Behavioral social policy: Nudge in the practice and exploration of public welfare

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.00429

Abstract

Abstract:

Behavioral social policy (BSP) is a kind of social policy that uses "nudge" as a tool, based on the characteristics of human behavior. It is the application of behavioral science in the field of social policy. According to people’s behavioral preferences, BSP pursues public welfare in a covert way without significantly changing their economic incentives. From the perspective of policy makers, the method of the voluntary and/or informational nudge can be divided into increase strategy, decrease strategy and adjustment strategy. These three strategies are used in areas such as re-hospitalization rate, children's health, community-based senior care, admission funding, employment, organ transplantation, and precision poverty alleviation to help people make better choices and improve public welfare. As an emerging method and technology, nudge is not always useful. Policy makers need to suit the remedy to the case, accurately identify, trade-off, and avoid “behavior bureaucrats”, in order to realize the modernization of national governance and maximization of social benefits.

Key words: behavioral science, social policy, nudge, increase strategy, decrease strategy, adjustment strategy

CLC Number:

B849: C91

ZHANG Shuwei, LIANG Xinyi, YUE Jinglun. Behavioral social policy: Nudge in the practice and exploration of public welfare[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(3): 429-438.

References

[1]	白晶, 张义, 戴侃记, 张建霞, 张少白, 张峰… 李德兵. , ( 2015). 陕西省山区留守儿童预防接种核心信息干预效果评价. 医学动物防制, 31( 12), 1370-1372.
[2]	常芳, 史耀疆, 李凡, 岳爱, 杨斌, 杨矗 . ( 2013). 信息干预对留守儿童身体健康的影响——来自陕西省的随机干预试验. 农业技术经济, ( 4), 117-125.
[3]	迪安 H.著岳经纶庄文嘉温卓毅 ., 译.( 2015). 社会政策学十讲(第二版). 上海: 格致出版社.
[4]	杭承政 . ( 2017). 考虑个体非理性的公共政策——评《2015年世界发展报告:思维、社会与行为. 公共管理评论, ( 1), 164-171.
[5]	何贵兵 . ( 2016). 助推: 第三条道路. 管理视野, ( 6), 101-106.
[6]	何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑 . ( 2018). 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展. 心理学报, 50( 8), 803-813.
[7]	胡鞍钢, 杭承政, 吴天悦 . ( 2016). 为何公共政策有时会“南辕北辙”?——谈行为公共政策的研究和应用. 国情报告, 专刊(33).
[8]	胡鞍钢, 杭承政 . ( 2018). 论建立“以人民为中心”的治理模式——基于行为科学的视角. 中国行政管理, ( 1), 13-17.
[9]	黄宝珍, 徐富明, 王岚, 马向阳, 吴修良 . ( 2011). 行为决策中的默认效应. 心理科学进展, 19( 11), 1675-1683.
[10]	黄英君, 胡国生 . ( 2017). 金融扶贫、行为心理与区域性贫困陷阱——精准识别视角下的扶贫机制设置. 西南民族大学学报:人文社科版, ( 2), 1-10.
[11]	黄元娜, 宋星云, 邵洋, 李纾, 梁竹苑 . ( 2018). 以小拨大:默认选项和反应模式效应助推中国器官捐献登记. 心理学报, 50( 8), 868-879.
[12]	句华 . ( 2017). 助推理论与政府购买公共服务政策创新. 西南大学学报(社会科学版). 43( 2), 74-80.
[13]	李爱梅, 凌文辁 . ( 2007). 心理账户:理论与应用启示. 心理科学进展, 15( 5), 727-734.
[14]	李宝良, 郭其友 . ( 2017). 经济学和心理学的整合与行为经济学的拓展及其应用——2017年度诺贝尔经济学奖得主理查德·塞勒主要经济理论贡献述评. 外国经济与管理, 39( 11), 138-152.
[15]	李德国, 蔡晶晶 . ( 2016). 基于助推理论的公共服务质量改进——一个研究框架. 江苏行政学院学报, ( 5), 109-116.
[16]	李庆梅, 聂佃忠 . ( 2010). 负所得税是实现扶贫开发与农村低保制度有效衔接的现实选择. 中共中央党校学报, ( 5), 22-25.
[17]	李纾 . (2016a). 决策心理:齐当别之道. 上海:华东师范大学出版社.
[18]	李纾 . ( 2016 b). 既非“胡萝卜”也非“大棒”: 助推社会发展的一条新捷径. 管理视野, ( 6), 92-96.
[19]	李文钊 . ( 2018). 向行为公共政策理论跨越——间断-均衡理论的严谨逻辑和趋势. 江苏行政学院学报, ( 1), 82-91.
[20]	吕小康, 武迪, 隋晓阳, 汪新建, 程婕婷 . ( 2018). 从“理性人”到“行为人”: 公共政策研究的行为科学转向. 心理科学进展, 21( 12), 2249-2259.
[21]	史燕伟, 徐富明, 李燕, 刘程浩, 李彬 ( 2014). 公共决策中的框架效应: 理论解释及影响因素. 心理科学进展, 22( 8), 1303-1311.
[22]	王诗宗 . ( 2007). 地方治理在中国的适用性及其限度——以宁波市海曙区政府购买居家养老政策为例. 公共管理学报, 4( 4), 45-52.
[23]	徐富明, 张慧, 马红宇, 邓颖, 史燕伟, 李欧 . ( 2017). 贫困问题: 基于心理学的视角. 心理科学进展, 25 ( 8), 1431-1440.
[24]	杨颖, 黄海, 邱鸿钟 . ( 2014). 中国传统文化和观念对器官捐献意愿的影响分析. 中国组织工程研究, 18( 5), 803-808.
[25]	岳经纶, 邓智平 . (2017). 社会政策与社会治理. 北京: 中央编译出版社.
[26]	曾艳 . ( 2017). 民众对延迟退休政策的可接受性:政策宣传立场的影响. 硕士学位论文, 中国科学院.
[27]	张书维 . ( 2016). 寻找理性边界打开决策黑箱——评《决策心理:齐当别之道》. 公共行政评论, 9( 5), 192-198.
[28]	张书维 . ( 2018). 行为公共管理学:用“心”求“理”. 公共行政评论, 11( 1), 1-6.
[29]	张书维, 李纾 . ( 2018). 行为公共管理学探新:内容、方法与趋势. 公共行政评论, 11( 1), 7-36.
[30]	张旭升, 牟来娣 . ( 2013). 政府购买居家养老服务的研究综述. 中共杭州市委党校学报, 1(1), 91-96.
[31]	朱德米, 李兵华 . ( 2018). 行为科学与公共政策:对政策有效性的追求. 中国行政管理, ( 8), 59-64.
[32]	Abadie A.& Gay S. , ( 2006). The impact of presumed consent legislation on cadaveric organ donation: A cross- country study. Journal of Health Economics, 25( 4), 599-620.
[33]	Bardhan I., Oh J. H. C., Zheng Z. E., & Kirksey K . ( 2015). Predictive analytics for readmission of patients with congestive heart failure. Information Systems Research, 26( 1), 19-39.
[34]	Benartzi S., Beshears J., Milkman K. L., Sunstein C. R., Thaler R. H., Shankar M., … Galing S . ( 2017). Should Governments Invest More in Nudging? Psychological Science, 28( 8), 1041-1055.
[35]	Bettinger E. P., Long B. T., Oreopoulos P., & Sanbonmatsu L . ( 2012). The role of application assistance and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127, 1205-1242.
[36]	Blakemore K.& Warwick-Booth L. , ( 2013). Social policy: An introduction (fourth edition). London: Open university press.
[37]	Caldwell L. ( 2018). Public and private sector nudgers can learn from each other. Behavioural Public Policy, 2( 2), 235-245.
[38]	Dynarski S.M . ( 2003). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance and completion. American Economic Review, 93( 1), 279-288.
[39]	Halpern S. D., Ubel P. A., & Asch D. A . ( 2007). Harnessing the power of default options to improve health care. New England Journal of Medicine, 357( 13), 1340-1344.
[40]	Hertwig R. ( 2017). When to consider boosting: Some rules for policy-makers. Behavioural Public Policy, 1( 2), 143-161.
[41]	Hertwig R. & Grüne-Yanoff T. , ( 2017). Nudging and boosting: Steering or empowering good decisions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12( 6), 973-986.
[42]	Hood C. ( 1983). The tools of government. London, Macmillan.
[43]	Howlett M. & Ramesh M.. ,( 2003) . Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems Oxford: Oxford University Press Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[44]	Johnson E.J., & Goldstein D.G . ( 2004). Defaults and donation decisions. Transplantation, 78( 12), 1713-1716.
[45]	Johnson E. J., Steffel M. L., & Goldstein D. G . ( 2005). Making better decisions: From measuring to constructing preferences. Health Psychology, 24( 4), 17-22.
[46]	Li M., Sun Y., & Chen H . ( 2018). The decoy effect as a Nudge: Boosting hand hygiene with a worse option. Psychological Science. .
[47]	Loewenstein G. & Chater N. , ( 2017). Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy 1( 1), 26-53.
[48]	Lourenco J. S., Ciriolo E., Almeida S. R., & Troussard X . ( 2016). Behavioural insights applied to policy: European Report 2016 (EUR 27726 EN). Brussels, Belgium:European Commission Joint Research Centre. doi: 10.2760/ 903938
[49]	Oz M. C., Kherani A. R., Rowe A., Roels L., Crandall C. W., & Tomatis L., & Young J. B . ( 2003). How to improve organ donation: The results of the ISHLT/FACT poll. Journal of Heart & Lung Transplantation, 22( 4), 389-410.
[50]	Sanders M., Snijders V., & Hallsworth M . ( 2018). Behavioural science and policy: Where are we now and where are we going? Behavioural Public Policy 2( 2), 144-167.
[51]	Sunstein C. R. ( 2014). Why nudge?: The politics of libertarian paternalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[52]	Sunstein C. R. ( 2016). The ethics of influence: Government in the age of behavioral science . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[53]	Sunstein C.R . ( 2017). Nudges that fail. Behavioural Public Policy, 1( 1), 4-25.
[54]	Teachman B. A., Norton M. I., & Spellman B. A . ( 2015). Memos to the president from a “Council of Psychological Science Advisers.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10( 6), 697-700.
[55]	Thaler R.H . ( 1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4 ( 3), 199-214.
[56]	Thaler R.H . ( 2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioral economics. W. W. Norton & Company.
[57]	Thaler R. H. & Sunstein C. R.. ,( 2008) . Nudge:Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[58]	Tversky A.& Kahneman D. , ( 1981). The framing of decisions. Science, 211( 4481), 453-458.
[59]	World Bank . ( 2015). World development report: Mind, society, and behavior. Washington. DC: World Bank Group.