Who are behavioural public policy experts and how are they organised globally

Bibliographic Data

ID6326673
AuthorsHolger Strassheim (0000-0003-1600-0673, Bielefeld University, corresponding author)
Year2021
Volume49
Issue1
Pages69-86
Publication date2021-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePolicy & Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0305-5736 • E-ISSN: 1470-8442
PublisherBristol University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1332/030557320x15956825120821
OpenAlexW3081796293
LanguageEN
Citations received13
References cited40

Behavioural public policy has spread internationally over recent years. Worldwide, expert units are translating insights from behavioural sciences into policy interventions. Yet, behavioural expert networks are a puzzling case. They seem to oscillate between two modes of collective action: as an epistemic community, they are based on the consensual belief that biases in behaviour pose a problem for policymaking. As an instrument constituency, they bring together a diversity of actors, unified not by consensual beliefs about problems but by practices of promoting behavioural instruments as solutions. Drawing on a review of literature, this article provides a systematic analysis of the relation between epistemic communities and instrument constituencies. It argues that there has been an ‘agency shift’ from one mode to the other. The implications are that experts should be aware of the fact that the instruments they are proposing might develop a political life of their own

Action (physics · Agency (philosophy · Collective action · Diversity (politics · Economics · Epistemic community · Epistemology · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Psychological intervention · Public policy · Public relations · Relation (database · Social science · Sociology · Community Health and Development · Computer Science · Evaluation and Performance Assessment · Health Policy Implementation Science · Law · Psychology

Tools

Open DOI