The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides cash assistance to very-low-income families with children. Application procedures to receive TANF benefits, however, often involve substantial transaction costs likely to reduce take-up. Using a randomized controlled trial design, we estimate the marginal effects of a personalized telephone-call reminder to increase TANF application completion in southwest Michigan, where applicants must visit a regional public employment office at least four times to complete their application for benefits. Compared to a generic telephone call, we find that personalizing reminder calls did not increase participation in the initial appointment at the public employment office. Additionally, reminders before remaining appointments, combined with the personalized reminder call to attend the orientation, did not increase attendance at appointments after orientation.
{"title":"Nudges to Increase Completion of Welfare Applications","authors":"C. O’Leary, Dallas Oberlee, Gabrielle Pepin","doi":"10.17848/pb2020-30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17848/pb2020-30","url":null,"abstract":"The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides cash assistance to very-low-income families with children. Application procedures to receive TANF benefits, however, often involve substantial transaction costs likely to reduce take-up. Using a randomized controlled trial design, we estimate the marginal effects of a personalized telephone-call reminder to increase TANF application completion in southwest Michigan, where applicants must visit a regional public employment office at least four times to complete their application for benefits. Compared to a generic telephone call, we find that personalizing reminder calls did not increase participation in the initial appointment at the public employment office. Additionally, reminders before remaining appointments, combined with the personalized reminder call to attend the orientation, did not increase attendance at appointments after orientation.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123652300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Associating a life-threatening crisis with a geographic locality can stigmatize people from that area. However, such a strategy may reduce the public blame attributed to the government because the perceived foreign threat establishes a scapegoat, which transfers that blame. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated whether the “Chinese Virus” label placed on COVID-19 has elicited opposition to Chinese immigrants and reduced public blame attributed to the federal government. We used a survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a list experiment to measure perceived threat. The descriptive analysis suggested a negative attitude toward Chinese immigrants overall, in which conservatives expressed stronger negative attitudes than did liberals and moderates. While labelling COVID-19 as the “Chinese Virus” did not make a difference overall, our exploratory results shows that it led to a significant increase in liberals’ perception that Chinese immigrants are a threat. However, the “Chinese Virus” label showed no effect overall in reducing the extent to which either liberals or conservatives’ attributed blame to the federal government.
{"title":"Does mislabeling COVID-19 elicit the perception of threat and reduce blame?","authors":"Chengxin Xu, Yixin Liu","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.42.225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.42.225","url":null,"abstract":"Associating a life-threatening crisis with a geographic locality can stigmatize people from that area. However, such a strategy may reduce the public blame attributed to the government because the perceived foreign threat establishes a scapegoat, which transfers that blame. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we investigated whether the “Chinese Virus” label placed on COVID-19 has elicited opposition to Chinese immigrants and reduced public blame attributed to the federal government. We used a survey experiment during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a list experiment to measure perceived threat. The descriptive analysis suggested a negative attitude toward Chinese immigrants overall, in which conservatives expressed stronger negative attitudes than did liberals and moderates. While labelling COVID-19 as the “Chinese Virus” did not make a difference overall, our exploratory results shows that it led to a significant increase in liberals’ perception that Chinese immigrants are a threat. However, the “Chinese Virus” label showed no effect overall in reducing the extent to which either liberals or conservatives’ attributed blame to the federal government.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125748269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article reviews the literature on public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ policy instruments for behaviour change, and the factors that drive such preferences. Soft policies typically include ‘moral suasion’ and educational campaigns, and more recently behavioural public policy approaches like nudges. Hard policy instruments, such as laws and taxes, restrict choices and alter financial incentives. In contrast to the public support evidenced for hard policy instruments during COVID-19, prior academic literature pointed to support for softer policy instruments. We investigate and synthesise the evidence on when people prefer one type of policy instrument over another. Drawing on multi-disciplinary evidence, we identify perceived effectiveness, trust, personal experience and self-interest as important determinants of policy instrument preferences, along with broader factors including the choice and country context. We further identify various gaps in our understanding that informs and organise a future research agenda around three themes. Specifically, we propose new directions for research on what drives public support for hard versus soft behavioural public policies, highlighting the value of investigating the role of individual versus contextual factors (especially the role of behavioural biases); how preferences evolve over time; and whether and how preferences spillovers across different policy domains.
{"title":"Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: Review of the evidence","authors":"Sanchayan Banerjee, M. Savani, G. Shreedhar","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.42.220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.42.220","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews the literature on public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ policy instruments for behaviour change, and the factors that drive such preferences. Soft policies typically include ‘moral suasion’ and educational campaigns, and more recently behavioural public policy approaches like nudges. Hard policy instruments, such as laws and taxes, restrict choices and alter financial incentives. In contrast to the public support evidenced for hard policy instruments during COVID-19, prior academic literature pointed to support for softer policy instruments. We investigate and synthesise the evidence on when people prefer one type of policy instrument over another. Drawing on multi-disciplinary evidence, we identify perceived effectiveness, trust, personal experience and self-interest as important determinants of policy instrument preferences, along with broader factors including the choice and country context. We further identify various gaps in our understanding that informs and organise a future research agenda around three themes. Specifically, we propose new directions for research on what drives public support for hard versus soft behavioural public policies, highlighting the value of investigating the role of individual versus contextual factors (especially the role of behavioural biases); how preferences evolve over time; and whether and how preferences spillovers across different policy domains.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114132411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Robert Tilleard, G. Bremner, T. Middleton, Esme Turner, D. Holdsworth
Policymakers are interested in how to encourage firms to adopt beneficial new behaviors. In this study, we report on the results of an experiment to encourage firms to file their annual accounts electronically and on time. Our intervention involved UK firms filing their annual company accounts to an official registrar of companies. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we found behaviorally informed letters had no detectable effect on encouraging firms to file electronically. A letter using a social norm had a small (2.4%, p=0.053) effect on encouraging firms to file on time. The trial indicates behavioral science in this context has limited use in influencing firms to adopt new behaviors. We conclude more evidence is required to understand which behavioral interventions will have the most impact on influencing firm behavior in different contexts.
{"title":"Encouraging firms to adopt beneficial new behaviors: Lessons from a large-scale cluster-randomized field experiment","authors":"Robert Tilleard, G. Bremner, T. Middleton, Esme Turner, D. Holdsworth","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.41.146","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.41.146","url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers are interested in how to encourage firms to adopt beneficial new behaviors. In this study, we report on the results of an experiment to encourage firms to file their annual accounts electronically and on time. Our intervention involved UK firms filing their annual company accounts to an official registrar of companies. In a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we found behaviorally informed letters had no detectable effect on encouraging firms to file electronically. A letter using a social norm had a small (2.4%, p=0.053) effect on encouraging firms to file on time. The trial indicates behavioral science in this context has limited use in influencing firms to adopt new behaviors. We conclude more evidence is required to understand which behavioral interventions will have the most impact on influencing firm behavior in different contexts. ","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126876022","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial: Continuity and change","authors":"S. Jilke","doi":"10.30636/JBPA.41.246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/JBPA.41.246","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"33 7-8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131748988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, public sector agencies have increasingly been moving citizen services online to reduce administrative burdens for citizens and costs for governments. However, motivating citizens to make the transition to online services can be difficult. In this paper, I report on a randomized control trial with the Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections Department, testing a letter intervention with 11,579 rental license holders designed to encourage them to register for an account and renew online. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a control group that did not receive a letter or one of three treatment groups: 1) Standard (a simple reminder letter); 2) Personal Benefits (a letter with added language emphasizing the reduced burden for citizens from online renewal); and 3) City Benefits (a letter with added language emphasizing the benefits to the city from online renewal). I find a statistically significant, positive effect of letter receipt on both online registration and renewal; for example, the treatment letters increased the probability of renewing at least one license online from 12.3% in the control to 20.4% for the treatments pooled together. Furthermore, the City Benefits letter was the least effective treatment, though there were only small differences between treatments. Finally, the letters were generally more effective for subjects not residing in Philadelphia, suggesting that “nudge” campaigns to reduce administrative burden may be most effective for those facing the highest burdens from in-person public service delivery.
{"title":"Good for you or good for us? A field experiment on motivating citizen behavior change","authors":"Syon P. Bhanot","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.41.207","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.207","url":null,"abstract":"In recent years, public sector agencies have increasingly been moving citizen services online to reduce administrative burdens for citizens and costs for governments. However, motivating citizens to make the transition to online services can be difficult. In this paper, I report on a randomized control trial with the Philadelphia Licenses and Inspections Department, testing a letter intervention with 11,579 rental license holders designed to encourage them to register for an account and renew online. Subjects were randomly assigned to either a control group that did not receive a letter or one of three treatment groups: 1) Standard (a simple reminder letter); 2) Personal Benefits (a letter with added language emphasizing the reduced burden for citizens from online renewal); and 3) City Benefits (a letter with added language emphasizing the benefits to the city from online renewal). I find a statistically significant, positive effect of letter receipt on both online registration and renewal; for example, the treatment letters increased the probability of renewing at least one license online from 12.3% in the control to 20.4% for the treatments pooled together. Furthermore, the City Benefits letter was the least effective treatment, though there were only small differences between treatments. Finally, the letters were generally more effective for subjects not residing in Philadelphia, suggesting that “nudge” campaigns to reduce administrative burden may be most effective for those facing the highest burdens from in-person public service delivery.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125541889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article connects the literatures of administrative burden with those of representative bureaucracy and group identity. We derive two hypotheses from extant scholarship that, adapted to the case of administrative burden, propose the following: Citizens will be more tolerant of burden if their race identity overlaps with that of the bureaucrat administering the burden, and if potential benefits are targeted at people who are similar to them. Using a survey experiment based on a stratified sample of 465 U.S. residents, we find little support for the hypotheses. In fact, while Black participants barely responded to the treatments at all, we see that white participants were most tolerant of burden when served by a white bureaucrat in a program that benefits Black clients. The article calls for more research on the subject to build nuanced theory, including contextualizing propositions across identity groups and drawing on additional theoretical ideas.
{"title":"What makes us tolerant of administrative burden? Race, representation, and identity","authors":"D. Johnson, Alexander Kroll","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.41.201","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.201","url":null,"abstract":"This article connects the literatures of administrative burden with those of representative bureaucracy and group identity. We derive two hypotheses from extant scholarship that, adapted to the case of administrative burden, propose the following: Citizens will be more tolerant of burden if their race identity overlaps with that of the bureaucrat administering the burden, and if potential benefits are targeted at people who are similar to them. Using a survey experiment based on a stratified sample of 465 U.S. residents, we find little support for the hypotheses. In fact, while Black participants barely responded to the treatments at all, we see that white participants were most tolerant of burden when served by a white bureaucrat in a program that benefits Black clients. The article calls for more research on the subject to build nuanced theory, including contextualizing propositions across identity groups and drawing on additional theoretical ideas.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"138 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134431651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Experimental studies in public administration often focus on samples of non-practitioner groups. In these cases, it is unclear whether findings from non-practitioner groups are generalizable to public managers. Some literature suggests that bureaucrats are likely to hold biases similar to the rest of the population while other research argues that bureaucratic expertise and training allow practitioners to make decisions in more strategic or rational ways. This study works within the literature of performance information to test for differences in responses to the same experiment among college students, citizens, and public managers in the context of U.S. K-12 education. Some differences were detected across groups, though results reveal largely similar findings which have implications for when and how scholars might rely on non-practitioner samples to consider the attitudes and behaviors of bureaucrats or elected policymakers.
{"title":"Compared to whom? Social and historical reference points and performance appraisals by managers, students, and the general public","authors":"A. Rutherford, Thomas M. Rabovsky, M. Darnley","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.41.149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.149","url":null,"abstract":"Experimental studies in public administration often focus on samples of non-practitioner groups. In these cases, it is unclear whether findings from non-practitioner groups are generalizable to public managers. Some literature suggests that bureaucrats are likely to hold biases similar to the rest of the population while other research argues that bureaucratic expertise and training allow practitioners to make decisions in more strategic or rational ways. This study works within the literature of performance information to test for differences in responses to the same experiment among college students, citizens, and public managers in the context of U.S. K-12 education. Some differences were detected across groups, though results reveal largely similar findings which have implications for when and how scholars might rely on non-practitioner samples to consider the attitudes and behaviors of bureaucrats or elected policymakers.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129243643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is a substantial body of literature regarding the effects of administrative burdens on the take-up of safety-net programs and the role of organized groups in this process. I investigate similar issues in the context of property tax assessment appeals. Disadvantaged groups spend well over the recommended 30% of their income on housing costs that include property tax, and, on top of that, assessors often overestimate lower-value properties. Appeals may provide some relief, but the process can be burdensome. Certain localities give condominium associations the right to file one joint appeal on behalf of all unit owners. I hypothesize that this rule reduces burdens for condominium units and causes them to appeal more frequently than houses, resulting in a distributive effect that depends on the local context. I present supporting evidence from two case studies in two locations: New York City, which allows joint appeals, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and surroundings), which does not. Thus, while administrative burdens can span diverse contexts, engaging a third party to assist potential beneficiaries consistently increases the take-up.
{"title":"The role of organized groups in administrative burdens of property taxation","authors":"Iuliia Shybalkina","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.41.179","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.179","url":null,"abstract":"There is a substantial body of literature regarding the effects of administrative burdens on the take-up of safety-net programs and the role of organized groups in this process. I investigate similar issues in the context of property tax assessment appeals. Disadvantaged groups spend well over the recommended 30% of their income on housing costs that include property tax, and, on top of that, assessors often overestimate lower-value properties. Appeals may provide some relief, but the process can be burdensome. Certain localities give condominium associations the right to file one joint appeal on behalf of all unit owners. I hypothesize that this rule reduces burdens for condominium units and causes them to appeal more frequently than houses, resulting in a distributive effect that depends on the local context. I present supporting evidence from two case studies in two locations: New York City, which allows joint appeals, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh and surroundings), which does not. Thus, while administrative burdens can span diverse contexts, engaging a third party to assist potential beneficiaries consistently increases the take-up.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130564918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Prior expectations are an important determining factor of how citizens evaluate politicians, government and public services. Typically, citizen expectations are divided into two main categories: predictive (“will”) expectations and normative (“should”) expectations. Theories of expectations say that predictive expectations are the sterile and indifferent prediction of future events, while normative expectations have a foundation in personal norms and values and express how the world should look according to the individual. Therefore, normative expectations should have antecedents more closely related to the individual’s personality than predictive expectations. However, these theoretical claims regarding the nature of the two different expectation types have not yet been tested empirically. Examining broad personality traits (Big Five) and The Maximizing Tendency trait, this exploratory study analyzes whether different personality antecedents explain the two types of expectations. Results show that the personality traits agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness correlate positively, and extraversion negatively, with normative expectations. None of the traits correlate with predictive expectations. These results have implications for politicians’ efforts to shape citizens’ expectations, the citizen satisfaction literature, including work considering the expectation-disconfirmation model, and for further research on citizen expectations.
{"title":"Personality traits in citizen expectations towards public services","authors":"Morten Hjortskov","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.41.203","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.41.203","url":null,"abstract":"Prior expectations are an important determining factor of how citizens evaluate politicians, government and public services. Typically, citizen expectations are divided into two main categories: predictive (“will”) expectations and normative (“should”) expectations. Theories of expectations say that predictive expectations are the sterile and indifferent prediction of future events, while normative expectations have a foundation in personal norms and values and express how the world should look according to the individual. Therefore, normative expectations should have antecedents more closely related to the individual’s personality than predictive expectations. However, these theoretical claims regarding the nature of the two different expectation types have not yet been tested empirically. Examining broad personality traits (Big Five) and The Maximizing Tendency trait, this exploratory study analyzes whether different personality antecedents explain the two types of expectations. Results show that the personality traits agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness correlate positively, and extraversion negatively, with normative expectations. None of the traits correlate with predictive expectations. These results have implications for politicians’ efforts to shape citizens’ expectations, the citizen satisfaction literature, including work considering the expectation-disconfirmation model, and for further research on citizen expectations.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123216891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：