NUDGING IN BEHAVIORAL PUBLIC POLICIES IN TURKEY: A RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF THE BIG-5 PERSONALITY TRAITS ON THE AUTOMATIC ENROLLMENT SYSTEM

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 19 Sayı: Temmuz 2020(Özel Ek) - Prof. Dr. Sabri ORMAN Özel Sayısı, 275 - 294, 31.07.2020

Hatime Kamilçelebi , Songül Gül

Öz

Behavioral economics studies explain that individuals can often make wrong decisions due to their inaccurate calculations, errors in their estimates, and cognitive bias. A kind of choice architecture, known as a nudge, is designed in such a way to generate individuals’ behaviors in favor of both the state and themselves. The automatic enrollment system (AES) implemented in the public economic policies in Turkey is one of the nudging practices. This study aims to reveal whether or not The Big Five Personality Scale personality traits of the public and private sector employees, which are specified in the sub-groups of responsibility/insensitivity and compatibility/incompatibility, are effective on preferring to remain in the AES. In this study, it is revealed that the preferences of those who participated in the AES have a significant relationship with the specified personality traits, and the preferences of those who did not participate in the AES have a significant relationship with their income.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Nudge, The Big-5 Personality Traits, Auto Enrollment System, Behavioral Economics Applicaitons

TÜRKİYE’DE DAVRANIŞSAL KAMU POLİTİKALARINDA DÜRTME: OTOMATİK KATILIM SİSTEMİNDE BIG-5 KİŞİLİK ÖZELLİKLERİNİN ETKİSİ ÜZERİNE BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Öz

Bireylerin genellikle çok detaylı hesap yapmamaları, tahminlerindeki hatalar ve bilişsel ön yargılar nedeniyle yanlış kararlar alabildiğini davranışsal iktisat çalışmaları açıklamaktadır. Bireylerin davranışlarını hem devletin hem de kendilerinin faydalarına olacak şekilde dürtme adı verilen bir çeşit seçim mimarisi dizayn edilmektedir. Türkiye’de kamu iktisadi politikalarında uygulanan otomatik katılım sistemi dürtme uygulamalarından birisidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı kamu politikalarının küçük bir sosyal dürtmeyle dizayn edilebileceği yolundan hareketle kamu ve özel sektör çalışanlarının Beş Faktör Kişilik Ölçeği kişilik özelliklerinden sorumluluk/duyarsızlık ve uyumluluk/geçimsizlik alt grubunda belirtilen özelliklerinin otomatik katılım sisteminde kalma tercihinde etkili olup olmadığının ortaya çıkarılmasıdır. Bu çalışmada OKS’ye katılanların tercihlerinin belirtilen kişilik özellikleriyle, katılmayanların ise katılmama tercihlerinin gelirleriyle anlamlı bir ilişkisi olduğu ortaya çıkarılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Dürtme, Büyük Beşli Kişilik Özellikleri, Otomatik Katılım Sistemi, Davranışsal İktisat Uygulamaları

Kaynakça

• Benartzi, S., Beshears, J., Milkman, K. L., Sunstein, C. R., Thaler, R. H., Shankar, M., Tucker-Ray, W., Congdon, W. J., Galing, S. (2017). “Should governments invest more in nudging?”, Psychological Science, 28(8), 1041–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617702501
• Bernheim, B. D., Rangel, A. (2016). “Davranışsal Kamu Ekonomisi: Standart Olmayan Politika Mercileri ile Refah ve Politika Analizi”, Davranışsal İktisat ve Davranışsal İktisadın Uygulamaları. (Ed. Hatime Kamilçelebi), Ankara: Nobel Akademik Yay.
• Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R Professional Manual, Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. (1995). “Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised neo personality inventory”, Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21-50.
• Chetty R., Friedman J. N., Leth-Petersen S., Nielsen T. H., Olsen T. (2014). “Active vs. passive decisions and crowd-out in retirement savings accounts: Evidence from Denmark”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 1141–1219.
• Choi J. J., Laibson D., Madrian B. C. (2011). “$100 bills on the sidewalk: Suboptimal investment in 401(k) plans”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93, 748–763.
• Datta, S., Mullainathan, S. (2014). “Behavioral Design: A New Approach to Development Policy”, Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 7-35.
• Duflo E., Saez E. (2003). “The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 815–842.
• Duflo E., Gale W., Liebman J., Orszag P., Saez E. (2007). “Savings incentives for low- and moderate-income families in the United States: Why is the saver’s credit not more effective?”, Journal of the European Economic Association, 5, 647–661.
• Feenberg, D. R., Skinner, J. (1989). “Sources of IRA Saving”, Tax Policy and the Economy. NBER, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, 3, 25-46. 10.3386/w2845.
• Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. (2002). “Time discounting and time preference: A critical review”, Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 351-401. 10.1257/002205102320161311.
• French, R. (2017). “Applying Behavioral Economics to Public Policy in Canada”, Canadian Journal of Economics, 50(3), 599-635.
• Goldberg, L. R. (1992). “The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure”, Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.
• Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference, London: WH Allen.
• Hershfield, H. E., Goldstein, D. G., Sharpe, W. F., Fox, J., Yeykelis, L., Carstensen, L. L., Bailenson, J. N. (2011). “Increasing Saving Behavior Through Age-Progressed Renderings of the Future Self Show less”, Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 23–37. 10.1509/jmkr.48.SPL.S23.
• Insurance Association of Turkey (IAOT), https://www.tsb.org.tr/Document/Yayinlar/Say%C4%B1-36.pdf. 04.07.2020
• Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. 10.2307/1914185.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow, Farrar, New York: Straus and Giroux.
• Kamilçelebi, H., Ünal, E. (2014). “Analyzing framing effecty by an experiment among students in Turkey”, Journal of Economic and Social Thought, 1(1), 27-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1453/jest.v1i1.97
• Kamilçelebi, H. (2018a). Beklenen Fayda ve Deneyimlenen Fayda: Gelir Artışı Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Bursa: Ekin Yay.
• Kamilçelebi, H. (2018b). The Difference Between Expected And Experienced Utility: A Case Study On a Salary Increase, Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.
• Kamilçelebi, H. (2019). Davranışsal İktisat, London: IJOPEC Publication.
• Laibson, D. (1997). “Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 2, 443-477. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253.
• Levin, L. (1998). “Are assets fungible? Testing the Behavioral Theory of Life-cycle Savings”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 36(1), 59-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2681(98)00070-5.
• Loewenstein, G., Prelec, D., Shatto, C. (1998). “Hot/cold intrapersonal empathy gaps and the prediction of curiosity”, Working paper, Carnegie Mellon University.
• Madrian, B. C., Shea, D. F. (2001). “The power of suggestion: inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149–1187. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543.
• Madrian, B. C. (2014). “Applying Insights from Behavioral Economics to Policy Design”, Annual Review of Economics, 6, 663–688. 10.1146/annurev-economics-080213-041033.
• Menard, S. (2002). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2. Ed., California: Sage Publications.
• Ministry of Trade Official Website, https://www.trade.gov.tr/, 04.07.2020.
• O’Donoghue, T., Rabin, M. (1999). “Doing it now or later”, American Economic Review, 89(1), 103-124. 10.1257/aer.89.1.103.
• Pension Monitoring Center Website (PMC), https://www.egm.org.tr/ 04.07.2020.
• Pompian, M. M. (2006). Behavioral Finance and Wealth Management, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
• Prelec, D., Loewenstein, G. (1998). “The red and the black: mental accounting of savings and debt”, Marketing Science, 17, 4-28.
• Read, D., van Leeuwen, B. (1998). “Predicting Hunger: The Effects of Appetite and Delay on Choice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 191-199. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2803.
• Read, D., Loewenstein, G., Kalyanaraman, S. (1999). “Mixing virtue and vice: Combining the immediacy effect and the diversification heuristic”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(4), 257-267. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199912)12:4<257::AID-DM327>3.0.CO;2-6.
• Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R. (1988). “Status Quo Bias in Decision Making”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7-59.
• Shefrin, H. M., Thaler, R. H. (1988). “The Behavioral Life Cycle Hypothesis”, Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 609-643. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1988.tb01520.x. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Tatar, A. (2017). “Translation of Big-Five Personality Questionnaire into Turkish and comparing it with Five Factor Personality Inventory Short Form”, Anatolian Journal of Psychiatry, 18(1), 51-61, (in Turkish). 10.5455/apd.220580.
• Thaler R. H., Benartzi, S. (2004). “Save More TomorrowTM: using behavioral economics to increase employee saving”, Journal of Political Economy, 112(S1), 164–187. 10.1086/380085.
• Thaler, R. H., Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New York: Penguin Books.
• Thaler, R. H. (1980). “Toward a Positive Theory of Consumer Choice”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 1(1), 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7.
• Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science, 211, 453-458.