Author
Abstract
Recent advances in behavioural and communication sciences generated enthusiasm in public policy for new ways of ‘framing’ messages and ‘nudging’ individual behaviour. Wide research and practice of behavioural interventions that have since ensued triggered the rise of a new sub-field called Behavioural Public Policy (BPP). At the same time, nudges – a part and parcel of BPP, have received criticism for being paternalistic, non-democratic and lacking evidence of long-term effectiveness. More recently, the whole project of BPP has come under criticism as construed too narrowly. Critics have argued for a new approach to BPP that is pluralistic, multi-disciplinary and multi-method. One key pillar of it is a ‘policy mix’ – a combined application of behavioural and non-behavioural policy tools. Little is known, however, about ‘policy mixes’ in practice. This paper conducts a scoping non-exhaustive review of the academic and policy literature published between 2008 and 2020 that discusses policy mixes of behavioural policy tools (defined in this paper as ‘nudges’ and ‘frames’) and reflective policy tools (defined in this paper as ‘deliberative’ events and incentives for individuals to ‘think’) employed within environmental policy. Two questions guide this review: (a) what are the characteristics of policy mixes in terms of their types, geography, sectors of application, and empirical detail of exposition?; (b) to what extent do existing policy mixes include broader governance aspects of politics, awareness of contextuality and flexibility? By taking stock of experiences of empirical place-based policy mixes of behavioural and reflective tools, we provide insights into a fast-developing body of scholarship and point to ways forward with policy mixes. The paper is also relevant to policy studies beyond the domain of the environment.
Suggested Citation
Farhad Mukhtarov, 2024.
"Combining behavioural and reflective policy tools for the environment: a scoping review of behavioural public policy literature,"
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(4), pages 714-741, March.
Handle:
RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:67:y:2024:i:4:p:714-741
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2132475
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:taf:jenpmg:v:67:y:2024:i:4:p:714-741. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CJEP20 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.