No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The psychology and policy of overcoming economic inequality
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 August 2023
Abstract
Recent arguments claim that behavioral science has focused – to its detriment – on the individual over the system when construing behavioral interventions. In this commentary, we argue that tackling economic inequality using both framings in tandem is invaluable. By studying individuals who have overcome inequality, “positive deviants,” and the system limitations they navigate, we offer potentially greater policy solutions.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Barrientos, A. (2019). Conditional income transfers, social policy and development. In Midgley, J., Surender, R., & Alfers (Eds.), L., Handbook of social policy and development (pp. 373–392). Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785368431.00028Google Scholar
Barry, J. (2021). Real wage growth in the U.S. health workforce and the narrowing of the gender pay gap. Human Resources for Health, 19(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-021-00647-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bivens, J. (2017). Inequality is slowing US economic growth (Raising America's Pay, p. 28). Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/secular-stagnation/Google Scholar
Bonin, H., Clauss, M., Gerlach, I., Laß, I., Mancin, A. L., Nehrkorn-Ludwig, M.-A., … Sutter, K. (2013). Evaluation zentraler ehe – Und familienbezogener Leistungen in Deutschland. Retrieved from https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/gutachten/ZEW_Endbericht_Zentrale_Leistungen2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (n.d.). Economists. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm#stGoogle Scholar
Chancel, L., & Piketty, T. (2021). Global income inequality, 1820–2020: The persistence and mutation of extreme inequality. Journal of the European Economic Association, 19(6), 3025–3062. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvab047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2022). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016a). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 90, 855–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chetty, R., Stepner, M., Abraham, S., Lin, S., Scuderi, B., Turner, N., … Cutler, D. (2016b). The association between income and life expectancy in the United States, 2001–2014. JAMA, 315(16), 1750. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.4226CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, S.-W. (2022). Democracy and South Korea's lemon presidency. Asian Perspective, 46(2), 311–341. https://doi.org/10.1353/apr.2022.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamage, D. D. K., Kavetsos, G., Mallick, S., & Sevilla, A. (2020). Pay transparency initiative and gender pay gap: Evidence from research-intensive universities in the UK. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3682949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, A. (2008). Brazil's Bolsa Família: A double-edged sword?. Development and Change, 39(5), 799–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00506.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaroszewicz, A., Jachimowicz, J., Hauser, O., & Jamison, J. (2022). How effective is (more) money? Randomizing unconditional cash transfer amounts in the US. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4154000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lara Ibarra, G., Sinha, N., Fayez, R., & Jellema, J. (2019). Impact of fiscal policy on inequality and poverty in the Arab Republic of Egypt. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-8824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millán, T. M., Barham, T., Macours, K., Maluccio, J. A., & Stampini, M. (2019). Long-term impacts of conditional cash transfers: Review of the evidence. The World Bank Research Observer, 34(1), 119–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lky005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, B. K., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Hannay, J. W. (2017). Economic inequality increases risk taking. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 114(18), 4643–4648. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1616453114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggeri, K., & Folke, T. (2022). Unstandard deviation: The untapped value of positive deviance for reducing inequalities. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 711–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211017865CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruggeri, K., Panin, A., Vdovic, M., Većkalov, B., Abdul-Salaam, N., Achterberg, J., … García-Garzon, E. (2022). The globalizability of temporal discounting. Nature Human Behaviour, 6, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01392-wCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidik, S. M. (2022). How COVID has deepened inequality – In six stark graphics. Nature, 606(7915), 638–639. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01647-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sussman, A. B., & O'Brien, R. L. (2016). Knowing when to spend: Unintended financial consequences of earmarking to encourage savings. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(5), 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, R. M., Igelström, E., Purba, A. K., Shimonovich, M., Thomson, H., McCartney, G., … Katikireddi, S. V. (2022). How do income changes impact on mental health and wellbeing for working-age adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Public Health, 7(6), e515–e528. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00058-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ubfal, D. J. (2022). Facilitating the school to work transition of young women. Uruguay school to work transitions policy brief. World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099216512212214169/IDU077a67cf60ec3604df80aa0d0901654be181bGoogle Scholar
United Nations. (2020). World social report 2020: Inequality in a rapidly changing world, UN. https://doi.org/10.18356/7f5d0efc-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voorheis, J., McCarty, N., & Shor, B. (2015). Unequal incomes, ideology and gridlock: How rising inequality increases political polarization. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2649215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Women's Labour Force Participation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.government.nl/topics/gender-equality/womens-labour-force-participationGoogle Scholar
Target article
The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray
Related commentaries (33)
An inconvenient truth: Difficult problems rarely have easy solutions
Behavioral market design
Behavioral mechanism design
Behavioral public policy in practice: Misconceptions and opportunities
Behavioral winter: Disillusionment with applied behavioral science and a path to spring forward
Community-engaged research is best positioned to catalyze systemic change
Conspiracy theory
Don't throw the individual perspective out while waiting for systemic change
Expectations, opportunities, and awareness: A case for combining i- and s-frame interventions
i-Frame interventions enhance s-frame interventions
Individual-level solutions may support system-level change â if they are internalized as part of one's social identity
It's always both: Changing individuals requires changing systems and changing systems requires changing individuals
Misdiagnosing the problem of why behavioural change interventions fail
Moral psychology biases toward individual, not systemic, representations
Moving from i-frame to s-frame focus in equity, diversity, and inclusion research, practice, and policy
Nudges, regulations, and behavioral public choice
Nudging is being framed
On Skinner's pendulum: A framework for assessing s-frame hope
Optimizing behavior change through integration of individual- and system-level intervention approaches
Real systemic solutions to humanity's problems require a radical reshaping of the global political system
Structural problems require structural solutions
The influence of private interests on research in behavioural public policy: A system-level problem
The psychology and policy of overcoming economic inequality
The real cause of our complicity: The preoccupation with human weakness
The social sciences are increasingly ill-equipped to design system-level reforms
The “hearts-and-minds frame”: Not all i-frame interventions are ineffective, but education-based interventions can be particularly bad
Unpacking the nudge muddle
Use behavioral research to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of system-level policy
Using effective psychological techniques to subvert a US sociopolitical context
When nudges have societal-level impact
Why a group-level analysis is essential for effective public policy: The case for a g-frame
Wise interventions consider the person and the situation together
“More effective” is not necessarily “better”: Some ethical considerations when influencing individual behaviour
Author response
Where next for behavioral public policy?