Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T08:00:09.286Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Do the Public Support ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ Public Policies?

Trends during COVID-19 and Implications for the Future

from Part I - Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

By
Sanchayan Banerjee ,
Manu Savani  and
Ganga Shreedhar
Edited by
Joan Costa-Font  and
Matteo M. Galizzi
Joan Costa-Font
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Matteo M. Galizzi
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Early in the pandemic, the public accepted considerable state intervention to stop the spread of COVID-19. This was a puzzle of sorts, given the prevailing wisdom that people prefer to be nudged and avoid restrictions and financial costs. We revisit and update the evidence presented in an earlier study that explored the factors that explain public preferences for ‘soft’ (nudge) versus ‘hard’ (laws, bans) policies. We report that public support for ‘hard’ policies appears to have steadily declined since mid-2020. New insights reflect the importance of partisanship and risk perceptions for individual preferences for ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ policies. We find little evidence of spillover effects from COVID-19 policy preferences to environmental policy preferences, but also no evidence of crowding out in terms of policy agendas. We conclude with a series of questions that shape the future research agenda, where much is still to be learned about how and why policy preferences evolve over time.

Keywords

nudgespandemic restrictions
Type
Chapter
Information
Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
Insights from Responses to COVID-19
 , pp. 126 - 147
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banerjee, S., Savani, M., & Shreedhar, G. (2021). Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.42.220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., et al. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco, E., Baier, A., Holzmeister, F., Jaber-Lopez, T., Struwe, N. (2021). Long term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on social concerns. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–14. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chorus, C., Sandorf, E. D., & Mouter, N. (2020). Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society’s trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2013). Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 756. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-756CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doell, K. C., Conte, B., & Brosch, T. (2021). Interindividual differences in environmentally relevant positive trait affect impacts sustainable behavior in everyday life. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99438-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., et al. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudás, L., & Szántó, R. (2021). Nudging in the time of coronavirus? Comparing public support for soft and hard preventive measures, highlighting the role of risk perception and experience. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0256241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, B., & Allington, D. (2020). The three groups reacting to life under lockdown. www.kcl.ac.uk/news/the-three-groups-reacting-to-life-under-lockdownGoogle Scholar
Duren, M., Corrigan, B., Ehsani, J., & Michael, J. (2021). Modeling state preferences for Covid-19 policies: Insights from the first pandemic summer. Journal of Transport & Health, 23, 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evensen, D., Whitmarsh, L., Bartie, P., Devine-Wright, P., Dickie, J., Varley, A., et al. (2021). Effect of ‘finite pool of worry’ and COVID-19 on UK climate change perceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(3), e2018936118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018936118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadarian, S. K., Goodman, S. W., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2021). Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0249596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galizzi, M. M. (2014). What is really behavioral in behavioral health policy? And does it work? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genie, M. G., Loría-Rebolledo, L. E., Paranjothy, S., Powell, D., Ryan, M., Sakowsky, R. A., & Watson, V. (2020). Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: A protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK. BMJ Open, 10(11), e043477. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselswerdt, J., & Bartels, B. L. (2015). Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915591217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, S., Armstrong, C. W., Xuan, B. B., Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Simpson, K., Tinch, R., & Ressurreição, A. (2021). Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock? Ecological Economics, 189, 107142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, P. (2011). Making Policy Work. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, L. H. (2021). Politicizing the mask: Political, economic and demographic factors affecting mask wearing behavior in the USA. Eastern Economic Journal, 47(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-020-00186-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward, B., & Brick, C. (2021). Even conservative voters want the environment to be at the heart of post-COVID-19 economic reconstruction in the UK. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(1), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, J., Erickson, W. W., & Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2021). #MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0250817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250817CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manipis, K., Street, D., Cronin, P., Viney, R., & Goodall, S. (2021). Exploring the trade-off between economic and health outcomes during a pandemic: A discrete choice experiment of lockdown policies in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocchi, M., Cagnone, S., Bech-Larsen, T., Niedźwiedzka, B., Saba, A., Shankar, B., et al. (2015). What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 10(3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133114000346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A. L., Conover, E., Videras, J., & Wu, S. (2012). Heat waves, droughts, and preferences for environmental policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 310–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shreedhar, G., & Mourato, S. (2020). Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 963–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00444-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do people like nudges? Administrative Law Review, 68(2), 177–232.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Reisch, L. A., & Rauber, J. (2018). A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, rev. ed. Penguin. https://app.kortext.com/borrow/409551Google Scholar
Umit, R., & Schaffer, L. M. (2020). Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest. Energy Policy, 140, 111385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, A., Meyerhoff, J., & Rehdanz, K. (2022). A test–retest analysis of stated preferences in uncertain times. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 725–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.12.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YouGov. (2022). COVID-19 Public Monitor. YouGov. https://yougov.co.uk/covid-19Google Scholar
Zehavi, A. (2012). New governance and policy instruments: Are governments going ‘soft’? In Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 242–254). Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0017Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×