Response to Applying behavioural science to government policy: Finding the 'Goldilocks Zone': From a BI unit perspective

It is now seven years on since the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) was formed by the then UK Prime Minister, David Cameron. Since that time, and building on the success of the approach in the UK, behavioural insights units have emerged all around the world everywhere from the White House to Singapore. I've had the privilege of working with a number of these units, both directly on projects (or indeed being part of the team itself) or more informally in providing general advice. Much of what Bolton and Newell describe rings true, and comes at a timely moment with the proliferation of behavioural insights (BI) work taking place. However, their piece does fail to recognise the role BI has played in building a stronger scientific and evidence based culture in policymaking. This response looks to provide the government policymaking perspective on the tensions and risks identified by Bolton and Newell, as well as highlight some of the opportunities they present. While scientific endeavour and government policymaking are quite different worlds, they share a considerable amount of common ground. You will be hard pressed to find a policy official who would not welcome rigorous academic evidence to help them make a policy recommendation. Similarly, I imagine you are unlikely to find a scientist who would not be excited by the prospect of their research being used to help, for example, improve the health or education outcomes of large segments of the population. With that said, practicing good science in the context of government policy making is a balancing act, and behavioural science is no exception. There is spectrum between observational and experimental, and trade-offs that need to be considered whether in the field or in the lab. Hopefully this response helps bring us closer to the 'Goldilocks zone' that Bolton and Newell make reference to.