Discover how behavioural public policy evolved from its foundational research in cognitive psychology and behavioural economics. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's research, which revealed how individuals' cognitive biases shape economic choices, laid the groundwork for the development of interventions like nudges. However, debates persist regarding the effectiveness, scalability, and ethical implications of micro-targeted behavioural interventions, requiring a balanced approach that integrates individual-level solutions with systemic changes while considering cultural variations.

Table of content

Foundational Research in Behavioural Economics

The origins of behavioural public policy trace back to the pioneering work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. Their paper “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” (1974) introduced the idea that individuals rely on mental shortcuts, or heuristics, leading to systematic deviations from the standard assumptions about economic choices.

Kahneman and Tversky identified several key biases, including anchoring (relying too heavily on the first piece of information encountered), availability (overestimating the likelihood of events based on their ease of recall), and representativeness (judging the probability of an event by how much it resembles a typical case). These insights were elaborated in Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow” (2011), distinguishing between two modes of thinking: System 1 (fast, automatic, and often biased) and System 2 (slow, deliberate, and more rational). This research laid the groundwork for understanding that human behaviour often diverges from the rational actor model, thus opening the door for policies that account for these cognitive limitations.

Libertarian Paternalism and the Nudging Agenda

Building on Kahneman and Tversky’s foundations, Thaler and Sunstein (2008) popularised the concept of “libertarian paternalism,” advocating for subtle policy shifts (nudges) to steer people towards better decisions. This approach focuses on interventions that influence behaviour without restricting options. By leveraging insights from behavioural economics, nudges aim to help people make decisions that improve their lives, addressing the often irrational ways they think and behave.

A common example of a nudge is altering default settings. A successful application is in energy consumption, where providing households with comparative feedback about their energy use relative to their neighbours has led to significant reductions in energy consumption.

One of the most significant advancements in applying these principles has been the establishment of “Nudge Units” or Behavioural Insights Teams in governments worldwide. The UK’s Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), founded in 2010, was the first government unit dedicated to applying behavioural science to public policy, inspiring similar initiatives globally. These units employ behavioural insights to address a range of policy issues.

Beyond Nudging

While nudges are a prominent tool in behavioural policy, they are not the only effective strategy. Financial incentives, social norms campaigns, and information provision are also widely used. Financial incentives have been effective in promoting health behaviours such as smoking cessation and weight loss. Social norms campaigns have successfully reduced harmful behaviours like excessive alcohol consumption and promoted positive behaviours like recycling. Combining these approaches often yields the best results, addressing complex issues through multiple behavioural insights.

Effectiveness and Ethics

A central debate around behavioural interventions, including nudges, concerns their effectiveness and ethical implications. Critics argue that nudges can be manipulative or paternalistic, potentially undermining individual autonomy. They worry that by subtly steering people towards certain choices, nudges infringe on personal freedom, even if done with good intentions.

Proponents counter that these interventions can significantly improve welfare by helping individuals overcome cognitive biases that hinder optimal decision making. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) argue that nudges are a form of “choice architecture” that structures choices in a way that leads to better outcomes without eliminating freedom of choice. Financial incentives, social norms campaigns, and providing clear information share similar ethical considerations but offer alternative ways to enhance decision making and welfare.

Scalability and Sustainability

Another critical debate concerns the scalability and sustainability of behavioural interventions. While nudges have shown success in various isolated applications, questions remain about their long-term effectiveness and their ability to scale across different contexts and cultures. Behavioural interventions that work well in one cultural or institutional context might not translate effectively to another.

For example, automatic enrolment in pension plans has been highly successful in increasing savings rates in some countries, but such a strategy might not be as effective in regions with different employment structures or cultural attitudes towards savings. Similarly, energy consumption feedback has led to reductions in use in some contexts but may face challenges in areas where energy consumption patterns or social norms differ significantly.

Furthermore, the sustainability of behavioural interventions over time is a concern. Initial impacts may diminish as individuals become accustomed to the interventions or if the novelty wears off. Ensuring that interventions remain effective in the long term requires continuous monitoring and potentially adapting strategies to maintain their influence on behaviour.

Beyond Microtargeted Policy Design

While nudging has proven effective in various contexts, there is a growing recognition that a more comprehensive approach is needed to address complex societal issues. This has led to a debate between the i-frame (individual frame) and s-frame (system frame) perspectives in behavioural policy design. This debate revolves around whether efforts should primarily target individual behaviour changes or address systemic and structural factors that influence behaviour.

The i-frame focuses on individual-level interventions, such as nudges, to alter specific behaviours. However, this approach can be limited if it fails to consider broader social and environmental factors that influence behaviour. Critics argue that focusing solely on individual behaviour change can overlook systemic issues that require structural interventions.

In contrast, the s-frame advocates for systemic and structural changes to create environments that naturally encourage desired behaviours. This approach recognises that context plays a crucial role in shaping behaviour and that lasting change often requires adjustments at the institutional or infrastructural level. For example, improving public health may not only require nudges to encourage healthier eating but also policies to make healthy food more accessible and affordable.

For instance, to combat obesity, an integrated approach might include nudges that encourage healthier food choices (i-frame) alongside policies that improve access to nutritious foods and create safe spaces for physical activity (s-frame). Similarly, to enhance energy efficiency, a combination of personalised feedback on energy use (i-frame) and regulatory measures promoting energy-efficient appliances (s-frame) can be more effective.

The dual approach acknowledges that while nudges can be effective in guiding individual behaviour, they are most powerful when complemented by systemic reforms that create supportive environments. This comprehensive strategy is essential for addressing complex societal issues and achieving sustainable change. Integrating both i-frame and s-frame approaches offers a more holistic strategy for behavioural public policy, recognising the interplay between individual and systemic factors in behavioural change.

Cultural Evolutionary Behavioural Science

Cultural evolutionary behavioural science is an interdisciplinary field merging insights from anthropology, neuroscience, dual inheritance theory, and evolutionary biology to understand how cultural and evolutionary processes shape human behaviour. It explains how our genetic makeup and cultural environment collectively influence decisions and actions, offering a richer understanding than traditional behavioural science.

A foundational pillar is Dual Inheritance Theory (DIT), which posits that human behaviour results from both genetic and cultural evolution. Cultural traits are transmitted across generations through learning, imitation, and teaching, much like genetic traits through biological inheritance. For instance, the prevalence of lactose tolerance in some populations is due to genetic evolution influenced by dairy farming practices, highlighting the importance of considering both genetic and cultural factors.

Anthropology and neuroscience provide critical insights into how cultural contexts and neurological processes shape decision making and behaviour. Anthropology offers qualitative data on the diversity of human behaviours across cultures, while neuroscience explores brain mechanisms underlying decision making. Research on neural plasticity shows that cultural experiences can shape brain development and function, revealing variations in cognitive processes like perception and memory across different cultural backgrounds.

A significant debate within the field involves the challenge of interdisciplinary integration, balancing insights from multiple disciplines to create a cohesive framework accommodating diverse perspectives. Integrating quantitative data from genetics and neuroscience with qualitative insights from anthropology and sociology requires a common language and conceptual framework, leading to robust behavioural policies grounded in a holistic understanding of human behaviour.

Another critical debate addresses the recognition and incorporation of cultural variation in behavioural responses to policy interventions. Effective policies in one cultural setting may not yield the same results elsewhere. Tailoring interventions to the cultural values, beliefs, and practices of target populations ensures that policies are culturally sensitive, accepted, and effective.

WEIRD Societies

The concept of WEIRD – Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic – coined by Joseph Henrich et al. (2010) and Henrich (2020) criticises the over-reliance on these populations in behavioural research. This bias leads to findings that may not be universally applicable, highlighting the need to recognise these limitations when generalising research outcomes globally.

One key implication of the WEIRD phenomenon is the necessity for cultural sensitivity in policy design. Behavioural policies developed and tested within WEIRD populations often fail in non-WEIRD societies due to differing cultural norms and practices. Policymakers must culturally tailor interventions by incorporating local customs and social structures, as culturally insensitive policies risk failure and can lead to social backlash or decreased trust in institutions.

To inform effective and equitable policies, research must include diverse cultural backgrounds. Current behavioural science literature is skewed towards WEIRD populations, limiting the generalisability of its findings. Broadening research to include non-WEIRD populations offers a more comprehensive understanding of human behaviour reflecting global diversity.

For instance, financial decision making studies might reveal significant cultural variations in risk tolerance and saving behaviours due to differing economic conditions and social norms. Incorporating these insights into policy design leads to interventions better suited to target populations.

Actionable Recommendations

  1. Integrate I-Frame and S-Frame Approaches: Combine individual-level interventions with systemic changes to address both immediate behaviours and underlying factors.
  2. Emphasise Cultural Sensitivity in Policy Design: Ensure behavioural interventions are culturally tailored to prevent failures and unintended negative consequences.
  3. Promote Inclusive Research Practices: Encourage expanding research to include diverse cultural backgrounds to create more effective and equitable interventions.
  4. Continuously Monitor and Adapt Policies: Recognise that the effectiveness of interventions can diminish over time, requiring continuous monitoring and adaptation.


Behavioural public policy is undergoing a transformation, drawing on insights from various disciplines to address both individual behaviour and systemic change. The Nudging Agenda, which aims to subtly steer people’s choices, has demonstrated potential but is now at the centre of debates over its ethical implications, scalability, and cultural relevance. For policy design to be effective and sustainable, it is essential to integrate behavioural economics with cultural evolutionary insights and to expand research to include a diverse range of populations.


Allcott, H. (2011), Social norms and energy conservation, Journal of Public Economics, 95(9-10), 1082-1095.

Benartzi, S. and R. H. Thaler (2007), Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(3), 81-104.

DellaVigna, S. (2009), Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field, Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315-372.

Connolly, D., G. Loewenstein, and N. Chater (2024), An s-frame agenda for behavioral public policy research, published on-line: DOI

Dolan, P., M. Hallsworth, D. Halpern, D. King, and I. Vlaev (2010), MINDSPACE: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy, Institute for Government: Cabinet Office

Goldstein, N. J., R. B. Cialdini, and V. Griskevicius (2008), A Room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels, Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.

Henrich, J., S. J. Heine, and A. Norenzayan (2010), The weirdest people in the world?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.

Henrich, J. (2020), The WEIRDest People in the World. How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux

Jachimowicz, J. M., S. Duncan, E. U. Weber, and E. Johnson (2019), When and why defaults influence decisions: A meta-analysis of default effects, Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 159-186.

Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1974), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

Kahneman, D. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux

List, J. A. (2004), Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: Evidence from the marketplace, Econometrica, 72(2), 615-625.

Loewenstein, G. and N. Chater (2017), Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 26-53.

Chater, N. and G. Loewenstein, G. (2022), The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1-60, published on-line: DOI

Roberto, C. A., Kawachi, I., and R. J. Blendon (2014), Obesity nudges: The role of public policies in promoting healthy eating, Milbank Quarterly, 92(4), 825-856.

Schimmelpfennig, R. and M. Muthukrishna (2023), Cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy, Behavioural Public Policy, (2023), 1–31.

Shafir, E. and R. A. LeBoeuf (2002), Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 491-517.

Sunstein, C. R. (2016), The Ethics of Influence. Government in the Age of Behavioral Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Thaler, R. H. amd S. Benartzi (2004), Save More Tomorrow™: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving, Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), S164-S187.

Thaler, R. H. and C. R. Sunstein (2008), Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press

Thaler, R. H. (2018), Nudge and beyond: What can behavioural economics teach us about improving the environment?, Environmental and Resource Economics, 70(1), 1-37.

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman (1981), The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, Science, 211(4481), 453-458.