Journal of Behavioral Public Administration <p><em>Journal of Behavioral Public Administration (JBPA)</em> is a peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary open access journal that focuses on behavioral and experimental research in public administration, broadly defined.&nbsp; JBPA encourages submissions of both basic scholarly and applied work conducted by academics or practitioners.</p> en-US <p>Manuscripts accepted for publicaction in JBPA are licensed under a <a href="" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License</a> (CC-BY 4.0).&nbsp; It allows all uses of published manuscripts but requires attribution.</p> <p>The CC-BY license applies also to data, code and experimental material, except when it conflicts with a prior copyright.&nbsp; Common courtesy requires informing authors of new uses of their data, as well as acknowledging the source.</p> (William G. Resh) (Yongjin Ahn) Sat, 01 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0000 OJS 60 Behavior and Burdens <p>The topic of administrative burden is relatively novel, but reflects people’s most common experiences of government: confusion about what is expected of them (learning costs), onerous processes (compliance costs), and associated emotions such as frustration (psychological cost). This symposium applies a behavioral perspective to the topic. We learn, for example, of the role of race and social constructions in people’s beliefs about burdens and their role in social programs. We are given evidence of how burdens restrict access to important public services. Perhaps most usefully, the authors engage with different interventions to find ways to reduce burdens. This ranges from changes in the physical space, to process redesign, to informational nudges. The resulting work provides a broad range of applied empirical insight that shines a light on a pressing area of study.</p> Pamela Herd, Donald Moynihan Copyright (c) 2022 Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 +0000 What is Behavioral in Policy Studies? <p><em>The recent behavioral turn among economic, administrative and other scholars has resulted in a new way of thinking about policy sciences which emphasizes behavioural insights and the need for greater research into this facet of policy-making. While most early researchers had aspired to the hallmarks of social science, with theoretical modelling on the assumption of microeconomic utility, many now have come to accept that this kind of rationality may be in short supply in practice and that more study of norms, irrationalities and collective action is required. </em><em>T</em><em>his new</em><em> focus has led to a behavioural turn in policy theory and practice. Policy design, in particular, now addresses a much wider range of policy tools and</em> <em>is no longer as </em><em>circumscribed by </em>a priori <em>adherence to utilitarian </em><em>assumptions about policy behavior as it was in the past. At the same time however, this turn presents new challenges including the irreducibility of incentives for behavior to a single utilitarian currency. We argue that the policy sciences still need a more serious consideration of non-economic incentives, if they are to move away from the traditional utilitarianism which has coloured findings in the discipline for decades. </em></p> Michael Howlett, Ching Leong Copyright (c) 2022 Thu, 14 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0000 The (Missing?) Role of Institutions in Behavioral Public Administration <p><strong><em>Editor’s note.</em></strong> In this roundtable, the contributors discuss the role of institutions (or lack thereof) in behavioral public administration (BPA). In a multidisciplinary discourse, the contributors touch on the many tensions that exist between institutional and behavioral perspectives of public administration. This roundtable is intended to spark additional discourse on the role of institutions in how they parameterize behaviors within or how individual behaviors might, in the aggregate, influence the norms and rules that shape institutions. Here at <em>JBPA</em>, we encourage further dialogue on the role of institutions in behavioral studies and holding work from a macro-, meso-, and micro-lens accountable to each another (Jilke et al., 2019). The editorial team at <em>JBPA</em> is thankful to Herbert Simon Award (Midwest Political Science Association) winners Anthony Bertelli (2020) and Norma Riccucci (2021) for organizing this thoughtful conversation. We hope that the discussion offered in this roundtable will inspire further inquiry from our readers. We encourage thought leaders in the field of public administration and beyond to continue this conversation here at <em>JBPA</em>. Therefore, we are announcing a Call for Papers, in response to this roundtable. Contributing papers can take one of several forms: (1) <em>Research Letters</em>&nbsp;(of no more than 2,000 words), for instance, might provide replications of existing work in BPA where the replications newly account for institutional embeddedness.&nbsp;(2) <em>Perspective and Practices</em>&nbsp;submissions (generally limited to 4,000 words) should be written as thoughtful responses to the discourse below, and (3)&nbsp;<em>Research Articles</em>&nbsp;(up to 8,000 words) can be more thoroughly threshed out theoretical conceits about institutions in BPA.</p> <ul> <li>William G. Resh, Editor-in-Chief</li> </ul> Anthony M. Bertelli, Norma M. Riccucci, Paola Canterelli, Maria Cucciniello, Christian R. Grose, Peter John, Elizabeth Linos, Anjali Thomas, Martin J. Williams Copyright (c) 2022 Mon, 18 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0000 Vaccine Choice, Trust in Institutions, and the Intention to Get Vaccinated Against COVID-19 <p>Amidst the global struggle to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, this study investigates whether the number of vaccine options (the size of the choice set) predicts the public’s intention to get vaccinated, and whether this effect depends on their trust in institutions – a system in which a collection of actors – from scientists and vaccine developers to public servants and front-line health workers – is working to fight the pandemic and to develop and approve vaccines against COVID-19 and deliver them to the public. Using an online experiment conducted in Japan (<em>N</em> = 600), the study tested whether choice set sizes of 1, 2, and 4 make a difference in the intention to get vaccinated. The study found that the intention was higher when the subjects were given two vaccine options to choose from, rather than offered a single vaccine, when trust was low, but this effect was negative when the subject trusted institutions highly. The study did not find strong evidence to support the effect of presenting a choice set of four. Based on these findings, this study offers nuanced suggestions for vaccine policy.</p> Naomi Aoki Copyright (c) 2022 Thu, 14 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0000