IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/reggov/v16y2022i1p261-273.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nudging the nudger: Toward a choice architecture for regulators

Author

Listed:
  • Susan E. Dudley
  • Zhoudan Xie

Abstract

Behavioral research has shown that individuals do not always behave in ways that match textbook definitions of rationality but are subject to cognitive biases that may lead to systematic errors in judgments and decisions. Recognizing that regulators are not immune from these cognitive irrationalities, this article explores how the institutional framework or “choice architecture” in which they operate interacts with those biases. By examining five cognitive biases that may be prevalent among regulators, it discusses the extent to which the institutions regulators face reinforce or counteract the influence of cognitive biases in regulatory decision making. Just as behavioral insights can help design a choice architecture to frame individual decisions in ways that encourage welfare‐enhancing choices, consciously designing regulators' institutional frameworks with behavioral insights in mind could lead to more public‐welfare‐enhancing policies. The article concludes with some modest ideas for improving regulators' choice architecture and suggestions for further research.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan E. Dudley & Zhoudan Xie, 2022. "Nudging the nudger: Toward a choice architecture for regulators," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), pages 261-273, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:reggov:v:16:y:2022:i:1:p:261-273
    DOI: 10.1111/rego.12329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12329
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rego.12329?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. George M. Gray & Joshua T. Cohen, 2012. "Rethink chemical risk assessments," Nature, Nature, vol. 489(7414), pages 27-28, September.
    2. Susan E. Dudley & Marcus Peacock, 2016. "Improving Regulatory Science: A Case Study of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 49-99.
    3. Brian F. Mannix, 2016. "Benefit-Cost Analysis as a Check on Administrative Discretion," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 155-168.
    4. Wood, B. Dan & Waterman, Richard W., 1991. "The Dynamics of Political Control of the Bureaucracy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 801-828, September.
    5. Ted Gayer & W. Viscusi, 2013. "Overriding consumer preferences with energy regulations," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 248-264, June.
    6. Niclas Berggren, 2012. "Time for behavioral political economy? An analysis of articles in behavioral economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 25(3), pages 199-221, September.
    7. Susan E. Dudley, 2017. "Retrospective evaluation of chemical regulations," OECD Environment Working Papers 118, OECD Publishing.
    8. Canice Prendergast, 2007. "The Motivation and Bias of Bureaucrats," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 180-196, March.
    9. John A. List, 2003. "Does Market Experience Eliminate Market Anomalies?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(1), pages 41-71.
    10. Carrigan,Christopher, 2017. "Structured to Fail?," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781316632802, January.
    11. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2014. "Behavioral public choice: A survey," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 14/03, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    12. Jerry Ellig & Christopher Conover, 2014. "Presidential priorities, congressional control, and the quality of regulatory analysis: an application to healthcare and homeland security," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 305-320, December.
    13. James T. Hamilton & W. Kip Viscusi, 1999. "Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1010-1027, September.
    14. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    15. David Hirshleifer, 2008. "Psychological Bias as a Driver of Financial Regulation," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 856-874, November.
    16. Glaeser, Edward L., 2006. "Paternalism and Psychology," Working Paper Series rwp06-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. McCubbins, Mathew D & Noll, Roger G & Weingast, Barry R, 1987. "Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 243-277, Fall.
    18. Daniel Kahneman & Jack L. Knetsch & Richard H. Thaler, 1991. "Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 193-206, Winter.
    19. James Cooper & William Kovacic, 2012. "Behavioral economics: implications for regulatory behavior," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 41-58, February.
    20. Carrigan,Christopher, 2017. "Structured to Fail?," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107181694, January.
    21. Howard Beales, 2008. "Consumer Protection and Behavioral Economics: To BE or Not to BE?," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
    22. Michael David Thomas, 2019. "Reapplying behavioral symmetry: public choice and choice architecture," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 11-25, July.
    23. James Cooper & William Kovacic, 2012. "Erratum to: Behavioral economics: implications for regulatory behavior," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 292-292, April.
    24. Cass Sunstein & Richard Zeckhauser, 2011. "Overreaction to Fearsome Risks," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(3), pages 435-449, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Mills, Stuart, 2024. "Deceptive choice architecture and behavioral audits: a principles‐based approach," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 122714, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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. Francesc Trillas Jané, 2016. "Behavioral Regulatory Agencies," Working Papers wpdea1606, Department of Applied Economics at Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona.
    2. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    3. Michael Collins, J. & Urban, Carly, 2014. "The dark side of sunshine: Regulatory oversight and status quo bias," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PB), pages 470-486.
    4. Budzinski, Oliver & Haucap, Justus, 2019. "Kartellrecht und Ökonomik: Institutions matter!," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 102, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2014. "Behavioral public choice: A survey," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 14/03, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    6. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    7. Luis E. Mejía, 2021. "Judicial review of regulatory decisions: Decoding the contents of appeals against agencies in Spain and the United Kingdom," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 760-784, July.
    8. Knetsch, Jack L., 2007. "Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 684-689, September.
    9. Jae-Do Song & Young-Hwan Ahn, 2019. "Cognitive Bias in Emissions Trading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, March.
    10. Shi, Wei & Halstead, John M. & Huang, Ju-Chin, 2017. "Market Experience Matters: Status Quo Effect in the Economic Valuation of Consumer Preferences for Local Produce," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258290, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Ellig, Jerry, 2016. "Evaluating the Quality and Use of Regulatory Impact Analysis: The Mercatus Center’s Regulatory Report Card, 2008–2013," Working Papers 06878, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    12. Peter D. Lunn, 2013. "Telecommunications Consumers: A Behavioral Economic Analysis," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 167-189, April.
    13. Insaf Bekir & Faten Doss, 2020. "Status quo bias and attitude towards risk: An experimental investigation," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(5), pages 827-838, July.
    14. Steven J. Humphrey & Luke Lindsay & Chris Starmer, 2017. "Consumption experience, choice experience and the endowment effect," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(2), pages 109-120, December.
    15. Babaioff, Moshe & Dobzinski, Shahar & Oren, Sigal, 2022. "Combinatorial auctions with endowment effect," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 255-273.
    16. Shahrabani, Shosh & Shavit, Tal & Benzion, Uri, 2008. "Short-selling and the WTA-WTP gap," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 131-133, April.
    17. Alejandro E. Camacho & Robert L. Glicksman, 2021. "Designing Regulation Across Organizations: Assessing the Functions and Dimensions of Governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(S1), pages 102-122, November.
    18. Maltz, Amnon & Romagnoli, Giorgia, 2015. "The Effect of Ambiguity on Status Quo Bias: An Experimental Study," Working Papers WP2015/5, University of Haifa, Department of Economics.
    19. Sturm, Silke, 2019. "Political Competition: How to Measure Party Strategy in Direct Voter Communication using Social Media Data?," Hamburg Discussion Papers in International Economics 1, University of Hamburg, Department of Economics.
    20. Judith Clifton & Daniel Díaz-Fuentes & Marcos Fernández-Gutiérrez, 2014. "The impact of socio-economic background on satisfaction: evidence for policy-makers," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 183-206, October.

    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:16:y:2022:i:1:p:261-273. 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.