Colin Lenihan
American Public Policy
Exam II
Examination of Public Policy Framework: Policy Feedback Theory & Social Construction Theory
In recent decades the study of policy design has increased dramatically in order for scholars to better understand why the political system produces certain policies and not others, and how that policy design influences the political system. In this paper I will describe two policy frameworks that analyze how the implementation of policies transform political relationships and therefore influence governance. In recent years scholars have recognized that policies contain a set of fundamental elements that are vital in the observation and analysis of policy design. According to Sabatier and Wieble, the Policy Feedback Theory attempts to examine how polices, that are enacted, reshape politics and influence future policy-making. (151) For example different policies affect different people, therefore affecting the extent to which those individuals participate in politics and their individual agenda. The Social Construction Theory is a framework developed in order to explain how policy designs have long-term affects in that they identify target populations and appropriate rewards and sanctions among that population. Policy designs have material and symbolic effects on target populations that influence their attitudes and political participation. The summary of the relationship between these two frameworks is that policy feedback focuses on the ways that policy can affect the likelihood of certain individuals or groups to participate in politics and Social Construction Theory argues that social constructions, or perceptions, of certain groups determines the political benefits or sanctions awarded to that group. The relationship between these two frameworks is essential to understanding how policy-making influences the political system, and vice-versa.
In this next section I will explain and give examples in contemporary literature of the Policy Feedback Theory and Social Construction Theory being applied in the U.S. political system. In “ Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era”, Mettler applies the concept of the “submerged state” to explain the challenges President Barack Obama endured when trying to enact his social welfare policy agenda. The focuses of his social policies were tax expenditures, emphasis on higher education, and a reform on healthcare. Mettler states a submerged state as, “ a conglomeration of existing federal policies that incentivize and subsidize the activities engaged in by private actors or individuals.” (803) Policies are “submerged” in that they help private organizations take on state functions, are subject to fewer political challenges, and have greater private sector involvement. Through the framework of PFT, we can explain how, over time, the policies of the submerged state can reshape politics in two profound ways. First the submerged state has nurtured particular sectors of the economy, and they have strengthened their political power in order to preserve existing conditions. The Citizen United vs. FEC is an example of a recent event that decreased regulation on campaign spending, therefore allowed particular groups in society to increase their political power. Second, such policies have over shadowed the state’s role and made it invisible to most citizens. In the article, Mettler emphasizes this point by showing a study that states that around half, depending on the program, of social program beneficiaries report they “have not used a government social program”. (809, Table 3) Most submerged state policies are misunderstood or ignored by public but defended by private lobbying groups, whose interest they serve. The disassociation between the delivery of social programs or services and the acknowledgement between the beneficiaries of those services can be explained through the policy feedback framework. A policy enacted (social programs) only changes the features of the political landscape for a small group of people, due to the submerged state of the program. There is no feedback in terms of the beneficiaries in the political process because they’re unaware of the role the government plays in these programs. The Affordable Care Act is an example of a submerged state program by providing insurance through the marketplace, subsidized by the government or through the expansion of Medicaid. The idea of reconstituting the submerged state by funneling resources (i.e. insurance recipients) to the private sector (i.e. insurance companies/contenders) is in it self a feedback effect. Health care is an example where contender groups (i.e. insurance companies) have substantial political resources and receive benefits, but these benefits are often sub rosa. In examining the social construction of target populations and how they interact within the political process, we can then understand how different target populations influence the policy-makers in their appropriation of benefits and burdens. Similarly, Mettler states how Obama’s higher education policy reform was met with force by the lenders (banks) to keep their big government subsidies. Higher education reform represented a significant shift from submerged to visible politics in that the existing system was terminated and replace by direct lending. In conclusion Mettler states that although the process of reforming the submerged state is “inherently messy and conflicted”, Obama has accomplished numerous goals in terms of his social welfare policy. The submerged state also creates a disassociation between policy and provider, which helps reinforce the view that government is not equipped to deal with complicated matters, and therefore should be entrusted to the private sector. Mettler states that successful reformation of the submerged state can be accomplished if reformers accomplish certain tasks. Reformers must defeat the interest groups empowered by existing arrangements, create transparency within the submerged state, and reconstruct policies to be more visible to citizens. Social construction framework can allow reformers to better understand interest groups and reach agreement, since defeat is unlikely due to the power these groups possess. Policy feedback framework allows for reformers to better understand the political process and create transparency within the submerged state. Although President Obama accomplished many of his goals in terms of reforming the submerged state, the research indicates that new policies have done as much if not more to expand the submerged state. Thus so far the submerged state is present in politics, but in an altered form.
In “A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback”, Joe Soss and Sanford F Schram analyze the use of public policy as a tool for influencing public opinion. The main goal of social reform is to reduce the number of individuals dependent on government assistance and to assist recipients in their efforts to become self-sufficient. In 1996 the U.S. Congress passed the Welfare Reform Act, which encompassed reforms like lifetime limit on benefit claims, work requirement, and complicate the process to gain government benefits.
This reform attempts to redefine the perception of the group as well as the policy image. This also allows for Democrats to dump political baggage, in that they could now defend the working poor or working families, rather than the unemployed. In this article, Soss and Schram address the use of policy design as a political strategy and explain how policy feedback attempts to show how specific types of policies influence the political system differently. Soss and Schram analyze welfare reform as a political strategy to influence public opinion in favor of liberal political goals and anti-poverty efforts. The analyses of mass feedback processes are based on two dimensions: visibility and proximity. Visibility is a conventional metric used in studies of policy feedback theory and expresses the degree of salient of a policy to the mass public. The proximity measures the extent to which a policies presence affects people’s lives in an immediate and concrete way. These metrics attempt to measure the two-way relationship between public policy and mass opinion, which is an example of a feedback effect. In conclusion, Soss and Schram state that welfare reform had limited effects on the mass opinion of welfare recipients. Progressive revisionists were right in that the policy changes in 1960 created a radicalized view of welfare and the Democratic Party. Although post-1996 majorities took a positive view of work-oriented welfare reform, very few of the overall effects actually materialized in the policy process. They are not stating that policy changes cannot influence public opinion, but rather that welfare reform clarifies the circumstances under which change will occur. PFT and SCT provide frameworks to analyze the general set of conditions in which mass feedback is likely to occur. Furthermore these frameworks were helped to understand that no evidence was found that welfare reform diminished the impacts of race on poverty and welfare politics. While SCT argues that the construction of target populations influences how the public will perceive a particular policy and it also shapes the policy agenda and policy options available to legislators in a given policy area. In the case of welfare reform, Soss and Schram argue that the SCT doesn’t apply in that reformers focused on the visibility of welfare for Americans, without attending to the lack of proximity to Americans of this policy. The submerged state of higher education reform also decreases the visibility and the proximity of these policies.
In “The Origins of Social Policy in the United States: A Polity-Centered Analysis”, Theda Skocpol explains how politics are greatly influenced by historical changes within governmental institutions and political groups. By understanding the historical context we can understand the motives or strategies of politicians and institutions. In using PFT framework to analyze politics as being heavily influenced by historical changes within government institutions, interest groups, and social groups; we can better understand the policy initiatives in the future and the effects of those policies.