Pondering this left me wondering, given the large size of this particular target group, why policymakers do not propose policies that would shape the social construction of the poor in such a way as to raise their political power and increase their political participation. It seems that this would benefit both the policymakers and the poor. .
The social construction framework argues that the distribution of benefits and burdens among target groups depends upon the target group's power and negative or positive construction. This logic can be readily seen in analyzing target groups, however, I disagreed slightly with their placement of burdens and benefits. The theory states that homeowners and families tend to fall into the advantaged category and receive a larger portion of benefits than burdens. Other than their positive social construction, I had a hard time distinguishing how this group received more benefits than those categorized in the dependent group. Both groups have access to the same general government services (education, highways, safety, etc.), yet the dependent group is eligible for far more government programs. The argument that advantaged groups receive higher tax benefits, also does not logically compute, as those in the dependent group pay a lesser percent of their income into taxes anyway. .
In their fifth proposal the authors allow for social construction of target groups to change, although, as they point out, by nature these groups resist change. The authors advocate that policymakers are predominantly responsible for the changes in the social construction of target groups and, while the do allow for other factors to influence target groups, they do no place much significance on these additional factors. Only briefly do they mention the affects of religion, culture and media in shaping these target groups. I would be inclined to think that these contingent variables play a significant role in the social construction process.