Equity, Equality & Fairness: Discover the differences between them and how to take steps to incorporate these principles in budgeting.

• Author: Harward, Brian
• Position: RETHINKING BUDGETING

Many local governments are grappling with the concept of "equity" in budgeting. Equity is one interpretation of fairness or justice. A central theme in debates about fairness and justice is equality versus equity. "Equality" means people should be treated the same by public policy to remove barriers to the individual's success. It is commonly associated with giving people equality of opportunity. "Equity" means people should be treated differently by public policy to compensate for different circumstances and consequent need for help from government. Equity is commonly associated with equality in outcomes. Our interviews with GFOA members suggest that there is wide variation in how different cities are experiencing the rising debate over equity and equality. Some are debating the merits and meaning of "equity" [perhaps while also confusing the definition of equity versus equality]. Others have reached agreement on the principles of equity but are struggling to implement policies that will make equity a reality. In general, opinions on this are politically divided, with equal opportunity embraced by conservatives and equal outcome promoted by liberals.

Why are questions of equity and equality so contentious? How can we find common ground and move forward together? These questions must be answered to move toward budgeting systems that deliver distributive justice. (* 1) Distributive justice is a basic component of how people view fairness. Perceptions of what equity means are determined by moral foundations.

Moral Foundations Theory is an important concept that can inform our understanding of fairness. It suggests that how we decide what is just and fair is rooted in moral thinking.

It identifies six moral principles that underlie people's thinking. The two principles most relevant to equity would be care/harm and fairness/cheating. While these are important, the debate is also about how to care and what is fair. Equity and proportionality [individuals receiving outcomes relative to the amount of effort invested] are best thought of as distinct moral foundations. (2) Equity tends to be favored by political liberals, while proportionality appeals to everyone but more so for conservatives. Proportionality includes opportunities and resources, but in the absence of oppression or limiting circumstances, people must earn what they seek according to this approach. Nearly everyone believes in a mix of proportionality and equity. After all, even with equal opportunities and resources, there must be efforts made to take advantage of them. When people make poor choices or show little effort, there is still broad agreement that they deserve a certain amount of help. Those concerned with proportionality are hesitant to accept people getting benefits they have not earned. Those favoring equity place less responsibility on the individual to earn opportunities and resources. Instead, they define fairness as everyone having the same access and, sometimes, the same outcomes.

Many situational and societal factors beyond effort and reward are also worth considering. When thinking about issues like historical context [for example oppression of minorities] and systems-level barriers to success, proportionality includes these to the extent that they actually limit opportunity. Strictly proportional moral thinking leads to resisting social programs because some recipients won't need it, and another group or individual will be...