Magdalena Malecka (University of Helsinki)
The objective of this research project is to propose the novel perspective in the philosophy of science to analyse reliance on the behavioural findings in policy contexts. The recent applications of the behavioural sciences to policymaking are based on research in cognitive psychology, behavioural economics, decision theory. This research is supposed to provide the knowledge necessary to make policy that is effective (Shafir, ed. 2012, Oliver 2013). ‘Nudging’ is an example of a new approach to regulation, elicited by the application of the behavioural sciences to policy. Its adherents advocate using knowledge about factors influencing human behaviour in order to impact behaviour by changes in the choice architecture (Thaler, Sunstein 2008).
The debate on nudging in particular, and on bringing the behavioural sciences to bear on policy in general, focuses predominantly on the moral limits to nudging, and the defensibility of libertarian paternalism (Hausman, Welch 2010; White 2013). Philosophers of science consider whether, for behavioural research to provide policy relevant insights, it should identify mechanisms underlying phenomena under study (Gruene-Yanoff, Marchionni, Feufel 2018; Heilmann 2014; Gruene-Yanoff 2015; Nagatsu 2015).
I argue that the debate overlooks three important points. First, there is a lack of understanding that behavioural research is subject to interpretation and selective reading in policy settings. Second, the debate is based on simplistic understanding of behavioural research that fails to pay attention to how causal factors and behaviours are operationalized, and to what the behavioural sciences offer the knowledge of. Finally, there is a lack of broader perspective on the relationship between the type of knowledge provided by the behavioural sciences, and the type of governing that behaviourally-informed policies seek to advance.
My project addresses these missing points in the debate. It shows that when reflecting on reliance on scientific findings (behavioural sciences) in policy settings, it is important not only to analyse conditions under which a policy works (is effective). It is equally consequential to understand: how the explanandum is conceptualized, what kinds of causal links are studied and what is kept in the background. My analysis builds on Helen Longino’s work on studying human behaviour (2013) that went virtually unnoticed in the discussion on behavioural science in policy.
