Soon after David Cameron became Prime Minister six years ago, he assembled a large group of journalists for a speech on “national happiness”. This was the introduction to what was subsequently to become the Behavioural Insights Team in the Cabinet Office.

The Behavioural Insights Team, or the “Nudge Unit” as it is popularly known, was the world’s first government institution dedicated to the application of behavioural sciences. It was set up specifically to apply “nudge theory”, or behavioural economics and psychology, to try to improve government policy and services, as well as to save money.

The Nudge Unit does this by redesigning public services and drawing on ideas from behavioural sciences literature. In essence, it introduces the human and psychological dimension to policymakers’ often distant approach to policy development. It is very easy for a bureaucrat in his ivory tower to forget that at the receiving end of his decisions there is a human being who must be motivated to respond positively to new government initiatives, not simply be cowed by them.

The Nudge Unit has brought an understanding of psychology to policymaking and communication with the electorate and, it has transpired, the government’s ability to increase people’s contentment.

Few actually predicted this when the Nudge Unit first started its work in Downing Street. It was regarded initially as the kind of gimmick of which new governments are so fond. A high-risk programme, run by a small team, “a crazy challenge expected to deliver a 10-fold return within two years”, as David Halpern, a former Cambridge psychologist and sociologist said in his book, Inside the Nudge Unit: How Small Changes Can Make a Big Difference.

However, in the event, nudging has led, among other things, to tens of millions of pounds in tax being collected that would have otherwise remained unpaid. The secret was for the tax-man to change the wording of his letters so that recipients were told most people in their area had already paid. Adding a notice to the tax demand letter that most people pay their taxes on time had a surprising effect on those receiving the message. Payment rates increased significantly.

This affected what Halpern calls the “social” aspect of our subconscious. This means that, generally, we like to cooperate with our neighbours. Halpern claims that the simple step of rewording the letter led to a 16 per cent increase in payment at negligible extra cost.

Interestingly, people with the largest one per cent of unpaid tax bills (those owing at least £30,000 a year) were most likely to pay after reading that: “Not paying tax means we all lose out on vital public services like the NHS, roads and schools.” Realising that their contributions could pay for a teacher’s or nurse’s salary seems to have jolted the rich into getting out their chequebooks.

The Nudge Unit’s other successes include the addition of 100,000 organ donors signing up to the UK National Register each year; 20 per cent more people changing their energy provider, thus increasing the efficiency of the privatised market; reducing the drop-out rate from further and higher education courses by a third simply by sending encouraging texts at the end of half-term breaks; an increase in payment rates from 40 per cent to 50 per cent by those who failed to pay their vehicle exercise duty, achieved by including a picture of the offending vehicle in letters sent to non-payers; and the encouragement of more than five million British workers to save for a pension.

Nudging, which recognises that humans are nowhere near as rational as traditional economic models have assumed, appears to have been a success

An increase in those paying court fines was achieved by prompting those owing them with a personal text message 10 days before the bailiffs were to be sent in person. In an effort to tackle the same problem in New South Wales in Australia, the introduction of a clear “call to action stamp” (say, “Enforcement Order” or “Pay Now” in prominent red type) led to a three per cent increase in payment rates. In New South Wales this translated into additional payments of over AU$1 million. Something similar might be possible in Malta where the payment of traffic or other fines is notoriously poor.

The key from the Nudge Unit’s experience over the last six years appears to have been removing the hassle and friction from people’s lives.

For example, it turned out that people would take steps to introduce loft insulation in their homes – a necessary energy-saving improvement – if the offer came with a willingness by the contractor to clear out the loft beforehand irrespective of cost. Subsidies and tax breaks proved insufficient incentives. The hassle mattered more than the money.

Would a nudge policy work in Malta? While not all of these successes would apply in the Maltese context, many undoubtedly would. In an area where successive Maltese governments have been notoriously weak, the cynical among readers will probably say No: the Maltese are greedy, selfish, devious and lack altruism.

But even if this were wholly true – it isn’t – it still seems well worth the minimal investment involved, if only to prove the cynics wrong.

Nudging, which recognises that humans are nowhere near as rational as traditional economic models have assumed, appears to have been a success. It might hold some lessons for improving Malta’s administration and prompting change in areas of our behaviour, many ingrained, where it is known to be deficient.

What applications might there be in adopting something similar in Malta? Where are our public service and political leaders getting human nature wrong? Clearly, if Malta were to establish a Nudge Unit, psychologists with a close knowledge of the Maltese culture, nature and motivational factors would be crucial.

There were a number of interesting proposals at the Nationalist Party’s recent general council meeting on the vexed issue of traffic management in Malta. It was suggested, for example, that direct transport for the government’s thousands of employees should be organised from certain villages or towns.

It also suggested “a voluntary opt-in scheme” whereby car owners may opt to use their vehicles only on selected days and during set times. Offering incentives to encourage businesses to reduce the use of commercial vehicles at peak times of the day was also to be considered.

All these proposals are attempts to change behaviour and fit well with the concept of nudging people to do things differently for altruistic, as well as practical, reasons.

Traffic management in Malta – be it greater courtesy on the roads, or changing people’s habits – seems tailor-made for possible nudging initiatives.

But there are also many other areas where steps might be taken here by building on the same techniques used in the United Kingdom. The successful encouragement of more organ donors, the payment of income tax, VAT and traffic fines, and the incentive for more Maltese workers to take out private pension schemes may also have an application here.

Nudging, it appears, may be here to stay. A sceptical British public and media have largely been convinced. The Nudge Unit’s establishment has expanded to Australia and the United States, where an office has been set up in New York. The North American operation is now working with cities across the US.

Is there also a place for it in Malta’s public service?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.