5. Crime, public space and policing 11 Youth Offending Teams; Community Safety Partnerships Economic development and regeneration 19 UA Depts., Regional Economic Forums, Communities First Education and young people 28 UA Depts., Education and Young Peoples Partnerships Employment and training 3 Careers Wales Environment, tourism and leisure 23 UA Depts., Countryside Council for Wales, Parks, Museums Health, well-being and social care 16 UA Depts., Health Boards, CAFCASS Housing and Transport 14 UA Depts., Regional Transport Consortia, Housing Associations Language and cultural heritage 9 Welsh Language Board, UA Cultural Service Depts., Arts Council
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Hinweis der Redaktion
Aim of workshop To engage in ‘knowledge transfer’ whereby findings from research projects are presented in order to facilitate and catalyse debate amongst workshop participants relating to the implications of behaviour change as they have encountered it in their jobs, and/or relating to their responses to the policy and stakeholder data presented.
NOTE: this slide where we give the overview as per Jesse/Laura’s doc which accompanies these points
-so theres a particular mindset here; that people have expertise; that they can be genuinely brought into the policy/ service delivery process
Clearly implications for behaviour change as to whether seen as top down or bottom up- and whether people QED are being pushed to change their behaviour in a top –down manner- whether the behaviour change agenda and associated partipation /engagement strategies are also being ‘imposed’ on people. Also- note this tied to constructions of ‘apathetic’ and ‘passive’ publics in the 2 nd quote- and ideological basis for empowerment- state roll back and society picks up the slack (ties into the micro/macro issue- some people have more choices than others- sets up the next point
Idea that through processes of engagement, citizens are being empowered to make choices (some of which may involve changing their behaviours) both for their individual and for the collective good. However, as this stakeholder suggests, empowering citizens to make choices can also be a method of the state delegating responsibility for more difficult and politically contentious issues such as school closures. It also supports the idea that what is presented as a choice can actually be a way of endorsing paternalistic decisions made at a higher level regarding what’s best for people. In this context, choice and the responsibility that comes with it is not always desirable or viewed as empowering. For instance, in the second quote the stakeholder acknowledges that whilst citizens may value the democratic process and attempts to improve public capacity in the decision making sphere, they also attach much value to services being delivered with the utmost efficiently by the state. (Here there is a clear argument that people accept the premise that the ‘right’ choices are made for them.)
A way of getting people engaged in making decisions about their wellbeing Less top down. More attuned to a need to involve people in the process of understanding why changes in behaviour are necessary and beneficial. In Wales, emphasis on informed choice – understanding why they are making certain choices rather than being arguably unthinkingly nudged into it
Some citizens have more choices than others, and are more capable of making informed choices- some of our interviewees very explicit about that Nudging people towards making ‘good choices’ works in particular social contexts, and there are communities of need who require the government/authorities to take the impetus in improving the health of these groups in a more direct/proactive way. This brings us to focus on how different groups are perceived as having a different latent capacity to help themselves
Stakeholders identified what they saw as positive instances of citizens helping themselves – in this case focused at the community rather than perhaps the individualistic focus that is evident in the behaviour change policy discourse discussed by Jessica In some interviews, the commentary on self help focused on the capacity for community (either in a place, or of an issue) self help, as opposed to the individual. Here a specific communities first area is taking the lead in implementing changes linked to healthier lifestyle choices. Social justice – some people in society less able to help themselves, so the state has a role in acting on their behalf (follows on from the last issue- some people have more choices than others-think this issue/point needs work to clarify sense- see robin’s email- 2 /3slides- quotes- good quotes in jesse/laura’s doc- add in here
demonstrates an understanding that different places and groups of people within these places have a varying capacity to bring about helpful change in their lives. As above, but this shows that movements to self help more easily come about in communities with greater cultural capital and resources. This passage follows the above in its description. Where the culturally/resource rich are not seen as needing any/as much in the way of nudging towards making the appropriate choices, areas of poverty are evidently more so, and this fits in with the policy-painted picture of the existence of the irrational underclass.
While there is clear evidence that local authorities workers are sensitive to the nudge agenda, and are taking this forward variously in their work, there was also a feeling held by some respondents that people could always ultimately choose not to ‘improve’ by doing the right thing. This fits with the libertarian undertones of soft paternalism and shows the limitations of choice-derived, as opposed to legally required/forced approaches in governing citizen behaviour. Limits of the behaviour change approach – need to the state to intervene and take some decisions on peoples behalf?
clearly a different kind of paternalism is going on with individual behaviour change than the paternsalism of the welfare state? For example, it could be argued that addressing 'macro' issues such as poor quality housing and educational inequalities is a much more likely way to reduce ill-health than policies focusing on individual behaviours. Improving outcomes for specific publics and ‘bigger picture’ ie individual /population health, climate change
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/behaviourchangejune2011finaldraft-110708084057-phpapp01/85/Behaviour-change-1-320.jpg)
![Outline ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()