Article by Nika Vanadze
Introduction
In theory, public policy should be a rational exercise: gather evidence, assess alternatives, and implement the most effective and equitable solution. In practice, however, policies are shaped by people, and people are not always rational. All humans are influenced by some sort of cognitive biases that will change their behaviour, judgment, and decision-making. These biases are impossible to overcome, and they will have some impact even in high-stakes environments like government.
As modern challenges grow, the stakes of poor decision-making are higher than ever. In this article, we will discuss how multiple kinds of bias affect policy outputs, provide some practical examples of odd policy failures on the grounds of bias, and describe how governments can utilize such information to make better and more intelligent policies.
Biases That Influence Policy Making
Policymaking is vulnerable to a wide range of biases. These biases not only affect individual decisions but often emerges in institutional and political settings:
1. Time Bias (Policy Horizons)
Elections are held every four years, these short election cycles encourage the government to give more attention to immediate results. Because of that, long-term challenges like climate change, pension reform, and so on, are frequently postponed. Moreover, this delay will deepen the problem and increase the expenses. The pressure to deliver “quick wins” hampers sustainability and long-term resilience in governance.
2. Spatial Bias (Policy Scope)
Policies tend to favor specific geographical constituencies, especially swing regions or urban centers. Similarly, national interests are often prioritized over international cooperation. Global issues like pandemics or environmental degradation require collective action, but countries prefer to prioritize national interests.
3. Ethnocentrism Bias (Policy Culture)
Ethnocentrism bias occurs when policymakers view societal issues and solutions through the lens of the dominant culture. It may include disregarding the values, needs, and perspectives of minorities. This bias manifests in assimilation-focused integration policies, education systems that ignore indigenous knowledge, or social programs that fail to account for cultural differences in family or community structures.
4. Public Perception Biases
Public opinion heavily influences policy making, but it is often shaped by emotion, selective media coverage, and misinformation. This bias is relevant when policies are based on fears and assumptions rather than facts. Politicians responding to perceived threats, such as rising crime or immigration surges, may introduce punitive or exclusionary measures, even when data suggests these threats are exaggerated or misrepresented.
5. Action-Oriented Bias
In times of crisis or public pressure, there’s a strong tendency toward action-oriented bias — the urgency to “do something” even if it lacks evidence. Thus, policymakers often feel they have to act quickly. While responsiveness is valuable, it can lead to symbolic or performative policies—policies intended to seem like doing something as opposed to doing it. Dramatic anti-terror laws, rushed fiscal bailouts, or poorly thought out lockdowns are examples of such reactive policy making.
Examples and Analysis of Bias in Policy Failure
The Iraq War (2003)
Most famously, policy failure from bias in the U.S. is the invasion of Iraq. Confirmation bias led policymakers to overstate intelligence indicating Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and dismiss evidence to the contrary. Availability bias, with the emotional impact of the 9/11 attacks, also made the threat appear more urgent and necessitated rapid military intervention. The war had disastrous humanitarian, economic, and geopolitical consequences.
Climate Change Policy
Climate change is the ultimate example of how time bias, status quo bias, and normalcy bias come together to delay action. Because the worst effects of climate change lie in the future, and because the solutions are usually short-term sacrifices, politicians will not act drastically. And fossil fuel lobbies and ideology have further entrenched opposition to change, often employing framing bias to frame sustainability as an economic threat.
COVID-19 Responses
In the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments were in denial and behind, motivated by optimism bias and normalcy bias—believing that the virus would not infect so widely or be so severe. Later on, action-oriented bias led to overly strict or inconsistent restrictions that did not align with shifting data.
How Governments Can Use Bias to Create Better Policies
1. Use Nudging Techniques
Borrowing from behavioral economics, governments can use the Nudge and EAST (Easy, Attractive, Social, Timely) frameworks to influence citizen behavior. For example, making organ donation or pension contributions the default option can dramatically increase participation.
However, the use of nudging raises important ethical concerns. While well-intentioned nudges can guide people toward healthier or more sustainable behaviors, they can also be used to manipulate or mislead when consent is lacking. Nudges must be designed with respect for democratic accountability, ensuring that they serve the public good rather than narrow political or commercial interests.
2. Frame Policies Strategically
Policy success often depends on framing. Framing climate policy in terms of “clean air and better health” is more effective than focusing on “carbon taxes.” Understanding framing bias allows policymakers to present information in ways that encourage support.
3. Institutionalize Bias Awareness
Governments can establish “red teams” or independent review panels to counter prevailing assumptions, resist groupthink, and expand perspectives. The establishment of behavioral science units (such as the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team) allows for evidence-based tuning by systematic experimentation.
Conclusion
Bias has two effects on policy making. Implicit biases warp judgment, favor politics over substance, and reinforce institutional disparities on one side. On the other hand, governments can make wiser policies and a more effective communications strategy.
In a time of growing complexity and uncertainty, it is no longer enough to rely on rational choice. Governments must be aware of their own limits of knowledge and design their institutions accordingly. Rather than ignoring bias, good policy regimes must construct behavioral knowledge at all levels—using the very nature of human cognition as an ally, not an enemy.
References
Bovens, M. (n.d.). Assessing Policy Outcomes: Social and Political Biases. Available at: https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/usbo-spg_assessing_policy_outcomes.pdf.
Brief 2. (2016). Available at: https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3202911/1/GRIP-Health-Brief-2.pdf.
Korteling, Johan.E. (Hans), Paradies, G.L. and Sassen-van Meer, J.P. (2023). Cognitive bias and how to improve sustainable decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1129835.
B.BIAS 