Abstract

The report examines how behavioural public policy has focused predominantly on individual-level (“i-frame”) explanations and interventions, such as nudges, while neglecting system-level (“s-frame”) solutions involving regulation, taxation, and institutional reform. It argues this imbalance has limited policy effectiveness and, in some cases, reinforced existing power structures.

Introduction

The authors introduce the distinction between the i-frame, which locates social problems in individual behaviour and decision-making, and the s-frame, which locates them in structural conditions such as markets, institutions, and laws. They argue that many large-scale social challenges—climate change, public health, inequality—cannot be addressed effectively through individual behaviour change alone.

The i-frame and the s-frame

Behavioural science has often framed problems as arising from cognitive biases, lack of self-control, or poor individual choices. This framing makes nudges and information provision appear attractive because they are low-cost and politically palatable. However, evidence suggests that these interventions typically generate small, context-dependent effects and rarely deliver sustained, population-level change. By contrast, s-frame interventions—such as regulation, taxation, and changes to default market rules—have historically produced larger and more durable impacts. The report highlights that corporations frequently promote i-frame narratives through public relations and lobbying, as these deflect attention from systemic reforms that threaten commercial interests.

Carbon Footprints And Climate Policy

The report uses carbon footprints as a central example. Campaigns emphasising individual responsibility for emissions have been widely adopted, yet quantitative evidence shows that household-level behaviour change has limited impact when energy systems, transport infrastructure, and pricing structures remain unchanged. In cap-and-trade systems, individual reductions may simply lower permit prices without reducing total emissions. The authors argue that effective climate mitigation requires s-frame policies such as carbon taxes, emissions caps, and regulation of high-emitting industries. Behavioural insights can complement these measures—for example, by improving public acceptance of carbon pricing through revenue recycling—but should not substitute for structural reform.

Health: Tobacco, Alcohol, And Food

In public health, i-frame approaches often focus on education and personal responsibility, while industries frame harm as the result of individual weakness. The report notes that tobacco control successes were driven primarily by s-frame measures, including advertising bans, taxation, and smoke-free legislation, rather than information campaigns alone. Similar patterns are observed in alcohol and ultra-processed food markets, where product design and marketing systematically encourage overconsumption. The authors argue that regulation of marketing, pricing, and availability has stronger empirical support than interventions aimed solely at changing individual choices.

Education And Social Inequality

Educational inequality is frequently addressed through interventions targeting students’ motivation or mindset. The report reviews evidence showing that while such programmes can have short-term effects, they often fade without changes to school funding, neighbourhood conditions, and labour market opportunities. Large-scale evaluations, including long-term studies of educational and income interventions, suggest that structural determinants—family income, housing, and institutional quality—play a dominant role in shaping outcomes. The authors argue for policies that directly address these determinants rather than relying on individual-level fixes.

Healthcare And Social Insurance

In healthcare, behavioural interventions such as reminders and default enrolment can improve take-up of beneficial services. However, the report emphasises that access, affordability, and coverage are primarily determined by system design. Structural reforms, including risk pooling and price regulation, have greater impact on population health outcomes than individual nudges alone.

Implications For Policy And Research

The report argues that the dominance of the i-frame is reinforced by academic training, peer review, and funding structures that favour individual-level studies. It suggests that shifting towards s-frame solutions requires institutional changes in how research is funded, evaluated, and translated into policy.

Conclusion

The authors conclude that behavioural public policy should rebalance towards system-level interventions while using behavioural insights to support, not replace, structural reform. Addressing major social problems effectively requires changing the rules of the system, not only the behaviour of individuals within it.