Category: Social Construction of Target Populations

How Japanese Policymakers Talk About Integrating Immigrants without Saying “Immigrants”

Migration continues to be a major area of policymaking globally. Decisions about how to best manage the economic and social impacts of more diverse populations represent important policy challenges for governments. This is particularly true for industrialized Asian countries like Japan which are turning to immigration as a way of addressing shrinking workforces due to some of the world’s fastest rates of aging.

Recent Japanese resident registry data suggests foreign-born people comprised about 2.6% of the population as of 2025, or about 3.32 million people. While this is much lower than North American and European immigrant-receiving countries, it nevertheless marks a high point for Japan. Not surprisingly, this shift has renewed political and public attention towards how to successfully handle these increasing numbers.

While successive Japanese governments have consciously avoided publicly talking about “immigrants” or “immigration policy”, in practice they have devoted sizable national efforts and resources toward integrating them into society. Under the banner of “multicultural coexistence”, this approach has largely fallen to subnational (prefectural) governments to devise their own local policy plans and initiatives.

As of October 2025, two-thirds (31) of Japan’s 47 prefectures had publicly done so, either as an explicit coexistence plan or as part of broader internationalization efforts. These prefectures tend to have higher shares of foreign-born people (Figure 2). While we can’t say whether these plans reflect or attract growing numbers of immigrants, it is clear they theoretically apply to a large proportion of Japanese citizens and foreign-born people alike.

Figure 2. Share of foreign-born population by prefectures and public presence of multicultural coexistence initiatives.

Yet despite their widespread presence and policy importance, there is little systematic evidence about what is actually in these plans. In our recent study, we analyzed all 31 available sets of multicultural coexistence plans and implementation documents. We thematically identified three key areas: what is multicultural coexistence, why is it needed, and how is it meant to be implemented.

First, multicultural coexistence at the prefectural level involves creating a state of existence where foreign residents and native-born Japanese relate with each other on equal terms. Moreover, policymakers stress how these relationships involve mutual effort by both groups while emphasizing their “naturalness” by using metaphors like atoms or trees. Second, the plans justify coexistence on several grounds including the growing size and driver of change and an opportunity for Japan. Third, implementation ought to happen in two ways: first, by providing key services like language training and disaster preparedness; and second, by promoting greater awareness via intercultural exchanges involving festivals, volunteering, and civic education about rights and responsibilities. Notably, these mechanisms are ideally developed and supported by leaders within foreign-born communities, children of immigrants, and exchange students.

Identifying how prefectural-level plans present multicultural coexistence matters because these elements potentially shape how this approach to integrating immigrants gets put into practice. Although we focused on how these ideas are “imagined” and represented on paper, these documents play important roles in capturing and conveying national efforts at managing immigration to more local levels of government. These subnational levels of policymaking are likely to remain important places for a range of social policies that directly affect newcomers and citizens alike-especially in Asian contexts facing similar demographic challenges.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Mariri Niino and William L. Allen. 2026. “Imagined Integration: The Logics of Japanese Immigrant Integration Policy” Policy Studies Journal 54(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70137.

About the Article’s Author(s)

Mariri Niino is a graduate of the MSc Migration Studies at the University of Oxford and St. Anne’s College. Her research interests are in policy-making and public opinion, particularly around migration. 

William Allen is an Associate Professor of Political Science in the Department of Politics and International Relations (PAIR) at the University of Southampton. His research focuses on how citizens engage with information about political and economic issues, notably migration, and what this means for global public opinion and policy-making.

Follow Willian Allen on BlueSky: @williamlallen.bsky.social

Follow the authors on LinkedIn: William Allen and Mariri Niino.

, , ,

Latent Target Groups – A Methodological Contribution of Social Identities to Policy Design Research

Researchers have traditionally studied target groups as homogenously constructed groups. Thereby, the groups of interest were assigned single social identities, such as, e.g., people in unemployment. However, it can be questioned whether a singular identity approach is appropriate for studying populations of interest, and in turn, designing effective policies. The authors in this article argue that the internal characteristics of at first sight, and from a traditional policy design perspective, homogenous groups are internally highly heterogenous and respond differently to policies based on their overlapping identities. These concerns have prompted the authors to explore the concept of “latent” target groups, or the idea that individuals have multiple competing identities to analyze the extent of subgroup diversity within these target populations.

Theoretical Arguments

The authors establish two primary arguments to guide their investigation of latent target groups in their study:

  1. Target groups are not homogenous and as a result, their heterogeneity must be considered in policy design.
  2. Social identities serves as a useful conceptual backdrop for target group diversity by structuring how they are composed of different subgroups and identities.

Methodology

This study applies Latent Class Analysis (LCA) as the primary methodological tool to uncover individual attributes through a person-centered design. An original dataset of 2,042 German adult respondents was used, specifically examining two groups: non-vegetarians and car users. The authors focused on these groups due to the consequences of their behaviors on the environment and contributions to increased carbon emissions. To identify hidden social identities, the demographic, local, and organizational identities of the respondents were measured through LCA. Furthermore, the authors utilized regression modeling to predict policy preferences toward specific types of nutrition and mobility policies within the subgroups.

Key Findings

Non-Vegetarians and Car Users are not Monolithic Identity Groups

The results of the LCA, as shown in Figure 1 demonstrated that four hidden subgroups existed within the broader population of non-vegetarians and car users examined. These latent groups consisted of four classes: Wealthy and status-seeking people of the rural and provincial upper class (Class 1); politically engaged men in metropolitan areas influenced by monetary incentives (Class 2); a disengaged subset of women expressing minimal social or political engagement (Class 3); and socially/politically active citizens (Class 4). These discoveries confirm the authors’ expectations that seemingly cohesive groups are distinctly characterized by various identity groups making up their composition. Unique to non-vegetarians and car users, these groups are clearly not monolithic and instead shaped by various socioeconomic and political experiences.

Figure 1. Probability of membership in classes.

Hidden Groups Only Predict Policy Preferences for Car Use

Table 3 shows that the observed latent classes exhibit a higher probability of predicting preferences toward mobility policy. In particular, citizens who are socially and politically active (Class 4) are the most likely subgroup to promote car usage policies. This indicates that underneath the broad socially constructed identity groups, specific subgroup identity cohorts drive support or opposition toward policy preferences. Effectively, this revelation confirms that receptiveness to policy designs is a complex phenomenon heavily influenced by conflicting and salient identity factions.

Table 3. Results of logistic regression analyses.

Why It Matters

This article thoughtfully reevaluates how policymakers should approach the design of policy measures and/or programs intended to serve specific target populations. The understanding of identity transcends the traditionally broad social construction of groups into a defined category, as shown in the article. Complex policy issues such as environmental restrictions can spark multiple conflicting identities that create unique policy preferences that differ from others in the demographic segment. Future research directions suggested by the authors include examining how the internal cohesiveness of subgroup identities are affected by policy instruments such as regulations or incentives. By continuing to study latent target groups, policymakers can begin to transition away from “one-size-fits-all” policy approaches and instead pursue tailored design frameworks that align with the behaviors, identities, and values of diverse subgroups.

Read the original article in Policy Studies Journal:

Hornung, Johanna, Nils C. Bandelow, and Madita Olvermann. 2025. “Latent Target Groups—A Methodological Contribution of Social Identities to Policy Design Research.” Policy Studies Journal 53(3): 774–794. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70028.

About the Article’s Author(s)

Dr. Johanna Hornung is an assistant professor in Public Policy at the University of Lausanne. She is co-editor-in-chief of the Review of Policy Research (RPR) and the European Policy Analysis (EPA) journal. Her research interests lie in public policy research, particularly health policy, and the integration of psychological perspectives in actor-centered explanations of policy processes. 

Dr. Nils C. Bandelow is professor Political Science and Head of the Institute of Comparative Politics and Public Policy (CoPPP) at the TU Braunschweig. He is co-editor-in-chief of the journals Review of Policy Research (RPR) and European Policy Analysis (EPA). He is interested in policy process research, particularly health policy and infrastructure policy, and integrating psychological perspectives in actor-centered explanations of policy processes.

Dr. Madita Olvermann is an Innovation Manager at the Project House of the TU Braunschweig. She earned her PhD at the Chair of Industrial/Organizational and Social Psychology at the TU Braunschweig. She is passionate about interdisciplinary research and focuses on applying individual-level insights from the psychological field to emerging transition pathways. 

, , , , , ,

Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy

by Chris Koski & Paul Manson

Climate change is by any definition a wicked problem with myriad potential policy tools and even more potential targets. Policymakers face difficult political choices when designing policies to combat climate change. Among these choices are who should bear the costs and benefits of various policy tool options. Policy tools can be carrots and sticks, and policymakers assign these differently based on who will receive either option. Previous attempts to address climate change at the federal level have largely relied on subsidies and guidance rather than rules and punishment. Winners in these choices have been those with power to influence outcomes.

Previous research on federal climate policy has sought to explain failure both in legislation and executive action. Why have efforts to establish a carbon market in the US failed?  What was the source of demise for the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (and can Biden breathe life into it)?  Public opinion research has focused on understanding support for climate policies, including very specific proposals (e.g. cap and trade). Missing from this work is the general answer to the question: How do policy design features influence public support for policy?

Our article “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy,” recently published in Policy Studies Journal, addresses this question. Our work is situated in the literature on policy deservingness and the resurgence of interest in the social construction of target populations framework.

Using a national survey experiment, we assessed support for seven policy tools across the four archetypal target populations built on Schneider and Ingram’s Policy Design for Democracy.  We find that climate policies are popular across all target populations. Contemporary federal climate policy focuses on carrots: de-emphasizing regulations, leveraging subsidies, and creating carve-outs for firms. In contrast, we find the public prefers sticks: policies that impose burdens – in our case, policies that mandate behaviors – for nearly all target populations, even the positively constructed groups who have power.  The public still supports subsidizing most populations, but not those viewed as undeserving.  Perhaps the most striking contrast between our findings and the federal policy discourse on climate change is that we find Americans are broadly hostile to giving groups exceptions to climate rules, a carrot they will not share with others.

Future work could consider a more complex, and realistic, view of policymaking, namely, that policies target bundles of populations with multiple tools. For example, the Biden administration has taken two distinct approaches to electric vehicle policies in the US, creating subsidies to purchase or lease EVs as well as proposing fuel economy standards that require automakers to increase fleet efficiency. Our current research and research we plan for the future hope to improve the relationship between design and public support for policy.

Editor’s Note: This article won the 2024 Theodore J. Lowi Policy Studies Journal Best Article Award. Congratulations to the authors!

You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at

Koski, Chris and Paul Manson. 2024. “Policy Design Receptivity and Target Populations: A Social Construction Framework Approach to Climate Change Policy.” Policy Studies Journal, 52(2): 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12520.

About the Authors

Chris Koski is the Daniel B. Greenberg Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. He is co-author of Means, Motives, and Opportunities: How Executives and Interest Groups Set Public Policy with Christian Breunig published by Cambridge University Press (2024).

Paul Manson is Assistant Research Professor with the Center for Public Service at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon.

, , , ,