Book contents
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Part I Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
- 2 What Have We Learned from Behavioural Economics for the COVID-19 Response?
- 3 Adaptation, COVID-19, and Climate Change
- 4 Risk-Taking, Risk Perception, and Risk Compensation in Times of COVID-19
- 5 A False Sense of Security?
- 6 Preparing for the Next Pandemic
- 7 Human Challenge Trials for Research on COVID-19 and Beyond
- 8 Do the Public Support ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ Public Policies?
- 9 One Size Does Not Fit All
- 10 Psychological and Behavioural Aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 11 Behavioural Science and the Irish COVID-19 Response
- 12 On the Use of Behavioural Science in a Pandemic
- 13 Behavioural Public Health?
- Part II Health Behaviours and Policies during Covid-19
- Index
- References
8 - Do the Public Support ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ Public Policies?
Trends during COVID-19 and Implications for the Future
from Part I - Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 January 2025
Book contents
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Part I Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
- 2 What Have We Learned from Behavioural Economics for the COVID-19 Response?
- 3 Adaptation, COVID-19, and Climate Change
- 4 Risk-Taking, Risk Perception, and Risk Compensation in Times of COVID-19
- 5 A False Sense of Security?
- 6 Preparing for the Next Pandemic
- 7 Human Challenge Trials for Research on COVID-19 and Beyond
- 8 Do the Public Support ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ Public Policies?
- 9 One Size Does Not Fit All
- 10 Psychological and Behavioural Aspects of the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 11 Behavioural Science and the Irish COVID-19 Response
- 12 On the Use of Behavioural Science in a Pandemic
- 13 Behavioural Public Health?
- Part II Health Behaviours and Policies during Covid-19
- Index
- References
Summary
Early in the pandemic, the public accepted considerable state intervention to stop the spread of COVID-19. This was a puzzle of sorts, given the prevailing wisdom that people prefer to be nudged and avoid restrictions and financial costs. We revisit and update the evidence presented in an earlier study that explored the factors that explain public preferences for ‘soft’ (nudge) versus ‘hard’ (laws, bans) policies. We report that public support for ‘hard’ policies appears to have steadily declined since mid-2020. New insights reflect the importance of partisanship and risk perceptions for individual preferences for ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ policies. We find little evidence of spillover effects from COVID-19 policy preferences to environmental policy preferences, but also no evidence of crowding out in terms of policy agendas. We conclude with a series of questions that shape the future research agenda, where much is still to be learned about how and why policy preferences evolve over time.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for PandemicsInsights from Responses to COVID-19, pp. 126 - 147Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Banerjee, S., Savani, M., & Shreedhar, G. (2021). Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 4(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.42.220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., et al. (2017). Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blanco, E., Baier, A., Holzmeister, F., Jaber-Lopez, T., Struwe, N. (2021). Long term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on social concerns. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1–14. DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.743054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chorus, C., Sandorf, E. D., & Mouter, N. (2020). Diabolical dilemmas of COVID-19: An empirical study into Dutch society’s trade-offs between health impacts and other effects of the lockdown. PLOS ONE, 15(9), e0238683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238683CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2013). Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 756. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-756CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doell, K. C., Conte, B., & Brosch, T. (2021). Interindividual differences in environmentally relevant positive trait affect impacts sustainable behavior in everyday life. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20423. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99438-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C. R., Kerr, J., Freeman, A. L. J., Recchia, G., van der Bles, A. M., et al. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), 994–1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudás, L., & Szántó, R. (2021). Nudging in the time of coronavirus? Comparing public support for soft and hard preventive measures, highlighting the role of risk perception and experience. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0256241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, B., & Allington, D. (2020). The three groups reacting to life under lockdown. www.kcl.ac.uk/news/the-three-groups-reacting-to-life-under-lockdownGoogle Scholar
Duren, M., Corrigan, B., Ehsani, J., & Michael, J. (2021). Modeling state preferences for Covid-19 policies: Insights from the first pandemic summer. Journal of Transport & Health, 23, 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101284CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evensen, D., Whitmarsh, L., Bartie, P., Devine-Wright, P., Dickie, J., Varley, A., et al. (2021). Effect of ‘finite pool of worry’ and COVID-19 on UK climate change perceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(3), e2018936118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018936118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadarian, S. K., Goodman, S. W., & Pepinsky, T. B. (2021). Partisanship, health behavior, and policy attitudes in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0249596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249596CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galizzi, M. M. (2014). What is really behavioral in behavioral health policy? And does it work? Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 25–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genie, M. G., Loría-Rebolledo, L. E., Paranjothy, S., Powell, D., Ryan, M., Sakowsky, R. A., & Watson, V. (2020). Understanding public preferences and trade-offs for government responses during a pandemic: A protocol for a discrete choice experiment in the UK. BMJ Open, 10(11), e043477. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043477CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselswerdt, J., & Bartels, B. L. (2015). Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915591217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hynes, S., Armstrong, C. W., Xuan, B. B., Ankamah-Yeboah, I., Simpson, K., Tinch, R., & Ressurreição, A. (2021). Have environmental preferences and willingness to pay remained stable before and during the global Covid-19 shock? Ecological Economics, 189, 107142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahane, L. H. (2021). Politicizing the mask: Political, economic and demographic factors affecting mask wearing behavior in the USA. Eastern Economic Journal, 47(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-020-00186-0CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenward, B., & Brick, C. (2021). Even conservative voters want the environment to be at the heart of post-COVID-19 economic reconstruction in the UK. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 9(1), 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, J., Erickson, W. W., & Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2021). #MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0250817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250817CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manipis, K., Street, D., Cronin, P., Viney, R., & Goodall, S. (2021). Exploring the trade-off between economic and health outcomes during a pandemic: A discrete choice experiment of lockdown policies in Australia. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 14(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-021-00503-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mazzocchi, M., Cagnone, S., Bech-Larsen, T., Niedźwiedzka, B., Saba, A., Shankar, B., et al. (2015). What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 10(3), 267–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133114000346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, A. L., Conover, E., Videras, J., & Wu, S. (2012). Heat waves, droughts, and preferences for environmental policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisch, L. A., & Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do Europeans like nudges? Judgment and Decision Making, 11(4), 310–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shreedhar, G., & Mourato, S. (2020). Linking human destruction of nature to COVID-19 increases support for wildlife conservation policies. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76(4), 963–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00444-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2016). Do people like nudges? Administrative Law Review, 68(2), 177–232.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R., Reisch, L. A., & Rauber, J. (2018). A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost. Regulation & Governance, 12(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, rev. ed. Penguin. https://app.kortext.com/borrow/409551Google Scholar
Umit, R., & Schaffer, L. M. (2020). Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest. Energy Policy, 140, 111385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, A., Meyerhoff, J., & Rehdanz, K. (2022). A test–retest analysis of stated preferences in uncertain times. Economic Analysis and Policy, 73, 725–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2021.12.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zehavi, A. (2012). New governance and policy instruments: Are governments going ‘soft’? In Levi-Faur, D. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Governance (pp. 242–254). Oxford Handbooks Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0017Google Scholar