{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Policy design receptivity and target populations: A social construction framework approach to climate change policy
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.
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.