Xia Li
In the leading precis, scholar Bart Orr summarizes the two models introduced by Allison and Zelikow (1999) to explain the Cuban Missile Crisis. He points out that model II – the organizational behavior approach - provides a more refined explanation of the outcomes created by the complex interactions within organizations, compared with the model I – rational actor model. He further presents two paths of organizational change (1) from bottom to become formal institutions discussed by Roy (2009) and (2) from the top – creating new rules and frameworks analyzed by Romer (2010). While the organizational behavior approach to policy analysis is useful to understand how organizational change will lead to certain outcomes, it is also important to further examine why certain outcomes happened to some groups of people and not others. The social construction of target groups theory makes a great contribution to this point.
The social construction of target populations in policy design, first introduced and advanced by Schneider and Ingram, has been widely studied over twenty years. According the theory, “target group” and “target population” are defined as those groups selected to receive benefits and burdens through the different elements of policy design. The purpose of the policy design is to achieve some public purpose that may include approbation and punishment (p 106). The social construction framework has 5 vital propositions. (1) The political power and social construction (positive or negative) determines the allocation of benefits and burdens to target groups. (2) Policy designs have both material and symbolic effects on target populations that impact their attitudes and political participation. (3) Social constructions emerge from emotional and intuitive reactions rather than justified evidence. (4) Social constructions are inherently resistant to change but change do occur. (5) Types and patterns of policy change can vary depending the social construction and power of target groups. A large number of empirical researches have verified and detailed these propositions.
The social construction framework helps explain the violence and systemic racism toward African Americans in the United States. Based on the social construction and power typology displayed in figure 4.2 (p110), African Americans, especially young black males are considered as deviants, who lack both political power and positive social constructions and thus tend to receive a more burden and sanctions. The negative social constructions of African Americans are derived from the selective cognitive biases, and then are justified with selective attention to evidence. African Americans are historically viewed and labeled as lazy, not smart or unlucky. Based on these moral biases, people would unconsciously find African Americans who are not working hard and live on welfare programs to support their judgements, without thinking in-depth what the rooted reasons of their vulnerable lives, and without recognizing broadly that there are more people out there are working hard and still are treated unfairly. The negative social construction of black people is hard to change especially the construction is embodied in law. It is difficult for a more positive image to emerge when the resources necessary for mobilization are denied by policy. Since its foundation on July 13, 2013, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has organized many protests to demonstrated against the deaths of numerous African Americans by police actions or while in police custody. However, few police officers are held for the charge due to current judicial system, and there is no effective strategy to change the bias towards African Americans. The negative stereotypes of African Americans will persist, until the negative social constructions changed to positive social constructions, or the African Americans are given more political power. In reality, however, both seems impossible to happen in the near future.
Although the social construction framework provides a far-reaching insight of understanding the way democracy functions and why public policy has certain effects on the target population, there are some clear flaws in the framework and theory. To begin with, the idea of “social construction” is imprecise. “Social construction” is the central pillar of Schneider and Ingram’s analysis. However, what “social construction” exact is? Before we identify the positive or negative social construction of certain target groups, it is important to know the nature of target populations, such as how the identities of the target populations come from, how they change over time and what factors carry forward these changes, and how the social and political systems and institutions affect the identities of target groups in making public policy. None of these was discussed by Schneider and Ingram before they introduced the language of “social construction”. In addition, it seems that the interval change of the target population is the main driver to change their social construction, the external factors such as policy are not helpful until they see a growing power of the target population. The four proposition claims that changes in social constructions do occur and it gives the example of GLBT people. If it is not because most GLBT individuals are higher income groups and have higher education status, it is impossible to change their social constructions. If this is the case, the more important question would be how to make policies that facilitate the change of social construction of the target population who lack the ability the change their status and mobility in the society.
In conclusion, the social construction framework offers an analytical tool to understand the unfair treatment received by African Americans. The negative social construction and lack of political power result in the difficulties of their change in their social construction and thus inequality and racism. The unclear definition of “social construction” and the incomprehensive strategy to change the biased social construction towards certain target population require further study of the social construction framework.
The social construction of target populations in policy design, first introduced and advanced by Schneider and Ingram, has been widely studied over twenty years. According the theory, “target group” and “target population” are defined as those groups selected to receive benefits and burdens through the different elements of policy design. The purpose of the policy design is to achieve some public purpose that may include approbation and punishment (p 106). The social construction framework has 5 vital propositions. (1) The political power and social construction (positive or negative) determines the allocation of benefits and burdens to target groups. (2) Policy designs have both material and symbolic effects on target populations that impact their attitudes and political participation. (3) Social constructions emerge from emotional and intuitive reactions rather than justified evidence. (4) Social constructions are inherently resistant to change but change do occur. (5) Types and patterns of policy change can vary depending the social construction and power of target groups. A large number of empirical researches have verified and detailed these propositions.
The social construction framework helps explain the violence and systemic racism toward African Americans in the United States. Based on the social construction and power typology displayed in figure 4.2 (p110), African Americans, especially young black males are considered as deviants, who lack both political power and positive social constructions and thus tend to receive a more burden and sanctions. The negative social constructions of African Americans are derived from the selective cognitive biases, and then are justified with selective attention to evidence. African Americans are historically viewed and labeled as lazy, not smart or unlucky. Based on these moral biases, people would unconsciously find African Americans who are not working hard and live on welfare programs to support their judgements, without thinking in-depth what the rooted reasons of their vulnerable lives, and without recognizing broadly that there are more people out there are working hard and still are treated unfairly. The negative social construction of black people is hard to change especially the construction is embodied in law. It is difficult for a more positive image to emerge when the resources necessary for mobilization are denied by policy. Since its foundation on July 13, 2013, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has organized many protests to demonstrated against the deaths of numerous African Americans by police actions or while in police custody. However, few police officers are held for the charge due to current judicial system, and there is no effective strategy to change the bias towards African Americans. The negative stereotypes of African Americans will persist, until the negative social constructions changed to positive social constructions, or the African Americans are given more political power. In reality, however, both seems impossible to happen in the near future.
Although the social construction framework provides a far-reaching insight of understanding the way democracy functions and why public policy has certain effects on the target population, there are some clear flaws in the framework and theory. To begin with, the idea of “social construction” is imprecise. “Social construction” is the central pillar of Schneider and Ingram’s analysis. However, what “social construction” exact is? Before we identify the positive or negative social construction of certain target groups, it is important to know the nature of target populations, such as how the identities of the target populations come from, how they change over time and what factors carry forward these changes, and how the social and political systems and institutions affect the identities of target groups in making public policy. None of these was discussed by Schneider and Ingram before they introduced the language of “social construction”. In addition, it seems that the interval change of the target population is the main driver to change their social construction, the external factors such as policy are not helpful until they see a growing power of the target population. The four proposition claims that changes in social constructions do occur and it gives the example of GLBT people. If it is not because most GLBT individuals are higher income groups and have higher education status, it is impossible to change their social constructions. If this is the case, the more important question would be how to make policies that facilitate the change of social construction of the target population who lack the ability the change their status and mobility in the society.
In conclusion, the social construction framework offers an analytical tool to understand the unfair treatment received by African Americans. The negative social construction and lack of political power result in the difficulties of their change in their social construction and thus inequality and racism. The unclear definition of “social construction” and the incomprehensive strategy to change the biased social construction towards certain target population require further study of the social construction framework.