ABSTRACT

Nudge and co-design are gaining popularity as innovative approaches to solving similar policy problems. Nudge is an approach to public policy that changes the context in which decisions are presented to citizens in order to encourage a particular choice. Co-design uses creative and participatory methods to engage citizens, stakeholders and officials in an iterative process to respond to shared problems. Both nudge and co-design supposedly achieve more effective outcomes, address big societal problems, and, in contrast to traditional policy approaches, consider humans’ actual behaviour in a real-world context. In practice, we see them emerging and even merging together, despite significant tensions and contradictions between them. We critically examine the use of the approaches as policy instruments and consider the instrument constituencies that support them. By comparing and contrasting the two concepts in scholarship for the first time, the article highlights the assumptions underpinning the use of both nudge and co-design, arguing that each approach has its own underlying philosophy and claims on knowledge and authority. We reflect on the implications for policy effectiveness, political trust, and subsequently on government legitimacy.

摘要

微调和协同设计作为解决类似政策问题的创新方法越来越受欢迎。Nudge 是一种公共政策方法，它改变了将决策呈现给公民的环境，以鼓励特定的选择。协同设计使用创造性和参与性的方法让公民、利益相关者和官员参与一个迭代过程，以应对共同的问题。轻推和协同设计都可以实现更有效的结果，解决重大的社会问题，并且与传统的政策方法相比，考虑人类在现实世界中的实际行为。在实践中，我们看到它们出现甚至融合在一起，尽管它们之间存在重大的紧张和矛盾。我们批判性地研究这些方法作为政策工具的使用，并考虑支持它们的工具支持者。通过首次在学术上比较和对比这两个概念，文章强调了支持使用助推和协同设计的假设，认为每种方法都有自己的基本哲学和对知识和权威的要求。我们思考了对政策有效性、政治信任以及随后对政府合法性的影响。