Spillover effects are considered important in evaluating the impacts of food, energy and water (FEW) conservation behaviors for limiting global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Failure to account for all possible spillovers, or indirect and unintended results of an intervention, not only obscures valuable information pertaining to the dynamic interactions across domains but also results in biased estimates. In this study, we first systematically reviewed articles that investigate the idea that the performance of one pro-environmental behavior influences the conduct of subsequent behaviors(s) from the FEW domains. From our review of 48 studies in the last decade, we note that a big part of the discussion on spillover concerns the nature and direction of causal relationships between individual FEW conservation behaviors. We identify a critical gap in the literature regarding the distinction between spillover effects caused by the interventions as distinct from those caused by the primary behaviors. Next, we conducted a quantitative meta-analysis of the reviewed empirical studies to find a modest but overall positive spillover effect. Finally, we reviewed the theoretical and methodological plurality in the FEW spillover literature using a systemic thinking lens to summarize what is already known and identify future challenges and research opportunities with significant policy implications.

With respect to the views of dead thinkers, answers to many particular questions are often interpretive in Ronald Dworkin's sense. Such answers must attempt (1) to fit the materials to be interpreted and (2) to justify them, that is, to put them in the best constructive light. What looks like (1), or what purports to be (1), is often (2). That is, when a follower of Kant urges that ‘Kant would say x’, or that ‘Kantianism entails y’, the goal is to make the best constructive sense of Kant and Kantianism, not merely to adhere to something that Kant actually said. An approach to behavioral economics cannot claim to be Hayekian if it is rooted in enthusiasm for the abilities of planners to set prices and quantities, or if it sees the price system as a jumble of mistakes and errors. But within a not-so-narrow range, a variety of freedom-preserving approaches, alert to the epistemic limits of planners, can fairly claim to be Hayekian. Hayekian behavioral economics, I suggest, is an approach that (1) recognizes the importance and pervasiveness of individual errors, (2) emphasizes the epistemic limits of planners, (3) builds on individual choices rather than planner preferences, and (4) gives authority to choices made under epistemically favorable conditions, in which informational deficits and behavioral biases are least likely to be at work. The key step, of course, is (4). If it is properly elaborated, the resulting approach deserves respect. It is worthy of serious consideration, even if some of us, including the present author, would not entirely embrace it. In defending that proposition, the present essay responds to some critical remarks on behaviorally informed policy, including the resort to ‘explainawaytions’ (Matthew Rabin's term) for behavioral findings.

As nudge interventions have become more popular, academic research is developing that assesses to what extent these interventions are effective. My paper contributes to this stream of research: collating and synthesising evidence on the effectiveness of nudge interventions that aim to increase consumer search and switching in retail financial markets. Following a systematic search strategy, I identify 35 relevant papers, including qualitative studies, laboratory experiments, field experiments and ex post analyses, covering a range of retail financial products and different types of nudges. The review results in two main contributions. First, it demonstrates that different study designs serve different purposes in evidence accumulation. Second, based on over 400 estimates extracted from these papers, it establishes that the currently available evidence shows that nudges increase consumer search and switching in retail financial markets by 2–3 percentage points on average. Structural nudges that change the choice architecture more profoundly have a higher impact on search and switching than nudges that provide, simplify or highlight information. While nudge interventions may be efficient on a cost–benefit basis and can lead to a large increase in relative terms (e.g. doubling switching rates from 1% to 2%), regulators cannot expect them to significantly alter consumer behaviour.

In The Rhetoric of Reaction, published in 1991, Albert Hirschman identified three standard objections to reform proposals: perversity, futility and jeopardy. In Hirschman's account, these objections define reactionary rhetoric. A proposal would be “perverse” if it would aggravate the very problem it is meant to solve; it would be “futile” if it would not even dent the problem; it would produce “jeopardy” if it would endanger some other goal or value (such as liberty or economic growth). The rhetoric of reaction comes from both left and right, though in Hirschman's account, it is a special favorite of the right. In recent years, the perversity, futility and jeopardy theses have often been invoked to challenge reforms, including nudges. While the three theses are sometimes supported by the evidence, they are often evidence-free speculations, confirming Hirschman's suggestion that the rhetoric of reaction has “a certain elementary sophistication and paradoxical quality that carry conviction for those who are in search of instant insights and utter certainties.”

How can we stimulate policymakers to make strategic decisions that enhance public service performance? Traditional strategy theories have not enabled us to answer this question. These theories focus on strategy processes or content in public organizations and networks and directly link these to public service performance. This article defines and elaborates on a conceptual framework that uses theory from behavioral science to unravel how policymakers can make strategic decisions that actually enhance the performance of public organizations and networks. This conceptual framework is labeled ‘behavioral public strategy’ and conceptualizes public strategy as a social process shaped by the individuals, teams and tools underlying it. Behavioral public strategy thus focuses on the micro-foundations of public strategy and how these micro-foundations influence strategic decisions. Moreover, behavioral public strategy links meso- and micro-levels by proposing a bathtub model where the relationship between public strategy and public service performance at the organizational and network levels is explained by the relationship between the micro-foundations of public strategy and the ensuing strategic decisions at the individual and team levels. This article connects three research streams that have been like ‘ships that pass in the night’, namely public strategy, behavioral public policy and behavioral public administration.

Behavioral policies are increasingly popular in a number of health care contexts. However, evidence of their effectiveness, specifically in low-income and highly disadvantaged populations, is limited. Some positive effects have been found for adaptive interventions, which merge more personalized approaches with advances in data collection and modern analytical methods. These approaches have only recently become feasible, as their implementation requires a confluence of large-scale datasets, contemporary machine learning, and validated behavioral insights. Such methods have considerable potential to improve outcomes without requiring substantial increases in effort on the part of individuals. Using examples from health insurance choice, clinical attendance rates, and prescription of medicines, we present an argument for how adaptive approaches, especially those considering disadvantaged populations explicitly, offer an opportunity to generate equity in public health.

There is great potential for nudges to make gains in child health through improvement of lifestyle behaviors. In this study, I use an online sample of adults to test the acceptability of two nudges (one to address teenage smoking and the other to address pediatric obesity) when targeting one of three populations: adults, parents or children. The study shows that a majority of adult respondents would accept the use of nudges aimed at parents and children. The findings show that nudging parents or children directly has the same acceptability as nudging adults. These results suggest that when the objective of a nudge is to improve children's health, it is acceptable to target parents or children themselves. These results open the door to testing the efficacy of nudges in pediatric public health.

In the last few decades, conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have become very popular for addressing different development challenges. The use of CCT programmes to promote enrolment in schools, improve preventive health care and increase household consumption in Latin America has been well documented. However, the potential of CCT programmes to change more deep-rooted norms is not very clear. The Shubh Laxmi scheme, a CCT programme, was started by the Government of Rajasthan, India, to improve the status of health and education among girls. A study was undertaken to understand the changes in beneficiaries’ perspectives due to scheme. A total of 95 beneficiaries were randomly selected and in-depth interviews were conducted in order to understand the impact of the scheme. In addition, two focus group discussions were conducted with 30 non-beneficiaries in order to understand their awareness about the scheme and their perceptions of girls. The findings show that the CCT programme has helped in generating a positive attitude among beneficiaries towards the survival, education and well-being of girls. The key challenge was low awareness of the scheme and of the procedures for claiming its benefits. This study highlights that CCT programmes are useful for nudging people to address gender-based inequalities in health and education among children; however, effective implementation remains key.

The relevant literature notes a lack of applications relative to the theoretical impact of prospect theory. In this paper, I provide a brief review of this literature aimed at policymakers before developing an idea for lottery-based government subsidy policies. I consider the general conditions under which such policies could be effective in (1) increasing the performance of desired behaviours and (2) saving governments money. I provide two examples of current Canadian subsidies that I argue could be improved with the addition of a lottery option.

This is an appreciation of the life and work of Michael Jones-Lee. It describes his pioneering role in establishing and developing the theory and practice of the elicitation of monetary values for changes in risks to life, health and safety, using stated preference methods.

This paper explores “free-baiting” as a behavioral policy tool for reducing participation in socially undesirable activities. Empirical evidence establishes that when a good or activity ceases to be free, consumption plummets. A free-baiting policy creates conditions of freeness in order to subsequently take advantage of the discouraging effects of freeness removal. The initial free phase shifts consumers’ reference price for the target activity to zero. Subsequently, prices are returned to market levels – a staggering price increase. Behavioral factors enhance the salience of that price increase. It occurs along the steepest part of the money utility curve. It is especially salient because it is presented as a loss. In addition, it may trigger the endowment effect: forcing people to give something up in order to partake in the target activity once it is no longer free. Moreover, these discouraging effects can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of other interventions. Free-baiting manufactures a policy window, creating a moment in which many consumers simultaneously confront obstacles to the target activity. The effects of free-baiting are illustrated using several hypothetical interventions, including rush-hour roadway tolls, sugary beverages, gasoline and tobacco.

The emergence of dominant companies that don't charge money to their primary consumers poses serious challenges to current antitrust law around the world. This paper suggests an approach to regulating these ‘zero-price’ companies that considers the data consumers give up to use them as the ‘price’ they pay. The ‘data as price’ model acts as a starting point to assess whether consumers are being ‘overcharged’ by Facebook in the status quo compared to how much data they would give up in a more competitive social media landscape. By surveying thousands of participants and assessing a litany of relevant behavioural considerations, this paper finds that customers are overpaying for Facebook, and that this may come at a serious welfare cost to millions of consumers. While further analysis is warranted, there is substantial cause for concern, and for critical re-evaluation of the standards generally used by antitrust regulators around the world to regulate companies such as Facebook.