Journal5

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration Author(s): James H. Svara and James R. Brunet Source: Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 253-258 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40215707 Accessed: 09-05-2020 20:14 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public Affairs Education

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

James H. Svara and James R. Brunei North Carolina State University

Abstract

In this article, the authors respond to

points raised by David Rosenbloom regard- ing our 2004 J-PAE article "Filling in the

Skeletal PillanAddressing Social Equity

in Introductory Courses in Public Administration." We conclude with an

operational definition of social equity

for public administrators.

The standing and importance of social equity in public administration is

elevated by giving it careful scrutiny. In our article in the J-PAE symposium

on teaching social equity (Svara and Brunet, 2004), we examined and defined the concept, noted its vague and imprecise usage and the surpris-

ing lack of attention given to it in public administration textbooks, and pro-

posed how the major elements of social equity could be incorporated into an introductory course. David Rosenbloom has provided scrutiny by con-

fronting self-satisfying assumptions about social equity and fuzzy pro- nouncements about what it means. He challenges the basic notion that

social equity is a useful- much less central- concept in public administra- tion. In the final analysis, the points he makes help to clarify what social

equity means and why it is important for public administration as a profes- sion to be committed to its advancement. We will respond to each of the

points Rosenbloom makes and then present, with refinements stimulated

by his commentary, an operational definition of social equity.

1. What are the pillars? We acknowledge that we simply accepted the social-equity-as-third-pillar analogy from the literature and sought to give it

more precise meaning. We did not consider the fundamental question: What are the pillars of public administration? The rule of law is critically

important, and we did not suggest that it was a subordinate component of

social equity itself, although aspects of law are part of our measures of

social equity. Dismissing the idea that administrators have a "duty" to "redis- tribute resources" (from White, 1 13), Rosenbloom argues that MPA students

should "understand that public administrators are bound by the rule of law

to implement regulations, such as regressive taxes, that may not comport

with concepts of social equity."The binding nature of the law, however,

does not preclude administrators from recognizing that the taxes they col-

lect are regressive and trying to change this condition through legitimate methods. Without an awareness of and concern for social equity, adminis-

trators might simply follow the letter of the law or fail to question whether the law should be changed.The concern for social equity also can guide administrators in the exercise of discretion under the law. Having a com- J-PAE 11 (2005)3:253-258

Journal of Public Affairs Education 253

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

mitment to social equity is, therefore, crucial as a

major perspective in public administration. We feel

that social equity deserves the prominence of pillar

status. Re-examining what the other pillars are

would be a useful topic for a separate discussion. 2. Definition. Rosenbloom complains that the def-

initions of social equity in two of the symposium

articles are tautological.1 We start our definition by

linking the concept to "fairness, justice, and equi-

table distribution" (101). It may be redundant to

include "equitable" along with fairness and justice in

the definition of social equity, but one can argue that

equitable administrative practices promote social equity. We suggest that for social equity to be mean- ingful, it must be measurable and- drawing on the

work of the NAPA Social Equity Panel- propose four dimensions that build on the definition and provide

the basis for measurement: procedural fairness,

access, quality, and outcomes. We describe the condi-

tions that are consistent with social equity in each dimension.

Rosenbloom raises the substantive complaint that

we "confound equity and social equity"2 and ignore

that "constitutional procedural due process is over-

whelmingly an individual right, not one that protects

large groups from unfair deprivation of liberty or

property by government." If individual rights are pro-

tected in a universal and consistent way across all

groups, there are no social equity concerns. Much

negative experience, however, indicates that proce- dural fairness should be examined from a social

equity perspective (and, in addition, many social

equity shortcomings would persist even if procedur-

al fairness were the same for all citizens.) To sharpen

the language we used in our article, practices such

as failure to provide due process before relocating a

family as part of an urban renewal project or unfairly

denying benefits to a person who meets eligibility

criteria raise equity issues. When the unfair practices

are used disproportionately in dealings with mem-

bers of identifiable groups, there is a social equity

issue, just as there is when using racial characteris-

tics alone to "profile" criminal suspects. When indi-

vidual rights are systematically denied to members

of groups identified by characteristics such as gen-

der, income, race, ethnicity, or age, there is a social

equity problem. Rosenbloom indicates that constitutional tests

of equal protection are more appropriate to the

"'social' in social equity," but then focuses entirely

on equal protection as a judicial standard that tends to focus on individuals. (This matter is discussed fur-

ther in the next section.) A commitment to equal

protection helps to prevent social equity problems from arising or leads to the correction of socially

inequitable practices such as assigning unqualified teachers or sending old textbooks to low-income schools.3

Procedural fairness is the obvious starting point in

defining social equity and specifying corrective

action because the behavior is not problematic- indeed constitutional competence is required of public administrators (Rosenbloom and Carroll,

1990)- even if it is complex.As Rosenbloom says, public administrators should "do equal protection"- as well as due process and equal rights- "on the job." But this is not all they should do with respect

to social equity. We will return to the matter of pro-

viding a more coherent, clear, and operational defini-

tion of social equity.

3. Confront the inequities of social equity. It is

important to consider in a dispassionate way the

potential inequities of social equity, as Rosenbloom observes. Still, one cannot ignore the fundamental

inequalities in society, many of which cannot be

explained by differences in individual aptitude or inclination.The commitment to social equity indi-

cates that public administrators are not indifferent to

these conditions. Proponents of reducing inequality

are guided by Rawls' second principle: "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advan-

taged" (1971, 302).Through developing policy pro- posals to reduce social and economic problems and through choosing proactive administrative and man-

agement practices within existing policy,4 public administrators seek to address the effects of discrimi-

nation based on personal characteristics or the

restricted prospects produced by inadequate socio- economic resources.

254 fournal of Public Affairs Education

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

Public administrators need to be constantly aware

that, in efforts to reduce inequality, there will be losers as well as winners, even if the "losers" are in

theory more advantaged.

In devising remedies that change the distribution

of benefits,5 the equal protection test is relevant, as

Rosenbloom has argued. Court decisions require race- and ethnicity-based public policies to be "nar-

rowly tailored," and applicants for public benefits

must be given "individualized consideration."These requirements do not preclude taking race into

account if it is not the only or deciding factor. In

Grutter v. Bollinger, regarding the University of

Michigan, Justice O'Connor wrote that "the Equal

Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions

to further a compelling interest in obtaining the edu- cational benefits that flow from a diverse student

body." In its undergraduate admission policies in

Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruled that the university went too far in automatically awarding points to

minority candidates, although once again the court

permitted race to be used as a factor in admission if it was not the deciding factor. The concern about

creating inequities should be a salient one to admin- istrators, but it should not cause administrators to

ignore the persistence of inequalities nor immobilize them from seeking to correct inequalities, even if

this means testing the limits as the University of

Michigan did.

4. Explain the advantages, if any, of applying the term social equity to standard, longstanding

subject matter in MPA education Rosenbloom argues that MPA education should cover the rule of law- constitutional rights and equal employment

opportunity law- and representative bureaucracy and that nothing is gained and much is lost when

subsuming these topics under the discussion of "social equity." In his view, "these subjects stood and can continue to stand on their own."These subjects

are important and will be recognizable in the cur- riculum, but can they be viewed as covering the full

scope of social equity? The reason that we proposed teaching social equity across the introductory course

is that these and many other topics, contribute to a

full understanding of social equity. Similarly, repre-

sentative bureaucracy may be "more inclusive than

social equity" because it can examine more cate- gories, but this topic focuses only on public sector

employment patterns and not the full range of poli-

cy and management issues covered by social equity. In our view, Rosenbloom provides an argument

for retaining an emphasis on social equity along with examination of the rule of law. He observes that

equal protection analysis by the courts permits (or

does not provide the basis for invalidating) public

school financing systems that provide less money for

each student in districts with predominantly ethnic

minorities than those that have predominantly non-

minority student bodies (San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 [1973]).6 Social equity analysis emphasizing the distribution of

resources and legal analysis emphasizing equal pro- tection may lead to differing views. A legal remedy in the form of a court-ordered redistribution of

funds is not permissible in the Texas case, but that does not mean that the court would overturn a state

plan to achieve greater uniformity in funding across

districts. There is a wide zone of acceptable activi-

ties around equal protection. A commitment to

social equity prompts one to analyze and explore the activist limits of equal protection, whereas the

absence of this commitment might cause one to tol-

erate instances of inequality out of concern that

remedies might not pass the equal protection test.

Although Rosenbloom is concerned that social equi- ty will be "muddled when it is treated as a pillar built

of sometimes incompatible concerns and concepts," an opposing view is that it is stronger because it is based on considering and balancing multiple forms of analysis reflecting the four dimensions.

Rosenbloom's final concern seems misplaced. There is no reason why the coherence of equal pro- tection and representative bureaucracy need to be compromised when the concepts are applied to the examination of social equity and also examined sepa- rately. Indeed, it seems that the understanding of

equal protection is expanded by applying it to test

the adequacy of administrative practices as well as

the Constitutional appropriateness of policy remedies.

Journal of Public Affairs Education 255

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

We state the question in the opposite way: What

is lost by not talking about social equity as a central concept? Rosenbloom seems to dismiss advocating social equity as a self-satisfying diversion for MPA

faculty and students but a practice that is irrelevant

to practicing administrators. We think that it should

be a concept that deserves serious intellectual inquiry in the academy and also a major responsibili- ty for public administrators. Practitioners should do

social equity analysis and- within appropriate lim- its-action.

5. Avoid "stealing" popular sovereignty. What indeed are the appropriate limits? Just because, as

Rosenbloom reminds us, some aspects of the New Public Administration implied an illegitimate pre- sumption that administrators should substitute their

preferences for those of elected officials, promoting

social equity as a pillar does not carry the same pre-

sumption. As we argued- and Rosenbloom recog- nizes-examining the appropriate limits of adminis- trative action are an essential part of the study of

social equity. We stress that public administrators

should make elected officials and the public aware of social equity problems, should promote social equity in their policy recommendations to elected officials, and should examine their own administra-

tive and management practices to ensure that social

equity is being observed and advanced. We share with Rosenbloom the emphasis on advocacy rather than "imposition of personal and professional val- ues." Consistent with this view, there are extensive

opportunities to advance social equity in administra- tive and management behavior as well as in the

appropriate advocacy of policy proposals. 6. Analysis of textbooks. Rosenbloom asserts that

we were mistaken in the way we characterized his textbook co-written with Robert Kravchuk. He

points out that they do not index social equity (nor

did we rely on index references alone), but they inte-

grate subject matter that we treat as part of social

equity throughout the book. We recognized that

broad coverage, but the coverage of due process and equity in different parts of the text make no refer-

ence to "social" equity. The preponderance of materi-

al related to social equity in their book- discrimina-

tion, sexual harassment, EEO/AA, and representative-

ness-is included in their personnel chapter. Thus, our generalization about the two approaches is appropriate: explicit coverage of social equity occurs either in a stand-alone chapter or in the human resources section of the book (108).Their book pro- vides extensive discussion of topics related to social equity but not social equity itself.

This brings us back the fundamental question.

Should social equity be a topic that receives explicit attention, or should we rely on discussion of other

topics that may develop awareness, understanding, and commitment to the some of the concerns

encompassed by the concept of social equity? We prefer the former approach, because the clarity,

coherence, and importance of the concept may oth- erwise be lost. How do students know that the vari-

ous topics are related to social equity if it is not

emphasized as a separate theme? Still, this approach

of making social equity a central theme is defensible

only if the concept has clear meaning and is accept-

ed as a core value of public administration.

Conclusion: Operational definition of social equity

We conclude with a response to Rosenbloom's challenge to provide a "clearer, operational defini-

tion'The definition of the NAPA Social Equity Panel

(2000) provides the starting point, as in our original article:

The fair, just and equitable management of all

institutions serving the public directly or by

contract, and the fair, just and equitable distrib-

ution of public services, and implementation of

public policy, and the commitment to promote

fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of

public policy.

In operational terms, public administrators should

demonstrate the following commitments:

Procedural fairness. Provide due process, equal protection, and equal rights to all persons regardless

of their personal characteristics. Each individual

should be treated fairly, and any instances of unfair treatment of individuals should be corrected.

256 Journal of Public Affairs Education

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

Furthermore, existing and new practices in imple-

mentation, service delivery, and management should

be examined to ensure that procedural fairness is

not disproportionately denied to any groups of per-

sons.Any deviations should be corrected and factors that contribute to this behavior should be eliminat-

ed.

Distribution and access (equity in availability of services/benefits). Services and benefits should be

distributed equally or in such a way that those who

are less advantaged receive greater benefits. These

general principles should guide the observance of requirements that are multiple and complex and that

vary with the purpose of a program or the problem

that is being addressed. For existing policies and pro-

grams, distribution and access should match the

intended purpose. For example, if all are to receive a service or benefit, then it should be made available

to all equally. If all are eligible, then it should be

accessible to all equally. If special conditions are

required to receive a service or benefit, efforts should be made to reach all who are eligible, and

legal discretion should be used to include rather

than exclude persons whose eligibility is borderline.

In formulating new policy, promote equal distribu-

tion, compensatory redistribution, and efforts to cor-

rect past discrimination, depending on the nature of

the problem being addressed. Avoid creating barriers to access, such as service fees for essential services

that impose a disproportionate cost for persons with fewer resources. In developing policy proposals that entail redistribution, take into account the obligation

to be accountable to the rule of law and the impor-

tance of making best use of scarce resources.

Quality (equity in the process of providing ser- vices and benefits). Ensure that there is consistency

in the quality of services and benefits delivered to all

groups of people. Although some persons have the means to secure enhanced quality, public administra-

tors should strive to ensure that prevailing standards

of acceptable practice are met for all groups. Outcomes. Seek to achieve an equal level of

accomplishment or outcomes in the social and eco- nomic conditions for all individuals and seek to elim-

inate differences in outcomes for groups. While rec-

ognizing the importance of individual behavior on

outcomes and the constraints that general condi-

tions impose on outcomes in specific areas, e.g., the

impact of poverty on educational performance, pub-

lic administrators should examine why different out-

comes occur and identify possible approaches to reducing disparities. Public administrators should ask

how much inequality is acceptable and to what extent government can and should-on its own and in partnership with the business and nonprofit sec-

tors-intervene to reduce the inequality in out- comes.

Related responsibilities. Guarantee all a place at the table so that they can express their own views

about public policy choices and service delivery. Take proactive and affirmative efforts to involve all citizens and solicit feedback.

It is a step into uncharted territory to specify

what it means to put the commitment to social equi-

ty into action. We acknowledge David Rosenbloom for challenging us to take this step and invite others

to help move beyond this initial effort. This state-

ment makes it clear how broad-ranging and funda-

mental the commitment to social equity is for practi-

tioners and scholars. Social equity defines the larger

purpose to which public administration is dedicated that stands alongside (but cannot override) account- ability and rises above (but cannot ignore) instru- mental management values. In sum, social equity is a

pillar on which public administration rests.

Notes

1. He criticizes Gooden and Meyers for defining social equity tautologi-

cally as "fairness or social justice" (92). Except for the double use of "social," the definition seems appropriate. The Oxford dictionary

defines equity as "fairness, impartiality, even-handed dealing;" a defin-

ition of equitable is "just." We identify four dimensions of social equi-

ty as procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes, but we see these as elaborating what social equity is, not restating the same idea in different words.

2. Similarly, Frederickson distinguishes between equity and social equi- ty. "Certainly, there has always been a concern for fairness in the bet-

ter practices of public administration, but it was not until the 1960s that the phrase 'social equity' became a feature of public administra- tion with an attendant set of concepts and a cluster of shared val-

ues" (2005, 2-3.) Still, later in the paper Frederickson returns to

a view of social equity as concerned with "fairness, justice, and

equality."

fournal of Public Affairs Education 257

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration

3. Rosenbloom usefully points out that "remedial law" is a practice used by courts to correct pervasive failure in administrative performance. As indicated in the closing section, we feel that administrators

should undertake systematic examination of their own practices.

4. For example, the Raleigh, North Carolina, police chief last year insti- tuted new procedures in dealing with illegal encampments. Officers are to ask residents to dismantle the camp and give them reasonable time to do so, to counsel homeless persons about available services, and inventory to protect their property if it is removed from an ille-

gal encampment (Raleigh News & Observer, Jury 11, 2004, Bl). 5. As noted earlier, examining equal protection can also be used to pre-

vent or correct practices that violate social equity. 6. From our reading of this case, the decision does not permit unequal

funding in the same district, as Rosenbloom indicates.

References

Fredenckson, H. George. 2005. The State of Social Equity in American Public Administration. Paper delivered at the Fourth Social Equity Leadership Conference, Cleveland Ohio, February 17-19.

Gooden, Susan, and Samuel L. Meyers, Jr. 2004. "Social Equity in Public

Affairs Educations/own^/ of Public Affairs Education, 10: 91-97. National Academy of Public Administration, Standing Panel on Social

Equality, "Issue Paper and Work Plan," October 2000, amended November 16, 2000.

Rawlsjohn. 1971.4 Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosenbloom, David H., and James D. Carroll. 1990. Toward

Constitutional Competence: A Casebook for Public Administrators. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Svara, James H., and James R. Brunet. 2004. "Filling in the Skeletal Pillar:

Addressing Social Equity in Introductory Courses in Public

Administration.n/owrna/ of Public Affairs Education, 10: 99-109. White, Susan. 2004. "Multicultural MPA Curriculum: Are We Preparing

Culturally Competent Public Administrators?" Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10:111-123.

James H. Svara teaches administrative ethics and the doctoral course in foundations of public administration in the Public Administration Program at North Carolina State University. He is chairman of the Research Committee of the Social Equity Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration.

James R. Brunet teaches introduction to public administration and administrative ethics at North Carolina State University. He is cur-

rently conducting a review of social equity measures in criminal justice policy and administration in the United States for the Social Equity Panel of NAPA.

258 Journal of Public Affairs Education

This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May 2020 20:14:50 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms