Nudging citizens co-production: Assessing multiple behavioral strategies

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Rotem Dvir
{"title":"Nudging citizens co-production: Assessing multiple behavioral strategies","authors":"Rotem Dvir","doi":"10.1007/s11077-024-09546-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The concept of nudge has been prevalent in studies that explore behavioral changes for better individual decision-making. While nudging has been applied to study public policy, a puzzling under-explored issue in this context is coproduction. In this study, I build on the rich literature on nudging theory and conduct an empirical assessment that compares different strategies intended to increase public willingness to engage in coproduction. In public administration, the concept of coproduction refers to citizens’ willingness to contribute to policies that improve their lives. Therefore, a nudging approach offers multiple benefits in employing strategies that do not compel but can motivate greater citizen participation. My approach focuses on comparing common nudging strategies in two unique coproduction areas: natural hazards resilience and public health, and identifying the most efficient ways to increase citizens’ willingness to contribute to proposed policies. The results suggest that nudging strategies are a useful tool for increasing hazard resilience coproduction, while they backfire for organ donations and reduce the willingness to participate. Also, norm-nudge and loss aversion are more powerful strategies in increasing intention to join compared to a default strategy. Lastly, I provide evidence showing relative consistency between respondents’ stated intention and actual coproduction behavior in both policy areas. These findings provide valuable insights to policymakers in designing effective tools to encourage greater public engagement with policy. It also offers theoretical contributions to research on coproduction and how to more directly integrate behavioral theories into public administration studies and investigate individuals’ attitudes towards participation in policy solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51433,"journal":{"name":"Policy Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-024-09546-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of nudge has been prevalent in studies that explore behavioral changes for better individual decision-making. While nudging has been applied to study public policy, a puzzling under-explored issue in this context is coproduction. In this study, I build on the rich literature on nudging theory and conduct an empirical assessment that compares different strategies intended to increase public willingness to engage in coproduction. In public administration, the concept of coproduction refers to citizens’ willingness to contribute to policies that improve their lives. Therefore, a nudging approach offers multiple benefits in employing strategies that do not compel but can motivate greater citizen participation. My approach focuses on comparing common nudging strategies in two unique coproduction areas: natural hazards resilience and public health, and identifying the most efficient ways to increase citizens’ willingness to contribute to proposed policies. The results suggest that nudging strategies are a useful tool for increasing hazard resilience coproduction, while they backfire for organ donations and reduce the willingness to participate. Also, norm-nudge and loss aversion are more powerful strategies in increasing intention to join compared to a default strategy. Lastly, I provide evidence showing relative consistency between respondents’ stated intention and actual coproduction behavior in both policy areas. These findings provide valuable insights to policymakers in designing effective tools to encourage greater public engagement with policy. It also offers theoretical contributions to research on coproduction and how to more directly integrate behavioral theories into public administration studies and investigate individuals’ attitudes towards participation in policy solutions.

Abstract Image

鼓励公民共同生产:评估多种行为策略
劝导(nududge)的概念在探讨如何改变行为以改善个人决策的研究中十分盛行。虽然 "劝导 "已被应用于研究公共政策,但在这一背景下,一个未得到充分探讨的令人困惑的问题是共同生产。在本研究中,我以丰富的推导理论文献为基础,通过实证评估,比较了旨在提高公众参与共同生产意愿的不同策略。在公共管理中,共同生产的概念指的是公民愿意为改善其生活的政策做出贡献。因此,"引导 "方法在采用不强制但能激励更多公民参与的策略方面具有多重益处。我的研究方法侧重于比较在两个独特的共同生产领域(自然灾害复原力和公共卫生)中常用的引导策略,并找出最有效的方法来提高公民为拟议政策做出贡献的意愿。研究结果表明,劝导策略是提高抗灾能力共同生产的有效工具,而对于器官捐赠则会适得其反,降低参与意愿。此外,与默认策略相比,规范激励和损失规避策略在提高参与意愿方面更为有力。最后,我提供的证据显示,在这两个政策领域,受访者的声明意向与实际共同生产行为之间具有相对一致性。这些发现为政策制定者提供了宝贵的见解,帮助他们设计有效的工具,鼓励公众更多地参与政策制定。它还为共同生产研究以及如何更直接地将行为理论融入公共管理研究和调查个人对参与政策解决方案的态度提供了理论贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Policy Sciences
Policy Sciences Multiple-
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
9.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The policy sciences are distinctive within the policy movement in that they embrace the scholarly traditions innovated and elaborated by Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal. Within these pages we provide space for approaches that are problem-oriented, contextual, and multi-method in orientation. There are many other journals in which authors can take top-down, deductive, and large-sample approach or adopt a primarily theoretical focus. Policy Sciences encourages systematic and empirical investigations in which problems are clearly identified from a practical and theoretical perspective, are well situated in the extant literature, and are investigated utilizing methodologies compatible with contextual, as opposed to reductionist, understandings. We tend not to publish pieces that are solely theoretical, but favor works in which the applied policy lessons are clearly articulated. Policy Sciences favors, but does not publish exclusively, works that either explicitly or implicitly utilize the policy sciences framework. The policy sciences can be applied to articles with greater or lesser intensity to accommodate the focus of an author’s work. At the minimum, this means taking a problem oriented, multi-method or contextual approach. At the fullest expression, it may mean leveraging central theory or explicitly applying aspects of the framework, which is comprised of three principal dimensions: (1) social process, which is mapped in terms of participants, perspectives, situations, base values, strategies, outcomes and effects, with values (power, wealth, enlightenment, skill, rectitude, respect, well-being, and affection) being the key elements in understanding participants’ behaviors and interactions; (2) decision process, which is mapped in terms of seven functions—intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal; and (3) problem orientation, which comprises the intellectual tasks of clarifying goals, describing trends, analyzing conditions, projecting developments, and inventing, evaluating, and selecting alternatives. There is a more extensive core literature that also applies and can be visited at the policy sciences website: http://www.policysciences.org/classicworks.cfm. In addition to articles that explicitly utilize the policy sciences framework, Policy Sciences has a long tradition of publishing papers that draw on various aspects of that framework and its central theory as well as high quality conceptual pieces that address key challenges, opportunities, or approaches in ways congruent with the perspective that this journal strives to maintain and extend.Officially cited as: Policy Sci
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信