IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/csa/wpaper/2019-07.html

Biased Policy Professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Sheheryar Banuri
  • Stefan Dercon
  • Varun Gauri

Abstract

Although the decisions of policy professionals are often more consequential than those of individuals in their private capacity, there is a dearth of studies on the biases of policy professionals: those who prepare and implement policy on behalf of elected politicians. Experiments conducted on a novel subject pool of development policy professionals (public servants of the World Bank and the Department for International Development in the UK) show that policy professionals are indeed subject to decision making traps, including the effects of framing outcomes as losses or gains, and most strikingly, confirmation bias driven by ideological predisposition, despite having an explicit mission to promote evidence-informed and impartial decision making. These findings should worry policy professionals and their principals in governments and large organizations, as well as citizens themselves. A further experiment, in which policy professionals engage in discussion, shows that deliberation may be able to mitigate the effects of some of these biases.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheheryar Banuri & Stefan Dercon & Varun Gauri, 2019. "Biased Policy Professionals," CSAE Working Paper Series 2019-07, Centre for the Study of African Economies, University of Oxford.
  • Handle: RePEc:csa:wpaper:2019-07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:509c693e-d0b5-4e3e-98a4-bd5674c80462
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew Dustan & Stanislao Maldonado & Juan Manuel Hernandez-Agramonte, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," Working Papers 136, Peruvian Economic Association.
    2. Andrew Dustan & Juan Manuel Hernandez-Agramonte & Stanislao Maldonado, 2018. "Motivating bureaucrats with non-monetary incentives when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale," Natural Field Experiments 00664, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Rojas Méndez, Ana María & Scartascini, Carlos, 2024. "Debiasing Policymakers: The Role of Behavioral Economics Training," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 13476, Inter-American Development Bank.
    4. Jonas Hjort & Diana Moreira & Gautam Rao & Juan Francisco Santini, 2021. "How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(5), pages 1442-1480, May.
    5. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan & KC, Sampada, 2025. "Local knowledge, formal evidence, and policy decisions," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    6. Donato Masciandaro & Davide Romelli, 2019. "Behavioral Monetary Policymaking: Economics, Political Economy and Psychology," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Behavioral Finance The Coming of Age, chapter 9, pages 285-329, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Ahmad, Husnain F & Banuri, Sheheryar & Bokhari, Farasat, 2024. "Discrimination in healthcare: A field experiment with Pakistan's transgender community," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    8. Vivalt, Eva & Coville, Aidan, 2023. "How do policymakers update their beliefs?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    9. Salinda Sedtha & Vilas Nitivattananon & Mokbul Morshed Ahmad & Simon Guerrero Cruz, 2022. "The First Step of Single-Use Plastics Reduction in Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    10. Rogger, Daniel & Somani, Ravi, 2023. "Hierarchy and Information," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    11. Dustan, Andrew & Hernandez-Agramonte, Juan Manuel & Maldonado, Stanislao, 2023. "Motivating bureaucrats with behavioral insights when state capacity is weak: Evidence from large-scale field experiments in Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    12. Toma, Mattie & Bell, Elizabeth, 2024. "Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    13. Atheendar S. Venkataramani, 2021. "Rigor, Relevance, And Researcher Independence In Evidence‐Based Policymaking," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 660-663, March.
    14. Atheendar S. Venkataramani, 2021. "Rigor, Relevance, And Researcher Independence In Evidence‐Based Policymaking," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(2), pages 659-662, March.
    15. Aisha J Ali & Javier Fuenzalida & Margarita Gómez & Martin J Williams, 2021. "Four lenses on people management in the public sector: an evidence review and synthesis," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 37(2), pages 335-366.
    16. Inukai, Shinya, 2025. "How do local governments and housing markets respond to demographic information shocks? Evidence from Japan’s Extinction Risk List," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    17. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.
    18. Promise Nduku & John Ategeka & Andile Madonsela & Tanya Mdlalose & Jennifer Stevenson & Shannon Shisler & Suvarna Pande & Laurenz Mahlanza‐Langer, 2024. "Protocol: What works to increase the use of evidence for policy decision‐making: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), December.
    19. Ankel-Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2023. "Rural electrification, the credibility revolution, and the limits of evidence-based policy," Ruhr Economic Papers 1051, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    20. repec:osf:socarx:4x8q2_v1 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C90 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - General
    • H83 - Public Economics - - Miscellaneous Issues - - - Public Administration
    • Z18 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Public Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:csa:wpaper:2019-07. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Julia Coffey (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csaoxuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.