Abstract
Nudging is one of the avant-garde directions of legislation around the world. This study outlines the theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of nudges by drawing attention to the paradigmatic area of recent precautions and vaccinations against Covid-19. The starting point of the analysis is a minimal definition of ‘nudging’, according to which it is a deliberate intervention based on behavioral, psychological and empirical surveys devoted to chance the concrete context where people make decisions and act. The “legislator” as nudger intervenes on the premise that the individual’s decision-making process in relation to certain predetermined policy goals would otherwise not be satisfactory. By changing the specific decision-making context, the intervention aims to influence individual behavior in the direction desired by the nudger. A distinctive feature of nudges is that the desired behavior is not expressed directly or stated explicitly, but is sought indirectly and bypassing authoritative, coercive or otherwise binding means. In light of this idea, the current debate on whether vaccination should be mandatory or rather recommended will be examined, as will the world-shaking debate on precautionary measures to reduce risk of coronavirus infection. The analysis will show the extent to which nudges can increase preparedness and be a fruitful tool in the hands of “legislators” to promote a more participatory approach to legislation. As large-scale behavioral change is required and biases and uncertainties increase, the added value of nudges becomes more important. From a prescriptive perspective, the analysis aims to show why and to what extent “legislators” can take advantage of nudges to avoid ineffective laws and align people behavior with public goals. In particular, the study will defend the idea that nudges, although criticised by both proponents and opponents of liberal paternalism, play an important role in the legislative framework of constitutional systems and can contribute to a better implementation of the ideal of the Rule of Law. Although nudging is sometimes dismissed as a trivial phenomenon, a far-sighted combination of nudges and regulatory laws is beneficial. It should be planned especially for exceptional situations where the same resilience of the legal system might fail.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Manning et al. (2020).
- 2.
Besides the World Bank Group, the institutions profiles belong to Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Gmbh; European Commission; Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; Inter-American Development Bank; International Committee of the Red Cross; International Rescue Committee; OECD; Overseas Development Institute; Save the Children; United Nations System Organizations; United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women; United Nations Development Programme; United Nations International Children’s Fund; International Organization for Migration; World Health Organization; United States Agency For International Development.
- 3.
Afif et al. (2019). The report captures behavioural sciences phenomena in 10 countries, selected as innovators or early adopters in the field: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands, Peru, Singapore, the U.S., and the UK.
- 4.
Manning et al. (2020), p. 12.
- 5.
Manning et al. (2020), pp. 16–17. Needless to say, the idea of ‘all available means’ is notoriously dangerous because it can be abused. The understatement in many countries and by international organizations such as the United Nations and its organisms is that all available means are within the bounds of what is permissible and in accordance with the ideal of the rule of law. In some countries, however, the declaration of a state of emergency is a pretext for reinforcing totalitarianism or undemocratic or illiberal policies.
- 6.
Manning et al. (2020), pp. 16–17.
- 7.
See e.g. iNudgeyou—The Applied Behavioural Science Group; TEN—The European Nudging Network; Nudge-it European Commission-funded FP7 project; Ideas42 group, project and B-HUB; The Danish Nudging Network; Nudge Italia; Centro di Ricerca di Epistemologia Sperimentale e Applicata (CRESA); The Nudge Sustainability Hub; Behavia (2020); the Behavioural Insights Team in Partnership with Cabinet Office (2020); Harvard University’s Behavioral Insights Group (BIG). See also Afif et al. (2019).
- 8.
See e.g. Better Regulation Toolbox and the Better Regulation Guide presented in 2015–2016 by the European Commission. The main references are in 2015 the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Better Regulation for Better Results—An EU Agenda;’ in 2016 the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council ‘Better Regulation: Delivering better results for a stronger Union.’ All documents are available and intended for use as a set of web tools on the official EU website.
- 9.
For The Economist (2012), ‘the nudge revolution encourages the use by governments of plain language; favours the design of policies that actually take account of real-world behaviour; and allows the testing of ideas on a small scale before wider implementation.’
- 10.
See e.g. Johnson et al. (2012), pp. 487–504. The application of method of regulation based on behavioural sciences is promoted also in the public sector; the name proposed is ‘budge, to indicate that, rather than nudging citizens, behavioural economics might be used more appropriately in the public sector to help inform regulation that budges harmful private sector activities:’ Oliver (2013), p. 685.
- 11.
Tallacchini et al. (2014).
- 12.
Tallacchini et al. (2014), pp. 4–9.
- 13.
Reijula et al. (2018), pp. 99–105.
- 14.
See Hertwig and Grüne-Yanoff (2017), pp. 8–9.
- 15.
- 16.
Among many examples, we can recall the guidelines issued by European Commission aimed at securing ‘Green Lanes’ within the EU from March 2020, together with the preliminary advice on preparedness and response to cases of Covid-19 at points of entry in the European Union and EEA Member States, and to the Galileo Green Lane App. The app is provided by the European GNSS Agency and allows users to report the status of TEN-T border crossings. With the app, users can see the situation at EU borders in real time and contribute to the online status by periodically reporting the traffic at their border. See https://galileogreenlane.eu/about.php.
- 17.
Pearce (2004), p. 57.
- 18.
See e.g. Carducci et al. (2020). For example, the technical report ‘COVID-19 vaccination and prioritisation strategies in the EU/EEA’ of 22 December 2020, issued by European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, is based on the precautionary principle, although it does not explicitly mention it.
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
See e.g. Sunstein (2014), pp. 583–588.
- 22.
- 23.
See e.g. Lades and Delaney (2020), pp. 1–20.
- 24.
- 25.
Thaler and Sunstein (2009), p. 6.
- 26.
Thaler and Sunstein (2009), p. 6.
- 27.
Thaler and Sunstein (2009), p. 5.
- 28.
Thaler (2018), p. 431.
- 29.
To be precise, it is a semantic neologism. ‘Sludge’ is certainly a term of the English vocabulary, independent of Thaler’s theory of nudging and sludging. However, like Thaler, many other authors ascribe new meanings to all these terms (‘nudging’, ‘sludging’, ‘boosting’, ‘budging’, etc.). Therefore, the definitions used in the behavioural science literature tend to be innovative rather than explicative or ordinary definitions. That is, authors take inspiration from the etymology of ordinary words, but introduce something new into their meanings. In this respect, the terms become vehicles for the author’s ideas about individuals and societies.
- 30.
Thaler (2018), p. 431.
- 31.
Hart (1968), pp. 5–6.
- 32.
The following illustration is a development of the definition firstly proposed in Ferraro and Zorzetto (2019), pp. 125–126.
- 33.
- 34.
Patel (2018), pp. 720–721.
- 35.
As many studies highlight, ‘responsiveness necessitates that there must be structured opportunities to revisit and revise decisions as new information emerges. Changes to sensitivity and specificity in screening and testing may clarify what we know about patient risk, new evidence may be generated on AGMPs, PPE supply may change, and institutions may broaden access to care as lockdowns end. Changes to any of these factors that form the basis of a decision problem could warrant a review of the decision and a change in guidance:’ Crosby and Crosby (2020).
- 36.
Like the one offered in Hansen (2016), p. 20.
- 37.
EXPH (2018), p. 45.
- 38.
- 39.
Lorini et al. (2020).
- 40.
- 41.
Manning et al. (2020), pp. 74–81.
- 42.
Manning et al. (2020), p. 129 and 136.
- 43.
Manning et al. (2020), p. 57.
- 44.
Manning et al. (2020), p. 149. Details are available in the UN Innovation Network’s publication on Leveraging Behavioural Insights to Respond to COVID-19.
- 45.
See e.g. World Health Organization (2020a, b); Voysey et al. (2020), pp. 99–111; Baden et al. (2020), pp. 1–14; Polack (2020), pp. 2603–2615; Rubin and Longo (2020), pp. 2677–2678. The WHO regularly updates, twice weekly, a ‘COVID-19 candidate vaccine landscape database’ that provides information on vaccine candidates in clinical and preclinical development, tracks the progress of each vaccine from preclinical, phase 1, phase 2 to phase 3 efficacy studies, and provides analysis and links to published reports on safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy data of vaccine candidates, etc.
- 46.
- 47.
See e.g. Volpp et al. (2021), p. 125. Among the many global and regional initiatives, it is worth recalling the ‘World Health Organisation Behavioural Insights Tool on COVID-19’ and the ‘COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring’ (COSMO), a global network of surveillance in which many countries around the world participate. The study is based on a standard protocol for national serial cross-sectional surveys. The study aims to monitor public perceptions of risk, protective and precautionary behaviour, public trust, and knowledge and misinformation to enable governments and health organisations to take appropriate action.
- 48.
See e.g. World Health Organization (2020c).
- 49.
See e.g. World Health Organization (2020c), p. 9.
- 50.
See e.g. The Economist (2020).
- 51.
Among many examples, it is instructive the Team Europe web page on ‘Coronavirus: news on EU action, vaccines, Team Europe support, disinformation, repatriation and solidarity stories,’ which is available at https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/76341/coronavirus-news-eu-action-team-europe-support-disinformation-repatriation-and-solidarity_en.
- 52.
See Invitalia (2020).
- 53.
See BBC (2021).
- 54.
Its main web page announces ‘Working Together to Protect Lives:’ see https://www.millenniumpoint.org.uk/our-history/.
- 55.
See ECDC (2020a), pp. 4–5, and in addition ECDC (2020b, c). Some basic advice commonly suggested to persuade in favour of a vaccination campaign is to use simple and easy-to-understand language; emphasise science over politics (in all cases where politics seems to be hesitant or wavering); support diverse and respected celebrities and opinion leaders; and emphasise facts and evidence over myths and disinformation (e.g., no-vax fake news, etc.).
- 56.
See e.g. Miller et al. (2020), pp. 21–23.
- 57.
See e.g. Debnath and Bardhan (2020). With frequent SMS reminders, people were encouraged to use the new contact tracking app (AarogyaSetu) with GPS and Bluetooth. Many initiatives encourage micro-donations and scientific innovations including robots to promote social distancing in public spaces.
- 58.
See e.g. Largent and Miller (2021).
- 59.
Kontopantelis et al. (2012), pp. 1117–1136.
- 60.
Nevertheless, some authors defend the design of the system of monetary or in-kind contributions to promote vaccination against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. The possibility of altruistic vaccination could be preserved by offering vaccinated individuals the opportunity to donate any cash payment to the health service. Savulescu (2021), pp. 78–85.
- 61.
Moles (2015), p. 650.
- 62.
Moles (2015), pp. 650–651.
- 63.
Pursuant to the ‘EMA Plan for Emerging Health Threats’ dated 10 December 2018 (EMA/863454/2018 Policy and Crisis Management), the term ‘emerging health threat’ refers to ‘cross border health threat’ and means ‘a hazard of biological, chemical, environmental or unknown origin which is likely to spread across national borders of Member States (MS) and which may cause a potential severe risk to public health necessitating a coordinated action at the Union level in order to ensure high level of human health protection.’ See https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/ema-plan-emerging-health-threats_en.pdf.
- 64.
Reference is to the ‚Mandate, objectives and rules of procedure of the COVID-19 EMA pandemic Task Force (COVID-ETF)’ dated 31 March 2020 (EMA/166423/2020 Biological Health Threats and Vaccines Strategy): https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/mandate-objectives-rules-procedure-covid-19-ema-pandemic-task-force-covid-etf_en.pdf.
- 65.
From December 2020 as of today, among many actions and documents, EMA published the European public assessment report for COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna; the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) has developed a statement to inform and help healthcare professionals answer questions about COVID-19 vaccines; it is ongoing the evaluation of application for conditional marketing authorisation for the COVID-19 vaccine ChAdOx1-SARS-CoV-2 developed by AstraZeneca and University of Oxford; following evaluation by EMA, the European Commission authorised the two first vaccines to prevent COVID-19 in the EU: COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna, and Comirnaty, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer.
- 66.
- 67.
Laskowski (2016), pp. 601–628.
- 68.
Laskowski (2016), pp. 601–628.
- 69.
- 70.
Williamson (2018), pp. 1–8.
- 71.
- 72.
- 73.
Thomson et al. (2016), pp. 1018–1024.
- 74.
- 75.
Milkman et al. (2011), pp. 10415–10420.
- 76.
Chapman et al. (2010), pp. 43–44.
- 77.
Milkman et al. (2011), pp. 10415–10420.
- 78.
Dubéa et al. (2015), pp. 4191–4203.
- 79.
Dorland’s illustrated medical dictionary. 24th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1965, quoted in Fine (1993), p. 265. See also Omer et al. (2020), p. 2095: ‘Herd immunity, also known as indirect protection, community immunity, or community protection, refers to the protection of susceptible individuals against an infection when a sufficiently large proportion of immune individuals exist in a population. In other words, herd immunity is the inability of infected individuals to propagate an epidemic outbreak due to lack of contact with sufficient numbers of susceptible individuals. It stems from the individual immunity that may be gained through natural infection or through vaccination.’
- 80.
Fine (1993), pp. 265–266.
- 81.
Korn et al. (2018), pp. 1045–1054.
- 82.
Betsch et al. (2017).
- 83.
Benartzi et al. (2017), p. 1041–1052.
- 84.
Benartzi et al. (2017), p. 1052.
- 85.
Benartzi et al. (2017), p. 1052.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
In legal theory, see e.g. Ackerman (1984); Alexander (1985), pp. 249–259; Brunnée and Toope (2012), pp. 119–145; Priel (2019), pp. 267–287. For the rest, the thought of Ronald M. Dworkin is widely known, as is the wide variety of doctrines that have arisen in imitation of his intuitions or in criticism of them. On the current debate on legal interpretation, for example, see e.g. Lifante Vidal (2020).
- 89.
See e.g. Burazin et al. (2018).
- 90.
By way of example, two initiatives are paradigmatic of the mainstream existing both the US and the EU: Legal Design Lab, an interdisciplinary team based at Stanford Law School, and Legal Design Alliance, a network of lawyers, designers, technologists, academics and other professionals working to make the legal system more human-centred and effective by using design. In addition, see e.g. Guzzini and Leander (2017), pp. 175–188.
- 91.
Thaler (2020b).
- 92.
Thaler (2020b).
- 93.
Reference is to State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary, Brussels, 16 September 2020, speech entitled ‘Building the world we want to live in: A Union of vitality in a world of fragility’: von der Leyen (2020a).
- 94.
von der Leyen (2020a).
- 95.
- 96.
See Bureau of European Design Associations: https://www.beda.org/news/new-european-bauhaus/.
- 97.
See press releases quoted in precedent notes and ‘European Commission - Press release related to New European Bauhaus: Commission launches design phase,’ Brussels, 18 January 2021: EC (2021).
- 98.
See e.g. Tallacchini (2020), pp. 114–119.
- 99.
Bornemann and Burger (2019), pp. 218–219.
- 100.
The term is increasingly used more broadly and heterogeneously in policy. Resilience refers both to people during the current pandemic and to institutions, processes, or systems such as the supply chain of vaccine distribution COVID-19. See, e.g., Golan et al. (2021). In recent years, resilience has been a key concept, for example, in the policy literature on terrorism. Refer to Flynn SE (2008), America the Resilient: Defying Terrorism and Mitigating Natural Disasters, in Foreign Affairs 83(2). Another area of application is risk management, as illustrated by the 2007 book ‘The Resilient Enterprise: Overcoming Vulnerability for Competitive Advantage’, MIT Press by Yoffi Sheffi.
- 101.
Folke (2016). Of particular note is Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), which was launched in 2007 as a joint initiative of Stockholm University and Beijer Institute by Ecological Economics at Royal Swedish Academy of the Sciences. It is an international research centre for resilience and sustainability sciences.
- 102.
Resilience is a term sometimes used interchangeably with robustness to describe the ability of a system to continue to function in the midst of a disturbance and to recover from it.
- 103.
https://www.undrr.org/terminology/resilience. The World Bank Disaster Risk Management and Mind, Behaviour, and Development Unit (eMBeD) have developed many projects around the globe to help local communities build disaster resilience. The initiatives are implemented in hospices during natural disasters. They are supported by the EU and Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery under the ACP-EU Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program, an initiative of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States. The program is integrated into the design of the Strengthening Disaster Risk Management and Climate Resilience Project. To strengthen preparedness and capacity for emergency response, the project promotes building practices. It takes into account the current mind-set and beliefs of the target population and includes simplifying Early Warning System (EWS) messages with salient visuals, providing clear guidelines for evacuation, and highlighting consequences to help people respond to levels of risk.
- 104.
Levin (2015).
- 105.
- 106.
Southwick et al. (2014).
References
Ackerman B (1984) Reconstructing American law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Afif Z, Islan WW, Calvo-Gonzalez O, Dalton AG (2019) Behavioral science around the world: profiles of 10 countries. eMBeD, Washington DC. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/710771543609067500/Behavioral-Science-Around-the-World-Profiles-of-10-Countries
Alexander GS (1985) Interpreting legal constructivism. Cornell Law Rev 71:249–259
Baden LR et al, COVE Study Group (2020) Efficacy and safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. N Engl J Med 30 December 2020: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389
Bagnoli C (2020) Constructivism in metaethics. In: Zalta EN (ed) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/constructivism-metaethics
Bavel JJV et al (2020) Using social and behavioural science to support Covid-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav 4(5):460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z
BBC (2021) Covid-19: Lichfield Cathedral turned into vaccination centre 16 January 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-55683025
Behavia (2020) Collection of case studies. Combating corona with behavioural insights. https://behavia.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Poster-Combating-Corona-withBehavioral-Insights.pdf
Benartzi S, Beshears J, Milkman KL, Sunstein CR, Thaler RH, Shankar M, Tucker-Ray W, Congdon WJ, Galing S (2017) Should governments invest more in nudging? Psychol Sci 28(8):1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501
Betsch C (2020) How behavioural science data helps mitigate the Covid-19 crisis. Nat Hum Behav 4(5):438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0866-1
Betsch C, Bohm R, Korn L, Holtmann C (2017) On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nat Hum Behav 1(0056):1–6
Bornemann B, Burger P (2019) Nudging to sustainability? Critical reflections on nudging from a theoretically informed sustainability perspective. In: Handbook of behavioural change and public policy. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 209–226. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367854.00022
Broughton N, Costa L, Halpern D, Lohmann J, O’Brien R, Solomon P, Schultheis S, Shakhina N, Wu H (2020) The behavioural economy. A 10 point plan to upgrade economic policy. Report 26 November 2020. The Behavioural Insights Team, Friends Provident Foundation. https://www.bi.team/publications/the-behavioural-economy/
Brunnée J, Toope S (2012) Constructivism and international law. In: Dunoff J, Pollack M (eds) Interdisciplinary perspectives on international law and international relations: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 119–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107310.007
Burazin L, Himma KE, Roversi C (2018) Law as an artefact. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Carducci A, Federigi I, Verani M (2020) Covid-19 airborne transmission and its prevention: waiting for evidence or applying the precautionary principle? Atmosphere 11:710. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070710
Chapman GB, Li M, Colby H, Yoon H (2010) Opting in vs opting out of influenza vaccination. J Am Med Assoc 304:43–44
Cohen IG, Lynch HF, Robertson CT (eds) (2016) Nudging health: health law and behavioral economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
Crosby L, Crosby E (2020) Applying the precautionary principle to personal protective equipment (PPE) guidance during the Covid-19 pandemic: did we learn the lessons of SARS? Can J Anesth https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01760-y
Debnath R, Bardhan R (2020) India nudges to contain Covid-19 pandemic: a reactive public policy analysis using machine–learning based topic modelling. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0238972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238972
Dubéa E, Gagnona D, MacDonald NE (2015) Strategies intended to address vaccine hesitancy: Review of published reviews. Vaccine 33(34):4191–4203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.041
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020a) Key aspects regarding the introduction and prioritisation of Covid-19 vaccination in the EU/EEA and the UK – 26 October 2020. ECDC, Stockholm. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Key-aspects-regarding-introduction-and-prioritisation-of-COVID-19-vaccination.pdf
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020b) Overview of Covid-19 vaccination strategies and vaccine deployment plans in the EU/EEA and the UK – 2 December 2020. ECDC, Stockholm. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/Overview-of-EU_EEA-UK-vaccination-deployment-plans.pdf
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020c) Covid-19 vaccination and prioritisation strategies in the EU/EEA – 22 December 2020. ECDC, Stockholm. https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/COVID-19-vaccination-and-prioritisation-strategies.pdf
European Commission 2015 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions “Better regulation for better results – An EU agenda” COM/2015/0215 final
European Commission 2016 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Council “Better Regulation: Delivering better results for a stronger Union” COM/2016/0615 final
European Commission - Press release New European Bauhaus: Commission launches design phase Brussels, 18 January 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_111
European Union (2018) Vaccination programmes and health systems in the European Union. Report of the Expert Panel on effective ways of investing in Health (EXPH). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
Ferraro F, Zorzetto S (2019) Legislation and nudging: towards a suitable definition. In: Oliver Lalana D (ed) Conceptions and misconceptions of legislation. Springer, Zaragoza, pp 107–132
Fine PEM (1993) Herd immunity: history, theory, practice. Epidemiol Rev 15(2):265–302
Folke C (2016) Resilience. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Environmental Science. https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-8
Gardiner H (2009) Advisers on vaccines often have conflicts, report says. December 17, 2009. The New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/health/policy/18cdc.html
Gledhill J (2013) Constructivism and reflexive constitution–making practices. Raisons Politiques 51(3):63–80. https://doi.org/10.3917/rai.051.0063
Goetzsche PD (2013) Medicines and organised crime: how big pharma has corrupted healthcare e-book. CRC Press
Golan MS, Trump BD, Cegan JC, Linkov I (2021) The vaccine supply chain: a call for resilience analytics to support Covid-19 vaccine production and distribution. In: Trump BD, Keenan J, Linkov I (eds) COVID-19: systemic risk and resilience. Springer arXiv:2011.14231
Grignolio A (2018) Understanding vaccine hesitancy as a neuro-evolutionary problem. Notizie di Politeia 130:8–18
Guzzini S, Leander A (2017) Following Onuf’s rules on rule: the legal road to social constructivism. In: Gould HD (ed) The art of world-making: Nicholas Greenwood Onuf and his critics. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 175–188. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268934
Hansen PG (2016) Nudge and libertarian paternalism: does the hand fit the glove? Eur J Risk Regul 1:1–20
Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Hertwig R, Grüne-Yanoff T (2017) Nudging and boosting: steering or empowering good decisions. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(6):973–986. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617702496
Hofmann B, Stanak M (2018) Nudging in screening: literature review and ethical guidance. Patient Educ Couns 101(9):1561–1569
Invitalia (2020) Piano vaccini: il Commissario Arcuri e l’Architetto Stefano Boeri presentano il concept comunicativo e architettonico “L’Italia rinasce con un fiore”, 13 December 2020. https://www.invitalia.it/chi-siamo/area-media/notizie-e-comunicati-stampa/conferenza-stampa-commissario-e-boeri-13-dicembre-2020
Johnson E et al (2012) Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark Lett 23:487–504
Kontopantelis E, Doran T, Gravelle H, Siciliani L, Sutton M, Goudie R (2012) Family doctor responses to changes in incentives for influenza immunization under the U.K. quality and outcomes framework pay-for-performance scheme. Health Serv Res 47(3 Pt 1):1117–1136
Korn L, Betsch C, Böhm R, Meier N (2018) Social nudging: the effect of social feedback interventions on vaccine uptake. Health Psychol 37(11):1045–1054. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000668
Kurland PB, Lerner R (1987) The founders’ constitution, vol 5. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Lades LK, Delaney L (2020) Nudge forgood. Behav Public Polic:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.53
Lalumera E (2018) Resistenza alla vaccinazione: il ruolo della fiducia e dei valori. Notizie di Politeia 130:19–27
Largent EA, Miller FG (2021) Problems with paying people to be vaccinated against Covid-19. J Am Med Assoc 6 January 2021. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.27121
Laskowski M (2016) Nudging towards vaccination: a behavioral law and economics approach to childhood immunization policy. Tex Law Rev 94:601–628
Levin S (2015) Ecological resilience. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/ecological-resilience
Lifante Vidal I (2020) In defence of a constructivist conception of legal interpretation. Revus 40 online. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.5897
Lorini C, Ierardi F, Gatteschi C, Galletti G, Collini F, Peracca L, Zanobini P, Gemmi F, Bonaccorsi G (2020) Promoting influenza vaccination among staff of nursing homes according to behavioral insights: analyzing the choice architecture during a nudge-based intervention. Vaccines 8:600. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8040600
Lunn PD, Belton CA, Lavin C, McGowan FP, Timmons S, Robertson D (2020) Using behavioural science to help fight the coronavirus: a rapid, narrative review. J Behav Public Adm 3(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.147
Manning L, Dalton AG, Afif Z, Vakos R, Naru F (2020) Behavioral science around the world volume II: profiles of 17 international organizations. eMBeD, Washington DC
Mathis K, Tor A (eds) (2016) Nudging – possibilities, limitations and applications in European law and economics. Springer e–book, Switzerland
McCrudden C, King J (2016) The dark side of nudging: the ethics, political economy, and law of libertarian paternalism. In: Kemmerer A, Möllers C, Steinbeis M, Wagner G (eds) Choice architecture in democracies. Exploring the legitimacy of nudging. Hart and Nomos, Oxford/Baden–Baden, pp 75–140
Meßerschmidt K (2020) COVID-19 legislation in the light of the precautionary principle. Theory Pract Legis 8(3):267–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2020.1783627
Michalek G, Schwarze R (2020) The strategic use of nudging and behavioural approaches in public health policy during the coronavirus crisis. UFZ Discussion Paper 6/2020. https://www.ufz.de/index.php?en=47296
Milkman KL, Beshears J, Choi JJ, Laibson D, Madrian BC (2011) Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:10415–10420
Miller B, Sleat D, Thorne E, Wain R (2020) How the government should call the shots: getting the UK vaccine-ready report 3 December 2020. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. https://institute.global/sites/default/files/articles/How-the-Government-Should-Call-the-Shots-Getting-the-UK-Vaccine-Ready.pdf
Mills S (2020) Nudge/sludge symmetry: on the relationship between nudge and sludge and the resulting ontological, normative and transparency implications. Behav Public Policy:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.61
Moles A (2015) Nudging for liberals. Soc Theory Pract Special Issue: Preference, choice, and (libertarian) paternalism 41:644–667
Navin M (2017) The ethics of vaccination nudges in pediatric practice. HEC Forum 29:43–57
Newman WJ (2015) Of castles and living trees: the metaphorical and structural constitution. J Parliam Policy Law (9):471–497
Oliver A (2013) From nudging to budging: using behavioural economics to inform public sector policy. J Soc Policy 42(4):685–700. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279413000299
Omer SB, Yildirim I, Forman HP (2020) Herd immunity and implications for SARS-CoV-2 control. J Am Med Assoc 324(20):2095–2096. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.20892
Patel MS (2018) Nudges for influenza vaccination. Nat Hum Behav 2:720–721
Pearce N (2004). Public health and the precautionary principle. In: Martuzzi M, Tickner AJ (eds) The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children. World Health Organization, pp 49–62
Polack FP et al (2020) Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med 31 December 2020(383):2603–2615. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577
Priel D (2019) Law as a social construction and conceptual legal theory. Law Philos 38:267–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-019-09349-3
Rees D (2020) Habermasian constructivism: an alternative to the constitutivist argument. Kantian Rev 25(4):675–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415420000382
Rehse D, Tremöhlen F (2020) Fostering participation in digital public health interventions: the case of digital contact tracing. ZEW – Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper No. 20–076. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3761710 Accessed 17 January 2021
Reijula S, Kuorikoski J, Ehrig T, Katsikopoulos K, Sunder S (2018) Nudge, boost, or design? Limitations of behaviorally informed policy under social interaction. J Behav Econ Pol 2(1):99–105
Rubin EJ, Longo DL (2020) SARS-CoV-2 vaccination — An ounce (actually, much less) of prevention. N Engl J Med 31 December 2020 (383):2677–2678. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2034717
Savulescu J (2021) Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk? J Med Ethics 47:78–85. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106821
Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. Penguin Books, New York
Southwick SM, Bonanno GA, Masten AS, Panter-Brick C, Yehuda R (2014) Resilience definitions, theory, and challenges: interdisciplinary perspectives. Eur J Psychotraumatol 5:25338. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338
Sunstein CR (2014) Nudging: a very short guide. J Consum Policy 37(4):583–588. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn–3:HUL.InstRepos:16205305
Sunstein CR (2015) The ethics of nudging. Yale J Reg 32:413–450
Sunstein CR, Reisch LA (2019) Trusting nudges. Toward a bill of rights for nudging. Routledge, Abingdon
Tallacchini M (2020) Preparedness e coinvolgimento dei cittadini ai tempi dell’emergenza. Per un diritto collaborativo alla salute. Epidemiol Prev 44(2–3):114–119. https://doi.org/10.19191/EP20.2.A001.027
Tallacchini M, Boucher P, Nascimento S (2014) Emerging ICT for citizens’ veillance. Theoretical and practical insights. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen Science and Policy Reports. https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en
Teubner G (1989) How the law thinks: toward a constructivist epistemology of law. Law Soc Rev 23(5):727–757. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053760
Thaler RH (2018) Nudge, not sludge. Science, 3 August 2018: 431
Thaler RH (2020a) Getting everyone vaccinated, with ‘nudges’ and charity auctions. The New York Times 9 December 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/business/coronavirus-vaccination-auctions-celebrities.html
Thaler RH (2020b) Organizational behavior and human decision processes, online 22 April 2020. Elsevier Inc https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.04.003
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2009) Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, revised ed. Penguin Books, London
The Economist Newspaper Limited (2012) Nudge nudge, think think 24 March 2012. https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2012/03/24/nudge-nudge-think-think
The Economist Newspaper Limited (2020) Katy Milkman on how to nudge people to accept a Covid-19 vaccine 30 November 2020. https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2020/11/30/katy-milkman-on-how-to-nudge-people-to-accept-a-covid-19-vaccine
Thomson A, Robinson K, Vallée-Tourangeau G (2016) The 5As: a practical taxonomy for the determinants of vaccine uptake. Vaccine 17(34):1018–1024
Tulloch S (2021) Vaccine implementation might benefit from a nudge or two… Fagligt Nyt. Dansk Selskab for Patientsikkerhed. https://patientsikkerhed.dk/vaccine-implementation-might-benefit-from-a-nudge-or-two/
United Nations Environment Programme, GRIDArendal, Behavioural Insights Team (2020) The little book of green nudges: 40 nudges to spark sustainable behaviour on campus. UNEP and GRID-Arendal, Nairobi and Arendal. https://www.bi.team/publications/the-little-book-of-green-nudges/
Vese D (2020) Managing the pandemic: the Italian strategy for fighting Covid-19 and the challenge of sharing administrative powers. Eur J Risk Regul 11(3):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2020.82
Volpp KG, Loewenstein G, Buttenheim AM (2021) Behaviorally informed strategies for a national Covid-19 vaccine promotion program. J Am Med Assoc 325(2):125–126. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.24036
von der Leyen U (2020a) Building the world we want to live in: a Union of vitality in a world of fragility. State of the Union address by President von der Leyen at the European Parliament Plenary, Brussels, 16 September 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/SPEECH_20_1655
von der Leyen U (2020b) Press statement by President von der Leyen on the New European Bauhaus, Brussels, 14 October 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_20_1902
von der Leyen U (2020c) A New European Bauhaus: Brussels, 15 October 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/AC_20_1916
Voysey M et al, Oxford COVID Vaccine Trial Group (2020) Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK. Lancet 397(10269):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32661-1
Wallis C (2021) The best evidence for how to overcome Covid vaccine fears 7 January 2021. Sci Am. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-best-evidence-for-how-to-overcome-covid-vaccine-fears1/
Wilkinson TM (2013) Nudging and manipulation. Polit Stud 61:341–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00974.x
Williamson L (2018) Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires an ethically consistent health strategy. BMC Med Ethics 19(84):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0322-1
World Health Organization (2020a) Emergency use designation of Covid-19 candidate vaccines: ethical considerations for current and future Covid-19 placebo-controlled vaccine trials and trial unblinding: policy brief, 18 December 2020. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337940
World Health Organization (2020b) mRNA vaccines against COVID-19: Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine BNT162b2: prepared by the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization working group on Covid-19 vaccines, 22 December 2020. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/338096
World Health Organization (2020c) Behavioural considerations for acceptance and uptake of Covid-19 vaccines: WHO technical advisory group on behavioural insights and sciences for health, meeting report, 15 October 2020. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/337335
Zuolo F (2018) Etica pubblica e contesa vaccinale. Una mappa critica delle ragioni (e dei torti). Notizie di Politeia 130:38–47
Bureau of European Design Associations (BEDA) https://www.beda.org/news/new-european-bauhaus/
Centro di Ricerca di Epistemologia Sperimentale e Applicata (CRESA) http://www.cresa.eu/pubblicazione/dove-va-la-nudge-revolution/
Ideas42 group, project and B–HUB http://www.ideas42.org/about-us/
iNudgeyou – The Applied Behavioural Science Group www.inudgeyou.com
Nudge–it European Commission–funded FP7 project https://www.nudge-it.eu/
Nudge Italia http://www.nudgeitalia.it/nudging/
TEN – The European Nudging Network www.tenudge.eu
The Behavioural Insights Team in Partnership with Cabinet Office https://www.bi.team/
The Danish Nudging Network (in Danish) www.danishnudgingnetwork.dk
The Nudge Sustainability Hub http://www.nudgesustainabilityhub.com/
Harvard University’s Behavioral Insights Group (BIG) https://cpl.hks.harvard.edu/behavioral-insights-group
LeDA Legal Design Alliance http://www.legaldesignalliance.org
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zorzetto, S. (2022). Legislative Architecture and Nudges: Complementary Tools to Increase Legal Order Resilience?. In: Ferraro, F., Zorzetto, S. (eds) Exploring the Province of Legislation. Legisprudence Library, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87262-5_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87262-5_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87261-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87262-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)