| Abstract: |
Many industrialized countries have recognized the need to mitigate energy cost
increases faced by low-income households by fostering the adoption of
energy-efficient technologies. How to meet this need is an open question, but
“behavioral insights” are likely components of future policy designs. Applying
well-established behavioral insights to low-income households raises questions
of transportability as they are typically underrepresented in the existing
evidence base. We illustrate this problem by conducting a randomized field
experiment on scalable, low-cost design elements to improve program take-up in
one of the world’s largest energy efficiency assistance programs. Observing
investment decisions of over 1, 800 low-income households in Germany’s
“Refrigerator Replacement Program”, we find that the transportability problem
is real and consequential: First, the most effective policy design would not
have been chosen based on existing behavioral insights. Second, design
elements favored by these insights either prove ineffective or even backfire,
violating ‘do no harm’ principles of policy advice. Systematic testing remains
crucial for addressing the transportability problem, particularly for policies
targeting vulnerable groups. |