Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/22363
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Banerjee, S | - |
dc.contributor.author | Savani, M | - |
dc.contributor.author | Shreedhar, G | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-03-04T07:20:09Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-03-04T07:20:09Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-05-28 | - |
dc.identifier | ORCID iD: Manu Savani https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6621-8975 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Banerjee, S., Savani, M. and Shreedhar, G. (2021) 'Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence', Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4 (2), pp. 1 - 24. doi: 10.30636/jbpa.42.220 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/22363 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Copyright: © 2021. This article reviews the literature on public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ policy instruments for behaviour change, and the factors that drive such preferences. Soft policies typically include ‘moral suasion’ and educational campaigns, and more recently behavioural public policy approaches like nudges. Hard policy instruments, such as laws and taxes, restrict choices and alter financial incentives. In contrast to the public support evidenced for hard policy instruments during COVID-19, prior academic literature pointed to support for softer policy instruments. We investigate and synthesise the evidence on when people prefer one type of policy instrument over another. Drawing on multi-disciplinary evidence, we identify perceived effectiveness, trust, personal experience and self-interest as important determinants of policy instrument preferences, along with broader factors including the choice and country context. We further identify various gaps in our understanding that informs and organise a future research agenda around three themes. Specifically, we propose new directions for research on what drives public support for hard versus soft behavioural public policies, highlighting the value of investigating the role of individual versus contextual factors (especially the role of behavioural biases); how preferences evolve over time; and whether and how preferences spillovers across different policy domains. | - |
dc.format.extent | 1 - 24 | - |
dc.format.medium | Electronic | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration | en_US |
dc.rights | Copyright: © 2021. The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | - |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | - |
dc.subject | public policy preferences | en_US |
dc.subject | hard policy instruments | en_US |
dc.subject | soft policy instruments | en_US |
dc.subject | Covid19 | en_US |
dc.subject | contextual factors | en_US |
dc.subject | health policy attitudes | en_US |
dc.subject | environment policy attitudes | en_US |
dc.title | Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.42.220 | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Journal of Behavioral Public Administration | - |
pubs.issue | 2 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Submitted | - |
pubs.volume | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2576-6465 | - |
dc.rights.holder | The authors | - |
Appears in Collections: | Dept of Social and Political Sciences Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FullText.pdf | Copyright: © 2021. The authors license this article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). | 1.62 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License