Before one can evaluate how the relationship between states and citizens is being influenced or re-imagined by behavioral public policies, it is important to establish the role of the state, and how this differs worldwide and has evolved over time according to the political leanings and agendas of those in power. Globally the 970s saw the emergence and spread of neoliberalism governance, which led to the rise of the free-market, capitalist approach evidenced through the election of Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagans presidency and Deng Xiapings move towards economic liberalization in China (Whitehead et al., 207). The subsequent increase in socio-economic problems of the neoliberalism governance leading to inequitable outcomes and a failure to facilitate personal autonomy (Whitehead et al., 207) led to the growth of neuroliberalism. The behavioral, psychological and neurological insights both highlighted the flaws in the workings of neoliberalism, by appreciating the role of behavioral heuristics, emotional responses and inertia in preventing the human from behaving wholly rationally, while then being able to apply these in order to continue to support the market-based neoliberal approach. Foucalts early work in 960s, explored the assumptions of human behavior, leading to the conclusion that the assumptions of rationality were not an accurate approximation of human behavior. Instead, humans were to be understood as rational deliberators whom systematically reposed to variables of the environment, deeming humans to be eminently governable (Whitehead et al., 207). This move towards a more state-orientated neoliberalist approach pre-empted the psychological economic blend adopted through neuroliberalism. It is not however a coherent global, one size fits all approach, and this has led to the development of different styles of neurological governing worldwide, this essay will be comparing the applications of such policies in the UK and Singapore in order to explore contrasting applications, style of governance and the resultant impacts of these.
The new assumption of individuals with bounded rationality is a result of the evidence of humans systematically deviating from the assumed rational consumers as well as relying on heuristics to navigate choices. Not only do these deviations called behavioral biases lead to behavioral market failures through consumers choosing sub-optimal decision but firms also tend to use these biases for their own economic benefits. (Costa et al., 206). The role of the government to nudge therefore stems from their role to increase th
e welfare of their citizens Β an intention that they implement through traditional coercive methods, for example using taxes and subsidies to influence consumption of merit/demerit goods; as well as laws that ensure safety such as wearing seatbelts. To implement such behavioral policies is for the governing body to be a choice architect, thereby being responsible for tweaking and organizing the environment and background where people make choices, whether their influence is recognized or not (source needed). By altering the designs of everyday surrounding, such governing bodies make it easier for individuals to make optimal and favorable decisions in a more efficient manner, while reducing the focus on physical interventions (Whitehead et al., 202). Through states using the behavioral insights they are aiming to operate on subconscious level, using techniques often attributed to the commercial sector. It is therefore imperative that the architects behind such policies work efficiently to attempt to counteract and not be overpowered by the corporations using the same techniques for financial gain (Pykett and Johnson, 205). This however highlights a flaw in such interventionist methods, by taking a less coercive approach, governments efforts to nudge people in one direction and vulnerable to being nudged back due to the large and efficient advertising budgets within the commercial sector (Marteau et al., 20). The issue therefore remains that governments attempts to empower individuals choice making ability, whether the training and expertise of behavioral experts is well-enough engaged with the individuals in order to re-educate and realign decisions facilitating their best interests. It is therefore imperative that the architect is competent at identifying the populations goals (GrΓΒΌne-Yanoff and Hertwig, 205). This use of nudges however raises issues concerning the autonomy of individuals being nudges Β their ability to control his or her own evaluations and choices (Hausman and Welch, 200). By the state steering decisions of the citizens to make decisions they would like to, but fail to make (on account of greater welfare), these approaches can be argued to thereby undermine the individuals responsibility to make own decision. While not removing alternative options, the states organized effort to change behaviors and choices (Hausman and Welch, 200), pushes towards one option thereby reducing the autonomy of the individual through their ability to make moral and informed decisions independently, by bypassing out capacities for deliberation (Levy, 207).