Behavioral public policies, often known as nudges, are policies developed using behavioral economics and social psychology research, aiming to shape our psychological and behavioral tendencies to benefit individuals long-term interests, while preserving freedom of choice (Pykett et al., 205). Thaler and Sunsteins research (2008) exploring behavioral economics and nudges was pioneering in shaping public and private policy and administration, this was adopted by the behavioral insight team (BIT) in the UK, introduced under David Camerons leadership in 200. The seven-member department, nicknamed nudge unit set about having a positive social input with robust and well-examined interventions with a focus on money-saving projects for the UK government. Their success and relatively low-cost approach, especially in times of financial hardship post the financial crisis arguably fast-tracked the spread of behavioral public policies. Leading to such policies being adopted worldwide by governments, international bodies, corporations, and think tanks, including the US federal government, the United Nations, Unilever and the World Bank (San
ders et al., 208), as well as academic centers globally which facilitate experimental partnerships between said bodies. As of 204, 5 countries had central state-led behavioral policy initiatives used to tweak environments in order to help improve decisions about health, wealth and happiness (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008); with behavioral sciences influencing public initiatives in a total of 35 states (Whitehead et al., 204). This essay will be exploring the continued and ever-evolving use of behavioral public policies worldwide and the impacts these have on the role of state. While investigating whether governments adapting these subtler approaches to influence behavior (Halpern, 205) are changing the relationship between the state and the citizens living within. The essay will also be exploring the contrasting opinions of the use of nudges and the ethical debate behind the transparency of nudges adopted, to question whether these policies which enable governments to indirectly govern the decisions of the nation, while striving to increase welfare of the citizens the state undermines the freedom of choice (Whitehead et al., 207).