From quacks to professionals: the importance of changing social constructions in the policy-making process

(Incumbent) politics and burdens in the social construction of target groups: The Brazilian Bolsa Família conditional cash transfer programme

“…The first can be seen as weak or strong, which means that involved actors can or cannot influence the policy that will be adopted. In the other axis, the policy will benefit positively constructed social groups while punishing others that are defined as negatively constructed social groups (Marier et al., ). The distribution of benefits or burdens is attached to the political decision that is based on the social construction, and in this way they influence the policy‐making process (James & Jorgensen, ).…”

“…This theory revisits Lasswell's political concerns about ‘who gets what, how, and why’ (Lasswell, ; James & Jorgensen, ), and is an attempt to understand the policy process that others were not able to accomplish satisfactorily (Ingram, Schneider, & deLeon, ). It focuses on learning why existing social groups are rewarded with particular policies, while others are not (Marier, Paterson, & Angus, ). Social construction and power are key concepts behind the retention, or otherwise, of existing policies.…”

“…One of these concerns the lack of explanation regarding target group movements from one point to another based on their social construction, something that needs further explanation (Marier et al., ). What elements are necessary for a group to leave the advantaged cell and lose sufficient reputation that they move from deserving towards contender?…”

“…In order to guarantee a stable political base, politicians will refrain from sensitive policies that might alter a particular social construction and policy design. However, the politics involved in public policy choice have been neglected (Marier et al., ) despite knowing that policy affects politics (Ingram et al., , p. 95).…”

“…A second theoretical implication revolves around the idea that policy is designed to benefit the positively constructed social groups (Marier et al., ). This holds generally true, but in this case the group also benefits from this public policy despite the opposition of other political parties, the media, institutions (Church representatives, for example) and society, that do not support the retention of the cash transfer policy as it stands.…”