DOCSLIB.ORG

Broken Experimentation, Sham Evidence-Based Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Broken Experimentation, Sham Evidence-Based Policy YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Broken Experimentation, Sham Evidence-Based Policy Kristen Underhill* Evidence-based policy is gaining attention, and legislation and agency regulation have been no exception to calls for greater uptake of research evidence. Indeed, current interest in “moneyball for government” is part of a long history of efforts to promote research-based decisions in government, from the U.S. Census to cost-benefit analysis. But although evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) is often both feasible and desirable, there are reasons to be skeptical of the capacity of EBPM in governmental decision-making. EBPM is itself bounded by limits on rationality, the capacity of science, the objectivity of science, and the authority we wish to give technocrats. Where values are highly contentious, efforts to produce and use evidence in legislative and regulatory decisions may go so far awry that they become “sham” versions of evidence-based choices. In this Article, I name several of these sham practices, including the distortion of evidence, the engagement in “terminal” experimentation that destabilizes governmental programs, and “ratcheting” actions that defund entire priorities rather than individual approaches. Broken experimentation is also common, with evaluations of government programming and policies neglecting or misusing opportunities to provide rigorous evidence. I argue that the stakes of these misuses are high, resulting in losses of welfare and efficiency, erosion of scientific legitimacy, and infringement on the dignity of human subjects. But where genuine engagement with empirical evidence is possible, the game is surely worth the candle. This Article proposes novel ways to promote responsible uses of empirical evidence in both legislation and agency regulation, including evaluation mandates, pre-registration of evaluation protocols and transparency of research reports, ex ante decision commitments, and more attentive uses of judicial review. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 151 I. THE CASE FOR (BOUNDED) EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY-MAKING ............................ 157 A. Judging Decisions by Their Own Lights ............................................................. 158 B. The Limits of EBPM ..................................................................................................... 162 150 BROKEN EXPERIMENTATION, SHAM EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY C. Bounded EBPM Rising: From the Census to Moneyball ............................ 168 1. Origins and Cost-Benefit Analysis ..................................................... 168 2. The Modern Era ....................................................................................... 171 3. “Moneyball for Government” .............................................................. 179 II. BROKEN EXPERIMENTATION, SHAM EBPM ............................................................. 180 A. Broken Experimentation .......................................................................................... 181 B. Sham EBPM ..................................................................................................................... 186 1. Technical Breakdowns .......................................................................... 186 2. Evidence Distortion ................................................................................ 187 3. Terminal Experimentation................................................................... 191 4. Ratcheting .................................................................................................. 193 III. THE COSTS (AND BENEFITS) OF SHAM EBPM ....................................................... 198 A. Welfare and Efficiency ............................................................................................... 198 B. Shallow Signaling and Scientific Legitimacy ................................................. 200 1. Free-Riding ................................................................................................ 201 2. Erosion of Scientific Legitimacy ......................................................... 202 C. Chilling Scientific Production of Knowledge .................................................. 203 D. Governmental Citizens as Human Subjects .................................................... 204 1. Research Lacking Practical Benefits ................................................. 205 2. The Government as Experimenter .................................................... 208 E. Positive Externalities .................................................................................................. 209 1. Collateral EBPM ....................................................................................... 210 2. The Hawthorne Effect ............................................................................ 211 3. Clarifying Values ...................................................................................... 212 IV. PROMOTING AND PRESERVING EVIDENCE-BASED EFFORTS ................................. 212 A. Terms of Engagement: The Limits of EBPM and Experimentation .... 213 B. Ex Ante Commitments ................................................................................................ 216 C. Evaluation Mandates .................................................................................................. 219 D. Evaluation Transparency, Ex Ante and Ex Post ........................................... 220 E. Teams of Rivals in Evidence Production ........................................................... 222 F. Judicial Review and Agency Oversight of Evidence-Based Decisions ........................................................................................................................ 223 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 226 INTRODUCTION In 2012, death penalty supporters and detractors eagerly awaited the publication of a report by the National Research Council (NRC), two years in the writing, that sought to resolve the question of whether the penalty in 151 YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW 38 : 150 2019 fact deters homicide.1 The NRC’s prior effort to do so in 1978 had been inconclusive, finding that existing studies “provide[d] no useful evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment.”2 In the ensuing decades, however, a mass of new research had emerged with wildly divergent findings, ranging from showings of extreme deterrence to the suggestion of increased homicides where the death penalty is imposed.3 Rancorous disagreements flourished in both politics and the scientific literature. The new committee would weigh this body of evidence, appraise its methodology, and issue an updated conclusion. But when the report emerged, researchers and policy advocates alike were bewildered. Despite all of the intervening research, the committee had concluded that “all of the research about deterrence and the death penalty done in the past generation, including by some first-rank scholars at the most prestigious universities, should be ignored.”4 Evidence, therefore, could be no guide to state decisions on whether to retain or abolish the penalty—states were, as they long had been, left to resolve the question primarily on the basis of values rather than empirical evidence. Frustration about the weight and direction of empirical evidence across a range of issues—the deterrence effect of the death penalty,5 the extent to * Associate Professor of Law, Columbia Law School. I am grateful to Gillian Metzger, Susan Sturm, Jeff Fagan, Colleen Chien, Ian Ayres, Matt Spitzer, David Schwartz, Shari Diamond, Josh Kleinfeld, and participants at the Northwestern Law faculty workshop for valuable feedback and conversations that shaped this work. I am also grateful to Juliana Bennington for excellent research assistance. All errors herein are my own. 1. See NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, DETERRENCE AND THE DEATH PENALTY (Daniel S. Nagin & John V. Pepper, eds., 2012). I am grateful to Josh Kleinfeld for suggesting this case study. 2. Id. at 1 (quoting the NRC report from 1978). 3. Id. at 1; see also John J. Donohue III & Justin Wolfers, Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate, 58 STAN. L. REV. 791, 793 (2006). 4. Editorial Board, The Myth of Deterrence, N.Y. TIMES (Apr. 27, 2012), https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/28/opinion/the-myth-of- deterrence.html [https://perma.cc/JWA9-79C5]. 5. NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, supra note 1. 152 BROKEN EXPERIMENTATION, SHAM EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY which sanctions6 and walls7 deter migration, the extent to which supervised injection facilities reduce opioid overdoses,8 to name a few—has taken center stage because, by and large, we think evidence should matter in legislation and agency regulation. Indeed, evidence-based policy-making (EBPM) may be having a popular moment. EBPM refers to the systematic use of empirical research evidence by legislators and agency personnel when making government decisions, and it has long been the province of policy wonks and scholars eager for research evidence to play a larger role in decision-making. The process of EBPM entails both the generation and use of empirical evidence at several time points, suggesting that regulators and legislators should (1) consult past research evidence when making policy choices, including evidence that characterizes a public problem and the likely impacts of different policy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Featured Topic Social & Behavioral Science Interventions at the Federal Level in This Issue Nudging People to Get Flu Vaccinations
    a publication of the behavioral science & policy association volume 2 issue 2 2016 featured topic social & behavioral science interventions at the federal level in this issue Nudging people to get flu vaccinations behavioralpolicy.org founding co-editors disciplinary editors Craig R. Fox (UCLA) Behavioral Economics Sim B Sitkin (Duke University) Senior Disciplinary Editor Dean S. Karlan (Yale University) bspa executive director Associate Disciplinary Editors Oren Bar-Gill (Harvard University) Colin F. Camerer (California Institute ofTechnology) Kate B.B. Wessels M. Keith Chen (UCLA) advisory board Julian Jamison (World Bank) Paul Brest (Stanford University) Russell B. Korobkin (UCLA) David Brooks (New York Times) Devin G. Pope (University of Chicago) John Seely Brown (Deloitte) Jonathan Zinman (Dartmouth College) Robert B. Cialdini (Arizona State University) Adam M. Grant (University of Pennsylvania) Cognitive & Brain Science Daniel Kahneman (Princeton University) Senior Disciplinary Editor Henry L. Roediger III (Washington University) James G. March (Stanford University) Associate Disciplinary Editors Yadin Dudai (Weizmann Institute & NYU) Jeffrey Pfeffer (Stanford University) Roberta L. Klatzky (Carnegie Mellon University) Denise M. Rousseau (Carnegie Mellon University) Hal Pashler (UC San Diego) Paul Slovic (University of Oregon) Steven E. Petersen (Washington University) Cass R. Sunstein (Harvard University) Jeremy M. Wolfe (Harvard University) Richard H. Thaler (University of Chicago) Decision, Marketing, & Management Sciences executive committee Senior Disciplinary Editor Eric J. Johnson (Columbia University) Associate Disciplinary Editors Linda C. Babcock (Carnegie Mellon University) Morela Hernandez (University of Virginia) Max H. Bazerman (Harvard University) Katherine L. Milkman (University of Pennsylvania) Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon University) Daniel Oppenheimer (UCLA) John G. Lynch (University of Colorado) Todd Rogers (Harvard University) John W.
    [Show full text]
  • Behavioral Insights from Across the Pond: How Nudging Tools from the U.K
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Boston University Institutional Repository (OpenBU) Boston University OpenBU http://open.bu.edu Theses & Dissertations Boston University Theses & Dissertations 2015 Behavioral insights from across the pond: how nudging tools from the U.K. won't help reduce obesity In the U.S. https://hdl.handle.net/2144/15717 Boston University BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES THESIS BEHAVIORAL INSIGHTS FROM ACROSS THE POND: HOW NUDGING TOOLS FROM THE U.K. WON’T HELP REDUCE OBESITY IN THE U.S. by ALISON M. DORSI B.A., Boston University, 2015 M.A., Boston University, 2015 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts 2015 © Copyright by ALISON M. DORSI 2015 Approved By First Reader ______________________________________________ Graham Wilson, Ph.D. Professor of Political Science Second Reader ______________________________________________ Douglas Kriner, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Political Science To my Mother and Father iv BEHAVIORAL INSIGHTS FROM ACROSS THE POND: HOW NUDGING TOOLS FROM THE U.K. WON’T HELP REDUCE OBESITY IN THE U.S. ALISON M. DORSI ABSTRACT Obesity has become a major issue in advanced societies having serious impacts on various social as well as economic levels. In addition to the personal costs of obesity leading to serious and chronic diseases, obesity projects additional burdens upon society including lack of productivity, often resulting in increased dependence on governmental benefits, as well as increasing health care costs, most of which are paid for by taxes. This phenomenon has become especially prevalent in the United States and the United Kingdom, with both countries attempting to reduce obesity levels with programs that utilize varying levels of paternalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Behavioral Science to Nonprofit Program Delivery
    RESEARCH to ACTION LAB Applying Behavioral Science to Nonprofit Program Delivery Testing a Behavioral Insights Implementation Process with Urban Alliance Justin Milner Matthew Gerken Brett Theodos JANUARY 2021 01 APPLYING BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE TO NONPROFIT PROGRAM DELIVERY NSIGHTS FROM BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE offer an opportunity for nonprofits seeking to improve their program delivery and Ioverall impact. Urban Institute collaborated with Urban Alliance, a high-performing nonprofit organization, to adapt behavioral science insights to the unique challenges of the organization. In this brief, we document our behavioral insights implementation process, or BIIP, and how we tested that approach with Urban Alliance to improve a key component of its program model. We offer this approach as a resource for other organizations looking to leverage behavioral science. INTRODUCTION Nonprofit organizations are increasingly focused on demonstrating outcomes and impact of their work, not just providing services (Liket, Rey-Garcia, and Maas 2014). The reward for showing their effectiveness is clear: government and philanthropy often target contracts and grants to the interventions most likely to deliver positive outcomes (Haskins 2018; Zhang et al. 2017). For nonprofits moving in this evidence- based direction, most of their efforts will be focused on improving the core work of their programs— better counseling services or improved education supports, for example. However, nonprofits should also consider complementary interventions to improve their work’s overall impact. Behavioral science offers a unique opportunity for nonprofits seeking to pursue this approach and improve program delivery and overall impact (Richburg-Hayes et al. 2014). Behavioral science takes a microscope to human behavior, focusing on how people make decisions and then act on those decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Finance Papers Wharton Faculty Research 2017 Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Shlomo Benartzi John Beshears Katherine L. Milkman University of Pennsylvania Richard H. Thaler Maya Shankar See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/fnce_papers Part of the Finance and Financial Management Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., & Galing, S. (2017). Should Governments Invest More in Nudging?. Psychological Science, 28 (8), 1041-1055. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/fnce_papers/75 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Abstract Governments are increasingly adopting behavioral science techniques for changing individual behavior in pursuit of policy objectives. The types of “nudge” interventions that governments are now adopting alter people’s decisions without coercion or significant changes ot economic incentives. We calculated ratios of impact to cost for nudge interventions and for traditional policy tools, such as tax incentives and other financial inducements, and we found that nudge interventions often compare favorably with traditional interventions. We conclude that nudging is a valuable approach that should be used more often in conjunction with traditional policies, but more calculations are needed to determine the relative effectiveness of nudging. Disciplines Business | Finance and Financial Management | Social and Behavioral Sciences Author(s) Shlomo Benartzi, John Beshears, Katherine L. Milkman, Richard H. Thaler, Maya Shankar, Will Tucker-Ray, William J.
    [Show full text]
  • Projective Paternalism
    Projective Paternalism Sandro Ambuehl, B. Douglas Bernheim, and Axel Ockenfels.∗ July 12, 2019 Abstract We study experimentally when, why, and how people intervene in others' choices. Choice Archi- tects (CAs) construct opportunity sets containing bundles of time-indexed payments for Choosers. CAs frequently prevent impatient choices despite opportunities to provide advice, believing Choosers benefit. We consider several hypotheses concerning CAs' motives. A conventional behavioral wel- farist acts as a correctly informed social planner; a mistakes-projective paternalist removes options she wishes she could reject when choosing for herself; an ideals-projective paternalist seeks to align others' choices with her own aspirations. Ideals-projective paternalism provides the best explanation for interventions in the laboratory and rationalizes support for actual paternalistic policies. ∗Ambuehl: University of Toronto, UTSC, and Rotman School of Management, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3E6, Canada, [email protected]. Bernheim: Stanford University, Department of Economics, 579 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA, [email protected]. Ockenfels: University of Cologne, Department of Economics, Universit¨atsstrasse22a, 50923 Cologne, Germany, [email protected]. We thank Joshua Knobe, Yoram Halevy, Armin Falk, Glenn W. Harrison, Kiryl Khalmetski, Frank Schillbach, Cass Sunstein, Dmitry Taubinsky, Stefan Trautmann, and seminar and conference audiences in Berkeley, Copenhagen, Cork, Cornell, Heidelberg, Innsbruck, Nijmegen, NYU, Stanford, Toronto, and Zurich for helpful comments and discussions. Max Rainer Pascal Grossmann and Yero Samuel Ndiaye provided excellent research assistance. Ambuehl gratefully acknowledges support through a University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award and the University of Toronto Scarborough Wynne and Bertil Plumptre Fellowship. Parts of this paper were written while Ambuehl visited the briq Institute in Bonn.
    [Show full text]
  • Nudging:  a Very Short Guide
    NUDGING: A VERY SHORT GUIDE † CASS R. SUNSTEIN ABSTRACT: This brief essay offers a general introduction to the idea of nudging, along with a list of ten of the most important nudges. It also provides a short discussion of the question whether to create some kind of separate behavioral insights unit, capable of conducting its own research, or instead to rely on existing institutions. KEYWORDS: Behavioral Economy; Libertarian Paternalism; Stimulus; Social Rights; Liberty. RESUMO: Este breve ensaio oferece uma introdução geral à ideia de nudging juntamente com uma lista de dez dos mais importantes nudges. Também será apresentada uma sucinta discussão sobre a criação de algum tipo de grupo de insights comportamentais, capaz de conduzir a sua própria investigação ou, ao invés, confiar nas instituições existentes. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Economia Comportamental; Paternalismo Libertário; Estímulos; Direitos Sociais; Liberdade. Originally published at 37 JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY 4 (2014) and republished herein with author’s permission. † Robert Walmsley University Professor, Harvard University. Special thanks to Lucia Reisch, Maya Shankar, and Richard Thaler for valuable comments and suggestions, and to Thaler For many years of collaboration on these questions; none of them should be held responsible for any errors or infelicities here. REVISTA ESTUDOS INSTITUCIONAIS TABLE OF CONTENT: I. LIBERTY-PRESERVING APPROACHES ............................................. 1037 1. Nudges maintain freedom of choice .................................. 1037 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series Projective Paternalism
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES PROJECTIVE PATERNALISM Sandro Ambuehl B. Douglas Bernheim Axel Ockenfels Working Paper 26119 http://www.nber.org/papers/w26119 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2019 We thank Joshua Knobe, Yoram Halevy, Armin Falk, Glenn W. Harrison, Kiryl Khalmetski, Frank Schillbach, Cass Sunstein, Dmitry Taubinsky, Stefan Trautmann, and seminar and conference audiences in Berkeley, Copenhagen, Cork, Cornell, Heidelberg, Innsbruck, Nijmegen, NYU, Stanford, Toronto, and Zurich for helpful comments and discussions. Max Rainer Pascal Grossmann and Yero Samuel Ndiaye provided excellent research assistance. Ambuehl gratefully acknowledges support through a University of Toronto Connaught New Researcher Award and the University of Toronto Scarborough Wynne and Bertil Plumptre Fellowship. Parts of this paper were written while Ambuehl visited the briq Institute in Bonn. This research has been approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (protocol 10279). Ambuehl and Bernheim gratefully acknowledge funding from the Alfred P. Sloan foundation (grant number G-2017-9017). Ambuehl and Ockenfels gratefully acknowledge funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 741409); the results reflect only the authors' views; the ERC is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.
    [Show full text]
  • Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: a Systematic Review
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences Capstones Behavioral and Decision Sciences Program 8-9-2019 Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review Anuradha Raghuram University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Raghuram, Anuradha, "Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review" (2019). Master of Behavioral and Decision Sciences Capstones. 14. https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds/14 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/mbds/14 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Leveraging Behavioural Science in Insurance: A Systematic Review Abstract Over the past decade, the U.S. insurance industry has faced stagnant growth due to limited technological advancement, information asymmetry and waning customer satisfaction. Collectively, these factors, among many other structural drivers, impede incumbent players to attract and retain their customer base. In recent years, a number of insurance technology “insurtech” firms have emerged, seeking to disrupt and make existing activities within the insurance value chain more efficient, primarily through digital innovation. The discussion in this white paper is structured twofold. First, I walk through the current U.S. insurance landscape, innovations, and challenges within the value chain. In particular, I focus on the underwriting and claims activities in the context of property & casualty insurance. Second, I illustrate how behavioural science serves as a valuable use-case to improve customer engagement and retention. Through a combination of meta-study methods and case studies, I identify five key areas of behavioural change: reducing switching behaviour, managing uncertainty, increasing trust, encouraging accurate information disclosure, and providing customer autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Nudging: a Very Short Guide
    Nudging: A Very Short Guide The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Cass R. Sunstein, Nudging: A Very Short Guide, 37 J. Consumer Pol'y 583 (2014). Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:16205305 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Preliminary draft 9/22/14 all rights reserved Preferred citation: 37 J. CONSUMER POL’Y 583 (2014) Nudging: A Very Short Guide Cass R. Sunstein* Abstract This brief essay offers a general introduction to the idea of nudging, along with a list of ten of the most important “nudges.” It also provides a short discussion of the question whether to create some kind of separate “behavioral insights unit,” capable of conducting its own research, or instead to rely on existing institutions. I. Liberty-Preserving Approaches Some policies take the form of mandates and bans. For example, the criminal law forbids theft and assault. Other policies take the form of economic incentives (including disincentives), such as subsidies for renewable fuels, fees for engaging in certain activities, or taxes on gasoline and tobacco products. Still other policies take the form of nudges – liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions, but that also allow them to go their own way. In recent years, both private and public institutions have shown mounting interest in the use of nudges, because they generally cost little and have the potential to promote economic and other goals (including public health).
    [Show full text]
  • An Inquiry Into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making
    Missouri Law Review Volume 82 Issue 3 Summer 2017 - Symposium Article 12 Summer 2017 Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance): an Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Adam C. Smith, Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance): an Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making, 82 MO. L. REV. (2017) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol82/iss3/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Smith: Utilizing Behavioral Insights Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance) An Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith* ABSTRACT Behavioral economics has been employed in a number of policy applica- tions over the last decade. From energy requirements to tax compliance to consumer finance, policymakers are increasingly operating under the assump- tion that people consistently fail to make rational choices. While the benefit of this policy trend remains an open debate, behavioral economists have long ne- glected a complementary examination of public decision-makers themselves. Comparison of two public agencies influenced by behavioral economics, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.K. Behavioural Insights Team, demonstrates how different institutions create divergent policy out- comes across the two agencies in a way that cannot be accounted for without incorporating public choice theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Utilizing Behavioral Insights (Without Romance) an Inquiry Into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making
    Working Paper1 October 2016 Utilizing Behavioral Insights (without Romance) An Inquiry into the Choice Architecture of Public Decision-Making Adam C. Smith, Visiting Scholar2 The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center ABSTRACT Behavioral economics has been employed in a number of policy applications over the last decade. From energy requirements to tax compliance to consumer finance, policymakers are increasingly operating under the assumption that people consistently fail to make rational choices. While the benefit of this policy trend remains an open debate, behavioral economists have long neglected a complementary examination of public decision-makers themselves. By comparing two public agencies influenced by behavioral economics, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.K. Behavioral Insights Team, I show how different institutions create divergent policy outcomes across the two agencies in a way that cannot be accounted for without incorporating public choice theory. I argue that improvement of private choice architecture must be accompanied by careful understanding of the public choice 1 This comment reflects the views of the author, and does not represent an official position of the GW Regulatory Studies Center or the George Washington University. The Center’s policy on research integrity is available at http://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/policy-research-integrity. 2 Adam C. Smith is an Associate Professor of Economics at Johnson & Wales University. The author gratefully acknowledges Susan Dudley and the George Washington Regulatory Studies Center for their support of this research, and to Erik Kimbrough, Brian Mannix, Sofie Miller, Bruce Yandle, and Todd Zywicki for helpful feedback. The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center ◆ 1 architecture in which policies are rendered if behavioral economics is to be a successful foundation for welfare-improving policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Richard H. Thaler1 University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, IL, USA
    488 THE NOBEL PRIZES From Cashews to Nudges: The Evolution of Behavioral Economics Prize Lecture, December 8, 2017 by Richard H. Thaler1 University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Chicago, IL, USA. in the beginning there were stories. People think in stories, or at least I do. My research in the feld now known as behavioral economics started from real life stories I observed while I was a graduate student at the University of Rochester. Economists often sneer at “anecdotal data” and I had less than that – a collection of anecdotes without a hint of data. Yet, each story captured something about human behavior that seemed inconsistent with the economic theory I was struggling to master in graduate school. Here are a few examples: • At a dinner party for fellow economics graduate students I put out a large bowl of cashew nuts to accompany drinks while waiting for dinner to fnish cooking. In a short period of time, we devoured half the bowl of nuts. Seeing that our appetites (and waistlines) were in danger I removed the bowl and left it in the kitchen pantry. When I 1. This is not the time or place to thank all the people that contributed to me being awarded this prize, especially but not limited to all my co-authors. We all know this was a team efort. For help preparing this written version of my lecture, special thanks for useful comments go to Stefano DellaVigna, Raife Giovinazzo, Alex Imas, Emir Kamenica, Kristy Kim, and, as usual, Linnea Gandhi was indispensable. Richard H.
    [Show full text]