Abstract
Behavioural Public Policy (BPP) has been widely criticised for failing to engage with complexity and systemic change, with critics characterising the field as narrowly individualistic, technocratic, and methodologically reductionist. These critiques have been influential, but they are largely developed at an abstract theoretical level and rest on limited engagement with contemporary practice.
Drawing on interviews with senior behavioural policy practitioners across Europe, Australia, and Canada, and a synthesis of practitioner workshops, this paper argues that the dominant critique mischaracterises how behavioural public policy is increasingly practised in complex policy environments. Rather than operating as a discrete “nudge-based” toolkit, advanced BPP practice is best understood as an emergent hybrid that integrates behavioural analysis with design thinking, systems framing, governance reform, and institutional experimentation.
We develop a practice-grounded conceptual framework that distinguishes between behavioural interventions, behavioural problem framing, and behavioural system-shaping, showing how systems-sensitivity varies less by disciplinary allegiance than by organisational mandate, relationships, and capability. The contribution is not to claim representativeness or generalisability, but to reframe the theoretical debate by aligning critique with the realities of applied policy work.
The findings suggest that future debates should move beyond abstract i-frame/s-frame dichotomies toward analysis of the institutional conditions under which systems-sensitive behavioural policy becomes possible, and the underlying capabilities and relationships BPP practitioners draw on to navigate them. Only then will we ensure that BPP alongside other contributing expertise makes strong and constructive contributions to pressing policy problems. We share recommendations for practice, research, and behavioural public policy education.