This theme issue analyzes and describes the different ways in which behavioral science is currently becoming integrated in public administration as a practice as well as an academic discipline. Many governments and public organizations are currently experimenting with ways to integrate behavioral insights in public policy and public administration. This theme issue addresses the state of the art and the most salient research issues. It does so by explicitly drawing on insights from scholars from both behavioral sciences as well as from public administration. We survey the major theoretical approaches from both fields, investigate up close and personal how real world policy makers are trying to integrate behavioral knowledge in their structures, routines and policies, and we look at some examples of the most promising behaviorally informed policies. The theme issue confirms and documents the sudden rise of behaviorally informed policy making. By doing so, the theme issue allays some of the concerns voiced in the literature. But the theme issues also draws attention to some new critical questions and debates.

In this article we show that theories and methods from psychology are valuable for public administration scholars and practitioners. We advocate the development of an interdisciplinary approach entitled ‘Behavioral Public Administration’. It is not the intention that Behavioral Public Administration replaces traditional public administration research. It is an addition. We start with an analysis of the background of Behavioral Public Administration research via a historical overview of the work of Herbert Simon among others. After that, we demonstrate that Behavioral Public Administration can be valuable (a) to test public administration theories and refine these; (b) to encourage methodological sophistication of public administration research; and (c) to improve the interaction between science and practice. We hope that this article contributes to a fruitful conversation that leads to a scientific and practical research area where public administration scholars and psychologists work together and learn from each other.

Policy is often based on the assumption that people are rational decision makers. Rational decision makers search all relevant information before they make a decision. They list the pros and cons of relevant options and make a well thought choice that best fits their fixed preferences. However, research from amongst others psychology and behavioral economics shows that people decide differently and that they are irrational, emotional decision makers instead. Policy therefore fits people’s decision making strategies worse than expected. It is important for policy makers to gain insight into situational influences on decisions and the influence of the so-called choice architecture on decisions. In this article we discuss research that tested when policy was more efficient, based on behavioral insights and the view of man as an irrational, emotional being.

Policymakers are increasingly taking notice of behavioural scientific insights to improve their policies. New occupational practices, such as ‘Behavioral Insights Teams’, are emerging within government. This article explores this emergence, based on an ethnographic study on the practices of pioneering behaviour experts in Dutch central government. It argues that the work of these behavior experts is richer and more complex than standard role models, which tend to portray policymakers as direct and standalone choice architects, assume. Three key practices of behavior experts are identified: (1) choice architecture, in various forms; (2) behaviour analysis; and (3) capacity building.

The world of public administration is changing: in many countries around the globe specialized behavioral insights units are on the rise in governments. Behavioral insights teams (or nudge units) are often modelled on the famous BIT UK, although there are important national variations. These units specialize in the application of behavioral insights to the design and evaluation of public policies. This article reports on an interview with the the leader of the Behavioral Insights Team of the Ministry of Economical Affairs in the Netherlands. Four main items are discussed: (1) What projects should behavioral insights units undertake? (2) What mix of professional expertise is necessary? (3) What processes should be instituted? And (4) How should these units be positioned within existing government departments?

Technology is increasingly being used to change people’s behavior. Such persuasive technologies can be understood as a cybernetic loop: data about the individual is collected and analyzed and, via feedback mechanisms, the technology exerts influence on the behavior of the individual. In practice, we see persuasive technology in various applications. This article discusses how persuasive technology can be responsibly implemented in a collective context, on the basis of two emerging practices: smart energy meters and fitness tracking. The cases reveal the tensions between corporate, commercial and individual interests. Due to datafication, a strong reduction is taking place in terms of what the smart meter defines as sustainable behavior and the fitness trackers understand to be healthy behavior. Each step in the process of technological persuasion (collecting, analyzing, providing feedback) presents its own challenges, which urges policy makers to reflect on preconditions for responsible persuasion.

Nudging is generally considered to be an innovative and promising way to steer human behavior in the desired direction without imposing any choice. The concept of nudging is derived from insights into how humans typically make decisions and is thus potentially more effective than traditional policy measures. In recognition of this promise, many experiments with nudging in several public domains such as, for example, public health are underway. We argue that next steps need to be taken to capitalize on the promise of nudging. First, more attention needs to be paid to how theoretical insights in human decision making can be translated into effective policy measures. Second, the boundary conditions of nudge effectiveness and acceptability in terms of personal goals, motivation, and awareness need to be identified. Third, it is urgent to consider the long-term effect of nudging in terms of their potential to install new routines.

Police officers’ perception of red tape depends only to a minor extent on the actual usefulness of rules and procedures. Red tape complaints rather refer to ‘rule strain’ and inadequate functioning ICT systems. Factors that can explain police officers’ perception of red tape are (a.o.) differing opinions on what police work should be like and their procedural skills. This article suggests that a constructivist approach to analyzing red tape might in general be more adequate than an objectivist approach.

In many OECD countries, healthcare sectors have become increasingly concentrated as a result of mergers. However, detailed empirical insight into why healthcare providers merge is lacking. Also, we know little about the influence of national healthcare policies on mergers. We fill this gap in our knowledge by analyzing the results of a survey study among Dutch executives about mergers between healthcare organizations in the period from 2005 to 2012. During this period, Dutch healthcare providers faced a number of policy changes, including increased competition, more pressure from purchasers (health insurers), growing financial risks, de-institutionalization of long-term care and decentralization of healthcare services to municipalities. Our study shows that Dutch healthcare providers predominantly merge to improve the provision of healthcare services and to strengthen their market position. Efficiency and financial reasons are also important drivers of merger activity in healthcare. Motives for mergers seem to be related to changes in health policy, in particular to the increasing pressure from competitors, insurers and municipalities.

This article examines who ‘21^st century public managers’ are and which skills and roles they have to master to function effectively in the 21^st century. Based on a large scale analysis of literature and years of interaction with senior practitioners, seven key 21^st century demands for public managers are identified, each of which creates dilemmas as well as opportunities. 21^st century public managers utilize a combination of traditional and new roles, competencies, and values to turn demands into opportunities. The article concludes with implications for public administration research and education.