Module 7 Lecture Notes \u2013 Social Equity in Public Administration<\/p>\n
Social Equity<\/p>\n
In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin wrote, \u201cIf the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin\u201d<\/p>\n
Governments at all levels are in part responsible for many of the glaring inequities we see today and should therefore lead the way to solutions<\/p>\n
Public policies adopted over time at the federal, state, and local levels have created and exacerbated many of the inequalities that our communities are struggling with today<\/p>\n
Social Equity \u2013 Theoretical Argument<\/p>\n
Theoretical Argument<\/p>\n
Reasoning: A service can be well managed, efficiency and economical but we must ask, well managed for whom? Efficient for whom? Economical for whom? We have generally assumed a convenient oneness with the public, and have not focused our attention or concern to the issue of variations in social and economic conditions. It\u2019s of great convenience, both theoretically and practically to assume that Citizen A is the same as Citizen B and that they both receive public services in equal measure. This assumption may be convenient, but it is obviously both illogical and empirically inaccurate <\/p>\n
Frederickson: A public administration that fails to work for changes which try to redress the deprivation of minorities will eventually be used to repress those minorities <\/p>\n
Essence of Social Equity \u2013 1st Dimension<\/p>\n
Two Dimensions<\/p>\n
1st Dimension: the definition and analysis of social equity<\/p>\n
Definition: The fair, just and equitable management of all institutions serving the public directly or by contract, and the fair and equitable distribution of public services, and the implementation of public policy, and the commitment to promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public policy (Academy, 2000)<\/p>\n
It is egalitarianism in action \u2013 the principle that each citizen, regardless of economic resources or personal traits, deserves and has a right to be given equal treatment by the political system (Shafritz and Russell, 2002)<\/p>\n
Essence of Social Equity \u2013 1st Dimension<\/p>\n
In contrast to equal treatment for all, equity proposes that benefits be greater for those most disadvantaged (Denhardt, 2004)<\/p>\n
To be sure, many sectors of society must be involved with a comprehensive response effort, but the administrative aspects associated with social equity are prominent. Within this mandate, strategies must recognize some obvious realities<\/p>\n
Public administration should be viewed as the discipline that ensures fairness; however, saying that is insufficient. One must verity its adequacy and confirm that it works well.<\/p>\n
Social equity indicators can help focus the attention of policymakers, staff and those governed to the quality of social equity in each community. These indicators should be part of the accounting frameworks of government, which is as important as the financial and performance indicators emphasized today<\/p>\n
Equity may be inherently inefficient under a strict governmental performance definition. As part of an overall framework of costs to the community and over a long period of time, however, its productivity and assistance in creating a sustainable and healthy community can convince even the stickiest of budget experts<\/p>\n
Essence of Social Equity \u2013 2nd Dimension<\/p>\n
1. 2nd Dimension: the normative essence of social equity that is focused on the institutional structures that continue to promote social inequities<\/p>\n
2. Empirically speaking, the essence of social equity in public administration is almost exclusively focused on disparities that exist along certain dimensions, such as race\/ethnicity, gender, and income.<\/p>\n
3. Whether the topic is education, housing, employment, health, transportation, or poverty, there are two clear and dominant trends<\/p>\n
a. Racial minorities tend to fare worse than their white counterparts (Wooldridge and Gooden, 2009)<\/p>\n
b. Those who are in poverty fare worse than the middle class and the wealthy (Wooldridge and Gooden, 2009)<\/p>\n
c. Example: Stark statistics reported in a Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies show that<\/p>\n
i. Borrowers who are African American, Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaska native are more likely than white borrowers to have subprime loans of each type \u2013 home purchase, home refinance, and home improvement.<\/p>\n
ii. In 2006, more than one-half (52.9 percent) of African Americans and nearly half of Hispanics (47.3 percent) who acquired home-purchase loans had subprime loans. This is contrast to the fourth (26.1 percent) of American Indian or Alaska Native homebuyers also purchased homes with subprime loans (Leigh and Huff, 2007)<\/p>\n
d. In the US, inequities in wealth are also pronounced<\/p>\n
i. \u201cThe enormous wealth gap between white families and Blacks and Hispanics grew larger after the most recent recession<\/p>\n
ii. White households had a median net worth of greater than $88,000 in 2002 (Armas, 2004)<\/p>\n
a. 11 times more than Hispanics <\/p>\n
b. 14 times more than Blacks <\/p>\n
e. \u201cNo large government agencies have been established of which the primary mission is achievement of racial-ethinc equality (Waldo, 1972)<\/p>\n
Normative Essence of Social Equity<\/p>\n
The normative essence of social equity identifies, analyzes, or replicates organizations, policies, or programs that have been successful in significantly reducing or eliminating racial inequities <\/p>\n
Example: Using a geographical information system (GIS) mapping, a locality examined the transport time from multiple census tracks to the nearest emergency hospital. They found a clear pattern of racial disparities.<\/p>\n
On the whole, residents who live in white majority census tracks have shorter hospital transport times than those who live in majority-minority census tracks.<\/p>\n
After discovering this, the locality starts a \u201c15 minutes to health care\u201d initiative. <\/p>\n
Within 5 years, the locality is committed to ensuring that all residents live within 15 minutes of a health-care facility<\/p>\n
Accomplished this through building new roads, economic development incentives, etc. <\/p>\n
The locality is successful in eliminating social inequities in hospital transport times.<\/p>\n
The key point is that the organization (the locality) prioritizes the examination and elimination of social inequities<\/p>\n
Normative Essence of Social Equity<\/p>\n
It advances the discussion beyond individuals and focuses on organizational or structural actions.<\/p>\n
It examines how an organization or system \u2013 particularly a public organization or system \u2013 undertakes a serious examination of its current practices and policies, demonstrates organizational commitment to addressing racial disparities, or has modified organizational behavior or practice specifically for the purpose of reducing racial disparities in client outcomes<\/p>\n
Essentially, the normative essence of social equity becomes an effective learning tool for agencies and policymakers because it documents how equity was achieved and produces rigorous models for others to consider.<\/p>\n
Government agencies and policy makers are eager to achieve social equity within their spheres of influence<\/p>\n
Evolution of Social Equity<\/p>\n
Social equity in public administration is linked to the 1971 book by John Rawls, titled A Theory of Justice<\/p>\n
Rawls developed a principle of justice as \u2018fairness\u201d in which \u201ceach person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all\u201d (p.250). <\/p>\n
Argued that a modern theory of government should equalize the distribution of social and economic advantages.<\/p>\n
Challenges us to remove our \u201cveil of ignorance\u201d and to use our innate sense of justice to derive principles of equity without the bias of knowing our own situation\u201d<\/p>\n
This type of government moved beyond \u201cballot box democracy\u201d to include equity and justice in the availability of public services (Frederickson, 1980)<\/p>\n
This makes social equity a core concern of public administration<\/p>\n
Minnowbrook 1<\/p>\n
While the concept of social equity can be traced back to the writings of Aristotle, Plato, and Wilson, within modern public administration, social equity was brought to the forefront of public administration discourse at the first Minnowbrook conference<\/p>\n
The first Minnowbrook conference was convened by Dwight Waldo, after observing the shortcomings of academic discourse surrounding the future of public administration. He described it as \u201cold men talking to old men about irrelevancies\u201d. The Minnowbrook conference was organized to allow young voices in the field discuss what they believed to be the most important issues facing public administration.<\/p>\n
Minnowbrook 1 – Topics<\/p>\n
Waldo asked the attendees to \u201cmake a broad and synoptic approach to the discipline of public administration\u201d<\/p>\n
Topics Discussed<\/p>\n
Anti-positivism, dissatisfaction with the state of the discipline, personal morality and ethics, innovation, improved human relations, client centered responsiveness, and social equity <\/p>\n
Minnowbrook 1 occurred with the backdrop of the 1960s, when (similar to today) a national conversation was occurring focused on civil rights, racial inequality, and injustice.<\/p>\n
Minnowbrook I attendees noted, \u201cA government built on a Constitution claiming the equal protection of the laws had failed in that promise. Public administrators, who daily operate the government, were not without responsibility\u201d (Frederickson, 1990, p.228). <\/p>\n
Minnowbrook 1 \u2013 New Public Administration<\/p>\n
Minnowbrook I served as the foundational basis for New Public Administration (NPA) <\/p>\n
NPA rejected the idea that administrators are value neutral and recognized a constellation of five normative core values that, although legitimate, can often be conflictual. Values include:<\/p>\n
Responsiveness<\/p>\n
Worker and citizen participation in decision making<\/p>\n
Social Equity<\/p>\n
Citizen choice<\/p>\n
Administrative responsibility<\/p>\n
New Public Management calls for public administrators to become an instrument for achieving social equity<\/p>\n
Includes an array of value preferences, organizational design preferences, and management style preferences<\/p>\n
This Week\u2019s Readings<\/p>\n
The State of Social Equity in PA<\/p>\n
\u201cDuring the past thirty years, as social equity has grown in importance in public administration, there is an irony: Americans have become less equal in virtually all aspects of social, economic, and political life.\u201d (Frederickson, 2005, p. 31)<\/p>\n
The State of Social Equity in PA<\/p>\n
For the first several generations of the field of public administration it was simply assumed that good administration of government was equally good for everyone<\/p>\n
Social uprisings of the 1960s made it clear that this was not the case<\/p>\n
Public administrators could not logically claim to be without responsibility for some practices that resulted in obvious unfairness and injustice, so an argument emerged for social equity as an added ethic in public administration<\/p>\n
Became the \u201cthird pillar\u201d of public administration<\/p>\n
\u201cThe ethical and equitable treatment of citizens by administrators is at the forefront of concerns in public agencies. Reinforced by changing public attitudes, the reinventing government movement and civil rights laws, the new public administration has triumphed after a quarter century. Now it is unthinkable (as well as illegal), for example, to deny someone welfare benefits because of their race or a job opportunity because of their sex. Social equity today does not have to be some fought for by young radicals as administered by managers of all ages\u201d (Shafritz and Russel, 1990)<\/p>\n
Eye roll<\/p>\n
Social Equity \u2013 The Early Years<\/p>\n
Early ears of social equity in public administration<\/p>\n
Emphasis on race and gender in employment, democratic participation, and service delivery<\/p>\n
Three obligations of social equity (Shafritz and Russell, 1990)<\/p>\n
Obligation to administer the laws they work under in a fair manner<\/p>\n
Interpreting obligations to advance social equity is to feel bound to proactively further the cause \u2013 to seek to hire and advance a varied workforce<\/p>\n
The government can only go so far in forcing social equity. But there is no limit to the amount of inspiration it can provide to encourage people to do the right, decent, and honorable thing<\/p>\n
Equity is now broadly defined to include<\/p>\n
Race, gender, ethnicity, sexual preference, certain mental and physical conditions, language, and variations in economic circumstances<\/p>\n
Income and Political Inequality<\/p>\n
Frederickson makes a point to single out income inequality and political power inequity as a big problem for the future of public administration <\/p>\n
Rising economic inequality is accompanied by other forms of democratic privation <\/p>\n
Highly unequal voices in political affairs and government processes that are much more responsive to the privileged than to other Americans<\/p>\n
Disparities in participation mean that the concerns of lower or moderate-income Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, and legal immigrants are systematically less likely to be heard by government officials. <\/p>\n
In contrast, the interests and preferences of the better-off are conveyed with clarity, consistency, and forcefulness.<\/p>\n
Walking the Social Equity Talk<\/p>\n
When it comes to social equity, we should think globally and act locally. All important matters of social equity are local, in the sense of consequences.<\/p>\n
Jurisdictional fragmentation <\/p>\n
Concentration of ethnic minorities in low-income urban areas has a spiraling effect on inequality as the basic elements of opportunity \u2013 access to good schools, jobs, transportation, housing, and safety have become largely unavailable to residents of these neighborhoods. <\/p>\n
Public administrators at the local level are increasingly in a position to either influence policies or implement already established policies in a way that ameliorates some of the effects of poverty and opens opportunities<\/p>\n
Walking the Social Equity Talk<\/p>\n
Everyone within public administration should engage in the war of ideas<\/p>\n
We must relentlessly ask the so-called second question.<\/p>\n
First question: Is an existing or proposed public program effective or good?<\/p>\n
Second question: For whom is this program effective or good?<\/p>\n
The war of ideas is not necessarily won by good ideas<\/p>\n
Determination, organization, money, and persistence behind an idea are likely to win the war<\/p>\n
Walking the Social Equity Talk<\/p>\n
When public administration is practiced at the street level it employs a form of social equity<\/p>\n
Street-level bureaucrats (e.g., police officers, teachers, social workers) face scarce resources, limited time, ambiguous expectations, and conflicting rules<\/p>\n
To manage their way through these limitations, they apply a form of public service delivery and distribution based on what is described as \u201cclient worthiness\u201d<\/p>\n
Client worthiness \u2013 when public employees affix particular identities to their clients based on past experiences <\/p>\n
Walking the Social Equity Talk<\/p>\n
Senior public administrators and those who study public administration are part of the elite, the privileged<\/p>\n
PA research can be patronizing <\/p>\n
Researchers must look after the interests of those who are denied opportunities or are disadvantaged regardless of their competence<\/p>\n
Walking the Social Equity Talk<\/p>\n
It\u2019s time for moral indignation, for passion and anger<\/p>\n
Inequality is a moral problem, and if you are convinced that it is a real problem in America today, you should not be afraid to say to \u2013 and not be afraid to recommend whatever policies or programs you believe might make a real lasting difference<\/p>\n
Social Equity: It\u2019s Legacy, Its Promise (Guy and McCandless, 2012)<\/p>\n
\u201cSocial equity is rooted in the idea that each person is equal and has inalienable rights. Because of America\u2019s unique blend of social, religious, economic, and political characteristics, we value this concept despite, or perhaps because of, the simultaneous tensions of a capitalist economy, which requires inequality, set within a democratic constitutional system, which assumes equality.\u201d (Guy and McCandless, 2012, p. 55)<\/p>\n
Equity vs. Equality<\/p>\n
While equality can be converted into a mathematical measure in which equal parts are identical in size or number, equity is a more flexible measure allowing for equivalency while not demanding exact sameness<\/p>\n
Equity vs. Equality – Example<\/p>\n
Civil Rights Legislation vs. Affirmative action<\/p>\n
14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 and provides for equal protection under the law. The criterion considers whether group members have been historically discriminated against, have a highly visible trait (like skin color), or have little to no power to protect themselves in the political process<\/p>\n
Affirmative action was a lever to advance equity, such that all else being equal, members of an underrepresented group would have priority in the hiring process to rectify prior exclusion. <\/p>\n
Affirmative action continues to receive pushback <\/p>\n
Policy initiatives that advance equality are less controversial than those designed to advance equity. <\/p>\n
While equality creates parallel lines on a ledger sheet, equity changes power relationships that our society have become used to<\/p>\n
Social Equity vs. Productivity<\/p>\n
Both look at inputs<\/p>\n
Equity looks at inputs in terms of the sources which they were derived (income, socioeconomic status, geographic groups)<\/p>\n
Equity targets the distribution of services and their impact on different populations<\/p>\n
Productivity measures look at the dollar value of inputs<\/p>\n
Productivity measure focus on the quantity or quality of outputs<\/p>\n
Dyckman (1971): Measures of social equity must ACCOMPANY measures of productivity to assess the adequacy of public services<\/p>\n
Productivity<\/p>\n
Chitwood 1974: Argued that government activities focusing on productivity had overlooked the importance of social equity and the administrative obligation to practice distributive equity<\/p>\n
Importance of<\/p>\n
Providing services like education, police, and fire protection to those who are unable to obtain them through market mechanisms in the quantity or quality that is essential<\/p>\n
Providing services (education, job training) so that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete for and occupy all positions in society <\/p>\n
Providing services that ensure people will receive the benefits to which they are entitled under law (public defender) and outreach activities that notify them of their rights to program benefits<\/p>\n
Providing services (food stamps and housing) so that everyone can meet minimum survival needs<\/p>\n
Achieving Social Equity in Productivity<\/p>\n
To achieve this, Chitwood argued that distributive functions should occur in one of three patterns: <\/p>\n
equal services<\/p>\n
proportional services (services delivered in amounts that reflect an increasing function of a specified characteristic), or <\/p>\n
unequal services that correspond to relevant differences<\/p>\n
Or rather \u2013 the quantity of services provided should vary directly with the specified characteristic possessed by the client<\/p>\n
Upholding Equity<\/p>\n
It had traditionally been the courts that acted as change agents, rather than administrators <\/p>\n
Upholding affirmative action<\/p>\n
Class action suits against organizations that would not hire people of color (looking at you law enforcement)<\/p>\n
This was reinforced by the attention equity gathered within public administration<\/p>\n
Studies were commissioned to evaluate program formulation, results, efficiency, and equity<\/p>\n
Social indicators were used to highlight service gaps<\/p>\n
These studies brought attention to <\/p>\n
the need for participative decision making <\/p>\n
equal employment opportunity <\/p>\n
Proponents argued that merit and equity were compatible<\/p>\n
By insisting that any selection method measure the ability of a person to perform a specific job, appointing authorities would remain faithful to the intent of civil service laws and to the civil rights act of 1964 <\/p>\n
This evened the playing field, because other characteristics such as race or gender couldn\u2019t be used to filter candidates into or out of the applicant pool<\/p>\n
Compound Theory of Equality<\/p>\n
There are simple individual equalities, meaning one person one vote (Kant)<\/p>\n
Segmented equality \u2013 equality within segments but not equality between segments<\/p>\n
Block equalities \u2013 equality between groups and subclasses<\/p>\n
Domains of equality \u2013 goods, services, or benefits are distributed<\/p>\n
Equalities of opportunity \u2013 equal opportunity for a job if both have the same probability of getting a job and the same talent (means<\/p>\n
Value of equality \u2013 only the individual can judge which or what pleases them<\/p>\n
*Rule-based distribution of shares (equity) is based on non-neutral judgments about each person\u2019s needs<\/p>\n
*Example: giving more police protection to someone who has been threatened than someone who has not<\/p>\n
The Social Equity Lens \u2013 Socioeconomic Class<\/p>\n
Social equity is a habit of mind for the decision maker, an administrative goal that can be measured, AND a lens through which needs are identified and processes are grounded<\/p>\n
Social problems through a social equity lens<\/p>\n
Socioeconomic class<\/p>\n
American Dream \u2013 those who study hard, work hard, and invest well will pull themselves up from their bootstraps and achieve all that is good in a consumer culture<\/p>\n
DiIulio (2004): Fount that the dream is more a myth than a reality<\/p>\n
Tracked 6000 people born between 1942 and 1972 <\/p>\n
Of the 42% of people born into the bottom of the income distribution, only 7 percent rose to the top tier<\/p>\n
Upward mobility is the measure of success, and policies are designed with the assumption that if one works hard they can achieve the American dream<\/p>\n
Why is this rare?<\/p>\n
Global economic restructuring<\/p>\n
Poor job opportunities<\/p>\n
Inadequate transportation<\/p>\n
Education\/training<\/p>\n
Looking at this issue through a social equity lens allows us to identify blocks and establish goals to reduce the impact of wealth on upward mobility<\/p>\n
The Social Equity Lens \u2013 Schools and Transportation<\/p>\n
Safe Schools<\/p>\n
When property taxes fund schools, lower income communities don\u2019t receive the same level of resources as high-income communities<\/p>\n
Segregation continues\u2026<\/p>\n
Apartheid educational system<\/p>\n
Inequity in schools impacts inequity in other aspects of life<\/p>\n
Without a good education, how are students expected to succeed?<\/p>\n
If the resources for primarily Black schools are based on the income of people who live in the neighborhood, who have been struggling with inequitable hiring practices just compounds the inequity and ensures that that group of people can\u2019t pull themselves out of poverty<\/p>\n
Public Transportation<\/p>\n
Without public transport, disadvantages have little access to job opportunities in other parts of the city<\/p>\n
Public provision of highways for vehicles but not the provision of light rail and buses advantages one set of citizens over another<\/p>\n
The Social Equity Lens \u2013 Healthcare<\/p>\n
Health care<\/p>\n
Which citizens merit access to care?<\/p>\n
Adequacy of health programs for the underinsured and poor are lacking. They have:<\/p>\n
Piecemeal services<\/p>\n
Long waits<\/p>\n
Outrageous costs<\/p>\n
Incomprehensible regulations<\/p>\n
Looking at this through a social equity lens allows policy makers to debate the issues in terms of how access can be ensured in a fair and just manner<\/p>\n
Social Equity Indicators<\/p>\n
When equity outcomes are measured with the same gravitas as other operations, like the number of cases processed or the number of home loans issued, this positions equity as an essential component of public performance<\/p>\n
Indicators <\/p>\n
Procedural Fairness \u2013 due process, equal protection, and equal rights<\/p>\n
Access \u2013 distributional equity<\/p>\n
Quality \u2013 level of consistency across services delivered to all constituents <\/p>\n
Equitable outcomes \u2013 the degree to which programs and policies produce an equitable impact for those served <\/p>\n
Challenges for the Future<\/p>\n
Social equity has a capacity to frame deliberations, emphasize fairness, and monitor outcomes<\/p>\n
The penalty for not attending to social equity issues is that in its absence there is civil unrest and political instability<\/p>\n
Social equity is a moral imperative of the field<\/p>\n
Administrator commitments<\/p>\n
Procedural Justice\/Fairness<\/p>\n
Equity in the availability of services and benefits<\/p>\n
Equity in the process of providing services and benefits<\/p>\n
Equal level of outcomes for all groups<\/p>\n
Guarantees of a place at the table to express views on policy choices and service delivery<\/p>\n
Social equity falls naturally within the purview of public administration, for government is the entity of last resort when the market and social dynamics create problems that do not resolve on their own <\/p>\n
Improving Community Relations: How Police Strategies to Improve Accountability for Social Equity Affect Citizen Perceptions (McCandless, 2018)<\/p>\n
Social equity scholarship is increasingly examining how accountability for social equity is achieved, or how public agencies improve public services\u2019 access, outcomes, processes, and quality<\/p>\n
Social equity accountability: how administrators take steps to promote fairness<\/p>\n
Admitting social equity issues<\/p>\n
Making equity a priority equal to efficiency<\/p>\n
Measuring and tracking progress<\/p>\n
Giving everyone a place at the table<\/p>\n
Establishing community partnerships<\/p>\n
These steps enhance answerability and improve perceptions of legitimacy<\/p>\n
Accountability in Policing<\/p>\n
Policing is a great example of the need for greater accountability with social equity<\/p>\n
Minorities often experience inequitable experiences with police, whether being stopped, searches, and arrested in greater proportions or being killed while unarmed<\/p>\n
Police often acknowledge these issues and take steps to address inequities<\/p>\n
Engaging in community policing<\/p>\n
Undertaking performance measurement related to equity<\/p>\n
Expanding ethics training<\/p>\n
Improving Community Relations<\/p>\n
Research Question: How do strategies of police agencies that foster accountability for social equity affect citizen perceptions?<\/p>\n
What did we learn?<\/p>\n
What happens in a police-citizen interaction is a microcosm of discourses on the meaning of fairness, particularly whether agencies admit issues, which is the beginning of social equity accountability<\/p>\n
This is dependent on how officials socially construct the meaning of their experiences and the experiences of others<\/p>\n
The decision to include more citizen decision-making, or the degree to which everyone is given a place at the table affects what police ultimately do.<\/p>\n
When officials position equity and safety as competing goals, levels of citizen inclusion drop.<\/p>\n
Citizens appear included more when groups mobilize to air grievances and when officials support inclusion as a way to improve practice.<\/p>\n
When city-level groups cooperate to define what equity means in practice, departments engage in practices that positively affect citizen perceptions.<\/p>\n
When discourses favor officials, the results appear to be more negative perceptions<\/p>\n
KEY TAKEAWAY: Social equity accountability requires some redrawing of power relationships so historically marginalized groups can exercise their voice.<\/p>\n
Does Coproduction of Public Services Support Government\u2019s Social Equity Goals? The Case of US State Parks (Gazley et al., 2020)<\/p>\n
Article focus: Are benefits distributed equitably to service users when philanthropy is used to underwrite or substitute for public services<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a connection between community wealth and the capacity of government-supporting charities <\/p>\n
Strong relationships have been found between community wealth and the presence of a school-supporting charity <\/p>\n
Also, how many dollars per student were raised<\/p>\n
These equity concerns are intensified as scholars have found that these government-supporting charities may crowd out public resource investment in corresponding services at the city level<\/p>\n
Poorer and more deprived communities may get the worst of both worlds because of the existence of these government-supporting charities<\/p>\n
Must consider the research that demonstrates connections between human health outcomes and access to green space and the natural environment.<\/p>\n
Coproduction<\/p>\n
Coproduction \u2013 the involvement of multiple groups or individuals in the delivery of public services<\/p>\n
Coproduction activity provided by volunteers and donors to public parks charities is a response to government \u201cfailure,\u201d whereby the service is not sufficiently popular to be provided by public funds but is still able to generate niche support<\/p>\n
In these instances, private citizens with resources and motivation may step in to offer the necessary collective action<\/p>\n
Coproduction has been regarded as a central mechanism for improving public service delivery through citizen participation and involvement since the early 1980s. <\/p>\n
Benefits<\/p>\n
Mechanism for citizen voice and civic engagement<\/p>\n
The predicted outcomes are two forms of philanthropic failure.<\/p>\n
Philanthropic Insufficiency<\/p>\n
Philanthropic insufficiency: when voluntary contributions do not adequately meet demand in the absence of taxation authority<\/p>\n
In some cases, this is tackled by allowing the charities to collect user fees\/entrance fees instead of using tax dollars<\/p>\n
In other cases, charities may be financially unstable and unreliable especially during economic downturns<\/p>\n
Neither situation supports a socially equitable outcome<\/p>\n
Either restricts user access on the basis of ability to pay (no longer a public good)<\/p>\n
Or they rely on inequalities in community wealth to coproduce the service<\/p>\n
Philanthropic Particularism<\/p>\n
Philanthropic particularism: the potential ability of a private sector service provi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Module 7 Lecture Notes \u2013 Social Equity in Public Administration Social Equity In the nineteenth century, Charles Darwin wrote, \u201cIf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n