Mathieu Prevelato introduces a new study exploring policy makers’ views on the ethics of behavioural public policy. Understanding these views is important given policy makers often have discretion on how and when to apply behaviourally-informed interventions. The study authors invite feedback on the research.
Governments across the world increasingly use behavioural public policy. Since the creation of the first Behavioural Insights Team in 2010 by the UK government, over 300 units specialising in behavioural public policy have been created across 63 countries. Although this set of tools can help governments address a large range of issues, the public sector’s active effort to influence individual and collective behaviours raises important ethical questions about citizen autonomy, welfare and political legitimacy.
Although some empirical research has explored public acceptance of some of these policies, most discussions around the ethics of behavioural public policy have taken place theoretically. Additionally, we know very little about the preferences and values of policy makers – public sector professionals involved in the design and implementation of public policies – in this realm. Understanding these perspectives is crucial, as policy makers often have discretion over how and when to implement behavioural interventions.
To address this gap, the London School of Economics, with support from the Knowledge Exchange and Impact (KEI) fund, is leading an initiative aimed at connecting behavioural public policy specialists from academia, the private sector, the UK government, and international organisations. As part of this effort, a group of researchers – including Alice Moseley, Malte Dewies, Pete Lunn, Adam Oliver, Leigh Caldwell and Mathieu Prevelato – are conducting a study exploring British policy makers’ views regarding the ethics of behavioural public policy.
Our central research question is: How do ethical considerations about autonomy, welfare and democracy shape UK policymakers’ views on behavioural public policies?
Autonomy
One of the most prominent criticisms of behavioural interventions is that they reduce citizen autonomy. Autonomous decision-making has been defined in diverse ways but typically requires an agent to have at least agency and freedom of choice.
By agency we mean the ability of an individual to deliberate on a set of options available to them and make decisions accordingly. From this perspective, autonomy involves the capacity to act according to reasons and intentions, requiring more than simple stimulus-response behaviours, that some interventions try to elicit.
Freedom of choice, on the other hand, is an individual’s ability to choose freely from a set of options, which presupposes the absence of coercion, or manipulation. One notion commonly invoked to assess freedom of choice is the ease with which an intervention’s influence can be resisted.
We argue that autonomy, hinges on an agent’s access to a range of different options as well as their ability to reflect upon those to make deliberate decisions. Interventions that undermine these goals are often described as autonomy-reducing. Conversely, autonomy-preserving interventions encourage and promote critical thinking while ensuring a decision maker’s access to a range of different options.
Private and Social Welfare
Another prominent debate revolves around the extent to which behavioural interventions should strive to promote private and social welfare. Some contend that behavioural public policies should aim to improve private welfare by helping citizens make choices that support their long-term well-being. Following this line of reasoning, behavioural public policies can and should enable people to make decisions that they would make if they were free from the influence of cognitive biases.
But this approach is contested. First, policy makers lack ways to assess what the public “truly” desires. The assumption that policy makers know what is best for individuals’ private lives can lead them to impose their own values onto citizens. Second, inconsistent decisions should not systematically be labelled as forms of irrationality requiring to be corrected by policy makers. Third, because diverse desires exist within any population, one-size-fits-all approaches often steer people in directions they find undesirable.
As a result, some contend that behavioural public policy should mostly strive to promote social welfare, by promoting behaviours that benefit society as a whole rather than the individuals targeted by the intervention. According to this argument, policy makers should mostly focus on behaviours that have consequences for others; encouraging actions that have a positive impact on others and discouraging the ones that have negative effects on their peers.
Democracy
Could behavioural public policies undermine democratic institutions? Some argue that the subtle nature of certain behavioural interventions prevents the public from understanding when and how they are being influenced by the government, which weakens the citizens’ ability to hold their government accountable. This could be exacerbated by the lack of public involvement in their design and implementation. It is often the case that policy makers are able to utilise behaviourally-informed interventions as administrative tools, escaping political and parliamentary procedures and debates which results in a loss of control for the public and their representatives.
These democratic limitations are not inevitable. Some argue that the involvement of the public in the design of behavioural interventions, transparency and deliberation can bolster political legitimacy. Additionally, others justify the inclusion of the public in the policy making process on practical grounds, contending that such approaches are more likely to attract support from the general public compared to interventions receiving little or no input from citizens and their representatives. As such, political legitimacy and policy support can be strengthened through a closer connection between the public and the interventions that ultimately affect their lives.
Call for action
The overarching goal of this study is to shed light on policy makers’ views on the ethical dimensions of behavioural interventions. More specifically, it intends to explore how considerations about autonomy, welfare and democratic participation affect policy makers’ support for behaviourally-informed interventions. As the field continues to grow, understanding the perspectives of these key decision-makers becomes essential for fostering accountability and protecting democracies against the potential risks posed by the emergence of this new set of policy instruments.
And we need your help to achieve this important goal.
If you have any thoughts, feedback or suggestions – particularly regarding our research question and/or its significance – please get in touch with the corresponding author, Mathieu Prevelato, at m.e.prevelato [AT] lse.ac.uk.
Mathieu Prevelato is a researcher in behavioural public policy. He is interested in ways that insights from the behavioural sciences can reduce the spread of misinformation/disinformation, promote informed civic participation and inform solutions to the climate crisis.