Bennett Institute for Public Policy, University of Cambridge.
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham.
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022 Jan;17(1):169-182. doi: 10.1177/1745691620984395. Epub 2021 Mar 8.
Psychological science is increasingly influencing public policy. Behavioral public policy (BPP) was a milestone in this regard because it influenced many areas of policy in a general way. Well-being public policy (WPP) is emerging as a second domain of psychological science with general applicability. However, advocacy for WPP is criticized on ethical and political grounds. These criticisms are reminiscent of those directed at BPP over the past decade. This déjà vu suggests the need for interdisciplinary work that establishes normative principles for applying psychological science in public policy. We try to distill such principles for WPP from the normative debates over BPP. We argue that the uptake of BPP by governments was a function of its relatively strong normative and epistemic foundations in libertarian paternalism, or , for short. We explain why the nudge framework is inappropriate for WPP. We then analyze how offer a strict but feasible alternative framework for substantiating the legitimacy of well-being and behavioral policies. We illuminate how some WPPs could be fruitfully promoted as boosts and how they might fall short of the associated criteria.
心理学研究正日益影响公共政策。行为公共政策(BPP)是这方面的一个里程碑,因为它以一种普遍的方式影响了政策的许多领域。幸福感公共政策(WPP)作为心理学研究的第二个具有普遍适用性的领域正在出现。然而,基于伦理和政治方面的原因,WPP 的倡导受到了批评。这些批评让人想起过去十年来针对 BPP 的批评。这种似曾相识的感觉表明,有必要进行跨学科的工作,为将心理学研究应用于公共政策制定规范原则。我们试图从关于 BPP 的规范辩论中提炼出这些 WPP 的原则。我们认为,政府对 BPP 的接受是其在自由意志家长主义(简称 NIP)中具有相对较强的规范和认知基础的结果。我们解释了为什么推动框架不适合 WPP。然后,我们分析了如何提供一个严格但可行的替代框架来证明幸福感和行为政策的合法性。我们阐明了一些 WPP 如何可以作为推动力得到有益的推广,以及它们如何可能不符合相关标准。