IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v17y2023i2p363-371.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support for behavioral nudges versus alternative policy instruments and their perceived fairness and efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Peter John
  • Aaron Martin
  • Gosia Mikołajczak

Abstract

An extensive debate has emerged in recent years about the relative merits of behavioral policy instruments (nudges) aimed at changing individual behavior without coercion. In this article, we examine public support for non‐deliberative nudges and deliberative nudges and compare them to attitudes toward top‐down regulation and free choice/libertarian options. We also examine whether support for both types of nudges is associated with perceptions of fairness and efficacy. We test these expectations with a survey experiment with 1706 UK adult respondents (representative of the population on age, gender, and location) in two policy areas (retirement savings and carbon offsets for airline passengers). We find higher levels of public support for both nudge policy options compared to top‐down regulation. Support for nudges is associated with the perceived fairness of nudges more than their efficacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter John & Aaron Martin & Gosia Mikołajczak, 2023. "Support for behavioral nudges versus alternative policy instruments and their perceived fairness and efficacy," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 363-371, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:2:p:363-371
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12460
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Tannenbaum & Craig R. Fox & Todd Rogers, 2017. "On the misplaced politics of behavioural policy interventions," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(7), pages 1-7, July.
    2. Sondak, Harris & Tyler, Tom R., 2007. "How does procedural justice shape the desirability of markets?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 79-92, January.
    3. Loewenstein, George & Chater, Nick, 2017. "Putting nudges in perspective," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 26-53, May.
    4. Cass R. Sunstein & Richard H. Thaler, 2003. "Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 48(Jun).
    5. Esaiasson, Peter & Persson, Mikael & Gilljam, Mikael & Lindholm, Torun, 2019. "Reconsidering the Role of Procedures for Decision Acceptance," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(1), pages 291-314, January.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:62-74 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. De Jonge, Patricia & Zeelenberg, Marcel & Verlegh, Peeter W.J., 2018. "Putting the public back in behavioral public policy," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 218-226, November.
    8. Oliver,Adam, 2017. "The Origins of Behavioural Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316510261, November.
    9. Dowding, Keith & Oprea, Alexandra, 2023. "Nudges, Regulations and Liberty," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 204-220, January.
    10. Oliver,Adam, 2017. "The Origins of Behavioural Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316649664, November.
    11. Simon Joss & Arthur Brownlea, 1999. "Considering the concept of procedural justice for public policy- and decision-making in science and technology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 321-330, October.
    12. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    13. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Ayala Arad & Ariel Rubinstein, 2018. "The People's Perspective on Libertarian-Paternalistic Policies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(2), pages 311-333.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    2. Ismaël Rafaï & Arthur Ribaillier & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgments of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Working Papers hal-03228638, HAL.
    3. Arthur Ribaillier & Ismaël Rafaï & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    4. Bruns, Hendrik & Perino, Grischa, 2023. "The role of autonomy and reactance for nudging — Experimentally comparing defaults to recommendations and mandates," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Benno Torgler, 2021. "The Power of Public Choice in Law and Economics," CREMA Working Paper Series 2021-04, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    6. Benno Torgler, 2022. "The power of public choice in law and economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1410-1453, December.
    7. Hendrik Bruns & Grischa Perino, 2021. "Point at, nudge, or push private provision of a public good?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(3), pages 996-1007, July.
    8. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    9. Nikil Mukerji & Adriano Mannino, 2023. "Nudge Me If You Can! Why Order Ethicists Should Embrace the Nudge Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 186(2), pages 309-324, August.
    10. Björn Bartling & Alexander W. Cappelen & Henning Hermes & Marit Skivenes & Bertil Tungodden, 2023. "Free to fail? Paternalistic preferences in the United States," ECON - Working Papers 436, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    11. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2022. "The end of Nudge and the beginning of The Behavioral Code?," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 974-978, July.
    12. Ekström, Mathias, 2021. "The (un)compromise effect: How suggested alternatives can promote active choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Krügel, Sebastian & Uhl, Matthias, 2023. "Is only one of my selves authentic? An empirical approach," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2023. "The Homer economicus narrative: from cognitive psychology to individual public policies," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 176-187, April.
    15. Robin Maialeh, 2019. "Generalization of results and neoclassical rationality: unresolved controversies of behavioural economics methodology," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 1743-1761, July.
    16. Michael Hallsworth, 2023. "A manifesto for applying behavioural science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 310-322, March.
    17. James Alm & Laura Rosales Cifuentes & Carlos Mauricio Ortiz Niño & Diana Rocha, 2019. "Can Behavioral “Nudges” Improve Compliance? The Case of Colombia Social Protection Contributions," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, October.
    18. Beiser-McGrath, Liam & Busemeyer, Marius R., 2023. "Carbon inequality and support for carbon taxation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120925, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Hecker Christian, 2013. "„Soziale Gerechtigkeit“ als Befähigungsgerechtigkeit – Subsidiarität, Verantwortungsfähigkeit und Eigenverantwortung im Rahmen liberaler Ordnungspolitik und christlicher Gesellschaftsethik / “Social j," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 64(1), pages 99-134, January.
    20. Meder, Björn & Fleischhut, Nadine & Osman, Magda, 2018. "Beyond the confines of choice architecture: A critical analysis," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 36-44.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:17:y:2023:i:2:p:363-371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1748-5991 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.