Policy design receptivity and target populations: A social construction framework approach to climate change policy

IF 4.1 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy Studies Journal Pub Date : 2023-11-05 DOI:10.1111/psj.12520
Chris Koski, Paul Manson
{"title":"Policy design receptivity and target populations: A social construction framework approach to climate change policy","authors":"Chris Koski, Paul Manson","doi":"10.1111/psj.12520","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The public‐elite policy feedback mechanism of the Social Construction Framework (SCF) postulates that the public rewards policymakers for the appropriate distribution of benefits and burdens to target populations. In this article we test a key part of this dynamic by examining public receptivity to policy design features as a function of target population choice. We conduct a national survey experiment of approximately 3350 Americans. Our instrument asks respondents to indicate support or opposition to a range of policy tools in a suite of six climate change policies, but varies who would be responsible for options based upon Schneider and Ingram's idealized types. Our research design tests the independent effects of deservingness and power foundational to the construction of target populations in the SCF. We find, in general, deservingness to be a stronger predictor of support for policy tools than notions of power. We also identify situations where deservingness acts independently of power in ways not anticipated by the SCF—notably public favor for burdens on powerful groups. Our findings offer implications for theoretical and empirical development of the SCF regarding the influence of policymakers' perceptions of public acceptance of policy design in crafting public policies.","PeriodicalId":48154,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies Journal","volume":"85 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The public‐elite policy feedback mechanism of the Social Construction Framework (SCF) postulates that the public rewards policymakers for the appropriate distribution of benefits and burdens to target populations. In this article we test a key part of this dynamic by examining public receptivity to policy design features as a function of target population choice. We conduct a national survey experiment of approximately 3350 Americans. Our instrument asks respondents to indicate support or opposition to a range of policy tools in a suite of six climate change policies, but varies who would be responsible for options based upon Schneider and Ingram's idealized types. Our research design tests the independent effects of deservingness and power foundational to the construction of target populations in the SCF. We find, in general, deservingness to be a stronger predictor of support for policy tools than notions of power. We also identify situations where deservingness acts independently of power in ways not anticipated by the SCF—notably public favor for burdens on powerful groups. Our findings offer implications for theoretical and empirical development of the SCF regarding the influence of policymakers' perceptions of public acceptance of policy design in crafting public policies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策设计可接受性与目标人群:气候变化政策的社会建构框架方法
社会建设框架(SCF)的公众精英政策反馈机制假设公众奖励政策制定者为目标人群适当分配利益和负担。在本文中,我们通过检查公众对政策设计特征的接受程度作为目标人口选择的函数来测试这一动态的关键部分。我们对大约3350名美国人进行了全国性的调查实验。我们的工具要求受访者在一套六项气候变化政策中表明对一系列政策工具的支持或反对,但根据施耐德和英格拉姆的理想类型,谁将对这些选项负责会有所不同。我们的研究设计测试了应得性和权力基础对SCF目标人群构建的独立影响。我们发现,总体而言,与权力概念相比,应得性更能预测人们对政策工具的支持。我们还指出,在某些情况下,应得性独立于权力之外,以一种scf没有预料到的方式发挥作用——特别是公众对强大集团的负担的青睐。我们的研究结果为政策制定者在制定公共政策时对公众对政策设计的接受程度的看法的影响提供了理论和实证发展的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: As the principal outlet for the Public Policy Section of the American Political Science Association and for the Policy Studies Organization (PSO), the Policy Studies Journal (PSJ) is the premier channel for the publication of public policy research. PSJ is best characterized as an outlet for theoretically and empirically grounded research on policy process and policy analysis. More specifically, we aim to publish articles that advance public policy theory, explicitly articulate its methods of data collection and analysis, and provide clear descriptions of how their work advances the literature.
期刊最新文献
Manifesting symbolic representation through collaborative policymaking Whose water crisis? How policy responses to acute environmental change widen inequality Narrative spillover: A narrative policy framework analysis of critical race theory discourse at multiple levels Athletic competition between the states: The rapid spread of Name, Image, Likeness laws and why it matters for understanding policy diffusion Editorial introduction: Exploring policy theories, narratives, and policing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1