral approach to law and economics. In C. R. Sunstein (Ed.), Behavioral law and economics (pp. 13–58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jones, R., Pykett, J., & Whitehead, M. (2013). Changing behaviours: on the rise of the psychological state. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jordan K. C. et al. (2008). Evaluation of the Gold Medal Schools Program. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(11), 1916–1920.
Kipping, R., et al. (2014). Effect of intervention aimed at increasing physical activity, reducing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children: Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school based cluster randomised controlled trial.
BMJ 2014; 348:g3256.
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell, D. (Eds.), The policy sciences: recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Laurence, S., Peterken R., Burns, C. (2007). Fresh kids: the efficacy of a health promoting schools approach to increasing consumption of fruit and water in Australia. Health Promotion International, 22(3), 218–226.
Llargues E. et al. (2011). Assessment of a school-based intervention in eating habits and physical activity in school children: the AVall study. Journal Epidemiol Community Health, 65(10): 896–901.
Martin, B., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design: 100 ways to research complex problems, develop innovative ideas, and design effective solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
Michie, S., & West, R. (2013). Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to Government. Health Psychology Review, 7(1), 1–22.
Michie, S., van Stralen, M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42), 1–11.
Michie, S., West, R., Campbell, R., Brown, J., & Gainforth, H. (2014). ABC of behaviour change theories. An essential resource for researchers, policy makers and practitioners. London: Silverback Publishing.
Navarrete, D. M., & Modvar, C. (2007). Stakeholder. In M. Bevir (Ed.), Encyclopedia of governance (pp. 917–921). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
OECD. (2017). Behavioural insights and public policy. Lessons from around the world. Paris: OECD Publishing House.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, N.J.; Woodstock: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), pp. 1–33.
Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Los Angeles – London: Sage Publications.
Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Peters, B. G. (2018). Policy problems and policy design. Cheltenham, UK – Northampton MA USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Plachta-Danielzik S. et al. (2011), Eight-Year Follow-Up of School-Based Intervention on Childhood Overweight – the Kiel Obesity Prevention Study, Obesity Facts, 4(1), 35–43.
Pressman, J., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press.
Schäfer Elinder L. et al. (2012), A participatory and capacity-building approach to healthy eating and physical activity – SCIP-school: a 2-year controlled trial, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(145).
Shafir, E. (2013a). Introduction. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The behavioral foundations of public policy (pp. 1–9). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Shafir, E. (Ed.). (2013b). The behavioral foundations of public policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Soman, D. (2017). The last mile. Creating social and economic value from behavioral insights. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Stanford University (2016) Behaviorally informed design for energy conservation; energy innovation and emerging technologies program. Stanford: Stanford Change Labs.
Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (2012). This is service design thinking: basics, tools, cases. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Weaver, K. (2015). Getting people to behave: research lessons for policy makers. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 806–816.
World Bank. (2015). Mind, society, and behavior. Washington D.C.: World Bank Group.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zawicki, M. (2016). Koncepcje teoretyczne implementacji polityki publicznej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie.