Inside New York's Nudge Unit
New York's Nudge Unit, along with similar behavioural design teams in other cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, has gained attention for its use of subtle behavioural interventions to influence citizen behaviour in various policy areas.
Proponents argue that municipal governments, due to their proximity to the daily lives of constituents, are well-positioned to implement policy interventions that nudge citizens towards desired behaviours. The ease of implementation and relatively low monetary costs associated with nudge interventions make them an attractive tool for city leaders facing budgetary constraints.
To achieve impact at scale and foster evidence-based policymaking, New York has enlisted the expertise of ideas42, a renowned consultancy specialising in applied behavioural insights. Through techniques such as A/B testing, field observations, and comprehensive data analysis, ideas42 ensures a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of any implemented measure.
Ideas42 advocates for a decentralised organisational structure with embedded behavioural Design Teams (BDTs) comprising behavioural experts and policymakers from multiple agencies. This approach emphasises clear project selection criteria, agency buy-in and capacity, existing data collection mechanisms, and rigorous evaluative methods involving randomisation and large sample sizes.
The scope and specific initiatives undertaken by behavioural Design Teams (BDTs) in New York City cover various policy areas. Here are some examples:
- Public Benefits: BDTs focused on improving form submission rates for programs like SNAP recertification, resulting in significant increases in timely form submission and reduced failure to submit forms.
- Education: BDTs partnered with the City University of New York system to increase financial aid renewal, improve placement testing outcomes, boost retention rates, and address summer melt (students admitted to college but fail to enrol).
- Equity and Justice: Nudges were used to increase filing rates for firefighter candidates, improve recertification rates for small businesses owned by women and minorities, and enhance the feeling of safety among youth in summer job programs.
- Government Operations: Projects involved partnerships with multiple agencies and focused on areas such as court appearance rates, misfiled service requests, payment of parking tickets and police citations.
While the successes of New York's Nudge Unit and other similar teams are often highlighted, it is essential to critically examine the approach. One major concern is the lack of external progress reviews or audits. Currently, the primary sources for reading about their projects and successes are annual reports from organisations like ideas42 and the Behavioural Insights Team. This limited external scrutiny raises questions about accountability and transparency.
Additionally, the use of behavioural interventions raises ethical concerns. Critics argue that nudging can infringe on individual autonomy and manipulate behaviour without explicit consent. The potential for unintended consequences and the risk of government overreach also warrant careful consideration.
Moreover, the effectiveness and long-term impact of nudge interventions remain subjects of ongoing evaluation and debate. While certain initiatives have yielded positive results, there are still pending outcomes and evaluations for various projects. It is crucial to assess the sustained behavioural changes, potential unintended consequences, and whether the short-term gains translate into long-term societal benefits.
Conclusion
The evaluation of nudge units, whether at the municipal or national level, raises significant concerns related to transparency, accountability, and ethics. It is essential to critically examine the operations of these units and their impact on individual autonomy and democratic decision-making processes. To address these concerns, clear objectives, measurable metrics for effectiveness, and enhanced transparency are needed from nudge units regarding their spending, goals, and success rates.
Promoting democratic decision-making requires independent reviews of nudge units and their effectiveness, particularly as initial grants are renewed or replaced by government funding. Sharing project outcomes and methodologies with independent researchers can address empirical and moral critiques of nudges and empower citizens to voice their support or concerns about nudge units.
While financial considerations are important, the evaluation of nudge units should not solely focus on monetary aims. Democratic accountability and adherence to social scientific standards should also be key aspects of the evaluation process. Public approval of nudges, as highlighted by Cass Sunstein's survey findings, depends on agreement with the purpose and outcomes of the nudges, as well as their alignment with individuals' values and interests.
Allowing individuals to review and critique past nudges can inform future interventions and enhance the reputation of nudge units. While obtaining consent for each nudge may not be practical, creating avenues for citizen input can help shape the values and interests pursued by these units. Public opinion and political alignment should also be taken into consideration, as partisan divisions can influence individuals' approval of nudges.
To enhance accountability, nudge units should have oversight from public officials rather than being solely driven by external nonprofit organizations. Appointing a deputy mayor or a ranked public official to oversee the nudge unit would ensure alignment with municipal interests and provide citizens with a more direct channel for expressing concerns. Clear ethical standards and government oversight are necessary to address concerns regarding individual autonomy, real-time data usage, depersonalization of data, and the targeting of specific subpopulations.
Designing transparent nudges that avoid subconscious manipulation is crucial. However, the lack of transparency surrounding success criteria poses a significant challenge. Establishing quantifiable goals and tracking progress would facilitate evaluation and allow stakeholders to assess the value of nudge units.
To address these issues, it is proposed to implement ethical standards, community review mechanisms, and transparency requirements. Written commitments to ethical standards and methodological practices are necessary to safeguard individual liberties and data. Community reviews, surveys, and forums involving nudge units, civic leaders, and citizens can provide valuable insights into public opinion and help shape nudge unit policies. Greater transparency and open data are also crucial for academic research and insights into municipal nudge units.
Readings
- "Inside the Nudge Unit" by David Halpern
- "Evidence for Behavioural Interventions Looks Increasingly Shaky" - The Economist
- "Nudging by government: Progress, impact, and lessons learned" by David Halpern & Michael Sanders
- "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence from Two Nudge Units"
- Investigating the Municipal Nudge Unit: How behavioural Interventions Have Quietly Emerged and Made their Mark on American Cities
- How behavioural approaches lead to more intelligent policy design. In: Peters G, Zittoun P