How the Social Construction of Target Populations Contributes to Problems in Policy Design

Anne L. Schneider, Arizona State University, and
Helen Ingram, University of Arizona

Problems in the United States' public policy process have become so endemic that it is almost a cliche to contend that the country faces a crisis in democratic governance (Greider, 1992; Dionne, 1991; Dryzek, 1990). Current theories, however, are missing the mark. Pluralist, public choice, and technical theories of public policy cannot account for the continuing crisis, and the prescriptions for change they propose do not seem to improve public policy.

Societal problems have become increasingly complex over the past several decades, and the public policy responses to these problems have reflected this complexity. The United States democracy, however, has not chosen to educate and enlighten the citizenry about the policy alternatives, nor has it encouraged public discourse and debate that will build understanding of values and support for the policies needed to address the complex issues of advanced democratic societies (Barber, 1992). Instead, the American society has legitimated a political system grounded on three dysfunctional attributes: the pursuit of narrow self interest through the public policy process; the virtually unfettered use of money to gain political power; and the opportunistic manipulation of social constructions to gain political advantages that serve narrowly construed interests. These tendencies have been apparent in the United States for much of the time since World War II, and it remains to be seen whether there was a "voter revolt" in 1992 sparked by the candidacy of Ross Perot and the election of Bill Clinton to the Presidency, that might begin to reverse these trends.

The purpose of this essay is to explicate the role of social constructions of target populations in theories of why the policy crisis occurs and persists. This is a much- abbreviated version of the theory that will be published in longer form elsewhere (Schneider and Ingram, 1993a, Ingram and Schneider, 1993).

The social construction of a target population refers to the cultural characteristics or popular images of a group that is (or could be) eligible for the enabling or coercive application of policy. Social constructions are constituted by values, symbols, images, and beliefs about the characteristics of the group (Best, 1989; Edelman, 1988). Target populations may be constructed as "deserving" or "undeserving;" as "intelligent" or "stupid;" as "honest" or "dishonest;" as "public-spirited" or "selfish," and so on. Some constructions survive for decades, such as the portrayal of Communists as evil persons; but many constructions are fluid and manipulated by media, political leaders, literary and artistic leaders as well as social scientists. For example, the social construction of homeless people is a matter of considerable debate. Some believe that the homeless are good people, down on their luck, and simply need a job to get back on their feet. Others believe that homelessness is a lifestyle choice by persons who wish to avoid the discipline and hard work necessary to hold a regular job. Current policy often implicitly implies through policy treatment target groups that the homeless are needy people who deserve to be helped, but who are largely incompetent at managing their own lives.

Social constructions have an especially important role in understanding the current policy crisis because these constructions are instrumental in determining the policy agenda and the actual design of policy itself (Schneider and Ingram, 1993b; Ingram and Schneider, 1993). The symbols and images evoked by social constructions of target populations become embedded in public policy and carried as messages that citizens absorb as they experience public policy in their every day lives. Policy sends messages about which citizens are deserving, and what kinds of information, orientations, and participation are appropriate in a democratic society. Public policies teach lessons about citizenship and governance. In the modern U.S. system, however, policies carry different messages to different target populations and in this manner policies teach lessons that exacerbate the governance problems.

Target populations can be characterized by their political power and by their social constructions. The confluence of these two attributes yields four types of target groups that we have called advantaged groups, contenders, dependents, and deviants. Much of what transpires in the establishment of the policy agenda and the actual design of legislation depends on which type of target population is involved.

Advantaged populations have considerable political power and are positively constructed as meritorious and deserving. Examples of advantaged populations today that carry generally consensual constructions as deserving and powerful, include scientists, business, veterans, and the elderly. Contenders are groups that are powerful, but are constructed as undeserving or greedy. There is less agreement on who these are, and much more partisan debate. Examples include wall street investors, savings and loan executives, big labor, illegal immigrants, the moral majority, and gay and lesbian activists. Dependents lack political power and are constructed as good people, although not as highly meritorious as those in the advantaged category. Current examples include children, mentally and physically disabled people and aids victims. Deviants are in the worst situation, as they lack political power and are negatively constructed as undeserving, dangerous, and generally "bad people." As with the advantaged groups, there is more agreement on who these people are: criminals, drug dealers, flag-burners, child-abusers come readily to mind.

Public officials are under considerable pressure, in a democracy driven by self-interest, to provide beneficial policy to advantaged populations (Arnold, 1990). Such policies will become oversubscribed and overfunded as benefits will be extended to these groups far beyond those needed to achieve instrumental goals and far beyond what would be a "fair share" of government largesse. The policies are legitimated by claiming that broad public purposes are served, even though such purposes might just as well (or even more efficiently) have been served through the selection of other target groups. Indeed, there are many instances where national interests have been (and are being) defined simply to justify the continued provision of beneficial policy to powerful, positively constructed groups.

There also are strong electoral incentives to provide punishment to deviant populations. Indeed, such policies contain extraordinary political advantages, as those who are punished are too weak and discredited to combat either their image or the policies directed toward them, and the public can easily be persuaded that such policies serve both justice and public safety. Policies toward deviants also will become oversubscribed in that there will be constant search for new target populations who can be constructed as deviants and punished accordingly. The overrepresentation of minorities in the criminal and juvenile justice systems is an example (Meier, 1992). Such policies often are ineffective and inefficient.

When power and social constructions are convergent (as in giving benefits to the advantaged and punishments to the disadvantaged) statutes will tend to be clear and specific; discretion of lower-level agencies and units of government will be strongly circumscribed as elected officials like to control and take credit for such policies. Accountability mechanisms involving empirical research, such as policy analysis and evaluation, will seldom be required.

Social constructions of targets and electoral incentives of leaders are convergent in only two kinds of policy designs: The typology of target populations identifies only two areas of convergence: providing benefits to advantaged groups and punishments to deviants. All other possible combinations of benefits and burdens with the four types of target groups require tradeoffs and engender conflict. Public officials who need to gain credit for legislation are unlikely to inflict costs on advantaged groups except when absolutely necessary. When regulations are inflicted they are rationalized as being necessary to protect the advantaged group itself. More commonly, the responsibility for regulations is shifted to agencies or lower level governments, and then pressure is applied to exempt powerful groups when they complain.

Developing policies that involve dependents or contenders is difficult because there are no policies that are responsive to both power and social constructions regardless of whether the policies are beneficial or burdensome. Hence, such policies tend to be very difficult to place on the public agenda. The social construction of dependents is such that most of their important needs and interests are portrayed as being the province of the private sector and not associated with any important public purpose. Violence against women and children within the family, for example, only recently has even been considered a proper arena for public concern. Legislation often promises to broadly-defined target populations, but funding is not adequate. Agencies or lower levels of government are left with the complicated tasks of determining who will not be served or how quality will be rationed among the many who need the services.

Public officials prefer beneficial policies for contenders that are largely hidden from public view but that provide important advantages. When choosing among burdensome policies they prefer those that the media and public believe represent meaningful limitations on the greed and self-interest of such groups, but have no "teeth" and will inflict few if any negative effects.

In nonconvergent situations, statutes tend to be vague and complicated; discretion is often passed on to agencies and to lower levels of government. Agencies are often left with the difficult task of rationally connecting the policy logic to the purported goals and with the problem of devising effective and efficient programs to achieve such goals. Higher levels of elected officials may intervene and contramand agency efforts if there is sufficient pressure from the groups, the media, or the public. When goals are not achieved, elected officials are in a position to accuse agencies of being inefficient.

The messages sent by policies differ among target population powerfully impact the orientations and political participation of the target populations. Advantaged groups are taught that their interests coincide with the public interest. They see themselves as good, intelligent, important people who should be treated with respect. They are supportive of government and think that politics is usually a fair, open, and winnable game. They participate at high levels in all forms of legitimate political activities. They pay careful attention to what government does, and are quick to criticize expenditures on other populations. They resist when regulations or costs are inflicted, (and believe they are doing so in the national interest)!

Contenders, on the other hand, are told that they are controversial and will be treated with caution by government. Such groups become suspicious and vigilant. They believe politics is corrupt and involves the raw use of political power.

Dependents receive messages that they are helpless, needy, and not incompetent. Their interests are not important public concerns but should be taken care of by the private sector. They can expect to be treated with pity, and with patronizing policy tools. These groups tend to adopt passive and disinterested orientations toward government and participate at low levels. They believe politics is a hierarchical game dominated by elites.

Deviants receive messages that they are bad people and that they can expect to be treated with disrespect or even hated. They are responsible for their problems and must fend for themselves. Deviants become angry and feel oppressed. They believe that politics involves an abuse of power held by privileged elites. Participation in conventional forms is very low; about the only type of participation from this group are the occasional disruptive forms such as riots.

The messages carried by policy, and the resulting political orientations and participation patterns, exacerbate the public policy crises. Public officials too often are unable to deal with complex problems in an appropriate manner because to do so would provide advantages to the "wrong" people (contenders, dependents, or deviants), or inflict costs on advantaged groups. The contention of pluralists that an open, participatory system results in competition among interests, thereby producing good public policy, does not work when social constructions teach some people that their interests are not legitimate. Problems are not resolved when policies are designed to reinforce stereotypes that increase social divisions and lack of empathy rather than accomplish goals.

Citizens have not been educated about policy complexities nor have they been provided with arguments--either normative or empirical--that self interest often thwarts achievement of national interests. Citizens have not been educated about social constructions, and have not been able to develop critical lenses that enable them to see through such constructions. Thus, the opportunistic manipulation of social constructions continues to permit legitimation of policies that do not serve the public interest and often are ineffective and inefficient.

Arnold, R. Douglas (1990). The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Barber, Benjamin (1992). An Aristocracy of Everyone...

Best, Joel (1989). Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Dryzek, John (1990). Discursive Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Edelman, Murry (1988). Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Greider, William (1992). Who Will Tell the People: The Betrayal of American Democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ingram, Helen and Anne Schneider (1993), "Constructing Citizenship: The Subtle Messages of Policy Design," in Helen Ingram and Stephen Rathgeb Smith (Eds.) Public Policy for Democracy, forthcoming.

Meier, Kenneth J., "Race and the War on Drugs: America's Dirty Little Secret," Policy Currents, Vol. 2, No. 4, November, 1992, page 1-4.

Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram (1993a). "Social Construction of Target Populations," American Political Science Review, forthcoming, June, 1993.

Schneider, Anne and Helen Ingram (1993b). "Social Constructions and Policy Design: Implications for Public Administration," in James L. Perry (Ed), Research in Public Administration (series), JAI Press.

Schneider, Joseph (1985), "Social Problems Theory: The Constructionist View," American Review of Sociology, 11:209- 29.