Equity in Public Services: A Systematic Literature Review

• Published date: 01 November 2021
• Author: Denita Cepiku,Marco Mastrodascio
• Date: 01 November 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13402

Research Article

Equity in Public Services: A Systematic Literature Review 1019

Abstract: Since the New Administration perspective was introduced by Dwight Waldo, equity has played a key role

in public administration and public policy studies. Much research has focused on employment, politics, jurisprudence,

voting and many other issues, while neglecting the role of public services. As gross societal inequities in the world still

abound, this article aims at mapping the structure of the knowledge on equity in public services as well as the main

conceptualizations and determinants of equity. Quantitative (bibliometrix) and qualitative (narrative) analyses are

combined in the analysis of 145 articles from 69 journals. The greatest concentration areas and main drivers of equity

(i.e., representative bureaucracy, administrative burden, horizontal and vertical decentralization, privatization,

co-production and performance management) are identified. The review contributes to the advancement of social

equity in public administration scholarship and practice by improving the conceptual clarity of the term and by

mapping the various literature streams.

Evidence for Practice

• Conceptualizations of equity vary greatly and may refer to inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes, viewing

equity as a right or measuring it against payment capacity. An ambiguous conceptualization of social equity

by street-level bureaucrats may compromise the achievement of social outcomes.

• The systematization of the research published to date on equity shows various distinctive drivers:

representative bureaucracy, performance management, administrative burden, administrative reforms,

especially decentralization and privatization and co-production.

• Some conditions favor the impact of these drivers on equity, such as street-level discretion, stable financing

systems, information availability and technical and managerial capacity.

• There is evidence that public sector fragmentation and market-like arrangements for service delivery favor

efficiency over equity.

Equity is now widely accepted by scholars

and practitioners alike as a pillar of public

administration. It has been promoted since

the first Minnowbrook Conference held in 1968

(Frederickson 1971) and is at the heart of the U.N.

Sustainable Development Goals. More recently,

President Biden has directed agencies to review their

existing regulations to assess whether, and to what

extent, programs and policies perpetuate systemic

barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of

color and other underserved groups. The United

Nations has urged global leaders and policy makers to

“Build Back Better” through a series of propositions,

with a focus on promoting fairness and equity. The

OECD and the WHO have also highlighted equity as

a key issue for the post-Covid world.1

Despite such decades-long efforts, equity is still

an underdeveloped topic of academic research and

teaching, while disparities based on race, ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, and gender abound in

education, health, housing, criminal justice, and other

policy areas (Nabatchi and Carboni 2019), and are

further exacerbated by crises such as the 2007/2008

global economic crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic

(e.g., Gaynor and Wilson 2020).

Equity is concerned with the characterization,

measurement, and achievement of fairness in the

provision of governmental policies and services

(Gooden and Portillo 2011). The distribution of

conditions, opportunities, services, and goods among

individuals living in modern societies inevitably

impinges on their well-being. Such a process ought

to be guided by the concept of distributive justice,

which is based on several values including equity

(Deutsch 1975).

Current social equity research in the field of public

administration and policy points prominently to

Denita Cepiku

Marco Mastrodascio

University of Rome “Tor Vergata”

Equity in Public Services: A Systematic Literature Review

Marco Mastrodascio holds a PhD in

public management and governance from

the University of Rome “Tor Vergata”. His

main research interests include collaborative

governance and strategic performance

management.

Email: marco.mastrodascio@uniroma2.it

Denita Cepiku is an associate professor

in public management at the University

of Rome “Tor Vergata” where she

coordinates the PhD program track in Public

Management and Governance. Her main

research interests include networks and

co-production, cutback management and

strategic management.

Email: cepiku@economia.uniroma2.it

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 81, Iss. 6, pp. 1019–1032. © 2021 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13402.