Nudging the Neoliberal Agenda: Administrative Opportunities in the Deregulated State

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13045
• Author: David Oliver Kasdan
• Date: 01 May 2019
• Published date: 01 May 2019

Nudging the Neoliberal Agenda: Administrative Opportunities in the Deregulated State 439

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 79, Iss. 3, pp. 439–442. © 2019 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13045.

David Oliver Kasdan

Sungkyunkwan University

Nudging the Neoliberal Agenda: Administrative

Opportunities in the Deregulated State

Abstract: The current climate of neoliberalism in the executive branch is attended by active deregulation and distrust

of the administrative state. As protections are rolled back, there is concern that individuals may be susceptible to

information asymmetries that will influence their decision making, leading to detrimental outcomes for both their own

and the general welfare. Behavioral public administration—the bureaucratic conception of “nudge” theory—offers

ways to counter the pitfalls that come with greater freedom of choice, as promoted by the neoliberal agenda. Public

administrators may employ alternative mechanisms, such as choice architecture, to help people make better decisions

in the absence of explicitly protective regulations. After laying out the argument for a behavioral approach, this article

analyzes several neoliberal agenda issues with potential nudge responses for practical implementation, as well as a

justifiable call for action to protect the public welfare in the absence of policy guidance.

“It is important that for every one new regulation

issued, at least two prior regulations be identified

for elimination.”

—Executive Order 13771, signed by President

Donald Trump on January 30, 2017

On several occasions in the twenty-first

century, Republicans have championed

the neoliberal idea that citizens should be

allowed more choice. This is sometimes footnoted

with a proposal to eliminate industry regulations or

curtail policies that were purportedly designed to

protect consumers. Regulations certainly cut both

ways: telling people what they cannot do also liberates

them to do what is not proscribed. Assuming that

the intentions are noble and the true objective of

deregulation is to allow the free market to operate

efficiently, then neoliberalism certainly adheres to

the ethical values of government as promoted by

Sunstein (2016): welfare, autonomy, dignity, and

self-government. Indeed, it promotes a thoroughly

democratic notion in the vein of Hofstadter’s

American Political Tradition of “self-help, free

enterprise, competition, and beneficent cupidity”

(1948, vii). Yet it is a matter of perspective as to

whether a policy is limiting freedom or protecting

welfare; parties at every node on the spectrum have

exerted considerable efforts to frame the same issue in

a way that appeals to their constituents.

In the absence of regulation, people may turn to their

government for guidance in their decisions with the

faith that we are here to help. The current climate

of ever more robust and sophisticated options for

conducting finances, maintaining privacy, sustaining

resources, and everything in between calls for more

assistance by public administration. This can take

many forms, from ad hoc advice by your friendly

street-level bureaucrat to institutionalized mechanisms

that recognize the variance of behavior in context. The

latter kind of help—what is becoming widely known

as “behavioral insights” or “nudges”—is the focus of

this article.

There is no need to advocate the value of behavioral

insights for public administration now. This journal

(e.g., Battaglio et al. 2018) and others have dedicated

hundreds of pages to the subject in the past few years

(e.g., a special symposium of Public Administration,

vol. 95, no. 4) and made the clear case that “nudging”

is a valid tactic for policy design and implementation.

There is also evidence that behavioral biases are

demonstrated by bureaucrats (Bellé, Cantarelli, and

Belardinelli 2018), suggesting that nudges have a

function both within and by public administration.

Yet as the idea of “behavioral public administration”

(BPA) (Grimmelikhuijsen et al. 2016; Kasdan 2018)

has been introduced in a politically neutral context,

we cannot ignore that the current administrative

state is under siege (Heidari-Robinson 2017) and

that bureaucrats may need to employ alternative

approaches of this sort to work around executive

blockades in their duty to the public welfare.

This article proceeds with the premises that (1)

BPA is a legitimate approach to policy design and

David Oliver Kasdan is on the faculty

of the Department of Public Administration,

Graduate School of Governance

Sungkyunkwan University, South Korea.

E-mail: dokasdan@gmail.com

Viewpoint

Stephen E. Condrey

and Tonya Neaves,

Associate Editors