The Importance of Social Equity to Prevent a Hollow Public Administration

• Author: James R. Brunet,James H. Svara
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074020910509
• Published date: 01 May 2020
• Date: 01 May 2020
• Subject Matter: Commentary

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020910509

American Review of Public Administration

2020, Vol. 50(4-5) 352 –357

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074020910509

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Commentary

In their contribution to this journal, Robert F. Durant and

David H. Rosenbloom (2017) seek to identify factors that

have contributed to shortcomings in linking public adminis-

tration research and theory to practice. In their view, the field

faces a “theory–practice conundrum” (p. 719). They raise a

wide range of issues that could be explored further, but we

think it is imperative to address one of the arguments in this

commentary—that the emphasis on social equity has weak-

ened public administration and should be removed as a cen-

tral defining value of the field. They “critique the logic and

empirical basis of two major pillars of public administra-

tion”—efficiency (a topic for another discussion) and social

equity (p. 719). They view these normative values as “weak

and decontextualized” (p. 720).

Some of our work on social equity is highlighted in the

discussion and repeats a debate that occurred 15 years ago

(Rosenbloom, 2005; Svara & Brunet, 2004, 2005). Some of

the key points in the earlier exchange are repeated here, but

there have also been advances in research and practice related

to social equity that Durant and Rosenbloom ignore.

They criticize the weak definition of social equity—it is

“still lacking a standard definition” and view it as “almost

purely normative—it is an ‘ought’ rather than an ‘is’” (p.

723). The weak definition along with other factors they dis-

cuss contribute to “theories” developed by scholars that

“lack empirical validity for scholarship and face validity—

and thus relevance—for practitioners” (p. 720). It is hard to

understand how they could suggest that social equity lacks

empirical validity in scholarly research and relevance to

practitioners. The definition of social equity is complex, but

this is necessary considering the multiple ways that social

inequity can be manifested and the range of actions that may

be needed to promote social equity.

The alleged lack of a definition is a curious criticism. The

version they refer to from the Social Equity Panel of the

National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] covers

the essential elements:

the fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving

the public directly or by contract, and the fair, just and equitable

distribution of public services and implementation of public

policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and

equity in the formation of public policy. (Johnson & Svara,

2011, p. 16)

Durant and Rosenbloom appropriately point out that this

definition has the shortcoming of defining equity as among

other characteristics the “equitable” distribution of services

and organizational management and “equity” in the forma-

tion of public policy.

A more detailed definition identifies the full range of con-

ditions that separately or in some combination indicate that

equity is being achieved:

Social equity is the active commitment to fairness, justice, and

equality in the formulation of public policy, distribution of

public services, implementation of public policy, and

management of all institutions serving the public directly or by

contract. Public administrators, including all persons involved

in public governance, should seek to prevent and reduce

inequality, unfairness, and injustice based on significant social

characteristics and to promote greater equality in access to

services, procedural fairness, quality of services, and social

outcomes. Public administrators should empower the

participation of all persons in the political process and support

the exercise of constructive personal choice. (Johnson & Svara,

2011, p. 282)

The commitment to social equity indicates an awareness of

the social conditions that administrators deal with in their

work and the disparate effects of administrative decision

making on all constituencies.

In our earlier response to Rosenbloom (2005, p. 253), we

acknowledged that our article was not a full examination of

the “pillars” of the field but asserted that the pillars should

include legality. We agreed with Rosenbloom that this value

is too often ignored in teaching and research.1 Still, public

administrators should not just be “sensitive to the rule of law

910509ARPXXX10.1177/0275074020910509The American Review of Public AdministrationSvara and Brunet

article-commentary2020

1The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

2North Carolina State University, Raleigh, USA

Corresponding Author:

James H. Svara, Visiting Scholar, The University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill, 12 Susanna Dr.-G103, Durham, NC 27705, USA.

Email: svarajh@gmail.com

The Importance of Social Equity

to Prevent a Hollow Public Administration

James H. Svara1 and James R. Brunet2

Keywords

social equity, democratic governance