Why do societies with dense rulebooks, sophisticated economic models, and layered institutions still fall short of their policy goals? The puzzle of modern governance is not a lack of technical capacity. It is that public policy operates in a terrain shaped as much by psychology and social trust as by economics or administration.
Public policy would be largely unnecessary in a society of perfectly altruistic, welfare-maximising individuals. Its very presence signals bounded rationality, conflicting incentives, and the gap between private interest and collective purpose. Taxes, regulations, and penalties exist not only to allocate resources but to manage behaviour under conditions of human fallibility. Policy, in practice, is less about optimisation than about shaping expectations, norms, and conduct.
READ | Child nutrition: Covid-19 poses a huge public policy challenge
Public policy as behavioural governance
Classical economics assumed rational agents whose aggregated choices yield efficient outcomes within stable institutional boundaries. Even early political economy, however, acknowledged that individuals do not naturally converge on the common good, making governance unavoidable. Behavioural economics formalised this insight by documenting systematic departures from rational choice—biases, framing effects, and limited self-control. Once these departures are acknowledged, policy instruments appear less as neutral levers and more as psychological signals: deterrents, nudges, and moral cues.
Taxation illustrates this clearly. Public finance theory justifies taxes to raise revenue, redistribute income, or correct externalities. Yet audit probabilities and penalties alone do not explain compliance. Voluntary compliance rests heavily on tax morale—shaped by trust in government, perceptions of fairness, and civic norms. Countries with similar tax structures often show sharply different compliance outcomes. The difference lies in how taxation is interpreted: as a shared civic contribution or as coercive extraction. Policy effectiveness here depends less on calibration than on legitimacy.
READ | Sustainability push needs public awareness, informed policy responses
Penal systems operate on a similar logic. If adherence to social norms were automatic, punitive institutions would be redundant. The shift in language from “jails” to “correctional homes” reflects a move away from pure retribution toward rehabilitation, informed by psychological and sociological insights about behaviour and reintegration. Deterrence theory once posited a simple link between harsher punishment and lower crime. Evidence has repeatedly shown diminishing returns and, in some settings, counterproductive effects through stigma and exclusion. Outcomes hinge not on sanction alone but on how authority and justice are perceived.
Recognising these limits, policymakers have increasingly relied on behavioural experiments and field trials to test how interventions work in practice. Randomised trials in education, health, welfare, and finance aim to isolate causal mechanisms rather than assume them. Insights such as loss aversion or default bias are now embedded in policy design, from automatic pension enrolment to energy-use feedback. This turn reflects a tacit admission that abstract models cannot predict real-world responses with confidence.
Why policy outcomes diverge from policy design
Even so, outcomes frequently disappoint. One reason lies in the gap between individual behaviour and collective dynamics. Individuals are socially embedded. Their choices are shaped by class, gender, networks, and power relations. Policies built around an “average” behavioural agent falter when applied to heterogeneous populations facing unequal constraints.
A second reason is institutional trust. Behaviourally informed policies still presume a baseline of legitimacy. Where trust is thin, even well-designed interventions are resisted, reinterpreted, or quietly undermined. Compliance and norm internalisation are not automatic responses to incentives; they are fragile social achievements.
READ | Public health policy must focus on non-communicable diseases
A third problem is adaptation. Individuals and organisations learn to game rules, blunt sanctions, and shift behaviour in unintended ways. Static designs lose relevance as the regulated environment changes. Without continuous institutional adjustment, policy effectiveness erodes.
Finally, policy carries an irreducible normative burden. Every intervention embeds assumptions about desirable or rational behaviour. When these assumptions clash with lived realities or cultural meaning, resistance follows—not because individuals are irrational, but because policy misreads social context.
The gap between policy intent and outcome is therefore not a failure of economics alone. It reflects the difficulty of governing psychologically complex, socially embedded, and morally plural societies. Public policy is applied psychology within political economy. Its success depends less on technical ingenuity than on alignment between incentives, norms, trust, and institutional credibility. Ignoring this does not simplify governance. It ensures failure.
If policy is ultimately about shaping behaviour, the harder question is not how to design finer incentives, but how societies can reconcile individual freedom with collective responsibility without eroding human dignity.
READ | India in global value chains: Progress, gaps, and policy choices
Debdulal Thakur is Professor, Vinayaka Mission’s School of Economics and Public Policy, Chennai.