Mgr Maria Pawińska
University of Silesia
English abstract: Nudge interventions have risen to prominence as ostensibly evidence-based regulatory tools, predicated on empirical insights into human decision-making. In theory, successful nudges require rigorous preparation, including carefully designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pilot studies, to ensure they achieve their anticipated effects. In practice, however, many nudges fail to deliver the intended outcomes. This article explores the key determinants of such failures, with particular attention to issues in trial design and quality, the frequent reliance on ad hoc “copy-and-paste” approaches, and even absence of preparatory research. Consequently, this suboptimal implementation invites a range of objections regarding the legitimacy of behavioural regulation. Critics contend that nudges may be misused as technocratic exercises of power, provide a façade of government action without meaningfully addressing regulatory challenges, or function as instruments wielded by unqualified authorities. These flawed implementations give rise to a host of adverse consequences, such as side-effects of the regulation or unintended counter-effects. By dissecting these systemic shortcomings, this article offers a critical assessment of the relationship between approaches based on behavioural economics insights and regulatory practice, urging renewed scrutiny of nudge implementation processes to safeguard their credibility and efficacy.
Key words: nudge, RCTs, behavioural intervention, evidence-based regulation, implementation, abuse of power
Language: english
Published: Number 2(47)/2026, pp. 92–111.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2026.2.92
DownloadNumber of downloads: 8
This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.