Pilot Study as a Case of Applying an Experimental Approach to the Implementation of Tasks in the Public Sector

  • Beata Zofia FilipiakEmail author
  • Marek Dylewski
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Experiments in the public sector are not widely used. However, as the practice shows, they are used to determine the expected utility of the proposed solutions or implemented changes, and the dominant method is pilotage. The study presents the theoretical approach to the experiment using pilotage, so as to show that the experiment gives the opportunity to indicate a “better” solution and provide justification for such a selection. In the chapter, the authors analysed the adopted assumptions of selected pilot implementations in the PSUs, the aim of which was to test and evaluate the solution to be used in practice as an expression of public participation. The analysis indicated that the visible use of piloting in the behaviour modelling of individuals included in the society is a good tool to maximise the usefulness of public tasks designed by LGUs.


Task of public sector Public policies Pilot program Theory of expected utility 


  1. 1.
    Ackroyd, S., Kirkpatrick, I., Walker, R.: Public management reform in the UK and its consequences for professional organization: a comparative analysis. Public Adm. 85(1), 9–26 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allais, M.: Allais’s paradox. In: The New Palgrave. A Dictionary of Economics. MacMillan (1987)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Attacking Poverty: World Bank, Washington (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, P., Zank, H.: Loss averse behavior. J. Risk Uncertainty 31(3), 301–325 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bulbul, A.: The linkage between E-governance and good governance: an analysis on Bangladesh public administration. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 6(4), 114–120 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Csink, L., Kurunczi, G., Varga, A.Z.: The role of legislation in pilots. In: Varga, A.Z. (ed.) Pilot Projects in Public Administration Management, pp. 25–35. Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Czerwonka, M., Gorlewski, B.: Finanse behawioralne. Zachowania inwestorów i rynku, Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoły Głównej Handlowej, Warszawa (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies, G.B., Satchell, S.E.: The Behavioral Components of Risk Aaversion. J. Math. Psychol. 51, 1–13 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dobrowolski, K.: Teoria rynków efektywnych i model racjonalnego inwestora - od warunków ryzyka do warunków konfliktu. Contemp. Econ. 5(1), 1–12 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Governance—A White Paper: Official Journal of the European Communities, COM (2001) 428 final, (2001/C 287/01) (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fedorowicz, J., Gelinas Jr., U.J., Gogan, J.L., Williams, C.B.: Strategic alignment of participant motivations in e-government collaborations: the internet payment platform pilot. Gov. Inf. Quart. 26, 51–59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferlie, E., Hartley, J., Martin, S.: Changing public service organisations: current perspectives and future prospects. Br. J. Manag. 14, S1–S87 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Filipiak, B.Z.: Funding of joint investment projects of public institutions with private entities. Acta Aerarii Publici 13(2), 15–23 (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Filipiak, B.Z., Dylewski, M.: Ryzyko w działalności jednostek samorządu terytorialnego w nowych uwarunkowaniach prawnych. Roczniki bezpieczeństwa 2012/2013, 28–40 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filipiak, B.Z., Dylewski, M.: Participatory budgeting as example of behavioural impact of public policies. In: Nermend, K., Łatuszyńska, M. (eds.) Problems, Methods and Tools in Experimental and Behavioral Economics, pp. 231–247. Springer, Cham (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fischburn, P., Kochenberger, G.: Two-piece von Neumann-Morgenstern utility functions. Decis. Sci. 10, 503–518 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fowler Jr., F.J.: The case for more split-sample experiments in developing survey instruments. In: Presser, S., Rothgeb, J.M., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Singer, E. (eds.) Methods for Testing and Evaluating Survey Questionnaires. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodwin, N.R., Harris, J.M., Nelson, J., Weisskopf, T.E.: Economic behavior and rationality. Microeconomics in Context, pp. 145–157. M.E. Sharpe, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grzeszkiewicz-Radulska, K.: Metody badań pilotażowych. Folia Sociol. 42, 113–141 (2012)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hanna, R., Daim, T.U.: Decision-making in the service sector—comparison of information technology acquisition between private and public institutes. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Manag. 4(1), 41–58 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hastie, R., Dawes, R.M.: Rational Choice in an Uncertain World, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hills Jr., R.M.: Federalism and public choice. MPRA Paper 13625, pp. 1–54 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Internetowy System Aktów Prawnych. Sejm RP: Ustawa z dnia 27 sierpnia 2009 r. o finansach publicznych. Dz.U. nr 157, poz. 1240 z późn. zm. Accessed 15 Dec 2018 (2009)
  24. 24.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertainty 5(4), 297–323 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Choices, values, and frames Notes. In: Kahneman, D. (ed.) Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kampen, J.K.: Good governance at the local level: toward a global village or a city republic? Econ. Environ. Stud. 9(1), 11–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Köbberling, V., Wakker, P.: An index of loss aversion. J. Econ. Theory 122, 119–131 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Konkov, A.: Global Problems for Global Governance., Moscow (2014)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krawczyk, M.: Ekonomia Eksperymentalna. Wolters Kluwer Polska, Warszawa (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lau, R.R., Kleinberg, M.S., Ditonto, T.M.: Measuring voter decision strategies in political behavior and public opinion research. Public Opin. Quart. 82, 325–350 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Levy, M., Levy, H.: Prospect theory: much ado about nothing? Manag. Sci. 48(10), 1334–1349 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Marzuki, A.: Challenges in the public participation and the decision making. Process Sociologija i Prostor 53(1), 21–39 (2015). Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mongin, F.: The Allais paradox: what it became, what it really was, what it now suggests to us. Econ. Philos. 30(01), 1–37 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nalepka, A., Kozina, A.: Podstawy badania struktury organizacyjnej. Akademia Ekonomiczna, Kraków (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Payne, J.W., Laugham, D.J., Crum, R.: Further tests of aspiration level effects in risky choice behavior. Manag. Sci. 27, 953–958 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Presser, S., Couper, M.P., Lessler, J.T., Martin, E., Martin, J., Rothgeb, J.M., Singer, E.: Methods for pretesting and evaluating survey questions. Public Opin. Quart. 68(1), 109–130 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raport: Przeprowadzenie monitoringu i ewaluacji projektu pilotażowego pn. “Partnerstwo dla Pracy”, Zespół Sektora Publicznego IBC GROUP Central Europe Holding S.A., Warszawa. Accessed 15 Dec 2018 (2014)
  39. 39.
    Robbins, S.P., DeCenzo, D.A.: Podstawy zarządzania. PWE, Warszawa (2002)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Schermerhorn Jr., J.R.: Management. Willey, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Secchi, E.: Extendable Rationality: Understanding Decision Making in Organizations (Organizational Change and Innovation). Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Simon, H.A.: Administrative Behavior, 4th edn. The Free Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Smith, V.: Economics in the laboratory. J. Econ. Perspect. 8(1), 113–131 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sułek, A.: Eksperyment w badaniach ekonomicznych. PWE, Warszawa (1979)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Świrska, A.: Methods for improving the effectiveness of the financial management of local government units in Poland. Sci. Stud. Account. Finan. Prob. Perspect. 10(1), 177–185 (2016). Scholar
  46. 46.
    Szymaniec-Malicka, K.: Proces podejmowania decyzji w organizacjach publicznych – propozycja metody badawczej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie 74, 437–447 (2014)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Varga, A.Z.: Legal limitations of public administrative pilot studies. In: Varga, A.Z. (ed.) Pilot Projects in Public Administration Management, pp. 15–24. Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Budapest (2013)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton University Press, London (1953)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vreugdenhil, H., Rault, P.K.: Pilot projects for evidence-based policy-making: three pilot projects in the Rhine basin. German Policy Stud. 6(2), 115–151 (2010)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wójcicki, S.: Zasady eksperymentu. Wydawnictwo Ministerstwa Obrony Narodowej, Warszawa (1994)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Woods, E.H.: Measuring the social impacts of local authority events: a pilot study for a civic pride scale. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 11(3), 165–179 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Finance, Faculty of Economics and ManagementInstitute of Finance, University of SzczecinSzczecinPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Finance and BankingInstitute of Finance, WSB University in PoznańPoznańPoland

Personalised recommendations