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.

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.

Surveys show that Dutch people want more options with regard to the own pension. Can freedom of choice be combined with collective organised solidarity within supplementary pension schemes? To answer this question the article discusses the pros and cons of options of workers and employers within and between pension schemes. The theoretical and empirical consequences of choices in the Dutch supplementary pension schemes are reviewed. The neo-classical economic theory, the neo-institutional theory and behavioral economic theory are applied to supplementary pensions. In addition, lessons are learned from the experience in the Netherlands with choices within pension schemes and with choices in other areas. Only a very small minority will use the new options in the supplementary pension schemes. Unlike the neoclassical economic theory, the neo-institutional theory and behavioral economic theory recommend to extend the compulsory supplementary pension to all employed persons. The welfare gain of more choices is questionable. Lifting the mandatory participation will affect the relative success of the Dutch pension system: large numbers of insured workers and relatively cheap and a relatively high pension as a result of this supplementary pension.

Nudging is currently high on the political agenda. The idea behind nudging is that the government can gently push citizens in the ‘good’ direction by anticipating their predictable irrational behaviour. In the Dutch discussion nudging often is seen as an instrument to influence citizens more. Therefore critics fear paternalism, manipulation and technocracy. However, we could also see nudging as a replacement of more coercive instruments. Then nudges might even offer chances for a state that is withdrawing under the condition that citizens have both the opportunity and the capability to make alternative choices in practice than the choices to which nudges aim. Therefore nudges by the government should not avoid reflective and conscious thinking processes, but rather stimulate deliberation and make citizens more aware of their decisions.