The academic literature on what works to encourage the use of behavioural science evidence in government policy making is generally immature and inconclusive (Breckon and Dodson, 2016[1]; Welch-Ross and Fasig, 2007[2]). In one experienced academic’s view, “we are still in the early stages of understanding … how to effectively translate evidence from behavioural economics into meaningful policy outcomes” (Linos, 2023[3]). Furthermore, this relationship between behavioural science and policy is not straightforward, instrumental, or apolitical (Feitsma, 2019[4]).
As a result, this paper’s good practice principles are based primarily on the views, opinions, and lived experiences of people who have personally been involved in the difficult work of applying behavioural science to public policy. This makes the principles useful as a framework to guide efforts to mainstream behavioural public policy and consider a government or organisation’s maturity in these efforts. The principles can serve as a platform for further evidence generation on how to mainstream efficiently and effectively.
A pragmatic, mixed methods approach has been taken, drawing on the following data sources:
A workshop-based co‑design process conducted in 2023 with a working group of 35 government behavioural science experts from 14 OECD member countries. The working group also commented on multiple iterations of these good practice principles and provided case studies.
Four surveys of the OECD’s global Network of Behavioural Insights Experts in Government, conducted in 2021, 2022, and 2023. The combined sample includes respondents from 202 different teams in 58 countries (including teams in federal, state, provincial, and local governments, as well as in government-funded, independent organisations). The countries with the largest number of teams in the sample are Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States; these countries each contribute over 10 teams and together account for 39% of the sample. Because different questions were asked in different surveys, we provide the sample size for each result in this report (in the form of n=x). Some of these surveys were conducted in partnership with Behavioral Economics in Action at Rotman (BEAR) at the University of Toronto.
A live picture of governments’ use of behavioural science derived from the OECD’s online map of teams and their projects. The map publishes self-reported information about teams that covers some of the same questions as our surveys.
Workshops at OECD Expert Meetings on Behavioural Insights in 2021, 2022, and 2023 gathering common challenges and ideas for addressing them.
Four in-depth interviews conducted with selected behavioural science experts in government in 2022.
Academic and grey literature on the adoption and governance of behavioural science in private and public organisations.
In some ways, this report represents an update to the OECD’s 2017 report ‘Behavioural Insights and Public Policy’ (OECD, 2017[5]). For that report, in 2016 the OECD surveyed 60 government institutions in 23 countries and two international organisations, and gathered 112 case studies of behavioural science projects, to provide a baseline for comparing, assessing, and monitoring the growth and diversity of the field. This report provides an updated assessment of the organisation, activities, functions, and methodologies of the global community and the new, as well as lingering, challenges and opportunities they face.
This report focuses on the behavioural science work happening within government institutions. While private, not‑for‑profit, and academic practitioners are integral to the discipline of behavioural public policy, these good practice principles speak specifically to the dynamics and structures within governments. As a result, the results presented do not necessarily reflect the outcomes or experiences of private, not‑for‑profit, and academic practitioners.