The challenges of behavioural insights for effective policy design

References

• Aaken, A. V. (2015). Judge the nudge: In search of the legal limits of paternalistic nudging in the EU. In A. Alemanno & A. L. Sibony (Eds.), Nudge and the Law: A European Perspective, Chapter 4, 83–112. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Alemanno, A., & Spina, A. (2014). Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12(2), 429–456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95(9–10), 1082–1095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amadae, S. M., & Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1999). The Rochester school: The origins of positive political theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 269–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Angner, E. (2015). To navigate safely in the vast sea of empirical facts. Synthese, 192(11), 3557–3575.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). "Coherent arbitrariness”: Stable demand curves without stable preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldwin, R. (2014). From regulation to behaviour change: Giving nudge the third degree. The Modern Law Review, 77(6), 831–857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bali, A., Capano, G., & Ramesh, M. Forthcoming. Anticipating policy success in policy design. Policy and Society.
   Google Scholar
• Barr, M. S., Mullainathan, S., & Shafir, E. (2012). Behaviourally informed regulation. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, Chapter 26, 440–461. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Behavioural Insights Team. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy (Technical Report). London: Cabinet Office. Retrieved from http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/mindspace/
   Google Scholar
• Behavioural Insights Team. (2011). Annual update 2010-11 (Technical Report). London: Cabinet Office. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/behavioural-insights-team-annual-update
   Google Scholar
• Behavioural Insights Team. (2016). Update report 2015-16 (Technical Report). London: Behavioural Insights Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/publications/the-behavioural-insights-teams-update-report-2015-16/
   Google Scholar
• Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., Rist, R. C., & Vedung, E. O. (1998). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation (5th ed.). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernoulli, D. (1738/1954). Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. The Econometric Society. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1909829
   Google Scholar
• Binder, M. (2014). Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism? Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(3), 515–539.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blount, S. (1995). When social outcomes aren’t fair: The effect of causal attributions on preferences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 131–144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bobrow, D. B., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bovens, L. (2009). The ethics of nudge. In T. Grüne-Yanoff & S. O. Hansson (Eds.), Preference Change, Chapter 10, 207–219. Netherlands, Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bubb, R., & Pildes, R. H. (2014). How behavioral economics trims its sails and why. Harvard Law Review, 127(6), 1593–1678.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1962). The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundation of Constitutional Democracy. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2003). Regulation for conservatives: Behavioral economics and the case for “asymmetric paternalism”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1211–1254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer, C. F., Loewenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Advances in Behavioral Economics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Capano, G., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy design and non-design in policy-making: Policy formulation and the changing dynamics of public policy. Warsaw: ECPR Joint Sessions.
   Google Scholar
• Charness, G., & Rabin, M. (2002). Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 817–869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chetty, R. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), 1–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, D. L., & Kahn, M. E. (2013). Energy conservation “nudges” and environmentalist ideology: Evidence from a randomized residential electricity field experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 680–702.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawshaw, P. (2013). Public health policy and the behavioural turn: The case of social marketing. Critical Social Policy, 33(4), 616–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Haan, T., & Linde, J. (2017). ‘Good Nudge Lullaby’: Choice architecture and default bias reinforcement. Economic Journal, 128(610), 1180–1206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deaton, A. (2010). Instruments, randomization, and learning about development. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2), 424–455.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., Metcalfe, R., & Vlaev, I. (2012). Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way. Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(1), 264–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg, M., & Kirchsteiger, G. (2004). A theory of sequential reciprocity. Games and Economic Behavior, 47(2), 268–298.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin, G., (2017). Paternalism. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved February 25, 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2000). Fairness and retaliation: The economics of reciprocity. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 159–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G., & Riedl, A. (1998). Gift exchange and reciprocity in competitive experimental markets. European Economic Review, 42(1), 1–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felsen, G., & Reiner, P. B. (2015). What can neuroscience contribute to the debate over nudging? Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 469–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fischhoff, B., & Manski, C. F. (Eds.). (2000). Elicitation of Preferences. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands/Kluwer Academic Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fonseca, M. A., & Grimshaw, S. B. (2017). Do behavioral nudges in prepopulated tax forms affect compliance? Experimental evidence with real taxpayers. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 36(2), 213–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: A critical review. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351–401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frey, B. S., & Eichenberger, R. (1994). Economic incentives transform psychological anomalies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 23(2), 215–234.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G. (2015). On the supposed evidence for libertarian paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 361–383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107–143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. W., & Kahneman, D. (Eds.). (2002). Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaeser, E. L. (2006). Paternalism and psychology. The University of Chicago Law Review, 73(1), 133–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109(1), 75.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grüne-Yanoff, T., 2009. Welfare notions for soft paternalism. Papers on Economics and Evolution (0917). . Evolutionary Economics Group, MPI Jena. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/32665
   Google Scholar
• Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds and Machines, 26(1–2), 149–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halpern, D., Bates, C., Beales, G., & Heathfield, A. (2004). Personal responsibility and changing behaviour: The state of knowledge and its implications for public policy. London: Cabinet Office.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, P. G., & Jespersen, A. M. (2013). Nudge and the manipulation of choice: A framework for the responsible use of the nudge approach to behaviour change in public policy. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4(1), 3–28.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. M., & Welch, B. (2010). Debate: To nudge or not to nudge. Journal of Political Philosophy, 18(1), 123–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haynes, L., Service, O., Goldacre, B., & Torgerson, D., (2012). Test, learn, adapt: Developing public policy with randomised controlled trials (Technical Report). London: Behavioural Insights Team. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/62529/TLA-1906126.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (1991). Policy instruments, policy styles, and policy implementation: National approaches to theories of instrument choice. Policy Studies Journal, 19(2), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the “hollow state”: Procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration/Administration Publique Du Canada, 43(4), 412–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Tools, mixes, and implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance, Chapter 2, 31-50. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: Design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howlett, M. (2015). Policy analytical capacity: The supply and demand for policy analysis in government. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 173–182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Infante, G., Lecouteux, G., & Sugden, R. (2016). Preference purification and the inner rational agent: A critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 23(1), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338–1339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jolls, C., Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471–1550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 297–321.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, B. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jung, J. Y., & Mellers, B. A. (2016). American attitudes toward nudges. Judgment and Decision Making, 11(1), 62–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 296–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2013). Foreword. In E. Shafir (Ed.), The Behavioral Foundations of Public Policy, vii–ix. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kapsner, A., & Sandfuchs, B. (2015). Nudging as a threat to privacy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 455–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, R., & Marmor, T. (2008). Reflections on Policy Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klick, J., & Mitchell, G. (2006). Government regulation of irrationality: Moral and cognitive hazards. Minnesota Law Review, 90(6), 1620–1663. .
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korobkin, R. B., & Ulen, T. S. (2000). Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. California Law Review, 88(4), 1053–1144.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1133–1165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kőszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2007). Reference-dependent risk attitudes. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1047–1073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Intuitive and deliberate judgments are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118(1), 97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehnhanss, C. R. (2018). Nudges and nodality tools: New developments in old instruments. In M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Policy Design, Chapter 15, 227-242. Abingdon: Routlegde.
   Google Scholar
• Kuehnhanss, C. R., & Heyndels, B. (2018). All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians. Journal of Economic Psychology, 65, 26–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehnhanss, C. R., Heyndels, B., & Hilken, K. (2015). Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise. European Journal of Political Economy, 40(pt.B), 360–374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuehnhanss, C. R., Murdoch, Z., Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2017). Identity, threat aversion, and civil servants’ policy preferences: Evidence from the European Parliament. Public Administration, 95(4), 1009–1025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurzban, R. (2010). Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrtite: Evolution and the Modular Mind. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lepenies, R., & Małecka, M. (2015). The institutional consequences of nudging – Nudges, politics, and the law. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 427–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linde, J., & Vis, B. (2017). Do politicians take risks like the rest of us? an experimental test of prospect theory under MPs. Political Psychology, 38(1), 101–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2016). The rationality paradox of nudge: Rational tools of government in a world of bounded rationality. Law & Policy, 38(3), 250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G., Read, D., & Baumeister, R. (Eds.). (2003). Time and Decision: Economic and Psychological Perspectives of Intertemporal Choice. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Loewenstein, G. F., & O’Donoghue, T., 2004. Animal spirits: Affective and deliberative processes in economic behavior, SSRN Working Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=539843.
   Google Scholar
• Lourenςo, J. S., Ciriolo, E., Almeida, S. R., & Troussard, X., (2016). Behavioural insights applied to policy (European report 2016). European Commission Joint Research Centre. Retrieved from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC100146/kjna27726enn_new.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, G. M., Jr. (2013). Paternalism and psychic taxes: The government’s use of negative emotions to save us from ourselves. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 22(2), 227–302.
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, G. M., Jr, & Tasić, S. (2015). Behavioral public choice and the law. West Virginia Law Review, 118, 199–266.
   Google Scholar
• Lunn, P. (2014). Regulatory policy and behavioural economics. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264207851-en
   Google Scholar
• Madrian, B. C. (2014). Applying insights from behavioral economics to policy design. Annual Review of Economics, 6, 663–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• May, P. J. (2012). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration, 2nd ed, Chapter 17, 279–291. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, G. (2005). Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwestern University Law Review, 99(3), 1245–1277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mols, F., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., & Steffens, N. K. (2015). Why a nudge is not enough: A social identity critique of governance by stealth. European Journal of Political Research, 54(1), 81–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moxey, A., O’Connell, D., McGettigan, P., & Henry, D. (2003). Describing treatment effects to patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(11), 948–959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullane, M., & Sheffrin, S. (2012). White Paper: Regulatory nudges in practice. Tullane University. Retrieved from http://murphy.tulane.edu/files/events/Regulatory_Nudges_feb_24.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Öberg, P., Lundin, M., & Thelander, J. (2015). Political power and policy design: Why are policy alternatives constrained? Policy Studies Journal, 43(1), 93–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (1999). Doing it now or later. American Economic Review, 89(1), 103–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2000). The economics of immediate gratification. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(2), 233–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obama, B. (2011). Executive order 13563: Improving regulation and regulatory review. Federal Register, 76(14), 3821–3823. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo13563_01182011.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Obama, B. (2015). Executive order 13707: Using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people. Federal Register, 80(181), 56365–56367. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23630.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Page, E. C. (2006). The origins of policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Chapter 10, 207-227. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pareto, V. (1906/2014). Manual of Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, R. A. (1998). Rational choice, behavioral economics, and the law. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1551.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qizilbash, M. (2012). Informed desire and the ambitions of libertarian paternalism. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4), 647–658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 11–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rabin, M. (2013). Incorporating limited rationality into economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 51(2), 528–543.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rachlinski, J. J. (2011). The psychological foundations of behavioral law and economics. University of Illinois Law Review, 2011(5), 1675–1696.
   Google Scholar
• Rebonato, R. (2012). Taking Liberties: A Critical Examination of Libertarian Paternalism. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgement and Decision Making, 11(4), 310–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saint-Paul, G. (2011). The Tyranny of Utility: Behavioral Social Science and the Rise of Paternalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action. In L. M. Salamon & O. V. Elliott (Eds.), The Tools of Government a Guide to the New Governance, Chapter 1, 1–47. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59.
   Google Scholar
• Sanfey, A. G., & Chang, L. J. (2008). Multiple systems in decision making. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128(1), 53–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Neuroeconomics: Crosscurrents in research on decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(3), 108–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnellenbach, J. (2012). Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism. European Journal of Political Economy, 28(2), 266–277.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnellenbach, J., & Schubert, C. (2015). Behavioral political economy: A survey. European Journal of Political Economy, 40(pt.B), 395–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schubert, C. (2017). Exploring the (behavioural) political economy of nudging. Journal of Institutional Economics, 13(3), 499–522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Science and Technology Select Committee. (2011). Behaviour change. London: House of Lords. Retrieved from https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1986). Rationality in psychology and economics. The Journal of Business, 59(4, pt.2), S209–S224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 3–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (1776/2010). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (3rd ed.). Petersfield: Harriman House Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (1790/2005). The Theory of Moral Sentiment. New York, NY: Prometheus/MetaLibri. Retrieved from https://www.ibiblio.org/ml/libri/s/SmithA_MoralSentiments_p.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Sobel, J. (2005). Interdependent preferences and reciprocity. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(2), 392–436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Social and Behavioral Sciences Team. (2016). Annual report 2016. Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from https://sbst.gov/assets/files/2016SBSTAnnualReport.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E. (1999). Who is Rational? Studies of Individual Differences in Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (2008). Why incoherent preferences do not justify paternalism. Constitutional Political Economy, 19(3), 226–248.
   Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (2009). On nudging: A review of nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness by Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 16(3), 365–373.
   Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (2013). The behavioural economist and the social planner: To whom should behavioural welfare economics be addressed? Inquiry, 56(5), 519–538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugden, R. (2016). Do people really want to be nudged towards healthy lifestyles? International Review of Economics, 64(2), 113–123.
   Google Scholar
• Sunstein, C. R., & Thaler, R. H. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Benartzi, S. (2004). Save more tomorrowTM: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164–S187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism. American Economic Review, 93(2), 175–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thorsteinson, T. J. (2011). Initiating salary discussions with an extreme request: Anchoring effects on initial salary offers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(7), 1774–1792.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(S4), S251–S278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Anomalies: Preference reversals. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(2), 201–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Bavel, R., Herrmann, B., Esposito, G., & Proestakis, A. (2013). Applying behavioural sciences to EU policy-making. Seville: European Commission Joint Research Centre. doi:10.2788/4659.
   Google Scholar
• Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, M., Jones, R., Howell, R., Lilley, R., & Pykett, J., (2014). Nudging all over the world: Assessing the global impact of the behavioural sciences on public policy (Technical Report). Economic & Social Research Council Report. Retrieved from https://changingbehaviours.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/nudgedesignfinal.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Whitehead, M., Jones, R., & Pykett, J. (2011). Governing irrationality, or a more than rational government? Reflections on the rescientisation of decision making in British public policy. Environment and Planning A, 43(12), 2819–2837.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitman, D. G., & Rizzo, M. J. (2015). The problematic welfare standards of behavioral paternalism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 409–425.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities. Policy and Society, 34(3–4), 165–171.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar