This is a guest post by Tom Wein.
International development seems a natural
home for behavioural science, but how much progress has been made in
integrating the two? Which challenges have been solved, and which remain?
The World Bank’s much-discussed ‘Mind,
Society and Behaviour’ report is almost six months old, and co-author Varun
Gauri came to the RSA to discuss progress so far. (You can watch the event
video here).
The integration project is, he argued, proceeding apace,
and up to a point he is right. This post, sparked by Gauri’s talk but
supplemented by further research and conversations, summarises the work done so
far in creating behavioural science structures and alliances in development,
before offering a personal view of the problems we still face in putting the
two disciplines to work.
In terms of structures, the World Bank has
so far been working with the Behavioral Insights Team, but will soon launch its
own Behavioral Innovations Lab. There are also plans for staff training
courses, and Gauri expressed his hope that behavioural science workshops would
be integrated into the planning stage of all new World Bank projects.
Though Gauri talked mainly about the Bank,
other donor organisations have made moves in similar directions, even if none
have gone quite as far. DFID’s Chief Economist Stefan Dercon has been part of
some interesting work
at the intersection between development economics and psychology, though the
wider organization has so far held back in this field. In 2013, USAID
co-sponsored with UNICEF a summit
on the evidence for behaviour change; the Agency has also funded a number of
behavioural science-inflected change programmes.
Now outside government, the Behavioural
Insights Team – the original ‘nudge unit’ – has also launched projects with
UNDP, and with the governments of Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala and Peru. MIT’s
Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab,
the Busara Center for Behavioral
Economics in Nairobi, Cameroon’s IRESCO, and the
Innovations for Poverty Action research programme
have all sought to draw on psychology to explain behaviour and improve policy
in developing countries. More directly employing behavioural science in
development projects, rather than merely advising, is the NGO Evidence Action. At the biggest
non-governmental donor of them all, Melinda Gates has spoken
of her personal enthusiasm for behavioural science, and the foundation has
funded Grand
Challenges on changing health behaviours. There are ambitions to apply
psychology to improve child nutrition,
and to boost sanitation.
For those trying to learn more, UCL’s Centre
for Behaviour Change and Harvard
Business School both offer training on the intersection between behavioural
science, development and health.
So, in my opinion, there is some good work
going on, and a mounting number of behavioural science studies have been
conducted in developing countries (many of their results were mentioned by
Gauri in his talk). It helps of course that development bodies have already
acquired the habit, over the past decade, of conducting empirical research and
reasonably rigorous evaluation; in that regard development policymaking was
already more advanced than much domestic, national decision-making.
Though Gauri and others are right to be
positive about the movement so far, some important challenges remain. Most
significantly, the replication of some findings has not abolished the problem
of applying WEIRD
results to very different contexts; groups differ widely, and cross-cultural
perspectives are still vital.
Though knowledge of the particularities of conducting research in
resource-constrained environments is spreading,
we still lack a full understanding of the adjustments necessary and their
implications for interpreting results. There is also, of course, much we still
simply don’t know. As Gauri cautions, this is a discipline of incremental
advances and diligent empiricism, not grand explanatory theories.
There has been
one notable absence from the talk, and from the wider debate. Behavioral
science’s temptation towards ‘we know best’ manipulation has been queried in
virtually every context in which it has been applied. Yet not, Gauri said, at
the World Bank. Skeptics would note that development economics has faced very
similar criticisms,
often accused of sidelining local voices in favour of intellectually arrogant
technocracy. Given that development often deals – by definition – with the
marginalized and disempowered, there is an even stronger duty than elsewhere to
ensure that behavioural science interventions are implemented with the consent
and cooperation of the participants.
Finally, what
can behavioural science do to ensure that it is fit for purpose in developing
countries? I believe its standard bearers can better engage with existing
debates about behaviour in development, including the use of Theories
of Change and efforts to leverage the power of communities.
As a discipline, it can emphasize parsimony, both in its research
questionnaires and in its models. For the latter work, the UCL team’s Behaviour Change Wheel
deserves particular acclaim; 'Capabilities, Opportunities and Motivations' is
accessible enough to be jotted down on the back of an envelope – even in an
ancient Toyota on awful dirt roads. Behavioural scientists must recognise that
development professionals have long been trying to change behaviour, and that
behavioural science is there to improve and supplement, not replace. Above all,
they can continue to ensure that behavioural science remains a discipline that
seeks not just to understand but to respond; methods and models must have the
clearest possible link from data to specific, actionable recommendations,
because development does not need more vague advice from learned thinkers.
Development is ill-defined and contested;
some would do away with the concept altogether. Behavioural science has
experienced some of the same tribulations. The marriage between these two
mongrel disciplines will only work if it focuses on ‘what works’, and is relentlessly
pragmatic in delivering results.
Tom
Wein is the founding partner of Aware International, a social enterprise offering behaviour insight and ground insight services for the public good. A behavioural science consultant and writer, he works mostly on
conflict and development. He tweets @tom_wein and his writing is collected at tomwein.tumblr.com.
