A tiered pathway toward sustainability: The role of public administrators in advancing social equity in U.S. local governments

• Published date: 01 July 2023
• Author: Shaoming Cheng,Susannah Ali
• Date: 01 July 2023
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13617

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A tiered pathway toward sustainability: The role

of public administrators in advancing social equity

in U.S. local governments

Shaoming Cheng|Susannah Ali

Department of Public Policy and Administration, Florida International University, Miami, Florida, USA

Correspondence

Susannah Ali, Department of Public Policy and

Administration, Florida International University,

11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL 33199, USA.

Email: sali@fiu.edu

Abstract

Equity is a central value for public administration as a field and for the advance-

ment of sustainability, yet it is disproportionately and significantly underrepre-

sented and underprioritized in U.S. local governments’sustainability priorities.

Equity is referred to as one of the three essential “Es”in sustainability along with

environment and economy. Since the first Minnowbrook Conference held in 1968,

advancing social equity has become one of the chief goals of public administra-

tion as equity emerged as one of the discipline’s four “Es”along with economy,

efficiency, and effectiveness. In light of this, to what extent are public administra-

tors’concerns and efforts impactful in embracing and advancing social equity in

sustainable development? With ICMA’s 2015 Local Government Sustainability Prac-

tices Survey, this paper offers a unique understanding of localities’tiered realiza-

tion of sustainability priorities as well as factors correlated with ascending

upwards through the tiered pathway of prioritizing sustainability orientation.

Evidence for practice

•Adopting a social equity priority is not haphazard but through a hierarchical

pathway of prioritizing sustainability orientation. Ninety-two percent of all

respondent local governments jointly demonstrate the tiered pathway, starting

from no priority (N=72) to economic priority alone (N=868), to economic plus

environmental priorities (N=383), and eventually to economic, environmental,

and equity priorities (N=424).

•Research findings suggest that the tiered pathway is a more accurate represen-

tation than pillars or a three-legged stool that imply equal weight and timing of

each “E”to achieve sustainability. Instead, there is a process.

•Localities having all three priorities (N=424) are different, with 1% statistical

significance, from local jurisdictions only having economic and environmental

priorities (N=383), regarding all seven economic, political, and demographic

factors compared. Localities having all three priorities tend to have higher racial

diversity, higher income inequality measured by Gini index, higher portion of

Hispanic population, higher poverty rate, higher unemployment rate, lower

median age, and less Republican leaning.

•Ascending along the tiered pathway of sustainability priorities is correlated with

distinct community, resident, and administrative mechanisms. Specifically, along

with each upward step:

•Incorporating an economic priority tends to be driven by pressures of the

business community, prospect of attracting development projects, and aver-

sion to legal lawsuits.

Received: 29 July 2021Revised: 2 January 2023Accepted: 26 January 2023

DOI: 10.1111/puar.13617

878 © 2023 American Society for Public Administration.Public Admin Rev. 2023;83:878–894.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/puar

•Adopting an environmental priority appears to be driven by pressures from the

community, concerns about the environment, and having a community that is

less racially diverse and has more middle-aged and older residents.

•Embracing a social equity priority is likely motivated by growing racial diversity,

proactive, concerned city/county managers and staff, and a council–manager

form of government.

•Public administrators and servants are instrumental in setting up and advancing

equity priority in local governments’sustainability portfolio.

INTRODUCTION

Both public administration as a field and proponents of

sustainability embrace equity as central to advancing com-

munity well-being. As they articulate central values, each

offers a list of “Es”to succinctly communicate priorities.

For sustainability, the three “Es”are economy (referring to

financial health), environment, and equity (Beatley, 1995;

Campbell, 1996). Public administration focuses on four

“Es”including economy (referring to the careful man-

agement of resources), efficiency, effectiveness, and

equity (Frederickson, 2010;Norman-Major,2011; Svara &

Brunet, 2005). The common theme or value is equity, yet it

may be the most difficult to achieve. This study seeks to

examine equity from both the perspective of sustainability

and public administration to understand the process

involved in adopting social equity priorities and the unique

role of career administrators in advancing social equity in

local governmen ts’sustainability efforts.

Sustainability is a multifaceted, evolving, and some-

what elusive concept, so it does not have an articulated

and widely agreed-upon definition. Though the three “Es,”

environment, economy, and equity, are collectively

referred to as three sustainability pillars, their roles in

U.S. local governments’sustainability practices are unequal.

Particularly, social equity, compared withthe other two ele-

ments, is disproportionately and significantly underrepre-

sented and underpr ioritized (Saha, 2009).

According to the 2015 Local Government Sustainability

Practices Survey of the International City/County Manage-

ment Association (ICMA),

1

among 1899 local government

respondents, 47.3% and 90.5% respectively considered envi-

ronmental protection and economic development as a sus-

tainability priority, while merely 26.1% for social equity.

Furthermore, for the 586 local jurisdictions that had a sus-

tainability plan, only 21.8% set explicit and specific goals

regarding social equity, while 60.1% and 67.6% respectively

regarding energy conservation and economic development.

This paper presents a juxtaposition ofmajor driving

forces of advancing economy, environment, and equity pri-

orities. Unlike the business-driven and resident-oriented

processes, respectively, for the economy and environment

foci, promoting equity explicitly calls on career public

administrators. This is not only because marginalized,

deprivileged, and underrepresented populations are often

unorganized to infuse unified and strong interest into

political and policy making actions, but also because

fostering and sustaining social equityis one of the para-

mount tasks and responsibilities of public administrators.

When the political will is absent, it is the public administra-

tors who reject the idea that administratorsare value neu-

tral and devote themselves as an agent of change for

achieving social equity. Built upon the value code pro-

posed in New Public Administration, this paper will illus-

trate motivatingand hindrance factors and showhow

those would influence public administrators’efforts in driv-

ing and advancing socialequity.

The purposes of this paper are twofold: (1) characterize

U.S. local governments that had a sustainability priority

on social equity in contrast to those only having eco-

nomic and/or environmental priorities, and (2) examine

and discover potential leading roles played by public

administrators in setting and advancing local govern-

ments’social equity sustainability priority. The examina-

tion of public administrators’influence in social equity is

juxtaposed to the leading contributions of private busi-

nesses (Leigh & Blakely, 2016) and residents (Hawkins &

Wang, 2012) in pro-economy and pro-environment forces

and movements, respectively. Even though such exami-

nation and comparison might not demonstrate how/if

specific policy instruments work, they will highlight which

actors are associated with interests, efforts, and success in

advancing sustainability priorities. This is not to dismiss

the role of other actors, but to identify the group that

most drives priorities for each category of sustainability.

The 2015 ICMA Survey data will be used and supple-

mented by local governments’economic, political, social,

and demographic characteristics. Constrained by cross-

sectional nature of the datasets, we do not intend to infer

any causality between local characteristics and sustain-

ability priority in social equity or between administrative

attributes/orientation and social equity priority. Instead, it

focuses on correlates that may guide future data collec-

tion efforts and inspire future analyses that would shed

greater light on causal relationships among local condi-

tions, administrative environments, and social equity pri-

orities and practices. Additionally, the ICMA survey

focuses on U.S. counties, municipalities, and townships

over 25,000 in population, yet about half of all localities

have a smaller population. Some regional overrepresenta-

tion was also demonstrated in the ICMA surveys

(Fleischmann et al., 1992). Caution therefore is needed to

generalize findings and suggested policy options beyond

the scope of the current research.

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REVIEW879