The sample sizes, they are a changing

From the BIT's blog:

"...the real take home message is not the specifics of the trial, but the fact that the trial is happening. This class, and this school, is one of thousands now taking part in controlled trials across the UK. There are now an incredible 2,400 schools, taking part in 87 different trials (74 or which are RCTs). That’s around 500,000 pupils involved, organised and funded by the independent Education Endowment Fund."

Fairly incredible when you think of past research which was important in terms of policy implications but which rested on experiments with much smaller sample sizes, such as the Perry Preschool Project (N=123 children) or Card & Kreuger's minimum wage natural experiment (N=410 restaurants). Support for evidence-based policy on this scale will mean more certainty about effect sizes and probably obviate the need for a lot of complex econometrics.

Summary of the One-day conference on "Well-Being and Policy"

Thanks to all participants for attending the one-day conference on “Well-Being and Policy” that David Bell, Christopher Boyce and Liam Delaney (all Stirling University) organised in conjunction with the Scottish Universities Insight Institute. We had brilliant talks, great discussions, and plenty food for thought.

Below you'll find abstracts, some pictures, and links to documents referred to in the presentations. Details of future workshops will be provided via the mailing list, the blog,and our twitter account.

09.35-10.15: Douglas White (Carnegie Trust UK)

Measuring what matters: The Carnegie well-being programme 

PPT SLIDES

This presentation examines the key findings from the Carnegie UK Trust well-being programme, which began in 2010. It considers what well-being is, how it can be measured, options and opportunities for embedding well-being frameworks in policy and the challenges to a well-being approach.

Links
Carnegie Wellbeing Reports.  

Measuring Wellbeing in Northern Ireland 
Scotland Performs.

10.15-10.55: Charles Seaford (New Economics Foundation)
Wellbeing and economic policy

PPT SLIDES

The presentation will cover the following topics: 1. Introduction: (a) the different roles that wellbeing evidence can play in policy making and politics, (b) the differences in its role in economic as against social policy. 2. Specific policy implications. 3. Barriers to this happening and how to overcome them: (a) policy process, (b) political narrative, (c) democratic engagement.

11.15-11.55: Matthew White (University of Exeter)
Subjective well-being and the environment: Towards an ecological model of public health and well-being 

Policy makers and advisors are taking a growing interest in how policies might affect how people think and feel about their lives, i.e. their subjective well-being (SWB). In part this is due to the realisation that ecologically unsustainable levels of economic growth do not necessarily improve many people’s experiences of life. This coincides with attempts to understand the way in which the planet’s natural capital and processes, i.e. ecosystems services, influence human well-being more generally.

These complimentary movements have led to a growing interest in understanding how the environment directly and indirectly influences our SWB. In particular, given rapid urbanisation, there has been concern about how large proportions of the population are becoming detached from ‘natural’ environments and what effect this may be having on outcomes such as depression, now recognised as the leading cause of disability in many developed countries. The aim of this talk is to introduce some of the latest research in this area and discuss issues such as: a) What do we mean by ‘nature’ in modern developed countries?; b) What do we mean by ‘exposure’ to nature?; c) What is the relationship between different types of exposure to different types of nature and SWB?; d) How large are these effects relative to other determinants of SWB?; and e) How durable are the effects?. One aim of this research is to broaden the scope of ecological public health models to include SWB and thus potentially raise the profile of environmental issues in health policies.

Links
Good Places, Better Health (GPBH)
Health map for the local human habitat by Barton and Grant (2006).
Professor Rich Mitchell from Glasgow works on similar topics.
Related research from Edinburgh's Professor Catharine Ward Thompson

11.55-12.35: Koen Decancq (University of Antwerp): 
Beyond GDP: Measuring social progress in Europe 

PPT SLIDES

In this paper we study the measurement of social progress. Recently, it has become widely accepted that focusing exclusively on income growth may lead to a too narrow-sighted measure of social progress. People care about other dimensions of life, such as their health, employment, social interactions and personal safety. Moreover, an exclusive focus on income growth remains blind to the distribution of income and well-being in the society. We propose therefore a set of six principles for a richer measure of social progress. In particular, we advocate the use of a measure based on “equivalent incomes”, which satisfies all our basic principles. We discuss and illustrate how an equivalent income approach can be implemented in Europe, using the ESS data for 2008 and 2010. We find that introducing inequality aversion and including other dimensions in the analysis of social progress leads to a remarkably different perspective on social progress in Europe. 

Links Decancq, Koen, Luc Van Ootegem and Elsy Verhofstadt (2013) What if we voted on the weights of a multidimensional well-being index? An illustration with Flemish data Fiscal Studies, 34(3), 315-332.

Decancq, Koen and María Ana Lugo (2013) Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Well-Being: An Overview, Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 7-34.

13.45-14.25: Michael Hogan (National University of Ireland, Galway)
Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies 

PPT SLIDES

Internationally, there is increasing interest in, and analysis of, human wellbeing and the economic, social, environmental, and psychological factors that contribute to it. Current thinking suggests that to measure social progress and national wellbeing we need something more than GDP.  Experts across a range of disciplines have increasingly highlighted a number of key values and domains of measurement that are influencing the way governments in different countries are thinking about wellbeing measures and policies.  

Different countries have focused more or less on citizen consultation in the design of wellbeing measures and policies.  However, recent case studies highlight the dangers of failing to consult with citizens and the importance of citizen consultations in the design of wellbeing measures and policies.  This paper highlights the value of citizen consultations and considers how best to optimize deliberation and co-design by experts, citizens, and politicians using systems science tools that facilitate individual talents and effective team dynamics.  

The paper opens with an overview of the international wellbeing movement and highlights key issues in the design and application of wellbeing measures in policy practice. Next, an applied system science approach to citizen consultations in relation to wellbeing measurement and policy is described. A recent application of our applied system science methodology to the design of a notional national wellbeing index for Ireland is outlined. The paper closes by highlighting the importance of adopting a wider social science toolkit to the challenge of facilitating social progress.

Links
Just Freedom by Philip Pettit | Homepage of John N. Warfield, creator of Systems Science. 
Galway Healthy Cities project | Canadian Index of Wellbeing. 

Wellbeing in Ireland – Designing Measures and Implementing Policies, June 6, 2013, NUI, Galway. (Workshop Report)

·  Overcoming Barriers to Well-Being in Ireland, June 8, 2012, NUI, Galway. (Workshop Report)

And The report of the working group on citizen engagement with local government

14.25-15.05: Danny Blanchflower (Dartmouth College & University of Stirling) (via Skype) 
























Links

Papers on well-being and other topics.  

Paper on bio-markers.

  

15.25-16.05: Martine Durand (OECD and co-author of recent paper 'Wellbeing and Policy') 

Well-being: From measurement to policy - the OECD’s approach

PPT SLIDES

The OECD’s mission is to promote better policies for better lives. To know whether life is getting better, and to understand the role that policy plays in improving lives, we need measures of people’s well-being and how it is distributed. This means going beyond GDP, because economic growth is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Well-being measures can be used to explore the quality of economic growth, and who benefits from it, but well-being is a concept that goes well beyond the material, and well beyond the outcomes that can be delivered by markets alone.

Measures of well-being need to focus on the ultimate outcomes that matter to people and that, together, shape their lives. In the OECD measurement framework, outcomes are grouped into eleven different domains of life, including both material living conditions (income and wealth, jobs and earnings, housing conditions) and ‘quality of life’ factors (health status, work-life balance, education and skills, social connections, civic engagement and governance, environmental quality, personal security and subjective well-being). Measuring the sustainability of well-being over time meanwhile requires understanding the stocks and flows of the different types of capital that underpin well-being: natural, economic, human and social.

While there has been considerable progress in developing measures of well-being, there is currently less clarity about how they can be more deeply embedded in policy development and decision-making. This presentation will describe ways in which the OECD well-being framework can be used, at the very least, to inform and improve current modes of policy-making. This includes complementing more traditional approaches to measuring the progress of societies by highlighting whether life is getting better and for whom, and bringing the synergies and trade-offs between different policy outcomes into sharper focus.


Links
Create Your Own Better Life Index.
How's life? 2013 - Measuring well-being.

Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being.

Guidelines for micro statistics on household wealth.

All on Board: Making Inclusive Growth Happen.

Regional Well-Being.

16.05-17.00: Panel Discussion 

The panel discussed several issues related to wellbeing and its measurement and use in policy, including the (in-)equality of wellbeing, the effects of social comparisons on wellbeing, the coherence of wellbeing goals across nations, the importance of an individualistic understanding of wellbeing, the optimal level (city, county, country, ...) of implementing wellbeing policies, and the danger of tinkering wellbeing data to win elections. As a reoccurring theme the importance of giving citizens freedom and autonomy and empowering them to live the lives they want was mentioned several times.

Further Reading: 

Well-Being in the 21st Century – a role for policy.
Further details of 2014 Scottish University Insights Institute programme on well-being 

Summary of Lecture on Well-Being and Economics.  

MAP: Measuring Australia's Progress

See all the day's tweets #StirBSC

Workshop on Well-Being and Policy June 27th

In conjunction the Scottish Universities Insight Institute we are pleased to invite you to a one-day conference on “Well-Being and Policy” to be held at the University of Stirling on 27th June 2014 from 9.30am to 5.00pm.

The venue is Court Room of the Cottrell Building at Stirling University. 

The conference will explore current and future approaches to using well-being to guide policy consisting of a day of talks from a diverse set of speakers with considerable expertise in well-being and policy from academia, the civil service, and business. Important questions that the workshop will aim to address include:

• How can measures of well-being be used to conduct high level policy analysis?

• Can valid and reliable indicators of both individual and national well-being be developed to   complement economic indicators such as GDP?

• What are the main policy implications from research into the causes of high well-being?

• What are the main barriers for well-being based policy and what future directions is well-being research likely to take?

The day will include ample time for individual and collective discussion around these areas and we very much welcome your involvement. The full programme will be made available on this link in the near future. 
 

Sign up to attend the workshop here.

We look forward to having you join us on the day.

David Bell, Christopher Boyce and Liam Delaney
Stirling University

DAY SCHEDULE

40 minutes per speaker (~30mins talk + 10mins questions)

09.00-09.30: Registration period

09.30-09.35: Introduction to the day

09.35-10.15: Douglas White (Carnegie Trust UK)
Measuring what matters: The Carnegie well-being programme

This presentation examines the key findings from the Carnegie UK Trust well-being programme, which began in 2010. It considers what well-being is, how it can be measured, options and opportunities for embedding well-being frameworks in policy and the challenges to a well-being approach.

10.15-10.55: Charles Seaford (New Economics Foundation)
Wellbeing and economic policy

The presentation will cover the following topics: 
1. Introduction: (a) the different roles that wellbeing evidence can play in policy making and politics, (b) the differences in its role in economic as against social policy. 2. Specific policy implications. 3. Barriers to this happening and how to overcome them: (a) policy process, (b) political narrative, (c) democratic engagement.

COFFEE BREAK

11.15-11.55: Matthew White (University of Exeter)
Subjective well-being and the environment: Towards an ecological model of public health and well-being 

Policy makers and advisors are taking a growing interest in how policies might affect how people think and feel about their lives, i.e. their subjective well-being (SWB). In part this is due to the realisation that ecologically unsustainable levels of economic growth do not necessarily improve many people’s experiences of life. This coincides with attempts to understand the way in which the planet’s natural capital and processes, i.e. ecosystems services, influence human well-being more generally. These complimentary movements have led to a growing interest in understanding how the environment directly and indirectly influences our SWB. In particular, given rapid urbanisation, there has been concern about how large proportions of the population are becoming detached from ‘natural’ environments and what effect this may be having on outcomes such as depression, now recognised as the leading cause of disability in many developed countries. The aim of this talk is to introduce some of the latest research in this area and discuss issues such as: a) What do we mean by ‘nature’ in modern developed countries?; b) What do we mean by ‘exposure’ to nature?; c) What is the relationship between different types of exposure to different types of nature and SWB?; d) How large are these effects relative to other determinants of SWB?; and e) How durable are the effects?. One aim of this research is to broaden the scope of ecological public health models to include SWB and thus potentially raise the profile of environmental issues in health policies.

11.55-12.35: Koen Decancq (University of Antwerp): 
Beyond GDP: Measuring social progress in Europe 

In this paper we study the measurement of social progress. Recently, it has become widely accepted that focusing exclusively on income growth may lead to a too narrow-sighted measure of social progress. People care about other dimensions of life, such as their health, employment, social interactions and personal safety. Moreover, an exclusive focus on income growth remains blind to the distribution of income and well-being in the society. We propose therefore a set of six principles for a richer measure of social progress. In particular, we advocate the use of a measure based on “equivalent incomes”, which satisfies all our basic principles. We discuss and illustrate how an equivalent income approach can be implemented in Europe, using the ESS data for 2008 and 2010. We find that introducing inequality aversion and including other dimensions in the analysis of social progress leads to a remarkably different perspective on social progress in Europe. 

LUNCH

13.45-14.25: Michael Hogan (National University of Ireland)
Consulting with citizens in the design of wellbeing measures and policies 

Internationally, there is increasing interest in, and analysis of, human wellbeing and the economic, social, environmental, and psychological factors that contribute to it. Current thinking suggests that to measure social progress and national wellbeing we need something more than GDP.  Experts across a range of disciplines have increasingly highlighted a number of key values and domains of measurement that are influencing the way governments in different countries are thinking about wellbeing measures and policies.  Different countries have focused more or less on citizen consultation in the design of wellbeing measures and policies.  However, recent case studies highlight the dangers of failing to consult with citizens and the importance of citizen consultations in the design of wellbeing measures and policies.  This paper highlights the value of citizen consultations and considers how best to optimize deliberation and co-design by experts, citizens, and politicians using systems science tools that facilitate individual talents and effective team dynamics.  The paper opens with an overview of the international wellbeing movement and highlights key issues in the design and application of wellbeing measures in policy practice. Next, an applied system science approach to citizen consultations in relation to wellbeing measurement and policy is described. A recent application of our applied system science methodology to the design of a notional national wellbeing index for Ireland is outlined. The paper closes by highlighting the importance of adopting a wider social science toolkit to the challenge of facilitating social progress. 

14.25-15.05: Danny Blanchflower (Dartmouth College & University of Stirling) (via internet) 

COFFEE BREAK

15.25-16.05: Martine Durand (OECD and co-author of recent paper 'Wellbeing and Policy')
Well-being: From measurement to policy - the OECD’s approach

The OECD’s mission is to promote better policies for better lives. To know whether life is getting better, and to understand the role that policy plays in improving lives, we need measures of people’s well-being and how it is distributed. This means going beyond GDP, because economic growth is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Well-being measures can be used to explore the quality of economic growth, and who benefits from it, but well-being is a concept that goes well beyond the material, and well beyond the outcomes that can be delivered by markets alone.

Measures of well-being need to focus on the ultimate outcomes that matter to people and that, together, shape their lives. In the OECD measurement framework, outcomes are grouped into eleven different domains of life, including both material living conditions (income and wealth, jobs and earnings, housing conditions) and ‘quality of life’ factors (health status, work-life balance, education and skills, social connections, civic engagement and governance, environmental quality, personal security and subjective well-being). Measuring the sustainability of well-being over time meanwhile requires understanding the stocks and flows of the different types of capital that underpin well-being: natural, economic, human and social.


While there has been considerable progress in developing measures of well-being, there is currently less clarity about how they can be more deeply embedded in policy development and decision-making. This presentation will describe ways in which the OECD well-being framework can be used, at the very least, to inform and improve current modes of policy-making. This includes complementing more traditional approaches to measuring the progress of societies by highlighting whether life is getting better and for whom, and bringing the synergies and trade-offs between different policy outcomes into sharper focus.

16.05-17.00: Panel Discussion chaired by Anne-Marie Conlong (Performance Unit, Office of The Chief Statistician & Performance, Scottish Government) 

This presentation and panel discussion will reflect on progress to date on measuring wellbeing in Scotland through Scotland Performs. The planned improvements for Scotland Performs will be outlined and the panel will then consider the challenges that lie ahead in embedding the wellbeing approach in policy development. Panel: Anne-Marie Conlong, Martine Durand, Charles Seaford, Douglas white.

Behavioural Economics and Consumer Exploitation

A few people have asked me for a set of links on behavioural economics, consumer exploitation and regulation. We discuss this a lot in classes here and below are the main readings that I drew from this year.

The main readings I used for this topic (other than the obvious ones like Nudge and so on) are below

This set of lectures focused on ethics of nudging more generally are based on these.

http://economicspsychologypolicy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/behavioural-policy-readings.html

I do a class on this paper from the Financial Conduct Authority. It details the various different biases and the implications for regulation. It is written for a policy audience but it complements the academic papers very well. I get the students to come up with other ways that companies can exploit behavioural biases and we debate the implications for regulation.

http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/occasional-papers/occasional-paper-1.pdf

I also do a class on the paper below. It is really useful. It is basically about financial regulation but gives a lot of material about how industry can utilise choice manipulations and implications of this for policy.

http://www.newamerica.net/files/naf_behavioral_v5.pdf

See below for other useful readings on the area:

Mark Armstrong and John Vickers "Consumer protection and contingent charges". A later version of this is available in the Journal of Economic Literature.

The Office of Fair Trading investigation into fees for fitness clubs an interesting example of where a regulator specifically took action on a practice said to be exploiting consumer biases.

Huffman and Heidtke "Behavioral Exploitation Antitrust in Consumer Subprime Mortgage Lending"

Useful presentation by Maurice Stucke "Behavioral Exploitation and Its Implications on Competition and Consumer Protection Policies".

Stucke "Behavioural Antitrust and Monopolisation".

Fellowshop available with the U.S. Social and Behavioral Sciences Team

Details here

Job Title: Fellow, U.S. Social and Behavioral Sciences Team

Department: General Services Administration

Agency: Office of Government-wide Policy, Performance Improvement Council

Deadline: Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis until filled

The U.S. Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST) seeks exceptionally qualified individuals to serve as Fellows for 2014–2015. Individuals who can secure continued financial support from their home institution or other outside funding are especially encouraged to apply.

JOB SUMMARY:
The SBST helps federal agencies increase the efficiency and efficacy of their programs and policies, by harnessing research methods and findings from the social and behavioral sciences. The team works closely with agencies across the federal government, thinking creatively about how to translate social and behavioral science insights into concrete interventions that are likely to improve federal outcomes and designing rigorous field trials to test the impact of these recommendations.

The SBST is a small, multi-disciplinary group of experts, coordinated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and organized under the Performance Improvement Council at the General Services Administration (GSA). Collectively, the team has a diverse mixture of scientific expertise from fields such as economics, psychology, and statistics, as well as experience performing rigorous evaluations in complex operational settings. As the SBST works to pursue the agencies’ priority goals, policy areas include health, education, tax and finance, housing, environment, criminal justice, and so forth (see http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/ to learn about federal departments and agencies).

Fellows must possess a unique set of technical and professional skills. This includes extensive knowledge of at least one field within the social and behavioral sciences, the ability to creatively apply research knowledge within the federal government setting, the ability to manage the day-to-day operations of a field trial, and exceptional communication and interpersonal skills. (Duties and qualifications are further elaborated below.)

The position lasts for one year beginning in August or September 2014 (precise start date negotiable), with the possibility of renewal. Fellows will be located in the GSA building at 1800 F Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20405. GSA has been named repeatedly by the Partnership for Public Service as
one of the “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government.”
 
DUTIES:
Your major duties and responsibilities are as follows:

• Learn about select federal agency priorities and design human-centered policies and programs to better serve citizens;
• Creatively translate insights from the social and behavioral sciences into concrete recommendations for how to improve those federal programs, policies, and organizations;
• Work closely with agency partners to design rigorous experimental trials capable of testing the relative efficiency and efficacy of proposed interventions;
• Communicate regularly with agency partners, and any outside collaborators, in order to: ensure the rationale behind intervention ideas and trial design are clearly understood and meet agency goals; ensure that field experiments are implemented as planned; share updates on trial status; and discuss the implications of results;
• Effectively manage the operations of select field experiments, for example, ensuring that the design, implementation, and results are properly documented and shared;
• Perform data analyses and interpretation;
• Write project reports and policy memos for academic, agency, and public audiences;
• Assist, as needed, on additional projects being managed by other SBST members;
• Attend weekly SBST meetings, provide updates on trial status, and be generally available to collaborate on and contribute to internal tasks; and
• Attend and potentially present at conferences and workshops.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED:

• Ph.D. in a social and behavioral sciences field (e.g., economics, psychology, political science, statistics, sociology, public policy, etc.), or a Master’s Degree plus two or more years of relevant experience.
• Two or more years of experience designing, implementing and analyzing experiments.
• General knowledge of behavioral economics, and highly specialized knowledge of at least one domain of a study within the social and behavioral sciences.
• Ability to think creatively about how insights from the social and behavioral sciences can be translated into concrete interventions that are practically feasible within specific federal programs, policies, or organizations.
• Statistical competency, including use of at least one programming language (e.g., R, Matlab, SAS, Stata, etc...).
• Ability to effectively explain technical concepts to a broad range of audiences, both orally and in writing.
• Strong writing skills, including under tight deadlines.
• Excellent management and organizational skills.
• Flexibility, self-motivation, and the ability to manage multiple tasks efficiently as a team player.
• Curiosity and willingness to learn about federal agencies and the unique practical and regulatory constraints they face.

ADDITIONAL PREFERRED QUALIFICATIONS:

• Two or more years of experience conducting randomized controlled trials within complex field settings.
• Experience working with the federal government.
• Advanced statistical skills, including experience handling large administrative data sets.

Application Instructions:

• Email your C.V. and a relevant writing sample to natalie.vasquez@gsa.gov, with “SBST Fellow Application” in the subject line. Please also include a 1-page cover letter introducing yourself and explaining your interest in being a Fellow.
• The final deadline to submit is July 25, 2014, although applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis.
• Finalists will be invited to a multi-stage interview process.

WORKSHOP: Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Theoretical and Practical Issues

WORKSHOP: Using Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Theoretical and Practical Issues.

19-21 November 2014, Jury’s Inn, Aberdeen

Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen are running this popular annual workshop. 

It is increasingly recognised in many publicly provided health care systems that limited resources coupled with unlimited demand require decisions to be made about the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Economic techniques can inform such decisions. One technique adopted, and further developed, by health economists over the past decade is the discrete choice experiment (DCE) (also known as conjoint analysis).

The workshop will provide:

•       Information on the theoretical basis for, & application of, DCEs

•       Hands-on experience in DCE design, and a practical guide to data input, data analysis, and the interpretation of DCE results

•       An overview of methodological issues and recent developments in the application of DCEs.

This workshop will provide an opportunity for those interested in the application of DCEs to discuss both practical and theoretical issues raised when applying the method. The workshop will include group work sessions with feedback. No knowledge of economics or DCEs is assumed.

A limited number of places remain available after the workshop was opened to our waiting list, if you are interested in attending this workshop, please click here for further information and registration details. The workshop is an annual event and we maintain a waiting list for people who may not be able to attend this year, but would like to attend in future. Members of the waiting list receive advance notification of future workshops and the opportunity to register early before the workshop is widely advertised. Please email Alison.horne@abdn.ac.uk to be added to the waiting list.

New Labour Economics paper by Thomas Dohmen: 

Behavioural Labour Economics: Advances and Future Directions^☆

Abstract

In the past decades, behavioural economics has become an influential and important field of economics. Interest in behavioural economics derives from unease with standard economic models that are based on restrictive assumptions, which confine the nature of human motivation. Although Adam Smith, the founding father of modern economics, had highlighted the multitude of psychological motives that drive human behaviour, and despite the fact that many influential economists thereafter believed in tenets of modern behavioural economics, the homo economicus assumption became prevalent, until this construct was challenged by compelling evidence on social, cognitive and emotional factors that drive decision-making and social interaction. Since human interaction is germane to labour markets, one would expect behavioural economics to be highly relevant for labour economics. This paper gauges whether and how behavioural economics has left its mark on labour economics, considers the timing and structure of this development, and contemplates its future impact on labour economics.