A nudge, as we will use the term, is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people's behavior in a predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap to avoid. Nudges are not mandates. Putting fruit at eye level counts as a nudge. Banning junk food does not. C. Sunstein & R. Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness
In Sunstein & Thaler a choice architecture is rule based, and so amenable to bureaucratic control and prediction. The aims and effects of these rules can be evaluated in ordinary ways from moral, economic, and political (etc.) perspectives. The means ("interventions") themselves are generally not rules (although opt-out clauses are really just a set of rules), but governed by rules and (applications of or informed by) our best psychological (and neuro-scientific, experimental etc.) knowledge about relatively stable framing effects and cognitive biases that can be applied to relatively heterogeneous populations.
Nudging is paternalist. But by making exit easy and avoidance cheap nudges are thought to avoid the worst moral and political problems of paternalism and (other) manipulative practices. (What counts as a significant change of economic incentives is, of course, very contestable, but we leave that aside here.) Nudges may, in fact, sometimes enhance autonomy and freedom, but the way Sunstein & Thaler define 'nudge' one may nudge also for immoral ends. Social engineering does not question the ends.
The modern administrative state is, however, not just a rule-following Weberian bureaucracy where the interaction between state and citizen is governed by the exchange of forms, information, and money. Many civil servants, including ones with very distinct expertise (physicians, psychologists, lawyers, engineers, social service workers, therapists, teachers, correction officers, etc.) enter quite intimately into the lives of lots of citizens. Increasingly (within the context of new public management), government professionals and hired consultants are given broad autonomy to meet certain targets (quotas, budget or volume numbers, etc.) within constrained parameters. (So, for example, a physician is not just a care provider, but also somebody who can control costs.) Bureaucratic management and the political class are agnostic about how the desired outcomes are met, as long as it is legal, efficient and does not generate bad media or adverse political push-back.
In order to meet their targets civil servants don't just deploy incentives (subsidies, priority, etc.) and sticks (denial of service, more administrative burden, etc.), but in their interaction with citizens (and not citizens) they may also use the insights of the best psychological (and neuro-scientific, experimental etc.) knowledge about relatively stable framing effects and cognitive biases. This is not rule governed, but part of the good judgment and skill of the autonomous of the professional/bureaucrat/consult. That is, the application of a particular affective nudge, as I understand the term, is, in part, a contextual decision.
An affective nudge alters people's behavior in a predictable way by drawing the insights of the best psychological (and neuro-scientific, experimental etc.) knowledge about relatively stable framing effects and cognitive biases without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives. To count as a mere affective nudge, the intervention must be easy and cheap . Nudges are not mandates. Nudges occur at nodes in the choice architecture, where the means of attaining a policy-goal are under-specified and where the nature of these means is left to staff within some parameters.
There are two crucial difference between a nudge and an affective nudge. First, affective nudges cannot be easily avoided and so they come closer to attempts at skilled manipulation. Often the citizen has no genuine choice but the deal with the bureaucracy/government service, etc. Second, nudges are micro phenomena--they occur in the interaction between bureaucracy and citizen (or non-citizen) where policy is implemented (and, presumably, de-politicized). It is increasingly recognized that governments aim to shape the affects of populations. Affective nudging is a central component of such shaping in our polities.
Affective nudging is increasingly ubiquitous. Some of its appearances are welcome -- politeness, empathy, friendliness, etc. --, but, in practice, the adoption of affective nudging also corrupts the ends that even very public spirited civil servants are meant to serve. But that's for another occasion.*
*I thank Isis van Gennip, Roland Friele, and Imrat Verhoeven for discussion.
Comments