Changing behavior is often necessary to tackle societal problems. Governments can change behavior via economic incentives (such as subsidies for electric cars), bans/mandates (such as prison sentences for drug smuggling), communication (for example information campaigns) and nudges (for example, being a donor by default). However, the government should not be a manipulator that applies the latest behavioral tricks without societal support. Public administration research shows that support cannot be taken for granted. If there is no support for behavioral change, well-intended interventions can even be counterproductive. I therefore develop a model for supported behavioral change. I provide five criteria that indicate when there is supported behavioral change: if the behavioral change is both effective (1) and efficient (2), and when there is support for behavioral change among politicians (3), among implementing organizations (4), and among citizens (5).

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.

Professionals often have problems with governmental policies they have to implement. This can lead to diminished legitimacy and lower policy performance. The goal of this article is to identify the main reasons why professionals resist implementing new policies. An interdisciplinary approach is taken. From public administration literature, I use the policy alienation model, which consists of five dimensions: strategic, tactical and operational powerlessness, societal meaninglessness and client meaninglessness. These are possible reasons why professionals resist public policies (‘resistance to change’, a concept drawn from change management literature). I test these assumptions using a survey among 1,317 healthcare professionals. The results show that when professionals experience that a policy is meaningless for society or for their own clients, they show strong resistance. A lack of perceived influence is much less important in explaining resistance, although this is partly dependent on the particular profession someone belong to. The policy alienation model can help policy makers and managers to develop policies which are accepted by professionals. The article ends with practical recommendations for policy makers, managers and professionals.

In this article, we introduce the concept of 'policy alienation'. We define policy alienation as a general cognitive state of psychological disconnection from the policy program being implemented, here by a public professional who regularly interacts directly with clients. By introducing policy alienation, we want to contribute to the contemporary debate on the role of public professionals. According to some authors, professionals are experiencing increasing pressures, as managers have turned their backs to work floors and primarily opt for results, efficiency, and transparency. Conversely, other scholars note that it is questionable whether managers can be blamed for all perceived problems at work floors and in service delivery. We are able to examine these opposing claims using the policy alienation perspective, as this perspective not only takes into account the role of management, but also the influence of policy makers and politicians, as well as the claims of the more emancipated clients. After conceptualizing policy alienation, we use a case of insurance physicians and labor experts to illustrate how the concept can be researched empirically.