Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T15:51:36.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Anne Schneider  and
Helen Ingram
Anne Schneider
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
Helen Ingram
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that the social construction of target populations is an important, albeit overlooked, political phenomenon that should take its place in the study of public policy by political scientists. The theory contends that social constructions influence the policy agenda and the selection of policy tools, as well as the rationales that legitimate policy choices. Constructions become embedded in policy as messages that are absorbed by citizens and affect their orientations and participation. The theory is important because it helps explain why some groups are advantaged more than others independently of traditional notions of political power and how policy designs reinforce or alter such advantages. An understanding of social constructions of target populations augments conventional hypotheses about the dynamics of policy change, the determination of beneficiaries and losers, the reasons for differing levels and types of participation among target groups, and the role of policy in democracy.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 87 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 334 - 347
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Best, Joel. 1989. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brewer, Garry D., and deLeon, Peter. 1983. The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1989. “The Social Construction of Invisibility: Black Women's Poverty in Social Problems Discourse.” Perspectives on Social Problems 1:77–93. JAI Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John. 1990. Discursive Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1964. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1988. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Frank. 1990. Technocracy and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Gaventa, John. 1980. Power and Powerlessness. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Benjamin, and Sanders, Elizabeth. 1990. “Theodore J. Lowi and Juridical Democracy.” PS: Political Science and Politics 23:563–66.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Trans. McCarthy, Thomas. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, M. E. 1988. Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis. Albany: State University of New York.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen and Schneider, Anne. 1992. “Constructing Citizenship: The Subtle Messages of Policy Design.” In Public Policy for Democracy, eds. Ingram, Helen and Smith, Stephen Rathgeb. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Ingram, Helen and Schneider, Anne. 1991. “Target Populations and Policy Design.” Administration and Society 23:333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagger, Alison. 1983. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Kelman, Steven. 1987. Making Public Policy: A Hopeful View of American Government. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternative, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Lasswell, Harold. 1936. Who Gets What, When, and How? New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Linder, Stephen H. and Guy Peters, B.. 1985. “From Social Theory to Policy Design.” Journal of Public Policy 4:237–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsky, Michael, and Smith, Steven Rathgeb. 1989. “When Social Problems Are Treated as Emergencies.” Social Service Review, March, pp. 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory.” World Politics 16:677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 11:298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1985. “The State in Politics: The Relation Between Policy and Administration.” In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. Noll, Roger. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Luke, Timothy W. 1989. Screens of Power: Ideology, Domination and Resistance in an Information Society. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Sabatier, Paul A.. 1983. Implementation and Public Policy. Illinois: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1985. Contradictions of the Welfare State: Disorganized Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piven, Frances Fox, and Cloward, Richard A.. 1988. Why Americans Don't Vote. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Pressman, Jeffery, and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Quade, Edward S. 1982. Analysis for Public Decisions. New York: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard. 1991. “Votes and Markets: Designing Policies to Increase the Influence of Individuals.” Austrialian Journal of Political Science 26:277–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, Lester M., and Lun, Michael. 1989. Beyond Privatization: The Tools of Government Action. Washington: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1990a. “The Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics 52:511–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1990b. “Policy Design: Elements, Premises, and Strategies.” In Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation, ed. Nagel, Stuart. New York: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Schneider, Joseph. 1985. “Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View.” American Review of Sociolog 11:209–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven Rathgeb, and Stone, Deborah A.. 1988. “The Unexpected Consequences of Privatization.” In Remaking the Welfare State, ed. Brown, Michael K.. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Spector, Malcolm, and Kitsuse, John I.. 1987. Constructing Social Problems. New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stone, Deborah. 1988. Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Illinois: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1973. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1986. American Government: Institutions and Policies. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.