Three challenges for behavioural science and policy: the empirical, the normative and the political

Robert Lepenies, Kathryn Mackay and Muireann Quigley

Behavioural Public Policy, 2018, vol. 2, issue 2, 174-182

Abstract: In a ‘post-truth’ era in which personality and opinion trump evidence and reason, the need for frankness in debates about the use and boundaries of science and policy is high. We welcome the reflective and nuanced approach to behavioural science in policy-making in Sanders, Snijders and Hallsworth's (2018) piece. Despite our support for the approach in this paper, we suggest that there are deeper issues than are currently acknowledged. Our critique tackles three issues: the empirical, the normative and the political. In the first section, we examine what counts as ‘behavioural’ and how this label is used to legitimate a range of policy activities. We then look at randomised controlled trials in the next section, highlighting the extra-scientific dimensions of the empirical ‘What Works’ revolution. Finally, we question some ontological assumptions that drive empirical research and its translation into policy, asking where the collective is to be found in behavioural public policy.

Date: 2018
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:2:y:2018:i:02:p:174-182_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Behavioural Public Policy from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().