PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights: A commentary and research agenda Author Jeroen van der Heijden | Professor of Public Governance Chair in Regulatory Practice | School of Government | Victoria University of Wellington Honorary Professor | School of Regulation and Global Governance | Australian National University (+64) (0)22 563 5082 | Room 821a, Rutherford House, Pipitea Campus | PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand | www .victoria.ac.nz/sog | www.jeroenvanderheijden.net | @drvanderheijden | Urban Climate Governance blog | From the Regulatory Frontlines blog Abstract Policy and governance interventions often build on a rational choice perspective of human behaviour. Over the years, the behavioural sciences have highlighted how people sometimes deviate in predictable ways from this perspective. Building on a systematic analysis of 200 peer-reviewed publications published between 2009 and 2018, this article discusses the core cognitive biases and heuristics uncovered by the behavioural sciences, and gives insights into how these can be exploited to develop urban climate governance interventions to promote behaviours that help mitigate climate change at city level. The article concludes with a research agenda for this promising area of research for scholars of urban climate governance. Introduction Cities are significant point-sources of greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and other causes of global climate change (Rosenzweig et al., 2018; UN, 2018; van der Heijden, Bulkeley, & Certomá, 2019). Individual behaviour plays a key role in this (Dodman, 2009). For example, modifiable behaviours such as energy consumption for domestic and commercial buildings and urban transport use account for 40 to 70 per cent of the energy consumed at city level (Al-Mofleh, Taib, & Salah, 2010; De Almeida, Fonseca, Schlomann, & Feilberg, 2011). A considerable amount is wasted, however, because of poor behavioural choices: rather than switching appliances fully off, people opt for the default standby power option (Rusk, Mahfouz, & Jones, 2011); rather than choosing novel energyefficient construction processes, developers stay with the status quo energy-intensive approaches they are used to (Martek, Hosseini, Shrestha, Edwards, & Durdyev, 2019); and rather than opting for ridesharing or carpooling, home-to-work commuters stick to the perceived convenience of using their own cars (Nneoh, Chipilu, & Marshall, 2017). If people are motivated to make changes in individual behaviour, this may, therefore, have a large overall impact on climate mitigation at city level. Conventional urban climate governance interventions such as direct regulation or economic incentives have not, to date, provided satisfactory policy solutions to the problems caused by harmful behaviour at the individual level (Luque-Ayala, Marvin, & Bulkeley, 2018; van der Heijden, 2014). These interventions are often premised on a rational choice perspective, which assumes that individuals make a cost–benefit analysis when deciding 1 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION whether to comply with direct regulation (Lehmann Nielsen & Parker, 2012), and make rational selfinterested decisions when responding to economic incentives (McMahon, 2015). However, people do not always behave as predicted by the rational choice perspective. We often lack the time, information, and mental capacity to make ‘rational’ choices, and instead fall back on heuristics (mental shortcuts) and cognitive biases (including those relating to habits and social norms) when making decisions (Ariely, 2008; Kahneman, 2011; Simon, 1945). Recent advances in the behavioural sciences (including psychology, cognitive science and behavioural economics) could help to develop urban climate governance interventions that are more responsive to the heuristics and biases that shape people’s behaviours (OECD, 2017b; Seo, 2017). Urban climate governance is here understood to mean the processes undertaken by governments and others to steer the actions and behaviours of individuals and organisations to achieve desired climate mitigation and climate adaptation goals at a city level (Luque-Ayala et al., 2018; Romero-Lankao, Burch, & Hughes, 2018; van der Heijden, 2013). To understand the potential of insights from the behavioural sciences for urban climate governance, this article takes stock of the behavioural science literature as it has engaged with broader questions of public governance over the last ten years. It builds on a systematic review of 200 peer-reviewed publications. Online Appendix A gives a full overview of these 200 publications and the approach to sourcing and analysing them. The discussion that follows first addresses the core heuristics and biases that the current behavioural science literature identifies as leading to harmful individual choices and contributing to high greenhouse gas emissions, excessive levels of resource consumption, and other causes of global climate change at city level. After exploring these biases and heuristics, the article shows how they can be exploited in interventions to promote behaviours that help mitigate climate change at city level. The article concludes with a research agenda for further exploring this promising area of research for scholars of urban climate governance. Insights from the behavioural sciences The making and implementation of policy have for a long time been built on rational choice theory, and this is often still the case. Rational choice theory is an analytical framework from neoclassical economics for understanding and modelling the social and economic behaviour of groups of people – for example, the population of a city or country. A central aspect of this theory is that people are rational beings and are thought of as having ‘stable, coherent and well-defined preferences rooted in self-interest and utility maximisation that are revealed through their choices’ (McMahon, 2015, 141). When people can choose from a variety of alternatives, they are expected to choose the alternative that has the highest worth or value to them – ‘utility maximisation’ (Read, 2007). It should be noted here that even if policymakers do not specifically choose policy interventions on the basis of traditional rational choice theory, path dependency may explain why the types of interventions that build on rational choice theory are still dominant (Duit, 2007; Rixen & Viola, 2015). These understandings of choice behaviour, utility and the related ‘homo economicus’ stereotype have received considerable criticism, however (Pinto-Prades & Abellan-Perpinan, 2012). Scholars of the behavioural sciences point out that people may desire one thing (such as living an environmentally sustainable lifestyle) but choose to do something else (eat organic food from disposable plastic 2 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION containers, fly to international climate action conferences, and so on). In part, this has to do with our personal and ever-changing understanding of the utility we get from a specific decision (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). This utility includes, but is not limited to, the utility we expected to get at the time of choosing a behaviour or action (decision utility), the utility we experience at the time of engaging in the behaviour or action (experienced utility), and the utility we remember after having engaged in that behaviour or action (remembered utility). These understandings of utility may coincide, as neoclassical economics assumes, but often they will not (Friedman, Isaac, James, & Sunder, 2014). For example, our remembered utility of a past harmful behaviour may be considerably more positive than the experienced utility at the time of engaging in that behaviour (e.g., the guilt we experienced when flying to the international climate conference may fade over time), leading us to choose that harmful behaviour again at a future point in time (Kahneman, Wakker, & Sarin, 1997). Also, it is reported that people routinely overestimate the positive utility (pleasure, joy, opportunity) and underestimate the negative utility (pain, regret, risk) they expect to get from a choice (Kahneman, 2011). Besides these deviations from the utility function, scholars have pointed out that people are less rational in making choices under uncertainty than is predicted by neoclassical economics. In the mid-1940s the American economist and political scientist Herbert Simon (1916-2001) was one of the first to show that people find it difficult to obtain a full understanding of many of the decision problems they face. It is also often impossible for us to acquire all the relevant information to make a rational decision, and even if we could get all this information, we would probably lack the mental capacity or the time to process it. In other words, when making decisions humans possess only ‘bounded rationality’ and must make decisions by ‘satisficing’ – we choose what makes us happy enough (Simon, 1945). Building on these insights, scholars from the behavioural sciences have identified several patterns of behaviour that characterise the way people make decisions and how people deviate in predictable ways from neoclassical assumptions of rationality. Their work indicates that we rely on cognitive biases and heuristics (‘mental shortcuts’) when making choices, and shows that this sometimes results in suboptimal outcomes. There are a variety of explanations of why we make these ‘irrational’ choices. A widely acknowledged explanation is dual process theory – often referred to as system 1 (or automated) and system 2 (or reflexive) behaviour (Kahneman, 2011) (but, for a critique, see Glimcher, 2011). The argument is that the brain capacities that we have inherited from our ancestors are well developed for making the kind of automated life-or-death choices (system 1) that are needed to survive in the African savannah, but are ill-suited to making the reflexive and complex choices (system 2) that give the greatest benefit in modern market economies (Bissonnette, 2016). In sum, biases and heuristics help with ‘reduc[ing] complex tasks of assessing probabilities and predicting values to simpler judgmental operations’ (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974, 1124) A selected overview of heuristics and biases While the full set of biases and heuristics uncovered over the last decades is too vast to discuss here (but, for an easily digestible overview, see McRaney, 2012, 2014), it is helpful to touch on those that were identified in the systematic review as among the most persistent, and those that it is particularly relevant to address through urban climate governance interventions informed by behavioural insights. 3 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION A first relevant insight is that people have a strong loss aversion (Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991). Research has indicated that when making decisions, losses loom larger than improvements or gain, and, consequently, people prefer to avoid losses than to acquire gains. It is sometimes argued that, for small or moderate amounts of money, losses loom twice as large as gains (Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). What is relevant to note here is that people define losses and gains relative to a reference point, which is often their status quo at the point of making the decision. Thus, when people are offered solar panels on their house for an installation cost of $1000, and a possible yield of $1500 over the lifetime of the panels, they may choose not to install the panels because the possible loss of the investment looms larger than its gain (i.e., a $2000 yield is required to make up for the $1000 investment; see further, Greene, 2011). People are also found to be likely to stick with routines, habits, and customary and default options, even when better options are available and even when there is no cost associated with switching. This is referred to as status quo bias (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1998) – for example, contractors tend to stick with known construction processes, rather than to switch to more environmentally sustainable ones (van der Heijden, 2015). The classic example is a field study on preferences regarding service reliability and rates of electric power among consumers in California (Hartman, Doane, & Woo, 1991). In the study, one group was told that they were currently experiencing high reliability and relatively high rates, and the other group that they were currently experiencing low reliability but rates that were 30 per cent below the high-reliability rate. When asked whether they would be keen to switch plan, 60 per cent of the ‘high reliability’ group desired to stick to their status quo (high reliability at a higher cost) and only 6 per cent opted to switch to the lower reliability at the reduced cost (the remaining 34 per cent opted for another plan). Strikingly, 58 per cent of the ‘low reliability’ group also wished to stick to their status quo (low reliability at the reduced rate), and only 6 per cent opted to switch to the high reliability at the higher cost (again, the remaining 36 per cent opted for another plan). In sum, irrespective of the status quo, most respondents chose to stick with it. People also give stronger weight to a payoff that is received closer to the present time, when they are faced with the choice of getting a payoff at an earlier or a later moment. This is known as present bias and is often explained by the psychological desire to have certainty and resolve events immediately (O'Donoghue & Rabin, 2015). The flipside is that people discount the future consequences of their current actions, and postpone losses or dealing with losses until later, a tendency known as hyperbolic discounting (Hardisty, Appelt, & Weber, 2012). The rate of discounting changes with the time horizon faced. That is, people give high discount rates for short time horizons, but low discount rates for long time horizons. For example, when given a choice, people would prefer to get $50 now rather than $60 tomorrow, but would prefer $60 a year and a day from now rather than $50 in a year’s time (Benhabib, Bisin, & Schotter, 2010). Insights into hyperbolic discounting may also explain why people procrastinate about making choices that do not come with immediate and significant gains, such as changing their energy plans, installing solar panels, or switching from travelling by car to travelling by bus (Pollitt & Shaorshadze, 2013). Finally, when making decisions, people are heavily affected by the anchoring effect (Furnham & Boo, 2011) and the framing effect (Borah, 2011) of the information provided. If people are given a cue or signal (an ‘anchor’) and are then asked to make a choice, they are likely to be heavily influenced by the cue or signal even when it is not related to the object of choice. For example, if people are first asked to recall the last three digits of their social security number and are then asked to estimate the 4 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION number of cities in the world with a population of over one million inhabitants, those with a low digitvalue are likely to underestimate the number of cities, whereas those with a high digit-value are likely to overestimate it (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). The higher the ambiguity, the lower the familiarity with the problem, or the more trustworthy the source of information, the stronger the anchoring effect (van Exel, Brouwer, van der Berg, & Koopmanschap, 2006). Also, seemingly inconsequential changes in the formulation of a choice problem (‘framing’) affect people’s preferences. In other words, framing an outcome as a marginal monetary loss or a huge environmental gain may make all the difference in seeking to encourage environmentally sustainable behaviour (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Some critical reflections Some critical reflections are warranted here. While the behavioural sciences present strong arguments against the traditional ‘homo economicus’ stereotype, and back these arguments with sound research, it should be kept in mind that they seek to nuance rather than replace dominant theories that describe why and how people make particular choices under uncertainty (Kahneman, 2011; Kosters & van der Heijden, 2015). As well as thinking along the lines of the insights presented above, our research is also open to include a range of other, perhaps less biological or economic, origins of ‘irrational’ behaviour, such as learned, social and perhaps even institutional ones (Wolfram, van der Heijden, Juhola, & Patterson, 2019). Also, the choice of policy and governance interventions that build on the traditional rational choice perspective may very well be influenced by path dependency rather than by a conscious decision to follow the ‘choice model’ underpinning this theory: existing institutions may ‘logically’ result in a continuation of interventions informed by rational choice, rather than in a change of those interventions in favour of interventions that build on different choice theories. Notably, notions of path dependency as discussed in the broader institutional literature (e.g., Duit, 2007; Rixen & Viola, 2015) strongly resonate with notions of status quo bias discussed in the behavioural science literature (discussed above). Also, discursive institutionalism recognises the relational aspect and the ideological embeddedness of behavioural transformation (e.g., Carstensen & Schmidt, 2016; Schmidt, 2011); this topic resonates strongly with the social proof heuristic discussed in the behavioural science literature (and also discussed below). In addition, the behavioural sciences help us to explain why similar facts and knowledge may be experienced and interpreted differently by different people and organisations. This relates in part to the way in which for some time the media has referred to human-made climate change as an unsettled question in the broader academic community, as well as to a tendency towards ‘cognitive dissonance’ when people realise the impact of climate change and their role in the required solutions (e.g., Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2016; Hoffman, 2015). As highlighted before, people may respond fundamentally differently to a solution presented as a win and one presented as a loss: around the globe, carbon pricing is often framed by the dominant media and populist politicians as a carbon tax that is costly for common people, rather than as an opportunity to share the cost in the here and now before it is too late or before the cost is passed on to future generations (Andrew, 2008; Rootes, 2014). Finally, people’s differing ontologies and epistemologies also affect how they process, trust and treat information. For example, those holding a realist ontology may consider climate change as something 5 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION that is too complex for humans to understand fully but that nevertheless requires action, whereas those holding a constructivist ontology may argue that climate change only exists in human experience, and that no (specific) action should be taken unless all human errors are removed from the existing knowledge of climate change (e.g., Aven, Renn, & Rosa, 2011; Marsh & Stoker, 2010). Interventions informed by behavioural insights Scholars have begun to call for policy and governance interventions that are more sensitive to behavioural insights. They argue that the biases and heuristics that normally result in harmful behaviour can be targeted to achieve desired behaviour. A body of literature has grown across the policy and administrative sciences that seeks to understand how and with what effects behavioural insights can shed light on governance interventions to achieve desired outcomes (for reviews of this literature, see Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017; Kosters & van der Heijden, 2015; van der Heijden, 2019). A second body of literature has emerged that is questioning the ethical and epistemic challenges of policy and governance interventions informed by behavioural insights (e.g., Abdukadirov, 2016; Wright & Ginsburg, 2012). This section explores examples of the instrumental application of behavioural insights in urban climate governance. In the next section, the ethical and epistemic challenges are given attention. Throughout the behavioural science literature, changing of defaults and forced choice are argued to be the strongest interventions for overcoming status quo bias and choice procrastination (Alemanno & Spina, 2014; Baldwin, 2014). A default is the pre-set condition that comes into force when an individual decides not to choose among alternatives. Studies indicate that defaults are ‘sticky’, meaning that people tend not to switch from one alternative to the next unless they are explicitly given an incentive to do so (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Thus, if people can choose between being supplied with ‘conventional’ energy or being supplied with ‘green’ energy from renewable sources, the default option they are presented with will matter. For example, studying the behaviour of people in Germany who were given a choice to switch from the default ‘green’ energy or water supply to a cheaper but less sustainable alternative, Pichert and Katsikopoulos (2008) found that over 90 per cent of people tended not to switch. This finding is reflected in similar findings across a range of choice options ranging from organ donation to retirement savings and, indeed, the supply of energy from renewable sources (Hedlin & Sunstein, 2016). Defaults work as passive choices, but people can also be given an ‘active choice’. Here, another illustrative example comes from Germany (Liebig & Rommel, 2014). In a field study, more than 900 households in Berlin were provided with a ‘no junk mail’ sticker to reduce junk mail and the related waste of resources. People can order this sticker themselves at no cost, but they often delay doing so. When the householders were presented with the sticker at their home address, they had to make an active choice as to whether to use it or not. It was observed that 16 per cent of people decided to stick the sticker on their mailbox. The researchers pushed their research further, however, since they were interested in whether a ‘forced choice’ would yield even better results. One group of households were given the sticker in their mailbox (providing them with an ‘active choice’), and for another group, the sticker was attached halfway onto the mailbox, forcing the owners either to remove the sticker or to attach it fully (‘forced choice’). The forced choice option was found to be more effective than the active choice option: 21 per cent of people stuck the half-attached sticker to their mailbox. The 6 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION argument here is that in situations of active or forced choice, people are required to reflect on their choices and are pushed out of automated or habitual behaviour (Hedlin & Sunstein, 2016). Seeking to overcome procrastination in a different way, various field studies have been carried out on the effect of precommitment strategies. The idea is to let people commit to a future goal, ideally in public. Precommitment strategies seek to align future behaviour with what people think, in the present, of themselves and their future behaviour. Besides targeting procrastination, these strategies may also be helpful for overcoming loss aversion and impulsive harmful behaviour (Benartzi, 2012; Elster, 2000). An illustrative example is a series of field studies on anti-littering interventions carried out in various Dutch municipalities between 2007 and 2009 (Van Baaren et al., 2010). In one of the studies, researchers went door-to-door in a neighbourhood to ask whether residents would be willing to put a sticker on their door, car, or another visible place with the text ‘keep our neighbourhood tidy’. For the 89 per cent of those who committed to doing so, their address was marked on a list in their presence, to underline their public commitment to the goal. In all the intervention studies, signs with the text ‘keep our neighbourhood tidy’ were also placed at designated waste containers. The precommitment strategy was found to be among the most effective interventions across the studies and reduced littering by 17 per cent in the intervention scenario compared to a 2 per cent reduction in the non-intervention scenario. Another promising intervention is to expose people to social norms, and address their ‘social proof heuristic’. It is argued that social norms indicate what is acceptable in a social group and what is not, and that people conform to social norms to find a sense of belonging among their peers (Sunstein, 2015; White, Smith, Terry, Greenslade, & McKimmie, 2011). The classic example is a study carried out in Sacramento, USA, between 2008 and 2011, involving an intervention group of 35,000 households and a control group of 50,000 households (Ayres, Raseman, & Shih, 2013; Cooney, 2011). The intervention group received information on their energy consumption compared to the average consumption of their neighbours (their social peers). Both descriptive information on comparative energy consumption and injunctive messages (emoticons, a smiley for those with below-average consumption, and a frowning face for those with above-average consumption) were provided, as well as tips on how to save energy. The intervention had a considerable impact on high energy users, who reduced their consumption by nearly 7 per cent relative to high energy users who did not receive reports. The study has been repeated in various forms around the world. For example, a comparable social norm intervention resulted in a 4 to 5 per cent reduction in water consumption in Belen, Costa Rica, in 2014 (Datta et al., 2015). A fifth, and for this article final, promising intervention is goal framing (Bizer, Larsen, & Petty, 2011; Lindenberg, 2008). Goal framing seeks to highlight the consequences of people’s behaviour, and is expected to help to steer individuals towards desired behaviour (by highlighting its positive consequences) and steering them away from undesired behaviour (by highlighting its negative consequences). For example, Avineri and Waygood (2013) illustrate how framing the difference in the carbon emissions of two modes of transport for a trip as a gain or framing it as a loss can have a substantial difference on the mode of transport people choose. That is, presenting the carbon emissions of transport option X as worse than those of transport Y is more likely to result in people choosing the desired option Y than presenting option Y as better than option X. Building on insights from the behavioural sciences, it is assumed that people respond more strongly to loss-frames than to gain-frames. In another study, Guo et al. (2017) show how the framing of information can help to 7 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION mitigate bottleneck congestion in public transport systems, and thus make public transport a more attractive alternative. In a field study they explored whether extending the apparent length of overcrowded subway lines on the Washington DC subway map would help divert people to underutilised lines. They found that extending the length of an overcrowded line on the map by 20 per cent can shift up to 7 per cent of passengers to another line. Some critical reflections Again, some critical reflections are warranted. The above examples all give positive outcomes of studies on, and experiments using, insights from the behavioural sciences in urban climate governance. It goes without saying that less positive results have also been presented (OECD, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Of more relevance to note here is that undesired effects have been identified as well. Scholars have pointed out rebound effects when actual behaviour offsets the beneficial effects of technological or other solutions (van der Heijden, 2014). For example, after purchasing an energy efficient car people may decide to drive more, or after installing thermal insulation in their home they may decide to keep it warmer than before, because they feel justified in doing so after making the environmentally sustainable investment. Some scholars have even identified ‘prebound’ effects when people begin using more resources in anticipation of a future change in their own behaviour or in anticipation of technology they will obtain (Sunikka-Blank & Galvin, 2012). Even more problematic are situations in which the behavioural interventions backfire and result in a situation where the people targeted by the intervention consume more resources or produce more waste after the intervention than they did before. This was indeed observed for a small group of households who obtained the smiley emoticon on their energy bills in the example discussed above. Now that they knew they were using less energy than their peers, this injunctive message provided a justification for using more energy (Ayres et al., 2013; Cooney, 2011). In addition, from the above discussion readers may get the impression that the use of insights from the behavioural sciences in urban climate governance is widespread, or at least widely studied. However, the opposite appears to be true. Of the set of 129 publications initially identified for the literature review, only 5 per cent (n=6) were categorised in Web of Science as area studies, environmental studies, or urban studies. Of the full set of 200 publications included in the review, only 7 per cent (n=13) had one or more words indicating an urban focus in their title, key-words, or abstract – see further Online Appendix A. Insights from the examples discussed here had to be triangulated with sources from an even broader, but unstructured, exploration of the literature carried out for the purpose of writing this article. Applying insights from the behavioural sciences: Ethical and epistemic challenges Applying behavioural insights in urban climate governance will inevitably generate controversy. Over the years, concerns have been raised about the legitimacy and ethics of governance interventions informed by behavioural insights (Abdukadirov, 2016; Alemanno & Spina, 2014). These concerns can largely be traced back to an influential book that has popularised the use of behavioural insights in public policy and governance, Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). Besides explaining the instrumental value of applying behavioural insights in public 8 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION policy and governance in exceptionally clear language, its authors introduce a political philosophy that combines freedom of choice with choice guidance by the government or other authorities and is known as ‘libertarian paternalism’. It is particularly this political philosophy that has spurred an evergrowing, and sometimes vicious, normative rhetoric on the use of behavioural insights in public policy and governance (Bubb & Pildes, 2014; Sunstein, 2017). Unfortunately, the polemic has rather moved the academic debate away from questioning and exploring the instrumental value of behavioural insights and how they provide another arrow in the quiver of policymakers and practitioners who seek to achieve desirable societal outcomes by changing the behaviour of individuals and organisations. As a governance instrument, the use of behavioural insights may be better fitted to some political philosophies than others, but it is not married to a specific political philosophy. Whether or not it fits the political philosophy of a country or city is, ultimately, a question for local decision-makers to answer and to account for (Baldwin, 2014; Milne, 2012). A second set of concerns that have been raised about the use of governance interventions informed by behavioural insights is epistemic in nature. While the starting point of the use of behavioural insights is that people do not behave in the way that rational choice theory predicts, the solutions provided to overcome people’s biases and heuristics still assume some objective rationality that is external to people. However, some scholars argue that rationality and irrationality are social constructs and qualifiers for behaviour. They are not facts, they have no distinct structural foundations in our brains, and they cannot be objectively proved to be right or wrong (Bissonnette, 2016; McMahon, 2015). Also, the call for a ‘rational’ application of behavioural insights to overcome ‘irrational’ behaviour in individuals and organisations appears paradoxical. Why would decisionmakers not be influenced by the same heuristics and biases that they seek to address in others (Hallsworth, Egan, Rutter, & McCrae, 2018; Vlaed, King, Dolan, & Darzi, 2016)? They may, for example, be biased in their support for or opposition to the use of governance interventions informed by behavioural insights (or they may simply follow path dependency, as discussed before). When convinced that a specific solution will work, policymakers are likely to search for evidence that supports their earlier convictions, and are unlikely to be swayed by arguments that go against them (‘confirmation bias’). Finally, as illustrated, academics find that interventions building on these insights sometimes have desirable effects and sometimes do not (Loewenstein, Sunstein, & Golman, 2014; Osman et al., 2018); and evidence that a behavioural intervention has the desired effect in a specific policy area or geographic location is by no means a guarantee that the same intervention will have the same impact elsewhere (Agarwal, Gabaix, Driscoll, & Laibson, 2009; Bradbury, McGimpsey, & Santori, 2013). While these concerns warn us to be careful when seeking to apply behavioural insights in urban climate governance, the growing knowledge base for behavioural insights points to promising avenues for shifting harmful individual behaviour at city level towards beneficial behaviour. However, building on the examples presented here, modest results should be expected from applying these insights. The literature review indicates that those interested in applying these insights should expect improvement percentages in single rather than double digits, and non-significant (or bounded) rather than significant patterns of change across populations. However, small behavioural changes achieved in large urban populations may ultimately deliver greater net improvements than large changes in a small proportion of urban populations (the Rose Hypothesis, cf. Milne, 2012). The type of interventions presented here can be implemented as relatively low-cost add-ons or as complements to existing urban governance interventions, rather than requiring sweeping changes in existing 9 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION governance systems or costly technological solutions, and may have a substantial impact at city level (van der Heijden, 2017). Conclusion: A research agenda for the use of behavioural insights in urban climate governance Given the high rate of harmful individual behaviour at city level and the accumulated consequences of this behaviour for climate change, a further exploration, application and testing of urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights seems warranted. This article set out to review a large body of scholarship, published between 2009 and 2018, as it relates to the use of behavioural insights in urban climate governance. From this review, it has become clear that whilst the overall interest in behavioural sciences in public governance is substantial, we know little about how, where and with what effects these insights are applied in urban climate governance. Whilst this article has pointed at a number of promising interventions, readers should keep in mind that little academic research has been published on this exact topic. This leaves demanding research challenges for the next decade. Obviously, it is essential to be critical of the potential gap between policy rhetoric and action and results on the ground. While there is ample talk about how behavioural science can inform public governance, we see very little discussion of this in the academic urban climate governance literature. It may be that scholars have not yet fully embraced this approach to urban climate governance, but it may also be that those involved in governing urban climate action have not embraced it. If the former is true, more research into existing interventions appears necessary, while if the latter is true, more experimentation with this approach to urban climate governance appears necessary. Here the current trend of urban living labs may be exceptionally suitable for experiments with various behavioural interventions at the city level. It is also essential to scrutinise the explanatory reach of the accumulated knowledge base. Whilst there is scant research on the use of behavioural insights in urban climate governance, there is ample insight into their use in other areas of public governance. The set of factors that explain the success or failure of this approach to public governance may – and most probably will – be the starting point for studies that criticise this set for being too limited for a full understanding of real-world examples of urban climate governance that is informed by behavioural science, and its outcomes. It is equally important to create a stronger connection between knowledge on public governance informed by behavioural science and the theoretical frameworks that are central to urban studies, institutional studies and climate governance studies. This article has illustrated how insights from the behavioural sciences complement insights from institutional analysis, and vice versa (e.g., status quo bias as complementary to path dependency, and social proof heuristics as complementary to discursive institutionalism). Complementary theories may, ultimately, give a more finely-grained understanding of why some urban climate governance interventions informed by behavioural insights yield their desired outcomes in some contexts but not others. Last but not least, a final set of core challenges is to understand whether and how promising examples of urban climate governance informed by behavioural science can be scaled up; whether and how synergies can be created between these interventions and other governance instruments such as direct regulation and market-based incentives, so that their impact as a whole is greater than the sum of the impacts of each of them; and how we can ensure that the progress (to be) made will not be 10 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION reversed by future swings in political leadership. Future scholarship may wish to gain a deeper understanding of which design and implementation strategies are effective for achieving such synergies, as well as of the entrenchment of urban climate governance interventions informed by behavioural science that yield desirable outcomes. To conclude, important advances have been made in the behavioural sciences in general and, albeit to a much smaller extent, in how behavioural sciences relate to urban climate governance. This scholarship is strongly supported by a sound foundation of experimental and observational research published over the last decade. We now have a strong base on which to continue and expand our research in this important area of growth, and we are faced with challenging research questions on the use of behavioural sciences in urban climate governance that will, no doubt, generate important insights in the critical decade that lies ahead of us. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of the journal for helpful suggestions to an earlier draft of this article, and wishes to acknowledge financial support from the Australian Research Council (grant number DE15100511), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (grant number 016165322), and the New Zealand Government Regulatory Practice Initiative (G-REG). References Abdukadirov, S. (Ed.) (2016). Nudge in Theory and Action: Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets. Cham: Springer. Agarwal, S., Gabaix, X., Driscoll, J. C., & Laibson, D. (2009). The Age of Reason: Financial Decisions over the Life Cycle and Implications for Regulation. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2, 51-117. Al-Mofleh, A., Taib, S., & Salah, W. (2010). Malaysian Energy Demand and Emissions from the Transport Sector. Transport, 25(4), 448-453. Alemanno, A., & Spina, A. (2014). Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation. Icon - International Journal of Constitutional Law, 12(2), 429-456. doi:10.1093/icon/mou033 Andrew, B. (2008). Market failure, government failure and externalities in climate change mitigation: The case for a carbon tax. Public Administration and Development, 28(5), 393-401. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. New York: HarperCollins. Aven, T., Renn, O., & Rosa, E. (2011). On the ontological status of the concept of risk. Safety Science, 49(8-9), 1074-1079. Avineri, E., & Waygood, O. (2013). Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of information on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48(February), 31-38. Ayres, I., Raseman, S., & Shih, A. (2013). Evidence from Two Large Field Experiments that Peer Comparison Feedback can Reduce Residential Energy Usage. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 29(5), 992-1022. Baldwin, R. (2014). From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree. Modern Law Review, 77(6), 831-857. doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12094 11 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Bearfield, D. A., & Eller, W. S. (2008). Writing a literature review: The art of scientific literature. In K. Yang & G. J. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration (2nd ed.) (pp. 61-72). Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis Group. Benartzi, S. (2012). Save More Tomorrow. New York: Penguin Group. Benhabib, J., Bisin, A., & Schotter, A. (2010). Present-bias, quasi-hyperbolic discounting, and fixed costs. Games and Economic Behavior, 69(2), 205-223. Bissonnette, J. F. (2016). From the moral to the neural: Brain scans, decision-making, and the problematization of economic (ir)rationality. Journal of Cultural Economy, 9(4), 364-381. doi:10.1080/17530350.2016.1181097 Bizer, G., Larsen, J., & Petty, R. (2011). Exploring the Valence-Framing Effect: Negative Framing Enhances Attitude Strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59-80. Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.-B. (2016). The shock of the Anthropocene: The earth, history and us. London: Verso Books. Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual Issues in Framing Theory: A Systematic Examination of a Decade's Literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 246-263. Bovens, M., 't Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (Eds.). (2001). Success and failure in public governance: A comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Bradbury, A., McGimpsey, I., & Santori, D. (2013). Revising rationality. Journal of Education Policy, 28(2), 247-267. Bubb, R., & Pildes, R. H. (2014). How Behavioral Economics Trims Its Sails and Why. Harvard Law Review, 127(6), 1593-1678. Carstensen, M. B., & Schmidt, V. A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: Conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23, 318337. Cooney, K. (2011). Evaluation Report: OPOWER SMUD Pilot, Year 2. Chicago: Navigant Consulting. Datta, S., Miranda, J. J., Zoratto, L., Calvo-Gonzales, O., Darling, M., & Lorenzana, K. (2015). A Behavioral Approach to Water Conservation: Evidence from Costa Rica. Washington: World Bank Group. De Almeida, A., Fonseca, P., Schlomann, B., & Feilberg, N. (2011). Characterization of the household electricity consumption in the EU, potential energy savings and specific policy recommendations. Energy and Buildings, 43(8), 1884-1894. Dodman, D. (2009). Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 185-201. Duit, A. (2007). Path Dependency and Institutional Change: The Case of Industrial Emission Control in Sweden. Public Administration, 85(4), 1097-1118. Elster, J. (2000). Ulysses Unbound: Studies in Rationality, Precommitment, and Constraints. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, D., Isaac, M., James, D., & Sunder, S. (2014). Risky curves: On the empirical failure of expected utility. London: Routledge. Furnham, A., & Boo, H. C. (2011). A literature review of the anchoring effect. The Journal of SocioEconomics, 40(1), 35-42. Glimcher, P. (2011). Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greene, D. (2011). Uncertainty, loss aversion, and markets for energy efficiency. Energy Economics, 33(4), 608-616. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral Public Administration: Combining Insights from Public Administration and Psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45-56. doi:10.1111/puar.12609 Guo, Z., Zhao, J., Whong, C., Mishra, P., & Wyman, L. (2017). Redesigning Subway Map to Mitigate Bottleneck Congestion: An Experiment in Washington DC Using Mechanical Turk. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 106(December), 158-169. 12 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Hallsworth, M., Egan, M., Rutter, J., & McCrae, J. (2018). Behavioural government: Using behavioural science to improve how governments make decisions. London: The Behavioural Insights Team. Hardisty, D., Appelt, K., & Weber, E. (2012). Good or Bad, We Want it Now: Fixed‐cost Present Bias for Gains and Losses Explains Magnitude Asymmetries in Intertemporal Choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(4), 348-361. Hartman, R., Doane, M., & Woo, C.-K. (1991). Consumer Rationality and the Status Quo. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1), 141-162. Hedlin, S., & Sunstein, C. (2016). Does Active Choosing Promote Green Energy Use: Experimental Evidence. Ecology Law Quarterly, 43(1), 107-142. Hoffman, A. J. (2015). How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Johnson, E., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302(5649), 1338-1339. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J., & Thaler, R. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375-405. Kosters, M., & van der Heijden, J. (2015). From mechanism to virtue: Evaluating nudge theory. Evaluation, 21(3), 276-291. Lehmann Nielsen, V., & Parker, C. (2012). Mixed Motives: Economic, Social, and Normative Motivations in Business Compliance. Law & Policy, 34(4), 428-462. Liebig, G., & Rommel, J. (2014). Active and Forced Choice for Overcoming Status Quo Bias: A Field Experiment on the Adoption of “No junk mail” Stickers in Berlin, Germany. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(3), 423-435. Lindenberg, S. (2008). Social Rationality, Semi-Modularity and Goal-Framing: What is it all About? Analyse & Kritik, 30(2), 669-687. Loewenstein, G., Sunstein, C. R., & Golman, R. (2014). Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything. Annual Review of Economics, Vol 6, 6, 391-419. doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080213041341 Luque-Ayala, A., Marvin, S., & Bulkeley, H. (Eds.). (2018). Rethinking Urban Transitions. London: Routledge. Marsh, D., & Stoker, G. (Eds.). (2010). Theory and Methods in Political Science (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave. Martek, I., Hosseini, R., Shrestha, A., Edwards, D., & Durdyev, S. (2019). Barriers inhibiting the transition to sustainability within the Australian construction industry: An investigation of technical and social interactions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 211(February), 281-292. McMahon, J. (2015). Behavioral economics as neoliberalism: Producing and governing homo economicus. Contemporary Political Theory, 14(2), 137-158. doi:10.1057/cpt.2014.14 McRaney, D. (2012). You Are Not So Smart. New York: Gotham Books. McRaney, D. (2014). You Are Now Less Dumb. New York: Gotham Books. Milne, E. M. G. (2012). A public health perspective on transport policy priorities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21, 62-69. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.013 Morgan, D., & Cook, B. (Eds.). (2014). New Public Governance: A Regime-Centered Perspective. London: M.E. Sharpe. Moynihan, D. (2017). A great schism approaching? Towards a micro and macro public administration. Journal of Behavioural Public Administration, 1(1), 1-8. Nneoh, J. G., Chipilu, M., & Marshall, A. (2017). What encourages people to carpool? An evaluation of factors with meta-analysis. Transportation, 44(2), 423-447. 13 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION O'Donoghue, T., & Rabin, M. (2015). Present Bias: Lessons Learned and to be Learned. American Economic Review, 104(5), 273-279. OECD. (2017a). Behavioural Insights and Public Policy: Lessons from around the World. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2017b). Tackling Environmental Problems with the Help of Behavioural Insights. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2017c). Use of Behavioural Insights in Consumer Policy. Paris: OECD. Osborne, S. (2010). The New Public Governance? Abingdon: Routledge. Osman, M., Radford, S., Lin, Y., Gold, N., Nelons, W., & Löfstedt, R. (2018). Learning lessons: How to practice nudging around the world. Journal of Risk Research, online first, 1-9. Pichert, D., & Katsikopoulos, K. (2008). Green defaults: Information presentation and proenvironmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 63-73. Pinto-Prades, J. L., & Abellan-Perpinan, J. M. (2012). When normative and descriptive diverge: How to bridge the difference. Social Choice and Welfare, 38(4), 569-584. doi:10.1007/s00355012-0655-5 Pollitt, M., & Shaorshadze, I. (2013). The role of behavioural economics in energy and climate policy. In R. Fouquet (Ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change (pp. 523-546). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Read, D. (2007). Experienced utility: Utility theory from Jeremy Bentham to Daniel Kahneman. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(1), 45-61. Rixen, T., & Viola, L. A. (2015). Putting Path Dependence in its Place: Toward a Taxonomy of Institutional Change. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 27(2), 301-323. Romero-Lankao, P., Burch, S., & Hughes, S. (2018). Governance and Policy. In C. Rosenzweig, W. Solecki, P. Romero-Lankao, S. Mehrotra, S. Dhakal, & S. Ibrahim (Eds.), Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network (pp. 585606). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rootes, C. (2014). A referendum on the carbon tax? The 2013 Australian election, the Greens, and the environment. Environmental Politics, 23(1), 166-173. Rosenzweig, C., Solecki, W., Romero-Lankao, P., Mehrotra, S., Dhakal, S., & Ali Ibrahim, S. (2018). Climate Change and Cities: Second Assessment Report of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rusk, B., Mahfouz, T., & Jones, J. (2011). Electricity's "Disappearing Act": Understanding Energy Consumption and Phantom Loads. Technological Directions, 71(1), 22-25. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1998). Status Quo Bias in Decision Making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59. Schmidt, V. A. (2011). Speaking of change: Why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation. Journal of Critical Policy Analysis, 5(2), 106-126. Seo, S. N. (2017). The Behavioral Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. Simon, H. A. (1945). Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Free Press. Sunikka-Blank, M., & Galvin, R. (2012). Introducing the prebound effect: The gap between energy performance and actual energy consumption. Building Research & Information, 40(3), 260273. Sunstein, C. (2015). The Ethics of Nudging. The Yale Journal on Regulation, 32(1), 413-452. Sunstein, C. (2017). Human agency and behavioural economics: Nudging fast and slow. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Sutton, A., Papaioannou, D., & Booth, A. (2016). Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review. London: Sage. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness (revised ed.). London: Penguin. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. 14 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(4), 1039-1061. UN. (2018). Yearbook of Global Climate Action 2018. New York: United Nations Climate Change Secretariat/Marrakech Partnership. Van Baaren, R., Horstman, J., Pol, B., Smit, I., de Bruin, P., & Zuyderduyn, R. (2010). Voorbij Bijplaatsingen: Gedragsinterventies voor het effectief terugdringen van afval afvalcontainers. The Hague: Nederland Schoon/Agentschap NL/NVRD. van der Heijden, J. (2013). Is new governance the silver bullet? Insights from the Australian Buildings Sector. Urban Policy and Research, 31(4), 453-471 doi:10.1080/08111146.2013.769156 van der Heijden, J. (2014). Governance for Urban Sustainability and Resilience: Responding to Climate Change and the Relevance of the Built Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. van der Heijden, J. (2015). What ‘works’ in environmental policy-design? Lessons from experiments in the Australian and Dutch building sectors. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 17(1), 44-64. van der Heijden, J. (2017). Eco-financing for low-carbon buildings and cities: Value and limits. Urban Studies, 54(12), 2894-2909. doi:10.1177/0042098016655056 van der Heijden, J. (2019). Behavioural insights and regulatory practice. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory Practice Initiative (G-REG). Van der Heijden, J., Bulkeley, H., & Certomá, C. (2019). Urban Climate Politics: Agency and Empowerment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Exel, N. J. A., Brouwer, W. B. F., van der Berg, B., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2006). With a little help from an anchor. Discussion and evidence of anchoring effects in contingent valuation. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(5), 836-853. Vlaed, I., King, D., Dolan, P., & Darzi, A. (2016). The theory and practice of "nudging": Changing health behaviours. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 550-561. White, K., Smith, J., Terry, D., Greenslade, J., & McKimmie, B. (2011). Social influence in the theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive, injunctive, and in‐group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 135-158. Wolfram, M., van der Heijden, J., Juhola, S., & Patterson, J. (2019). Learning in urban climate governance: Concepts, issues and challenges. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21(1), 1-15. Wright, J., & Ginsburg, D. (2012). Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and Implications for Liberty. Northwestern University Law Review, 106(1), 1033-1092. 15 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Urban climate governance informed by behavioural insights: A commentary and research agenda Online Appendix A Method To understand the potential of insights from the behavioural sciences for urban climate governance, this article takes stock of the behavioural science literature as it has engaged with broader questions of public governance over the last ten years. It builds on a systematic review of 200 peer-reviewed publications from the fields of law, political science and public administration published in English between 2009 and 2018. Journals in these fields are the dominant outlets for scholars of public governance (Bovens, 't Hart, & Peters, 2001; Morgan & Cook, 2014; Osborne, 2010), and are the major publishers of theoretical and practical insights from the behavioural sciences in relation to complex societal problems such as climate change (Grimmelikhuijsen, Jilke, Olsen, & Tummers, 2017; Moynihan, 2017). Publications were systematically sourced from the Web of Science database, using key word searches. The key word searches used were: (behav* AND science AND regulat*), resulting in 9 documents; (behav* AND econ* AND regulat*), resulting in 32 documents; (behav* AND science AND govern*), resulting in 47 documents; (behav* AND econ* AND govern*), resulting in 32 documents; (behav* regulat*), resulting in 44 documents; and (behav* govern*), resulting in 103 documents. The asterisk (*) operates as a wildcard – i.e., the term ‘behav*’ allows the search to find words including ‘behaviour’, ‘behavior’, ‘behavioural’, ‘behavioral’, ‘behave’, ‘behaving’, etc After removing duplicates, this initial search resulted in a set of 129 journal articles, books and book chapters. This set was complemented with 71 relevant publications cited in the publications traced (‘snowball sampling’). These 200 publications were read, and notes (including the key insights reported, the area of study, and the type of research project undertaken) were kept in a working document. The document was coded to capture the ‘repetitiveness’ and ‘rarity’ of themes and findings reported across the various publications (cf., Bearfield & Eller, 2008; and Sutton, Papaioannou, & Booth, 2016). A cleaned-up working version of this document is available online as: van der Heijden, Jeroen (2019). “Behavioural Insights and Regulatory Practice: A Review of the International Academic Literature.” State of the Art in Regulatory Governance Research Paper – 2019.01. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington/Government Regulatory Practice Initiative.1 Of the set of 129 publications initially identified for the literature review (see Online Appendix A), only 5 per cent (n=6) were categorised in Web of Science as area studies, environmental studies, or urban studies. Of the full set of 200 publications included in the review, only 7 per cent (n=13) had one or more words indicating an urban focus in their title, key-words, or abstract. Titles, key-words and abstracts were systematically explored for the following words ‘urban*’, ‘city’, ‘cities’, ‘metropo*’, ‘town*’, ‘built-up’, ‘built up’, ‘built-environment’, or ‘built environment’. The asterisk (*) operates as a wildcard. Of course, the initial focus of the review on publications in the areas of ‘law’, ‘political science’ and ‘public administration’ will have somewhat skewed the set of source publications underlying this review. That having been said, the search includes publications from ‘typical’ journals oriented towards environmental sustainability and climate change, such as Environmental Politics and 1 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3332699 16 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Environment & Planning C, as well as urban-oriented journals such as the Journal of Urban Economics. Publications reviewed Agarwal, Sumit; Chomsisengphet, Souphala; Mahoney, Neale; Stroebel, Johannes Regulating Consumer Financial Products: Evidence from Credit Cards QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS 2015 Agarwal, Sumit; Gabaix, Xavier; Driscoll, John C.; Laibson, David The Age of Reason: Financial Decisions over the Life Cycle and Implications for Regulation BROOKINGS PAPERS ON ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 2009 Aidt, TS; Veiga, FJ; Veiga, LG Election results and opportunistic policies: A new test of the rational political business cycle model PUBLIC CHOICE 2011 Akcinaroglu, S; Radziszewski, E Private Military Companies, Opportunities, and Termination of Civil Wars in Africa JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION 2013 Alemanno, Alberto; Spina, Alessandro Nudging legally: On the checks and balances of behavioral regulation ICON-INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2014 Al-Muharrami, Saeed; Murthy, Y. Sree Rama Interest banking spreads in Oman and Arab GCC INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EMERGING MARKETS 2017 Ayotte, K Leases and Executory Contracts in Chapter 11 JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES 2015 Ayres, Ian Regulating Opt-Out: An Economic Theory of Altering Rules YALE LAW JOURNAL 2012 Badawi, AB Relational Governance and Contract Damages: Evidence from Franchising JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES 2010 Baldwin, Robert From Regulation to Behaviour Change: Giving Nudge the Third Degree MODERN LAW REVIEW 2014 Baumgartner, FR; Carammia, M; Epp, DA; Noble, B; Rey, B; Yildirim, TM Budgetary change in authoritarian and democratic regimes JOURNAL OF EUROPEAN PUBLIC POLICY 2017 Bechtold, S; Buccafusco, C; Sprigman, CJ Innovation Heuristics: Experiments on Sequential Creativity in Intellectual Property INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 2016 Bell, A; Parchomovsky, G Partial takings COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 2017 Bell, MC Police Reform and the Dismantling of Legal Estrangement YALE LAW JOURNAL 2017 Biard, A ludex non Calculat? Judges and the Magnitude of Mass Litigation from a Behavioural Perspective EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RISK REGULATION 2015 Bissonnette, Jean Francois From the moral to the neural: brain scans, decision-making, and the problematization of economic (ir)rationality JOURNAL OF CULTURAL ECONOMY 2016 Blake, WD Judicial Independence on Unelected State Supreme Courts JUSTICE SYSTEM JOURNAL 2018 Boddewyn, Jean J.; Loubradou, Esther The Control of "Sex in Advertising" in France JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY & MARKETING 2011 Bossuyt, DM; Savini, F Urban sustainability and political parties: Eco-development in Stockholm and Amsterdam ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-POLITICS AND SPACE 2018 Boyd, William; Carlson, Ann E. Accidents of Federalism: Ratemaking and Policy Innovation in Public Utility Law UCLA LAW REVIEW 2016 Bridges, A; Kousser, T Where Politicians Gave Power to the People: Adoption of the Citizen Initiative in the US States STATE POLITICS & POLICY QUARTERLY 2011 Bubb, Ryan; Pildes, Richard H. How behavioural economics trims its sails and sails away HARVARD LAW REVIEW 2014 Burden, BC; Helmke, G The comparative study of split-ticket voting ELECTORAL STUDIES 2009 17 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Butt, AI Anarchy and Hierarchy in International Relations: Examining South America's War-Prone Decade, 1932-41 INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION 2013 Calo, Ryan Code, Nudge, or Notice? IOWA LAW REVIEW 2014 Calo, Ryan Digital Market Manipulation GEORGE WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 2014 Carlsson, Fredrik; Johansson-Stenman, Olof Behavioral Economics and Environmental Policy Annual Review of Resource Economics 2012 Carolan, Eoin The continuing problems with online consent under the EU's emerging data protection principles COMPUTER LAW & SECURITY REVIEW 2016 Cass, RA COMPETITION IN ANTITRUST REGULATION: LAW BEYOND LIMITS JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS 2010 Chan, HY The territoriality of personalization: New avenues for decentralized personalization in multi-level Western Europe REGIONAL AND FEDERAL STUDIES 2018 Chandon, Pierre How Package Design and Packaged-based Marketing Claims Lead to Overeating APPLIED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY 2013 Chao, BN THE CASE FOR CONTRIBUTION IN PATENT LAW UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW 2011 Chen, CK CHINA IN AFRICA: A THREAT TO AFRICAN COUNTRIES? STRATEGIC REVIEW FOR SOUTHERN AFRICA 2016 Chen, CM; Lee, PC; Chou, CH The Impact of Coproductive Taxpayers' Supervisory Behaviors on the Job Involvement of Tax Collectors REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION 2015 Chriss, James J. Nudging and Social Marketing SOCIETY 2015 Cloatre, E; Dingwall, R Embedded regulation: The migration of objects, scripts, and governance REGULATION & GOVERNANCE 2013 Clopton, Zachary D. Diagonal Public Enforcement STANFORD LAW REVIEW 2018 Clot, S; Grolleau, G; Ibanez, L Do good deeds make bad people? EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS 2016 Cofone, Ignacio N. The way the cookie crumbles: online tracking meets behavioural economics INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 2017 Cooper, CA; Knotts, HG; Ragusa, J The Constrained Governor: Exploring Gubernatorial Decision Making on Senate Appointments POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY 2016 Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B; Garcia-Sanchez, IM Conditional Factors of Political Budget Cycles: Economic Development Media Pressure, and Political Fragmentation PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2018 Cummins, J. David; Weiss, Mary A. Equity Capital, Internal Capital Markets, and Optimal Capital Structure in the US Property-Casualty Insurance Industry Annual Review of Financial Economics 2016 Czap, Natalia V.; Czap, Hans J.; Lynne, Gary D.; Burbach, Mark E. Walk in my shoes: Nudging for empathy conservation ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 2015 Czarnezki, Jason J. New York City Rules! Regulatory Models for Environmental and Public Health HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 2015 Dawson, E; Hartwig, M; Brimbal, L Interviewing to Elicit Information: Using Priming to Promote Disclosure LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR 2015 de Bruijn, H; Groenleer, M; van Ruijven, T The dynamics of doping: Lance Armstrong, the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the regulatory governance of professional cycling REGULATION & GOVERNANCE 2016 Decker, C CONCEPTS OF THE CONSUMER IN COMPETITION, REGULATORY, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION POLICES JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS 2017 18 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Decker, F; Sonnicksen, J An Alternative Approach to European Union Democratization: Re-Examining the Direct Election of the Commission President GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION 2011 Dilley, LTM Governing our choices: 'proenvironmental behaviour' as a practice of government ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY 2015 Dormady, NC; Englander, G Carbon allowances and the demand for offsets: a comprehensive assessment of imperfect substitutes JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY 2016 Dwyre, D; Braz, E Super PAC Spending Strategies and Goals FORUM-A JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 2015 Eigen, ZJ; Sherwyn, D A Moral/Contractual Approach to Labor Law Reform HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 2012 Elias, A; Tronconi, F From protest to power: Autonomist parties in government PARTY POLITICS 2011 Feldman, R; Frondorf, E DRUG WARS: A NEW GENERATION OF GENERIC PHARMACEUTICAL DELAY HARVARD JOURNAL ON LEGISLATION 2016 Feldthusen, B UNIQUE PUBLIC DUTIES OF CARE: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ALBERTA LAW REVIEW 2016 Felipe Garcia-Suaza, Andres; Gomez-Gonzalez, Jose E.; Murcia Pabon, Andres; Tenjo-Galarza, Fernando The cyclical behavior of bank capital buffers in an emerging economy: Size does matter ECONOMIC MODELLING 2012 Finger, LK Giving to government: the policy goals and giving strategies of new and old foundations INTEREST GROUPS & ADVOCACY 2018 Frankel, R Regulating Privatized Government through 1983 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 2009 Fransen, Luc The Embeddedness of Responsible Business Practice: Exploring the Interaction Between National-Institutional Environments and Corporate Social Responsibility JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 2013 Fridman, Daniel A new mentality for a new economy: performing the homo economicus in Argentina (1976-83) ECONOMY AND SOCIETY 2010 Friedrich, S Policy persistence and rent extraction PUBLIC CHOICE 2013 Fukurai, H; Krooth, R What brings people to the courtroom? Comparative analysis of people's willingness to serve as jurors in Japan and the US INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LAW CRIME AND JUSTICE 2010 Gagnon, ML; Labonte, R Human Rights in Global Health Diplomacy: A Critical Assessment JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 2011 Galaz, V; Tallberg, J; Boin, A; Ituarte-Lima, C; Hey, E; Olsson, P; Westley, F Global Governance Dimensions of Globally Networked Risks: The State of the Art in Social Science Research RISK HAZARDS & CRISIS IN PUBLIC POLICY 2017 Galle, Brian Tax, Command ... or Nudge?: Evaluating the New Regulation TEXAS LAW REVIEW 2014 Garlick, A The Letter after Your Name: Party Labels on Virginia Ballots STATE POLITICS & POLICY QUARTERLY 2015 Gehman, J; Lefsrud, LM; Fast, S Social license to operate: Legitimacy by another name? CANADIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-ADMINISTRATION PUBLIQUE DU CANADA 2017 Gelineau, F Electoral accountability in the developing world ELECTORAL STUDIES 2013 Gertler, P; Kuan, J Does It Matter Who Your Buyer Is? The Role of Nonprofit Mission in the Market for Corporate Control of Hospitals JOURNAL OF LAW & ECONOMICS 2009 Gokani, N Regulation for health inequalities and non-communicable diseases: In want of (effective) behavioural insights EUROPEAN LAW JOURNAL 2018 Gomez, Y.; Martinez-Moles, V.; Vila, J. Spanish regulation for labeling of financial products: a behavioral-experimental analysis ECONOMIA POLITICA 2016 19 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Goodliffe, J; Hawkins, D A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Rome: Explaining International Criminal Court Negotiations JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2009 Goodman, Ellen P. VISUAL GUT PUNCH: PERSUASION, EMOTION, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL MEANING OF GRAPHIC DISCLOSURE CORNELL LAW REVIEW 2014 Green, AD County Governments and Democratic Decision Making Explaining Why Counties Seek Approval of Local Option Sales Taxes STATE POLITICS & POLICY QUARTERLY 2014 Griffith, JA; Connelly, S; Thiel, CE Emotion regulation and intragroup conflict: when more distracted minds prevail INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 2014 Grumbach, JM Does the American Dream Matter for Members of Congress?: Social-Class Backgrounds and Roll-Call Votes POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY 2015 Gschwend, T; Stoetzer, L; Zittlau, S What drives rental votes? How coalitions signals facilitate strategic coalition voting ELECTORAL STUDIES 2016 Hacker, Philipp Personalizing EU Private Law: From Disclosures to Nudges and Mandates EUROPEAN REVIEW OF PRIVATE LAW 2017 Hagelund, Anniken From Economic Incentives to Dialogic Nudging - The Politics of Change and Inertia in Norwegian Sickness Insurance JOURNAL OF SOCIAL POLICY 2014 Hankinson, M When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 2018 Hill, CA A personality theory of white collar criminals, near-criminals, and others involved in bad corporate actions (and what law should do about it) LAW AND FINANCIAL MARKETS REVIEW 2017 Hlynsdottir, EM Leading the Locality: Icelandic Local Government Leadership Dilemma LEX LOCALISJOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT 2016 Ho, Daniel E. Fudging the Nudge: Information Disclosure and Restaurant Grading YALE LAW JOURNAL 2012 Hochman, O Efficient agglomeration of spatial clubs JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS 2011 Hoffman, DA Relational Contracts of Adhesion UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 2018 Holyoke, TT A theoretical foundation for assessing principal-agent problems in lobbying ethics and an empirical test INTEREST GROUPS & ADVOCACY 2017 Horwitz, P ACT III OF THE MINISTERIAL EXCEPTION NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 2012 Howell, WG Presidential Power in War ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, VOL 14 2011 Howlett, Michael Matching policy tools and their targets: beyond nudges and utility maximisation in policy design POLICY AND POLITICS 2018 Hwang, W; Lee, H Globalization, Factor Mobility, Partisanship, and Compensation Policies INTERNATIONAL STUDIES QUARTERLY 2014 Hyman, DA Follow the Money: Money Matters In Health Care, Just Like In Everything Else AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LAW & MEDICINE 2010 Ishiyama, J; Breuning, M; Widmeier, M Organizing to rule: structure, agent, and explaining presidential management styles in Africa DEMOCRATIZATION 2018 Jacobson, Peter D. Changing the Culture of Health: One Public Health Misstep at a Time SOCIETY 2014 Jeffords, Christopher Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS 2014 Jin, Lawrence; Kenkel, Don; Liu, Feng; Wang, Hua Retrospective and Prospective Benefit-Cost Analyses of U.S. Anti-Smoking Policies JOURNAL OF BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 2015 Jirusek, M; Kuchynkova, P The Conduct of Gazprom in Central and Eastern Europe: A Tool of the Kremlin, or Just an Adaptable Player? EAST EUROPEAN POLITICS AND SOCIETIES 2018 20 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Jones, Lauren E.; Loibl, Caezilia; Tennyson, Sharon Effects of informational nudges on consumer debt repayment behaviors JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PSYCHOLOGY 2015 Kaminski, ME PRIVACY AND THE RIGHT TO RECORD BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 2017 Keiser, LR Understanding Street-Level Bureaucrats' Decision Making: Determining Eligibility in the Social Security Disability Program PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 2010 Kennedy, Ann-Marie; Laczniak, Gene R. Conceptualisations of the consumer in marketing thought EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MARKETING 2016 Khakee, A Democracy over power? The democratic decision-making process in the case of the attempted privatization of Estonia's power production COMMUNIST AND POST-COMMUNIST STUDIES 2018 Kovacic, WE; Hyman, DA CONSUME OR INVEST: WHAT DO/SHOULD AGENCY LEADERS MAXIMIZE? WASHINGTON LAW REVIEW 2016 Kraak, Vivica I.; Swinburn, Boyd; Lawrence, Mark; Harrison, Paul A Q methodology study of stakeholders' views about accountability for promoting healthy food environments in England through the Responsibility Deal Food Network FOOD POLICY 2014 Krell, MR Intervention unnecessary: bar associations taking sides in regulatory actions JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2017 Kroll, JA; Huey, J; Barocas, S; Felten, EW; Reidenberg, JR; Robinson, DG; Yu, HL ACCOUNTABLE ALGORITHMS UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW 2017 Laki, Mihaly HUNGARIAN GRAND ENTREPRENEURS IN THE SYSTEM OF NATIONAL COOPERATION: THE CHANCES OF CIVIL/BOURGEOIS DEVELOPMENT AFTER 2010 (AN EXTENSION OF THE RESEARCH) CORVINUS JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY AND SOCIAL POLICY 2017 Lee, Y From Competition to Collaboration: Intergovernmental Economic Development Policy Networks LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES 2016 Leib, EJ; Galoob, SR Fiduciary Political Theory: A Critique YALE LAW JOURNAL 2016 Lemos, MH; Minzner, M FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC ENFORCEMENT HARVARD LAW REVIEW 2014 Lindh, A Public Support for Corporate Social Responsibility in the Welfare State: Evidence from Sweden SCANDINAVIAN POLITICAL STUDIES 2015 Lindvall, J; Martinsson, J; Oscarsson, H Party choice in hard times: Group-specific responses to economic downturns in Sweden ELECTORAL STUDIES 2013 Liu, AH Democracy and minority language recognition: tyranny of the majority and the conditional effects of group size DEMOCRATIZATION 2017 Liu, Peggy J.; Wisdom, Jessica; Roberto, Christina A.; Liu, Linda J.; Ubel, Peter A. Using Behavioral Economics to Design More Effective Food Policies to Address Obesity APPLIED ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES AND POLICY 2014 Loewenstein, George; Sunstein, Cass R.; Golman, Russell Disclosure: Psychology Changes Everything Annual Review of Economics 2014 Lucardi, A; Micozzi, JP The Effect of the Electoral Calendar on Politicians' Selection into Legislative Cohorts and Legislative Behavior in Argentina, 1983-2007 LEGISLATIVE STUDIES QUARTERLY 2016 Mabbett, Deborah The Ghost in the Machine: Pension Risks and Regulatory Responses in the United States and the United Kingdom POLITICS & SOCIETY 2012 Magalhaes, PC From ideology to performance: Austerity and government defection in the 2014 European Parliament elections ELECTORAL STUDIES 2016 Marks, Alexia Brunet THE RIGHT TO REGULATE (COOPERATIVELY) UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 2016 Martins, R; Sa, PME Promoting sustainable residential water use: a Portuguese case study in ownership and regulation POLICY STUDIES 2011 21 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Mation, G Regulating Sovereign Wealth Funds: When States Become Entrepreneurs CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 2016 Mawhinney, A; Griffiths, I Ensuring that Others Behave Responsibly: Giddens, Governance, and Human Rights Law SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 2011 McMahon, John Behavioral economics as neoliberalism: Producing and governing homo economicus Contemporary Political Theory 2015 McMullen, Jeffery S.; Wood, Matthew S.; Kier, Alexander S. AN EMBEDDED AGENCY APPROACH TO ENTREPRENEURSHIP PUBLIC POLICY: MANAGERIAL POSITION AND POLITICS IN NEW VENTURE LOCATION DECISIONS ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES 2016 Meunier, S; Vachudova, MA Liberal Intergovernmentalism, Illiberalism and the Potential Superpower of the European Union JCMS-JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES 2018 Mills, Jane; Gaskell, Peter; Ingram, Julie; Dwyer, Janet; Reed, Matt; Short, Christopher Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES 2017 Milne, Eugene M. G. A public health perspective on transport policy priorities JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY 2012 Moretz, T An assessment of China's ability to regulate its iron and steel industries JOURNAL OF CHINESE GOVERNANCE 2018 Moulton, S The Authority to Do Good: Publicly Responsible Behavior among Private Mortgage Lenders PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 2012 Munro, VE; Scoular, J Abusing Vulnerability? Contemporary Law and Policy Responses to Sex Work in the UK FEMINIST LEGAL STUDIES 2012 Noggle, Robert Manipulation, salience, and nudges BIOETHICS 2018 Nuti, L Extended Deterrence and National Ambitions: Italy's Nuclear Policy, 1955-1962 JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC STUDIES 2016 Obolevich, Viktoria The New EU Tobacco Products Directive and Standardized Packaging: [in the Name of 'Smooth Functioning of the Internal Market'] LEGAL ISSUES OF ECONOMIC INTEGRATION 2018 Obydenkova, A; Libman, A National autocratization and the survival of sub-national democracy: Evidence from Russia's parliamentary elections of 2011 ACTA POLITICA 2013 O'Connell, K UNEQUAL BRAINS: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION LAWS AND CHILDREN WITH CHALLENGING BEHAVIOUR MEDICAL LAW REVIEW 2016 Oliver, Adam NUDGING, SHOVING, AND BUDGING: BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMIC-INFORMED POLICY PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2015 Oliver, Adam From Nudging to Budging: Using Behavioural Economics to Inform Public Sector Policy JOURNAL OF SOCIAL POLICY 2013 Ostrovnaya, M; Podkolzina, E ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT: THE CASE OF RUSSIA JOURNAL OF COMPETITION LAW & ECONOMICS 2015 Palmer, HD; Whitten, GD; Williams, LK Who should be chef? The dynamics of valence evaluations across income groups during economic crises ELECTORAL STUDIES 2013 Pasek, J; Tahk, A; Lelkes, Y; Krosnick, JA; Payne, BK; Akhtar, O; Tompson, T DETERMINANTS OF TURNOUT AND CANDIDATE CHOICE IN THE 2008 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ILLUMINATING THE IMPACT OF RACIAL PREJUDICE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY 2009 Peacock, Mark Institutional Normativity and the Evolution of Morals: A Behavioural Approach to Ethics JOURNAL OF BUSINESS ETHICS 2010 Pedersen, Sofie Kragh; Koch, Alexander K.; Nafziger, Julia WHO WANTS PATERNALISM? BULLETIN OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 2014 22 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Pereira, C; Bertholini, F Beliefs or ideology: the imperative of social inclusion in Brazilian politics COMMONWEALTH & COMPARATIVE POLITICS 2017 Peth, Denise; Musshoff, Oliver; Funke, Katja; Hirschauer, Norbert Nudging Farmers to Comply With Water Protection Rules - Experimental Evidence From Germany ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS 2018 Pfaff, JF Federal Sentencing in the States: Some Thoughts on Federal Grants and State Imprisonment HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 2015 Philp, M; David-Barrett, E Realism About Political Corruption ANNUAL REVIEW OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, VOL 18 2015 Pickett, Brent The New Paternalists POLITY 2018 Pinto-Prades, Jose-Luis; Abellan-Perpinan, Jose-Maria When normative and descriptive diverge: how to bridge the difference SOCIAL CHOICE AND WELFARE 2012 Porat, A PRIVATE PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC GOODS: LIABILITY FOR UNREQUESTED BENEFITS MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW 2009 Portillo, S The Adversarial Process of Administrative Claims: The Process of Unemployment Insurance Hearings ADMINISTRATION & SOCIETY 2017 Quigley, Muireann NUDGING FOR HEALTH: ON PUBLIC POLICY AND DESIGNING CHOICE ARCHITECTURE MEDICAL LAW REVIEW 2013 Reiners, M THE FEDERAL COUNCIL AS POTENTIAL VETO PLAYER AND COOPERATION PARTNER IN THE GERMAN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE POLITICS 2018 Richards, Timothy J.; Hamilton, Stephen F. Food waste in the sharing economy FOOD POLICY 2018 Richardson, L Cross-fertilisation of governance and governmentality in practical policy making on behaviour change POLICY AND POLITICS 2011 Roberto, Christina A.; Pomeranz, Jennifer L.; Fisher, Jennifer O. The need for public policies to promote healthier food consumption: A comment on Wansink and Chandon (2014) JOURNAL OF CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY 2014 Romaniuc, R What Makes Law to Change Behavior? An Experimental Study REVIEW OF LAW & ECONOMICS 2016 Ruffa, C Realist-normative power Europe? Explaining EU policies toward Lebanon from an IR perspective COMPARATIVE EUROPEAN POLITICS 2011 Saiger, A Agencies' Obligation to Interpret the Statute VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 2016 Sayar, T A DEBATE ON HUMAN DIGNITY, EMBRYO AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCHES MEDICINE AND LAW 2017 Schleiter, P; Tavits, M Voter Reactions to Incumbent Opportunism JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2018 Schwartz, A REGULATING FOR RATIONALITY STANFORD LAW REVIEW 2015 Secunda, Paul M. The Behavioral Economic Case for Paternalistic Workplace Retirement Plans INDIANA LAW JOURNAL 2016 Seyd, B How Do Citizens Evaluate Public Officials? The Role of Performance and Expectations on Political Trust POLITICAL STUDIES 2015 Shin, JH Legislative voting in the pork-dominant parliament: evidence from the Philippine House of Representatives JOURNAL OF LEGISLATIVE STUDIES 2018 Shotts, KW; Wiseman, AE The Politics of Investigations and Regulatory Enforcement by Independent Agents and Cabinet Appointees JOURNAL OF POLITICS 2010 Sinclair, JA; O'Grady, I; Mcintosh, B; Nordlund, C Crashing the party: advocacy coalitions and the nonpartisan primary JOURNAL OF PUBLIC POLICY 2018 Smith, AR Cities Where Women Rule: Female Political Incorporation and the Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funding POLITICS & GENDER 2014 23 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Soboleva, A Legal Terminology from the Rhetorical Perspective: Legal Genres Approach PRAVOZHURNAL VYSSHEI SHKOLY EKONOMIKI 2015 Suda, Y For-Profit and Nonprofit Dynamics and Providers' Failures PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVIEW 2011 Sun, LG DISASTER MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW CORNELL LAW REVIEW 2011 Sunstein, Cass R. The Ethics of Nudging YALE JOURNAL ON REGULATION 2015 Sunstein, Cass R. The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism YALE LAW JOURNAL 2013 Sunstein, Cass R.; Reisch, Lucia A.; Rauber, Julius A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost REGULATION & GOVERNANCE 2018 Szmigin, I; O'Loughlin, D Students and the Consumer Credit Market: Towards a Social Policy Agenda SOCIAL POLICY & ADMINISTRATION 2010 Tang, Samuel; Demeritt, David Climate Change and Mandatory Carbon Reporting: Impacts on Business Process and Performance BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 2018 Thachil, T; Teitelbaum, E Ethnic Parties and Public Spending: New Theory and Evidence From the Indian States COMPARATIVE POLITICAL STUDIES 2015 Thames, FC The Effect of Governor Support on Legislative Behaviour in the Russian Duma EUROPEASIA STUDIES 2010 Thompson, FJ; Gusmano, MK; Shinohara, S Trump and the Affordable Care Act: Congressional Repeal Efforts, Executive Federalism, and Program Durability PUBLIUS-THE JOURNAL OF FEDERALISM 2018 Tsuneki, A; Zasu, Y On the Complementarity between Law and Social Norms REVIEW OF LAW & ECONOMICS 2015 Underhill, Kristen When Extrinsic Incentives Displace Intrinsic Motivation: Designing Legal Carrots and Sticks to Confront the Challenge of Motivational Crowding-Out YALE JOURNAL ON REGULATION 2016 Vlaev, Ivo; King, Dominic; Dolan, Paul; Darzi, Ara The Theory and Practice of "Nudging": Changing Health Behaviors PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 2016 Vogeler, CS; Bandelow, NC Mutual and Self Perceptions of Opposing Advocacy Coalitions: Devil Shift and Angel Shift in a German Policy Subsystem REVIEW OF POLICY RESEARCH 2018 Von Stein, J Making Promises, Keeping Promises: Democracy, Ratification and Compliance in International Human Rights Law BRITISH JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 2016 Walch, C Collaboration or obstruction? Rebel group behavior during natural disaster relief in the Philippines POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY 2014 Watson, M Crusoe, Friday and the Raced Market Frame of Orthodox Economics Textbooks NEW POLITICAL ECONOMY 2018 Weaver, RK Getting People to Behave: Research Lessons for Policy Makers PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW 2015 White, MJ Corporate and Personal Bankruptcy Law ANNUAL REVIEW OF LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, VOL 7 2011 Willems, T DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: THE CURIOUS CASE OF FLEMISH SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 2014 Williamson, D; Lynch-Wood, G Ecological modernisation and the regulation of firms ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS 2012 Willis, Lauren K. When Nudges Fail: Slippery Defaults UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW 2013 Willis, P Public relations, passive aggression and critical social auditing: reflections on organisational inaction in stakeholder engagement JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS 2015 24 PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION Worthy, B; John, P; Vannoni, M Transparency at the Parish Pump: A Field Experiment to Measure the Effectiveness of Freedom of Information Requests in England JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION RESEARCH AND THEORY 2017 Wright, Joshua D.; Ginsburg, Douglas H. BEHAVIORAL LAW AND ECONOMICS: ITS ORIGINS, FATAL FLAWS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LIBERTY NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW 2012 Yadav, Y How Algorithmic Trading Undermines Efficiency in Capital Markets VANDERBILT LAW REVIEW 2015 Yeung, Karen Hypernudge': Big Data as a mode of regulation by design INFORMATION COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY 2017 Yeung, Karen The Forms and Limits of Choice Architecture as a Tool of Government LAW & POLICY 2016 Young, A THE SCREEN OF THE CRIME: JUDGING THE AFFECT OF CINEMATIC VIOLENCE SOCIAL & LEGAL STUDIES 2009 Zamir, Eyal; Lewinsohn-Zamir, Daphna; Ritov, Ilana It's Now Or Never! Using Deadlines as Nudges LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION 2017 Zaverucha, J; Rezende, FD How the Military Competes for Expenditure in Brazilian Democracy: Arguments for an Outlier INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW 2009 Zhu, XF; Zhao, H Recognition of innovation and diffusion of welfare policy: Alleviating urban poverty in Chinese cities during fiscal recentralization GOVERNANCE-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICY ADMINISTRATION AND INSTITUTIONS 2018 Zombirt, Jolanta Contingent Convertible Bonds as an Alternative to Strengthen Banks' Ability in Financing a Real Economy ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS REVIEW 2015 25