Mental Models And Political Economy

This project investigates the links between economic ideas, politics and public policy. First, it describes the 'mental models' used in thinking about economics and public policy. This description has three important comparative elements: first, it compares economic ideas across countries (the UK, USA, France, Germany and Denmark). Second, it considers and compares the ideas held by the public at large, and those held by elites. Third, it analyses the presentation of the economy in the media.

The project then investigates the ways in which these mental models affect preferences and choices over public policy, again considering both the elite and popular level. First, do differences in the mental maps held by elites and the public lead to anti-establishment politics? Second, do different mental models explain how people respond to new information? Do they drive preferences over economic policy and politics (vote choices)? At the elite level, can different understandings of how the economy work explain choices between different policy options?

The project thus addresses an important puzzle in our existing understanding that emerges from the coexistence of findings in political science - that voters 'care' about economic issues, choosing parties on the basis of economic policies and perceived competence, and holding governments accountable for poor performance - and in economic sociology and the literature in economics education that public understanding of the economy is limited, and quite different from that of expert economists.

Methodologically, the proposed research will break new ground in breaking the common link in social science between the study of ideas and a suspicion of statistical evidence. It also pushes the theoretical agenda forward by taking seriously the argument and approach that ideas are individual, as well as collective, phenomena. It will use nationally representative surveys to describe the prevalence of different models in five comparative case countries, and use experimental designs to establish the causal links between particular 'mental models' and policy preferences. On the elite side, interviews and text analysis will be used to describe the mental models held by policy-makers and presented in the media.

The final strand of the project focuses on developing the findings of the research into innovations in public discourse and tools for economic and political communication. Given contemporary concern about the disconnect between elite, 'expert' attitudes, improving these channels of communication is imperative for better quality public debate on the economy.

Who benefits?

The direct beneficiaries of this project will be journalists and policy-makers who talk to the public about the economy. It will provide them a better understanding of their audience and facilitate better communication through the use of the frame checking tool. The results may also provide the basis for policy departments to incorporate 'behavioural' changes to the way they interact in implementing the economic functions of the public policy, for example in tax collection and benefits administration. More broadly, better communication with the public on the economy will contribute to the nation's wealth and culture by improving political discourse and decision-making on issues with economic implications.

How will they benefit?
Journalists, and policy-makers with any role communicating economic situations and choices to the public, at all levels of government, will benefit from this work. In particular, they will be able to use the app to improve their communication on economic issues. For example, a press release or article could be run through the frame checker app, and misleading or commonly misinterpreted parts cut or amended. The project will work alongside ecnmy, who campaign for better public discourse on the economy, to implement and publicise this idea.

National level policy-makers, particularly in HMRC and the Department of Work and Pensions, will also be able to use the results of this project to inform policy design. For example, if the idea that the national economy is a container with some putting in and some taking out makes people more resistant to paying taxes, communications from Revenue and Customs should avoid triggering this mental model to maximise compliance. Researchers in these departments will be invited to the panel event, through personal networks with the behavioural insight, research and data analytics teams developed through the Fellow's previous work on tax summaries.

The benefit to the general public is also long-run. By raising awareness of the ways mental models of the economy can lead to misinterpretation, and highlighting how typical communication may cue disconnections, the goal is to improve the level of economic discourse in public life. "Frame checking" will allow communicators to check whether they are engaging in misleading language. An optimistic view is that conscientious communicators will self-correct; alternatively, the frame-chacker provides a tool for holding the purveyors of misleading tropes to account. This will enable the public better to evaluate economic choices, increasing the effectiveness of public policy as well as democratic accountability. Pursuing further innovation and applications of the research results in this direction will form the basis of any application for second phase (years 5-7) of the fellowship.