Why do energy conservation policies mobilise the behavioural sciences rather than the social sciences? A few lessons from the emergence of the behaviour change agenda in Japan

Panel: 9. Consumption and behaviour

This is a peer-reviewed paper.

Author:
Benoit Granier, Lyon's Institute of East Asian Studies, Sciences Po Lyon, France

Abstract

Behaviour change policies have been gaining momentum since the 2000s in various fields, including energy conservation. However, most of them rely much more on behavioural sciences (psychology, behavioral economics) than on social sciences. Japan provides an interesting insight into this issue. Japan’s energy conservation policy has long been and still is today dominated by techno-economic approaches. Nevertheless, mainly due the Fukushima crisis and the efforts of a few policy entrepreneurs, behaviour change policies have recently reached the agenda. However, current approaches rely heavily on behavioural sciences while social sciences are virtually nowhere.

I argue that one significant reason is the adequacy of behavioral sciences’ – and the inadequacy of social sciences’ – discourse with the culture of not only policymakers, but also influential policy entrepreneurs who believe that changing behaviours matters. Indeed, most of them have an engineering background and are not familiar with social sciences. They usually request practical knowledge, quantified and precise evaluations of results, and well-identified targets of action. Therefore, behavioral sciences fulfil much more their expectations than social sciences. First, the integration of social psychology in behavioral economics resulted in an increase in legitimacy. Second, many behavioural scientists formulate concrete measures to change behaviour, constituting practical knowledge that provides clearly identified targets: individuals and their immediate surroundings. Last, RCT, big data analysis and smart metering enables such approaches to give guaranteed and quantified results.

Drawing upon about 40 qualitative and semi-structured interviews with influential policy entrepreneurs and behavioural scientists, and upon the analysis of 15 years of discussion in a key ministerial advisory council dedicated to energy conservation, this paper provides an argument based on rich firsthand empirical material.