The uses — and the limits — of ‘nudge’ economics | “助推”经济学的使用途径与注意事项 - FT中文网
登录×
电子邮件/用户名
密码
记住我
请输入邮箱和密码进行绑定操作:
请输入手机号码,通过短信验证(目前仅支持中国大陆地区的手机号):
请您阅读我们的用户注册协议隐私权保护政策,点击下方按钮即视为您接受。
FT英语电台

The uses — and the limits — of ‘nudge’ economics
“助推”经济学的使用途径与注意事项

Reputational hits to behavioural science have cast undue doubt on its policy application.
近来行为科学的声誉正遭受打击,人们也因此对它在政策制定上的应用产生了不应有的怀疑。
00:00

Fifteen years ago, Britain’s Conservative party, then in opposition, latched on to behavioural economics as an attractive alternative to old-fashioned nannying interference in people’s affairs. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s best-seller Nudge was included in Tory MPs’ 2008 summer reading list. Once in power, David Cameron set up the Behavioural Insights Team at the heart of government.

Other governments established their own “nudge units”, using Thaler and Sunstein’s brand of “libertarian paternalism” to guide citizens towards better choices in areas from pension enrolment to organ donation. It is hardly a surprise that nudging turned out not to be a silver bullet for knotty policy dilemmas. The FT warned nudges should not be confused with “a coherent political philosophy”. 

The reputation of behavioural science has been badly dented recently. But the present danger is a different one: that policymakers might abandon a useful complement to traditional legislative and regulatory action when it still has much to offer.

Concerns about the robustness of behavioural science started to spread in the 2010s as it proved hard to replicate some headline-grabbing findings at scale. For instance, later studies cast doubt on research that seemed to show that adopting a “power pose” increased testosterone and lowered cortisol. Some of the effects of “priming”, or exposing someone to a prompt that subconsciously influences their actions, have been discredited. 

More recently, Francesca Gino, a high-profile Harvard expert on dishonesty, faced accusations of fraud in papers she had co-authored. This month, Gino brought a defamation suit against Harvard and the bloggers who had made the allegations, stating: “I have never, ever falsified data or engaged in research misconduct of any kind.” Dan Ariely, another star behavioural scientist, is under investigation by his university, Duke, following concerns about his research into dishonesty. “What I know for sure is that I never did, nor ever would, falsify data,” he has told the FT.

It is important to distinguish between fraudulent findings, which need to be investigated and exposed, false positives, which replication should weed out, and robust results that have been tested at scale. Accusing behavioural science of “physics envy”, as some critics have done, is unhelpful. It is the responsibility of universities, academics and scientific journals to improve the quality of output. That could involve different measures, such as more preregistration of hypotheses, to stop researchers cherry-picking results, wider sharing of raw data, and curbs on the academy’s “publish-or-perish” culture.

A further distinction needs to be made between behavioural science and behavioural economics. The economists take the scientists’ findings and examine the consequences, intended and unintended. Policymakers applying such findings in the real world have an even greater responsibility than academics, let alone the media, not to hype exciting experimental results. But they also have the advantage that they are able to test behavioural economic policy at scale, yielding results more robust than laboratory experiments.

It is important to understand the limits of behavioural economic policies. In a recently published manifesto for applying behavioural science, the BIT, which has now been spun out from the UK government, urges humility. It points out that even apparently universal cognitive processes are shaped by their context, for instance. Despite the caveats, though, behavioural science has enlarged a discipline that had laid dangerous emphasis on the idea of humans as perfectly rational economic computers of risks and rewards. That the field should now be revealing some of its human flaws is strangely appropriate. But it is not a reason to ditch it entirely.  

Letter in response to this editorial comment:

World in 2023 depends on behavioural science / From Andrew Oswald, Professor of Economics and Behavioural Science, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, UK

版权声明:本文版权归FT中文网所有,未经允许任何单位或个人不得转载,复制或以任何其他方式使用本文全部或部分,侵权必究。

华尔街对大型科技公司2000亿美元的人工智能支出感到担忧

本周,美国四大互联网集团的AI效益初现端倪,但也警告说将增加支出。

地中海已经变成危险的“汽油桶”了吗?

暴雨的部分原因是海水温度的危险上升。

从错失的投资机会中得到的教训

我是如何错过OpenAI、BrewDog和英国电信的?

决定特朗普贸易政策的内部竞争

在这位共和党候选人的第一个总统任期,其政府内部内斗不断。

政府顾问表示,英国应简化人工智能专家的签证程序

马特•克利福德关于促进科技产业发展的建议还包括设立数据中心特区。

为什么卡玛拉•哈里斯会赢

因为这仍然是经济问题,傻瓜。
设置字号×
最小
较小
默认
较大
最大
分享×