Ciencias del comportamiento y política: tiempo de "empujar" la conducta de los gobernantes

Sebastián Linares; Esteban Freidin

doi:10.52292/j.estudecon.2017.710

Autores

Sebastián Linares IIESS. CONICET
Esteban Freidin IIESS. CONICET

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.52292/j.estudecon.2017.710

Palavras-chave:

Psicología Económica, Economía Conductual, Gobernantes, Responsabilidad del Piloto, Alineación de Incentivos

Resumo

El enfoque de Behavioral Insights (BI) implica utilizar conocimientos de las ciencias del comportamiento en el diseño, implementación y evaluación de políticas públicas. En general, los proyectos asociados a BI buscan afectar la conducta de los ciudadanos en sentidos socialmente deseables. En este artículo planteamos que el mismo enfoque puede ser utilizado como marco para "pensar" cómo moldear la conducta de los gobernantes con fines prosociales. Con este objetivo, discutimos dos conceptos: 1) la alineación de los incentivos de gobernantes y ciudadanos, y 2) el enfoque Nudge, que implica estructurar los ambientes de decisión para guiar a los agentes hacia fines prosociales. Concluimos mencionando algunas promesas y limitaciones del enfoque BI en general y de nuestras propuestas específicas en particular

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Abbink, K., Freidin, E., Gangadharan, L., & Moro, R. (2016). The effect of social norms on bribe offers. IIESS CONICET Bahía Blanca, Working Paper N° 2. Recuperado de http://www.iiess-conicet.gob.ar/index.php/publicaciones-grales/documentos-de-trabajo

Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 1-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0003329X

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and Prosocial Behavior. American Economic Review, 96 (5), 1652-1678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1652

Bowles, S., & Polanía-Reyes, S. (2012). Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements? Journal of Economic Literature, 50 (2), 368-425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.2.368

Carney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policy Making. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026. doi:10.1037/0022-514.58.6.1015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015

Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D., W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1 (1), 3-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459

Costas-Pérez, E., Solé-Ollé, A., & Sorribas-Navarro, P. (2012). Corruption scandals, voter information, and accountability, European Journal of Political Economy, 28 (4), 469-484. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2012.05.007

DeBar, L. L., Schneider, M., Drews, K., Ford, E. G., Stadler, D.D., Moe, E. L., et al. (2011). Student public commitment in a school-based diabetes prevention project: impact on physical health and health behavior. BMC Public Health, 2-11. Recuperado de http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-711

Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & the ABC Research Group (1999). Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). A Fine Is a Price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29 (1), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/468061

Hasrun, H., Senci, C. M., Moro, R., & Freidin, E. (2017). The effect of prescriptive norms and negative externalities on bribery decisions. IIESS CONICET Bahía Blanca, Working Paper N.° 3. Recuperado de http://www.iiess-conicet.gob.ar/index.php/publicaciones-grales/documentos-de-trabajo

Kahneman, D. (2003). A psychological perspective on economics. The American Economic Review, 93 (2), 162-168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321946985

Kahneman, D. (2011). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Barcelona: Debate.

Katz, D., & Allport, F H. (1931). Student Attitudes. Syracuse, New York.: Craftsman.

Kobis, N. C., van Prooijen, J. W., Righetti, F., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2015). Who doesn't? - The impact of descriptive norms on corruption. PLoS ONE, 10 (6), e0131830. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131830 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131830

López Guerra, C. (2016). Piloting Responsibility and Intergenerational Justice. En I. González Ricoy & A. Gosseries (Eds.). Institutions for Future Generations (299-311). New York: Oxford University Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746959.003.0018

Muñoz, J. (2013). El precio electoral de la corrupción: ¿Por qué los votantes castigan tan poco? Pasajes, 42. Recuperado de http://www.revistasculturales.com/xrevistas/PDF/24/1709.pdf

Nyer, P., & Dellande, S. (2010). Public commitment as a motivator to weigh loss. Psychology and Marketing, 27 (1), 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20316

Nutley, S., Powell, A., & Davies, H. (2013). What counts as good evidence? London: Alliance for Useful Evidence. Recuperado de http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/assets/What-Counts-as-Good-Evidence-WEB.pdf.

Obama, B. (2015). Executive Order - Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People. Recuperado de https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/15/executive-order-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve-american

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64 (2), 243-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243

Rand, D. G., Peysakhovich, A., Kraft-Todd, G., Newman, G. E., Wurzbacher, O., Nowak, M. A., & Greene, J. (2014). Social heuristics shape intuitive cooperation. Nature Communications, 5 (3677). doi: 10.1038/ncomms4677 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4677

Rivero Rodríguez, G. & Fernández Vázquez, P. (2011). Las consecuencias electorales de los escándalos de corrupción municipal, 2003-2007. Estudios de Progreso N.° 59. Madrid: Fundación Alternativas. Recuperado de: http://www.fundacionalternativas.org/public/storage/estudios_documentos_archivos/a4112d386ee4ebfa92dae911711f0de3.pdf

Shu, L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (38), 15197-15200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209746109

Sousa Lourenço, J., Ciriolo, E., Rafael Almeida, S., & Troussard, X. (2016). Behavioural insights applied to policy: European Report 2016. Joint Research Centre, EUR 27726 EN. doi: 10.2760/903938.

Sunstein, C.R. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28 (4), 531-573. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000099

Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.

The Behavioral Insights Team (2016). Update Report 2015-16. Recuperado de: http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. En D. Wendt y C. Vleck (Eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making. Theory and Decision Library, (pp. 141-162). Netherlands: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Young, O. A., Willer, R., & Keltner, D. (2013). Thou Shalt Not Kill: Religious Fundamentalism, Conservatism, and Rule-Based Moral Processing. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5 (2), 110-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032262