When we talk about development, policies tend to be the ultimate showstoppers, fully crafted in offices, supported by statistics, and fortified with honest intentions. However, when these policies move away from the drawing board and into the rural village streets or congested city roads, the effect is not always what they were envisioned to be. It is here that the lessons of behavioural economics assist us in revealing a greater truth: development is not merely about resources, infrastructure, and finance, but also about individuals: their decisions, their routines, their prejudices, and the unseen psychology behind their day-today choices.

The Human Face of Policy 

Old economics tells us that individuals are rational actors who will consistently make choices that maximize their welfare. But in the real world, culture, trust, fear of loss, short-term impulses, and mere inertia mold behaviour. For example, a government can offer LPG connections for free to break the firewood dependence, but most households go back to conventional fuels. Why? Because behavioural barriers such as the belief that gas cylinders are “unsafe,” or the unease of altering daily cook behaviour; stifle adoption. 

The gap between the policy design and the policy outcome is not always caused by a lack of funds or infrastructure. Very often, it is because actual people on the ground do not behave like the ‘rational agents’ described in textbooks. They behave like people, fallible, adaptive, and social. 

Nudges and Development 

This is where behavioural economics becomes powerful. A “nudge,” as described by Thaler and Sunstein, is a subtle change in how choices are presented that influences behaviour without restricting freedom. For example, simply sending SMS reminders for vaccination dates increases turnout. Positioning toilets in accessible, well-lit spaces increases usage compared to just building them. 

Minor design modifications in policy implementation have oversized impacts. The strength of nudges is in upholding human freedom while encouraging human behaviour to align with development objectives. They are aware that individuals desire to do well but at times require a nudge in the appropriate direction. 

Trust, Aspirations, and Social Norms 

Development is also a matter of the intangibles, trust in government programs, community aspirations, and social mores that inform behaviour. Take microfinance programs: they function not so much because credit is available, but because of group responsibility, peer pressure, and an awareness of shared advance. In the same way, education programs work when parents are led to believe that enrolling their daughters in school is not only a matter of legal right but one of family honour and social advancement. 

Policies tend to fail when they disregard these softer aspects. Subsidy in itself will not alter behaviour, but combined with community education campaigns, role models, and trust, it will change thinking. 

Why Policy Outcomes Differ 

One of the reasons that policies fail to work on the ground is the heterogeneity of India itself. One scheme that succeeds in Rajasthan might fail in Odisha, not because the policy is bad, but because the context of behaviour is different. Water conservation in dry areas is dependent on scarcity-based prudence, whereas conserving water in flood-prone areas is a problem of indifference to conservation. 

Therefore, development policy cannot be “one-size-fits-all.” It has to be adaptive, based on behavioural realities, and crafted with sensitivity to local context. 

India’s experience with flagship programs leaves one thing certain: development cannot be unidirectional. While the state lays down infrastructure ;110 million toilets, 90 million LPG connections, or 500 million bank accounts; the test is really in what the people do with them. NFHS-5 findings indicate that almost one-fifth of rural India continues open defecation, and one-third of households lapse back to traditional fuels despite the subsidy. This disparity points towards the need for education: educated families are much more likely to embrace clean fuel, pursue medical care, and insist on accountability. Development thus works only if delivery matches awareness, and policy intention matches public engagement. 

Toward Human-Centred Development 

To recognize the contribution of behavioural economics is not to substitute small nudges for grand policies. It is to combine the two. Infrastructure is needed, but so is knowledge about why people don’t use it as much as it could be used. Subsidies are important, but so is dignity and trust in how they are delivered. 

Development is, in essence, a cooperation between citizen and state. The state offers opportunities, and citizens, in turn, through their decisions, make the actual success of policy possible. A bridge can be constructed, but it’s worth arises only when individuals cross it. A scheme can be launched, but its legacy is inscribed in the manner in which communities accept it. 

One of the most vivid examples of how policies play out in the real world is from India’s premium popular welfare programs. Consider the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana: millions of rural women were given LPG connections, but many families still used firewood even after the first refill. The explanation was not policy design but present bias; families shunned the upfront expense of a refill, despite clean fuel promising to pay dividends in health gains down the line.

Again, toilets were constructed at a record speed under the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan, but were underutilized in many villages due to social norms and status quo bias; for many families, open defecation was not merely a habit but a cultural norm. These reminders tell us that development impacts are not simply a function of what governments deliver, but of how citizens see, trust, and respond to these deliveries. Even in Rajasthan, initiatives such as the Bhamashah Yojana demonstrated that putting money into women’s bank accounts helped to enhance welfare only when communities embraced women as economic decisionmakers. Behavioural economics does not reject good policies; it reveals why their effect is different and how slight nudges, trust-building, and cultural framing can convert intent into real change. 

Conclusion: Policies for People, Not Just Numbers

Behavioural economics reminds us that development is a profoundly human activity, not a technical one. Policymakers need to move beyond spreadsheets and questionnaires and ask themselves: How will individuals actually implement this policy? What obstacles, anxieties, or routines may lie in their path? 

By recognizing the idiosyncrasies of human behaviour, policies can be better made to be effective, fair, and sustainable. Development, after all, is not quantified in GDP or per capita income, but by how people actually experience it. And to really elevate those lives, we have to know not only the economy, but also the heads and hearts of those who live in it. 

Real development will not be a unidirectional impartation of schemes; it must be a bidirectional process of receiving and giving. Governments can craft well-intentioned policies, but they will only work based on how individuals interact with them; whether they change behaviours, call for accountability, and maintain the shift. It is here that education comes to the fore: an educated populace is better positioned to comprehend the worth of policies, challenge their shortcomings, and contribute actively to their real-world outcomes. Education creates the consciousness to turn rights into obligation and schemes into realworld improvements. It is in some sense the interface between policy intention and policy effect, making sure that development is not translated into figures but becomes everyone’s shared experience of state and citizens alike. 

References: