Fifty years as the fourth pillar of public administration: A polycentric extension of the social equity framework
| Published date | 01 December 2023 |
| Author | Eric Stokan,Megan E. Hatch,Michael Overton |
| Date | 01 December 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12888 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Fifty years as the fourth pillar of public
administration: A polycentric extension
of the social equity framework
Eric Stokan
1
|Megan E. Hatch
2
|Michael Overton
3
1
Department of Political Science, University
of Maryland-Baltimore County, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA
2
Maxine Goodman Levin School of Urban
Affairs, Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, USA
3
Department of Politics and Philosophy,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA
Correspondence
Megan E. Hatch, 2121 Euclid Avenue, UR
316, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA
Email: m.e.hatch@csuohio.edu
Abstract
While public consideration of social equity pre-dates
Minnowbrook (Blessett et al., 2019; Burnier, 2021), the
field formally recognized social equity as its fourth pillar
after the conference (Frederickson, 1971). The National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA, 2000), Svara
and Brunet (2004, 2005), and Johnson and Svara (2011)
outlined a unified social equity framework along four
dimensions: procedural fairness, access, quality, and out-
comes. We build on this important work by offering a
polycentric extension, which considers what social equity
means when government programs are often place-based
and delivered in an intergovernmental context with
multiple decision-making units across spatial levels
(e.g., state, city, neighborhood) simultaneously. Using the
Community Development Block Grant as an example, we
demonstrate the importance of careful consideration of
geographic levels in the delivery of public goods for
understanding the program's social equity implications.
The polycentric framework can be a useful tool for evalu-
ating the social equity of policies.
Received: 18 April 2022Revised: 27 September 2022Accepted: 1 October 2022
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12888
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Public Admin. 2023;101:1427–1442. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm 1427
1|INTRODUCTION
The three “E's”—efficiency, effectiveness, and economy—have long stood as pillars of public administration, but
these goals isolated from fairness and justice will inevitably exacerbate disparities in society. While the first mention
of social equity appeared in public administration journals in the 1940s (Blessett et al., 2019; Burnier, 2021),
socialequitywasadded50 yearsagoasthefourthpillarofpublicadministrationtoaddressthisconcern
(Frederickson, 1971). Since then, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA, 2000) and Svara and Bru-
net (2004,2005) developed and Johnson and Svara (2011) popularized a social equity framework (hereafter called
Svara, Brunet, and Johnson [SBJ]) that conceptualizes social equity of public services along four dimensions: proce-
dural fairness (equity in process), access (distributional fairness), quality (equity in services), and outcomes (equity in
effectiveness). While these are separate categories for measuring social equity, they are likely related because fairer
procedures will lead to improved access, quality, and even outcome equity.
The SBJ framework is ideal for considering different social equity dimensions. Still, it has not been formalized to
capture the complicated, competing, and even contradictory governance concerns that arise from the added com-
plexity of governing at different geographic scales, each giving rise to differentiated social equity outcomes. Social
equity implies a comparison of circumstances between identifiable groups or individuals relative to the broader popu-
lation or other groups (Guy & McCandless, 2012). Different geographic scales require different relative comparisons
among groups, resulting in divergent but rational social equity calculations. Geographic scale, therefore, limits the
applicability of the existing SBJ framework when programs are delivered in polycentric systems of governance
and/or when programs produce non-excludable goods and services that are not strictly targeted to those disaffected
by the existing economic structure. Further, when programs are place-based, like many economic development pro-
grams, they are delivered to neighborhoods rather than to identifiable groups of citizens or individuals (Neumark &
Simpson, 2015). Certainly, the historical suburbanization of the United States has done much to concentrate groups
into segregated neighborhoods (Jackson, 1985; Rothstein, 2017; Sugrue, 2014); however, group identity (i.e., racial/
ethnicity/socio-economic status) does not perfectly map onto neighborhoods (Trounstine, 2016). As a result, the
programmatic benefits of these place-based programs may have equity implications that exhibit externalities. While
some might consider these niche concerns, many public programs—such as Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG), Medicaid, Opportunity Zones (OZ), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)—are administered in a polycentric context where decision-making occurs simultaneously
and at multiple geographic scales.
While the SBJ framework is flexible enough to accommodate social equity at different scales, extant public
administration research has not engaged an application of the framework that explicitly acknowledges the complicat-
ing factors of geographic scale in social equity (Cepiku & Mastrodascio, 2021). To address this gap, we apply the SBJ
framework to a program, the CDBG program, delivered in a polycentric context. This demonstrates the complexity
of evaluating social equity across multiple geographic scales with place-based and people-based expenditures with
benefits that may accrue to areas beyond the intended recipients.
The CDBG program is an ideal test case for several reasons. The CDBG program provides local govern-
ments federal funds to address housing and economic issues within low-to-moderate income communities. The
program's implementation occurs at multiple geographic scales—national, state, local, and neighborhood—
similar to a growing number of federal programs (OZ, CARES, ARPA, etc.). Funds are flexible and can be
allocated in a spatially diffused or concentrated manner. The focus of those funds can be person- (e.g., a specific
housing unit receiving rehabilitation funds) or place-based and cut across group memberships (e.g., provision
of public parks). Finally, there exists a substantial body of research about the program to evaluate since it was
created in 1974.
This article beginswith an overview of the SBJ framework before moving to what components of theframework
need to be formalized to capturesocial equity within a polycentric systemof governance. We outline our extensionof
the SBJ framework to a polycentric social equity framework. Next, we provide a brief description of the CDBG
1428 STOKAN ET AL.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting