Search

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.

ABSTRACTThe worldwide growth of behaviorally informed policies raises many questions about the universality of application across cultures and demographics. While the findings of behavioral economics – the foundation for nudge policy – are well described in the basic research literature, there is still the need to test the efficacy of various policies applied in different contexts. This research examines the differences of preference for a number of nudge policies, with special attention to the gender of South Koreans. A survey measured respondents’ approval of 38 hypothetical nudge policies that fell into seven topical groups. The results showed significant differences between the genders; Korean women were often more favorable to progressive nudge policies than men. The findings suggest opportunities for applying nudges in Korean society to optimize outcomes with progressive policies and social welfare developments. More broadly, this affirms the need to tailor nudge policies across and within contexts for enhanced results.

AbstractOne way of conceptualizing a utopian society is through the liberal perspective, positing that policy should be cruelty-free and the role of governance is to facilitate social progress through improved justice. Public administration has implicitly supported this idea since the advent of New Public Administration and the inclusion of ‘equity’ as a pillar of governance. Justice serves as the foundation for determining a utopian notion of social progress, wherein our administrative decisions focus on moving us away from conditions of cruelty toward a fairer alternative. This article develops a path for public administration to approach an idea of utopia based on the neopragmatist philosophy of Richard Rorty. It envisions policy decisions framed as a ‘flipped’ hypothesis test, where the alternative hypothesis is the condition of cruelty we are currently experiencing and the null hypothesis is the policy aimed to alleviate conditions of cruelty and facilitate social progress.

Many public administration students harbor doubts about their ability to learn statistics. Adoption of a tenet of neopragmatism can realign statistics with students’ cognitive interests and frame it as a method to advance social progress away from cruelty. This approach is rooted in John Dewey’s fusion of educational philosophy with scientific method and Richard Rorty’s postmodern upgrade of classical pragmatism. Neopragmatism recognizes that there are linguistic and contextual challenges to social science research, and that statistics is “translating” what happens around us into a language based on the math logic that is actually common to many of our social phenomena. This eases students’ arithmophobia so they can see the greater challenge as analyzing governance issues to take advantage of the explanatory powers of statistics. Students then focus on figuring out the words, rather than the numbers, that are necessary to improve administrative decisions and reduce cruelty in the world.

Months after military strategist Thomas P. M. Barnett offered foreign-policy advice to George W. Bush ('Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Our Iraq Strategy,' June), the letters keep [...]

Lance Armstrong won seven Tours de France in a row. Even the great Eddy Merckx won only five. Was Armstrongs string of successes too unlikely to have been true? David Oliver Kasdan investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports how the Republic of Korea took a major step toward the global effort for disaster risk reduction with the Incheon Declaration and Regional Roadmap and Action Plan (REMAP).

Presents letters to the editor referencing articles and topics discussed in previous issues. "Home," which focused on several astronauts' survival story; "Man at His Best," which discussed a father's obligation during a child's birth; "Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Our Iraq Strategy," which focused on a foreign-policy advice by military strategist Thomas P. M. Barnett to U.S. President George W. Bush.