Why would a democratic political system produce ‘degenerative’ policy that undermines democracy? Social Construction and Policy Design (SCPD) describes two main ways in which policymaking alienates many citizens:
1. The Social Construction of Target Populations
High profile politics and electoral competition can cause alienation:
- Political actors compete to tell ‘stories’ to assign praise or blame to groups of people. For example, politicians describe value judgements about who should be rewarded or punished by government. They base them on stereotypes of ‘target populations’, by (a) exploiting the ways in which many people think about groups, or (b) making emotional and superficial judgements, backed up with selective use of facts.
- These judgements have a ‘feed-forward’ effect: they are reproduced in policies, practices, and institutions. Such ‘policy designs’ can endure for years or decades. The distribution of rewards and sanctions is cumulative and difficult to overcome.
- Policy design has an impact on citizens, who participate in politics according to how they are characterised by government. Many know they will be treated badly; their engagement will be dispiriting.
Some groups have the power to challenge the way they are described by policymakers (and the media and public), and receive benefits behind the scenes despite their poor image. However, many people feel powerless, become disenchanted with politics, and do not engage in the democratic process.
SCTP depicts this dynamic with a 2-by-2 table in which target populations are described positively/ negatively and more or less able to respond:
2. Bureaucratic and expert politics
Most policy issues are not salient and politicised in this way. Yet, low salience can exacerbate problems of citizen exclusion. Policies dominated by bureaucratic interests often alienate citizens receiving services. Or a small elite dominates policymaking when there is high acceptance that (a) the best policy is ‘evidence based’, and (b) the evidence should come from experts.
Overall, SCPD describes a political system with major potential to diminish democracy, containing key actors (a) politicising issues to reward or punish populations or (b) depoliticising issues with reference to science and objectivity. In both cases, policy design is not informed by routine citizen participation.
Take home message for students: SCPD began as Schneider and Ingram’s description of the US political system’s failure to solve major problems including inequality, poverty, crime, racism, sexism, and effective universal healthcare and education. Think about how its key drivers apply elsewhere: (1) some people make and exploit quick and emotional judgements for political gain, and others refer to expertise to limit debate; (2) these judgements inform policy design; and, (3) policy design sends signals to citizens which can diminish or boost their incentive to engage in politics.
For more, see the 1000-word and 5000-word versions. The latter has a detailed guide to further reading.
Pingback: Policy in 500 words: uncertainty versus ambiguity | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: How far should you go to privilege evidence? 2. Policy theories, scenarios, and ethical dilemmas | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy in 500 Words: the Narrative Policy Framework | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 words: Carol Bacchi’s (2009) WPR Approach | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 words: Michael Mintrom (2012) Contemporary Policy Analysis | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 words: Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) Decolonizing Methodologies | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 words: Using Statistics and Explaining Risk (Sincerely) | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 words: Deborah Stone (2012) Policy Paradox | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: What can you realistically expect policymakers to do? | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: Defining policy problems and choosing solutions | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: policy analysis for marginalized groups in racialized political systems | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: The coronavirus and evidence-informed policy analysis (long version) | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: I am not Peter Matthews | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Education equity policy: ‘equity for all’ as a distraction from race, minoritization, and marginalisation | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: How to communicate effectively with policymakers | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy in 500 Words: Trust | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: Changing things from the inside | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Policy Analysis in 750 Words: Political feasibility and policy success | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: Using policy theories to interpret public health case studies: the example of a minimum unit price for alcohol | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy
Pingback: The politics of policy design | Paul Cairney: Politics & Public Policy