广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版） ›› 2024, Vol. 60 ›› Issue (1): 50-68.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2024.01.005

• 治理现代化研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

道阻且长,“行”者将“治”:公共事务的行为治理之道

张书维, 汪彦, 秦枭童   

  1. 中山大学 中国公共管理研究中心/政治与公共事务管理学院,广东 广州 510275
  • 收稿日期:2023-10-17 出版日期:2024-01-25 发布日期:2024-02-26
  • 通讯作者: 汪彦(1998—),女,中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院博士研究生,研究方向:行为治理。
  • 作者简介:张书维(1984—),男,中山大学中国公共管理研究中心行为公共管理研究所所长,中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院教授、博士生导师,研究方向:行为公共管理、行为公共政策、行为治理;秦枭童(1996—),男,中山大学政治与公共事务管理学院博士研究生,研究方向:行为治理。
  • 基金资助:
    国家社会科学基金项目“政党治理数字化的类型学与中国模式研究”(23BZZ014)

Long Journey Ahead with Obstacles “yields to” Those Who “act and pursue”: the Way of Behavioral Governance in Public Affairs

ZHANG Shu-wei, WANG Yan, QIN Xiao-tong   

  1. School of Government/Center for Chinese Public Administration Research, Sun Yet-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
  • Received:2023-10-17 Online:2024-01-25 Published:2024-02-26

PDF (PC)

132

摘要： 行为治理是将行为科学洞见应用于公共治理场域而发展出的治理新模式。行为治理关注政府、组织和公民三类核心治理主体在互动过程中的心理、认知及行为规律,并分析治理主体互动关系的元素特征如何影响主体行为,同时更全面地考虑环境因素对微观行为的影响,以及个体行为汇聚为集体行动并产生更广泛治理结果的机制。行为治理呼吁治理工具的组合运用,强调“助推”和“助力”两大行为工具的内部融通,重视行为工具与传统工具的外部联动。行为治理脱胎于行为公共管理和行为公共政策,更强调各主体间的互动性,更重视环境的复杂性,更主张治理工具在内外部及各层次上的融会贯通。行为治理紧扣治理主体的行为要素,自下而上、从微观到宏观,丰富国家治理现代化的思想库和工具箱。

关键词: 行为治理, 公共管理, 公共政策, 治理现代化, 环境作用, 工具组合

Abstract: Behavioral governance is a new model developed by applying behavioral scientific insights to the field of public governance. Behavioral governance focuses on the psychological, cognitive, and behavioral patterns of the three core governance entities, namely the government, organizations, and citizens in the interaction. It analyzes how the element characteristics of the interaction between governance entities affect their behavior. Meanwhile it more comprehensively considers the impact of environmental factors on micro behavior, as well as the mechanism by which individual behavior converges into collective action and produces broader governance outcomes. Behavioral governance calls for the combination and application of governance tools, emphasizes the internal integration of “boosting” and “assisting”, the two major behavioral tools, and stresses the external linkage between behavioral tools and traditional tools. Behavioral governance, as it originates from behavioral public management and behavioral public policies, gives more stress on the interaction between various subjects, focuses more on the complexity of the environment, and advocates the integration of governance tools at internal, external, and various levels. Behavioral governance closely follows the behavioral elements of the governing body, and enriches the think tank and toolbox of modernization of national governance from bottom to top, and micro to macro.

Key words: behavioral public management, behavioral public policy, multiple subjects, environmental effects, tool combination

中图分类号:  D035

[1] Gofen A, Moseley A, Thomann E, et al. Behavioural governance in the policy process: introduction to the special issue[J]. Journal of European Public Policy, 2021, 28(5): 633-657.
[2] Grimmelikhuijsen S, Jilke S, Olsen A L, et al. Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology[J]. Public Administration Review, 2017, 77(1): 45-56.
[3] Oliver A. The origins of behavioural public policy [M]. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[4] Straßheim H. The rise and spread of behavioral public policy: an opportunity for critical research and self-reflection[J]. International Review of Public Policy, 2020, 2(1): 115-128.
[5] 张书维, 李纾. 行为公共管理学探新:内容、方法与趋势[J]. 公共行政评论, 2018(1): 7-36.
[6] 张书维, 郭晟豪. 行为公共管理研究中的公共组织行为问题:最新代表性研究及探讨[J]. 公共管理评论, 2021(3): 160-184.
[7] Galizzi M M. What is really behavioral in behavioral health policy? and does it work?[J]. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 2014, 36(1): 25-60.
[8] Bonini N, Hadjichristidis C, Graffeo M. Green nudging[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2018, 50(8): 814-826.
[9] Van Bavel J J V, Baicker K, Boggio P S, et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2020, 4(5): 460-471.
[10] Weijers R J, De Koning B B, Paas F. Nudging in education: from theory towards guidelines for successful implementation[J]. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 2020, 36(3): 883-902.
[11] Tummers L. Nudge in the news: ethics, effects, and support of nudges[J]. Public Administration Review, 2022,83(3):1015-1036.
[12] 何贵兵, 李纾, 梁竹苑. 以小拨大:行为决策助推社会发展[J]. 心理学报, 2022(8): 803-813.
[13] 张书维, 王宇, 周蕾. 行为公共政策视角下的助推与助力:殊途同归[J]. 中国公共政策评论, 2018(2): 20-38.
[14] 程杞国. 从管理到治理:观念、逻辑、方法[J]. 南京社会科学, 2001(9): 47-50.
[15] Straßheim H, Korinek R L. Behavioural governance in Europe [C]//Wilsdon J, Doubleday R. Future directions for scientific advice in Europe. Centre for Science and Policy, 2015: 155-162.
[16] Straßheim H, Korinek R L. Cultivating ‘nudge’: behavioural governance in the UK [C]//Voβ J-P, Freeman R. Knowing governance: the epistemic construction of political order. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016: 107-126.
[17] 张书维. 基层年轻干部须警惕“心态老化”[J]. 人民论坛, 2023(2): 46-49.
[18] 张书维, 刘星. 行为公共管理研究的主题、方法与反思——基于2016—2021年SSCI/CSSCI来源期刊及JBPA相关文献的分析[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2022(5): 37-62.
[19] Rhodes R A W. The new governance: governing without government[J]. Political studies, 1996(4): 652-667.
[20] Bovaird T, Löffler E. Moving from excellence models of local service delivery to benchmarking ‘good local governance’[J]. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 2002, 68(1): 9-24.
[21] 竺乾威. 理解公共行政的新维度:政府与社会的互动[J]. 中国行政管理, 2020(3): 45-51.
[22] Bovaird T, Löffler E. Understanding public management and governance [C]//Bovaird T, Löffler E. Public Management and Governance. Routledge, 2015: 32-51.
[23] 俞可平. 治理和善治:一种新的政治分析框架[J]. 南京社会科学, 2001(9): 40-44.
[24] Paanakker H, s A, Huberts L. Quality of governance: values and violations [C]//Paanakker H, s A, Huberts L. Quality of governance: values and violations. Springer, 2020: 3-24.
[25] Drechsler W. Governance, good governance, and government: the case for Estonian administrative capacity[J]. Trames Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 2004, 8(4): 388-396.
[26] Hallsworth M. A manifesto for applying behavioural science[J]. Nature Human Behaviour, 2023, 7(3): 310-322.
[27] Bodolica V, Spraggon M. Behavioral governance and self-conscious emotions: unveiling governance implications of authentic and hubristic pride[J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2010, 100(3): 535-550.
[28] Postma T, Bood R P. Behavioral governance: the role of scenario thinking in dealing with strategic uncertainty [C]//Das T K. The practices of behavioral strategy. Information Age Publishing, 2015: 41-75.
[29] Simcik Arese N. Seeing like a city-state: behavioural planning and governance in Egypt's first affordable gated community[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2018, 42(3): 461-482.
[30] Risse T. Governance configurations in areas of limited statehood: actors, modes, institutions, and resources [C]//Kilper T, Perl S, Pfeifer F. SFB-governance working paper series. German Research Foundation, 2012.
[31] Knill C, Lehmkuhl D. Private actors and the state: internationalization and changing patterns of governance[J]. Governance, 2002, 15(1): 41-63.
[32] Baumgartner F R, Green-Pedersen C, Jones B D. Comparative studies of policy agendas[J]. Journal of European Public Policy, 2006, 13(7): 959-974.
[33] 李文钊. 向行为公共政策理论跨越——间断—均衡理论的演进逻辑和趋势[J]. 江苏行政学院学报, 2018, (1): 82-91.
[34] Sevenans J, Walgrave S, Joanna Epping G. How political elites process information from the news: the cognitive mechanisms behind behavioral political agenda-setting effects[J]. Political Communication, 2016, 33(4): 605-627.
[35] Jones B D. Behavioral rationality as a foundation for public policy studies[J]. Cognitive Systems Research, 2017, 43: 63-75.
[36] Peterson H L, Jones M D. Making sense of complexity: the narrative policy framework and agenda setting [C]//Zahariadis N. Handbook of public policy agenda setting. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016: 106-131.
[37] Baekgaard M, Belle N, Serritzlew S, et al. Performance information in politics: how framing, format, and rhetoric matter to politicians’ preferences[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2019, 2(2):1-12.
[38] Persson E, Tinghög G. Opportunity cost neglect in public policy[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2020, 170: 301-312.
[39] Banko-Ferran D, Bengali L, Bhanot S. Bringing “behavioral” fully into behavioral public administration[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2023, 6: 1-8.
[40] Vis B. Heuristics and political elites’ judgment and decision-making[J]. Political Studies Review, 2018, 17(1): 41-52.
[41] Moseley A, Thomann E. A behavioural model of heuristics and biases in frontline policy implementation[J]. Policy & Politics, 2021, 49(1): 49-67.
[42] Dewies M, Merkelbach I, Van Der Scheer W K, et al. Do you consider human behaviour to be stable or malleable? your answer can influence your preferences for policy instruments[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2022, 5(1):1-9.
[43] Moynihan D P, Lavertu S. Cognitive biases in governing: technology preferences in election administration[J]. Public Administration Review, 2012, 72(1): 68-77.
[44] Dörrenbächer N. Europe at the frontline: analysing street-level motivations for the use of European Union migration law[J]. Journal of European Public Policy, 2017, 24(9): 1328-1347.
[45] 果佳, 周磊, 郭跃. 公众交通合规意愿的政策干预效果:基于北京市行人违章治理的分析[J]. 公共行政评论, 2021(4): 105-118.
[46] Banerjee S, Savani M, Shreedhar G. Public support for ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ public policies: review of the evidence[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2021, 4(2): 1-24.
[47] 关爽, 郁建兴, 孙柏瑛. 让公民治理运转起来——重新审视《公民治理:引领21世纪的美国社区》[J]. 公共行政评论, 2014(5): 173-183.
[48] 王寅, 曾莉, 吴慧媛. 政府能力、个体特征与政民互动对公民满意度的影响[J]. 云南行政学院学报, 2021(3): 162-172.
[49] Kang S, Van Ryzin G G. Coproduction and trust in government: evidence from survey experiments[J]. Public Management Review, 2019, 21(11): 1646-1664.
[50] 张书维. 政府信任度的影响因素与提升路径研究[J]. 国家治理, 2016(34): 43-48.
[51] Riccucci N M, Van Ryzin G G, Lavena C F. Representative bureaucracy in policing: does it increase perceived legitimacy?[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2014, 24(3): 537-551.
[52] 吴玄娜. 程序公正与权威信任:公共政策可接受性机制[J]. 心理科学进展, 2016(8): 1147-1158.
[53] Porumbescu G A, Piotrowski S J, Mabillard V. Performance information, racial bias, and citizen evaluations of government: evidence from two studies[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2021, 31(3): 523-541.
[54] 朱春奎, 吴昭洋, 徐菁媛. 公共服务何以影响居民幸福?——基于“收入—幸福”分析框架的实证检验[J]. 公共管理与政策评论, 2022(2): 15-34.
[55] 方学梅, 周青林, 陈松. 政民互动视角下繁文缛节对公民参与的影响——公民满意度的中介作用和政府信任的调节作用[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2022(5): 77-96.
[56] Wang Y, Zhang J. Promoting citizens’ willingness to participate in coproduction in public service through information frames[J]. Public Administration, 2023.
[57] Zhang S, Wang Y, Wei Y. Follow or not? descriptive norms and public health compliance: mediating role of risk perception and moderating effect of behavioral visibility[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, 13: 1040218.
[58] Baggio M, Ciriolo E, Marandola G, et al. The evolution of behaviourally informed policy-making in the EU[J]. Journal of European Public Policy, 2021, 28(5): 658-676.
[59] Banerjee S, John P. Nudge plus: incorporating reflection into behavioral public policy[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2021: 1-16.
[60] Banerjee S, John P. Nudge+: putting citizens at the heart of behavioural public policy [C]//Reich L, Sunstein C. Research handbook on nudges and society. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023.
[61] John P. Nudge plus and how to get there [C]//John P. How far to nudge? assessing behavioural public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2018: 122-141.
[62] John P, Stoker G. Rethinking the role of experts and expertise in behavioural public policy[J]. Policy & Politics, 2019, 47(2): 209-225.
[63] Özdemiray S M. Rethinking the role of nudge in public policy [M]. Citizen-Centered public policy making in Turkey. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023: 61-78.
[64] Reijula S, Hertwig R. Self-nudging and the citizen choice architect[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2020, 6(1): 119-149.
[65] Torma G, Aschemann-Witzel J, Thøgersen J. I nudge myself: exploring ‘self-nudging’ strategies to drive sustainable consumption behaviour[J]. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2017, 42(1): 141-154.
[66] Van Rookhuijzen M, De Vet E, Gort G, et al. When nudgees become nudgers: exploring the use of self-nudging to promote fruit intake[J]. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 2023,15(4):1714-1732.
[67] 李燕, 陈文进, 张书维. 基于元分析的助推效果研究:“认知路径”与“透明性”的二维视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2023(12): 1-20.
[68] Bovens L. The ethics of nudge [C]//Grüne-Yanoff T, Hansson S O. Preference change: approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Springer, 2009: 207-219.
[69] Paunov Y, Wänke M, Vogel T. Ethical defaults: which transparency components can increase the effectiveness of default nudges?[J]. Social Influence, 2019, 14(3-4): 104-116.
[70] Bang H M, Shu S B, Weber E U. The role of perceived effectiveness on the acceptability of choice architecture[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2018, 4(1): 50-70.
[71] Bruns H, Kantorowicz-Reznichenko E, Klementc K, et al. Can nudges be transparent and yet effective?[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2018, 65: 41-59.
[72] Loewenstein G, Bryce C, Hagmann D, et al. Warning: you are about to be nudged[J]. Behavioral science & policy, 2015, 1(1): 35-42.
[73] Sunstein C R. The ethics of nudging[J]. Yale Journal on Regulation, 2015, 32(2): 413-450.
[74] 宋道雷. 社会治理的“中间领域”:以社会组织为考察对象[J]. 社会科学, 2020(6): 58-70.
[75] Sanders M, Snijders V, Hallsworth M. Behavioural science and policy: where are we now and where are we going?[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2018, 2(2): 144-167.
[76] Stephan U, Patterson M, Kelly C. Business-driven social change: a systematic review of the evidence [M/OL]. Network for Business Sustainability,2023.
[77] Rosenkranz S, Vringer K, Dirkmaat T, et al. Using behavioral insights to make firms more energy efficient: a field experiment on the effects of improved communication[J]. Energy Policy, 2017, 108: 184-193.
[78] Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Hernandez M, et al. Casting a wider tax net: experimental evidence from Costa Rica[J]. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2019, 11(3): 55-87.
[79] Holz J E, List J A, Zentner A, et al. The $100 million nudge: increasing tax compliance of businesses and the self-employed using a natural field experiment[J]. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020.
[80] Tilleard R, Bremner G, Middleton T, et al. Encouraging firms to adopt beneficial new behaviors: lessons from a large-scale cluster-randomized field experiment[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2021, 4(1):1-13.
[81] Alberto A. The future of behavioural change: balancing public nudging vs private nudging [Z]. AIM Brand Lecture series, 2016.
[82] He G, Pan Y, Park A, et al. Reducing single-use cutlery with green nudges: evidence from China’s food-delivery industry[J]. Science, 2023, 381(6662):1-9.
[83] Li H. Information and Donations: a Study of nonprofit online communication [M]. Rutgers University, 2017.
[84] Long D, Liu H, Nayga R M. Polarization in environmental donations: application to deforestation-prevention donation[J]. Land Economics, 2023, 99(1): 122-140.
[85] Schmidt A T. The power to nudge[J]. American Political Science Review, 2017, 111(2): 404-417.
[86] 付春野, 吕小康, 张雅睿. 公共政策中助推策略的伦理争议[J]. 公共行政评论, 2022(3): 179-195.
[87] 汪锦军, 张长东. 纵向横向网络中的社会组织与政府互动机制——基于行业协会行为策略的多案例比较研究[J]. 公共行政评论, 2014(5): 88-108.
[88] Herd P, Moynihan D P. Administrative burden: policymaking by other means [M]. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.
[89] Eckhard S, Friedrich L, Hautli-Janisz A, et al. A taxonomy of administrative language in public service encounters[J]. International Public Management Journal, 2022: 1-16.
[90] Eckhard S, Friedrich L. Linguistic features of public service encounters: how spoken administrative language affects citizen satisfaction[J]. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2022.
[91] Holzinger C. ‘We don’t worry that much about language’: street-level bureaucracy in the context of linguistic diversity[J]. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2019, 46(9): 1792-1808.
[92] Scheibelhofer E, Holzinger C, Draxl A-K. Linguistic diversity as a challenge for street-level bureaucrats in a monolingually-oriented organisation[J]. Social Inclusion, 2021, 9(1): 24-34.
[93] 王浦劬, 李锋. 我国公务员信任公民的影响要素实证分析[J]. 中共中央党校学报, 2016(1): 28-36.
[94] 张权. 政府公信力变化的微观考察——一个典型案例研究[J]. 公共管理与政策评论, 2022(4): 52-67.
[95] 王丽丽, 马亮. 政民接触对公务员合作生产态度的影响机制——公务员对公民信任的中介模型[J]. 公共行政评论, 2023(2): 25-43.
[96] Jiang H, Tang X. Effects of local government social media use on citizen compliance during a crisis: evidence from the COVID-19 crisis in China[J]. Public Administration, 2022, 101(3): 843-864.
[97] 戴长征, 鲍静. 数字政府治理——基于社会形态演变进程的考察[J]. 中国行政管理, 2017(9): 21-27.
[98] 刘远亮. 当代中国政府与民众关系变化中的网络政治传播因素分析[J]. 电子政务, 2016(3): 70-77.
[99] Hammerschmid G, Palaric E, Rackwitz M, et al. A shift in paradigm? collaborative public administration in the context of national digitalization strategies[J]. Governance, 2023:1-20.
[100] Ewert B, Loer K. Advancing behavioural public policies: in pursuit of a more comprehensive concept[J]. Policy & Politics, 2021, 49(1): 25-47.
[101] Moynihan D. A great schism approaching? towards a micro and macro public administration[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2018, 1(1):1-8.
[102] Huising R, Silbey S S. From nudge to culture and back again: coalface governance in the regulated organization[J]. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 2018, 14(1): 91-114.
[103] Mackay K, Quigley M. Exacerbating inequalities? health policy and the behavioural sciences[J]. Health Care Analysis, 2018, 26(4): 380-397.
[104] Feitsma J, Whitehead M. Bounded interdisciplinarity: critical interdisciplinary perspectives on context and evidence in behavioural public policies[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2019, 6(3): 358-384.
[105] Bertelli A M, Riccucci N M, Canterelli P, et al, The (missing?) role of institutions in behavioral public administration: a roundtable discourse[J]. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2022, 5(1): 1-25.
[106] Williams M J. External validity and policy adaptation: from impact evaluation to policy design[J]. The World Bank Research Observer, 2020, 35(2): 158-191.
[107] Ewert B, Loer K, Thomann E. Beyond nudge: advancing the state-of-the-art of behavioural public policy and administration[J]. Policy & Politics, 2021, 49(1): 3-23.
[108] 张书维. 专栏导语:生育政策与生育意愿——从宏观到微观[J]. 公共行政评论, 2022, 15(5): 1-3.
[109] George B. Behavioral public strategy[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2023, 7(2): 442-456.
[110] 燕继荣. 社会变迁与社会治理——社会治理的理论解释[J]. 北京大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2017(5): 69-77.
[111] 王学军. 专栏导语:从行为视角深化中国情境下的合作生产研究[J]. 公共行政评论, 2023(2): 1-3.
[112] Ewert B. Moving beyond the obsession with nudging individual behaviour: towards a broader understanding of behavioural public policy[J]. Public Policy and Administration, 2019, 35(3): 337-360.
[113] Asano Y M, Kolb J J, Heitzig J, et al. Emergent inequality and business cycles in a simple behavioral macroeconomic model[J]. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021, 118(27): e2025721118.
[114] 臧雷振, 任婧楠. 从实质性政策工具到程序性政策工具:国家治理的工具选择[J]. 行政论坛, 2023(2): 85-93.
[115] Thaler R H, Sunstein C R. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness [M]. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.
[116] Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow [M]. London: Penguin, 2011.
[117] Mols F, Haslam S A, Jetten J, et al. Why a nudge is not enough: a social identity critique of governance by stealth[J]. European Journal of Political Research, 2015, 54(1): 81-98.
[118] 张书维, 梁歆佚, 岳经纶. 行为社会政策:“助推”公共福利的实践与探索[J]. 心理科学进展, 2019(3): 429-438.
[119] Dolan P, Hallsworth M, Halpern D, et al. Influencing behaviour: the mindspace way[J]. Journal of Economic Psychology, 2012, 33(1): 264-277.
[120] Belle N, Cantarelli P. Nudging public employees through descriptive social norms in healthcare organizations[J]. Public Administration Review, 2021, 81(4): 589-598.
[121] 王晓庄, 安晓镜, 骆皓爽, 等. 锚定效应助推国民身心健康:两个现场实验[J]. 心理学报, 2018(8): 848-857.
[122] 胡赛全, 刘展余, 雷玉琼, 等. 公众对助推型减碳政策的偏好研究:基于联合实验与机器学习方法[J]. 公共行政评论, 2022(3): 40-61.
[123] 张书维, 胡鑫雅, 王宇. 助推生育意愿的默认选项效应研究:以“二孩”为支点[J]. 公共行政评论, 2022(5): 4-26.
[124] 张书维, 谭小慧, 梁歆佚, 等. “助推”生育政策:信息框架影响生育意愿的调查实验研究[J]. 公共管理与政策评论, 2021(1): 42-54.
[125] Grüne-Yanoff T, Hertwig R. Nudge versus boost: how coherent are policy and theory?[J]. Minds and Machines, 2016, 26(1-2): 149-183.
[126] Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W. Heuristic decision making[J]. Annual Review of Psychology, 2011, 62(1): 451-482.
[127] Hertwig R, Grüne-Yanoff T. Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions[J]. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2017, 12(6): 973-986.
[128] Ortloff A-M, Zimmerman S, Elsweiler D, et al. The effect of nudges and boosts on browsing privacy in a naturalistic environment [D]. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval, 2021: 63-73.
[129] Van Roekel H, Reinhard J, Grimmelikhuijsen S. Improving hand hygiene in hospitals: comparing the effect of a nudge and a boost on protocol compliance[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2021, 6(1): 52-74.
[130] Timmons S, Robertson D A, Lunn P. Combining nudges and boosts to increase precautionary saving: a large-scale field experiment[J]. Economic & Social Research Institute, 2022:1-43.
[131] Krawiec J M, Piaskowska O M, Piesiewicz P F, et al. Tools for public health policy: nudges and boosts as active support of the law in special situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic[J]. Globalization and Health, 2021, 17(1): 1-14.
[132] 李思娜, 陈榆, 陈艳舒, 等. 助推与助力理论指导促进健康行为的实践与思考[J]. 中国健康教育, 2021(10): 956-959.
[133] Alm J, Burgstaller L, Domi A, et al. Nudges, boosts, and sludge: using new behavioral approaches to improve tax compliance[J/OL]. Economies, 2023, 11(9):223.http://doi.org/10.3390/economies11090223.
[134] Bradt J. Comparing the effects of behaviorally informed interventions on flood insurance demand: an experimental analysis of ‘boosts’ and ‘nudges’[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2022, 6(3): 485-515.
[135] Hermann E. Psychological targeting: nudge or boost to foster mindful and sustainable consumption?[J]. Ai & Society, 2023, 38(2): 961-962.
[136] Hertwig R. When to consider boosting: some rules for policy-makers[J]. Behavioural Public Policy, 2017, 1(2): 143-161.
[137] Mills S, Whittle R. Seeing the nudge from the trees: the 4S framework for evaluating nudges[J/OL]. Public Administration, 2023. https://doi.org/10.111/padm.12941.
[138] Feitsma J N P. The behavioural state: critical observations on technocracy and psychocracy[J]. Policy Sciences, 2018, 51(3): 387-410.
[139] Blomqvist P. Soft and hard governing tools [C]//Ansell C, Torfing J. Handbook on theories of governance. edward elgar publishing, 2022: 285-296.
[140] Vedung E. Policy instruments: typologies and theories [C]//Bemelmans-Videc M L, Rist R C, Vedung E. Carrots, sticks and sermons. Transaction Publishers, 1998: 21-58.
[141] Michalek G, Meran G, Schwarze R, et al. Nudging as a new “soft” policy tool: an assessment of the definitional scope of nudges, practical implementation possibilities and their effectiveness[J/OL]. Economics Discussion Papers, NO.2016-18.http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2016-18.
[142] 朱德米, 李兵华. 行为科学与公共政策:对政策有效性的追求[J]. 中国行政管理, 2018(8): 59-64.
[143] Engelen B, Thomas A, Archer A, et al. Exemplars and nudges: combining two strategies for moral education[J]. Journal of Moral Education, 2018, 47(3): 346-365.
[144] 赵德余. 新冠疫情防控政策工具的选择与比较:从自愿型到强制型[J]. 中国公共政策评论, 2021(1): 59-78.
[145] 吴晓林, 邓聪慧. 城市垃圾分类何以成功?——来自台北市的案例研究[J]. 中国地质大学学报(社会科学版), 2017(6): 117-126.
[146] 张莉萍, 张中华. 城市生活垃圾源头分类中居民集体行动的困境及克服[J]. 武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016(6): 50-56.
[147] 李燕, 耿屿, 苏一丹. 控制错觉、执法风格与公民政策遵从——基于“遛狗牵绳”政策情境的实验研究[J]. 中国行政管理, 2022(8): 101-111.
[148] Loer K. The enzymatic effect of behavioural sciences: what about policymakers’ expectations [C]//Straßheim H, Beck S. Handbook of behavioural change and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019: 180-194.
[149] Osborne S. The new public governance? emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance [M]. London: Routledge, 2010.
[150] Torfing J, Triantafillou P. What’s in a name? grasping New Public Governance as a political-administrative system[J]. International Review of Public Administration, 2013, 18(2): 9-25.
[151] 谭英俊. 柔性治理:21世纪政府治道变革的逻辑选择与发展趋向[J]. 理论探讨, 2014(3): 150-153.
[152] 张紧跟. 从行政赋权到法律赋权:参与式治理创新及其调适[J]. 四川大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016(6): 20-29.
[153] 郑杭生, 黄家亮. 论我国社区治理的双重困境与创新之维——基于北京市社区管理体制改革实践的分析[J]. 东岳论丛, 2012(1): 23-29.
[1] 徐国冲, 夏瑜, 刘岩松. “以弱协强”何以成功？——基于“程序—认知”框架的案例研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 32-49.
[2] 李凤, 吕德文. 混合型村级治理的现代建构——基于粤北溪村的个案研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2023, 59(6): 19-28.
[3] 于文轩, 马亮, 王佃利, 韩志明, 谢新水, 叶林, 文宏. “新一代人工智能技术ChatGPT的应用与规制”笔谈[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2023, 59(2): 28-53.
[4] 傅承哲, 梁倩盈, 卢泳莉. 乡村振兴中的大学生创业政策:供给内容、实现机制与行为效应——基于行为公共政策的视角[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(5): 62-78.
[5] 李文彬, 陈晓绚. 公共管理实验法运用与反思:以公民满意度为例李文彬,陈晓绚[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(5): 79-94.
[6] 潘懋元, 贺祖斌. 高等教育普及化背景下的大学治理——访著名教育家潘懋元先生[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(5): 120-128.
[7] 徐国冲. 食品安全合作监管如何演进:基于事件系统理论的分析[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(4): 26-38.
[8] 王刚, 吴向楠. 重心下移的组织重塑:城市基层治理创新的一个理论概括——以Q市城阳区“吹哨报到联包”改革为例[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(4): 54-67.
[9] 刘志鹏. 跨区域政府间合作何以可能?——基于绩效目标差异背景下食品安全监管的分析[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(3): 28-39.
[10] 马亮. 四位一体的国家治理——制度优势何以转化为治理效能？[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(1): 1-12.
[11] 王炳权, 彭冲. 形式主义的组织学考察[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2021, 57(1): 136-147.
[12] 贺东航, 贾秀飞. 作为中国特色学术话语的“政治势能”——贺东航教授访谈录[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2020, 56(4): 10-18.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 董慧, 杜晓依. 中国式现代化:活力与秩序的辩证统一[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 1 -10 .
[2] 陈家建, 洪君宝. 社会治理的话语与地方实践:基于“模糊政策”的概念解释[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 11 -20 .
[3] 臧雷振, 张冰倩, 刘超. 包容性增长:技术进步推动共同富裕的条件机制   ——来自全球宏观面板数据的证据[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 21 -31 .
[4] 徐国冲, 夏瑜, 刘岩松. “以弱协强”何以成功？——基于“程序—认知”框架的案例研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 32 -49 .
[5] 赵聚军, 庞尚尚. 社会安全治理现代化视域下基层矛盾化解机制的类型学考察与路径探赜[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 69 -82 .
[6] 刘蕾, 张新亚. 人工智能依赖对创造力的影响与未来教育发展路径的省思[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 83 -91 .
[7] 吴忭, 陈思思. 智慧教育环境中促进教与学的可视化学习分析[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 92 -103 .
[8] 马卫红, 苏寻. 企业社会责任的“责任”究竟是什么[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 104 -116 .
[9] 韦政伟, 高亚林, 杨川. 营商环境对企业创新的影响——基于门槛模型的研究[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 117 -129 .
[10] 吴大顺. 乐府诗的文本传播与汉魏五言诗的体式建构[J]. 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）, 2024, 60(1): 130 -141 .
版权所有 © 广西师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）编辑部
地址：广西桂林市三里店育才路15号　邮编：541004
电话：0773-5857325　E-mail: xbgj@mailbox.gxnu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发