Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Socia.docx

Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social
Equity in Public
Administration?
Author(s): Kristen Norman-Major
Source: Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2
(Spring 2011), pp. 233-252
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23036113
Accessed: 25-05-2020 01:51 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23036113?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked
references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to
Journal of Public Affairs Education
This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Mon, 25 May
2020 01:51:03 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Balancing the Four Es;
or Can We Achieve Equity for
Social Equity in Public Administration?
Abstract
Although social equity was brought to the table in the New
Public Administration
of the 1960s and named the fourth pillar of public
administration by the National
Academy of Public Administration near the turn of this
century, it still struggles
to find its place as an equal among the traditional public
administration values
of economy efficiency, and effectiveness. The question to be
addressed here is,
"How do we elevate social equity to equal playing status with
the other pillars of
public administration?" In addressing this question, three key
areas are examined:

definitions, measures, and curriculum. By examining how we
currently define,
measure, and teach about the values of public administration,
including social
equity, this paper provides ideas for "imagining and improving
the future" so
that social equity becomes an equal among its peers and
becomes a standard
of practice as opposed to a stand of courage among public
administrators and
policy makers.
In 1968, a group of young public administration scholars
gathered in
Minnowbrook, New York, to discuss a new direction for the
study and practice
of public administration. Rejecting the traditional ideas of a
politics-administration
dichotomy and public administration practiced by neutral
competents, these
young scholars argued that public administration by its nature
cannot be neutral;
it must consider the values of American society, including
responsiveness, public
participation in decision making, social equity, citizen choice,
and administrative
responsibility (Wooldridge & Gooden, 2009).
One of the strongest advocates of the need to practice a "new
public ad
ministration" was H. George Frederickson. Frederickson argued

at the time, and
still does, for the inclusion of values in the practice of a new
public administration,
especially the inclusion of social equity as a key component.
His passion for this
issue is illustrated in his 2005 reflection on the state of social
equity in American
public administration:
Kristen Norman-Major
Hamline University
JPAE 77(2), 233-252 Journal of Public Affairs Education
2020 01:51:03 UTC
Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in Public
Administration?
But in public administration I insist that we engage with the
problem
of inequality, that we dirty our hands with inequality, that we
be
outraged, passionate, and determined. In short, I insist that we
actually apply social equity in public administration, (p. 35)
Over 40 years after the first Minnowbrook conference and the
call for
adding values to the practice of public administration, social
equity—while

named the fourth pillar of public administration by the National
Academy of
Public Administration in 2005—still struggles to find equal
footing with its
partners, economy, efficiency and effectiveness. As
Wooldridge and Gooden
(2009) have argued, it is the rare public administrator who has
the courage to
make social equity the primary goal of policy. The question for
this work is,
"Can we achieve equity for social equity among the pillars of
public administration?"
The argument to be made here is that how we define and
measure the pillars
matters and that a lack of a clear definition and measures of
social equity
are largely responsible for its struggle. To change this, we must
clearly define
social equity, develop clearer measures for it; and, most
important, educate
public administrators to include equity at the same level of
consideration as
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness when developing and
implementing
public policies.
Defining, Measuring, and Practicing the Four Pillars
Economy
Of the four pillars of public administration, economy is
arguably the one most
scrutinized by the public. When it comes to spending public
dollars, especially in

times of tight budgets, the expectation is that public services
will be provided in the
most economical manner possible. In general, economy is
thought of as the careful
or sparing use of resources. Frederickson defines economy in
public administration
as the "management of scarce resources and particularly with
expending the fewest
resources for an agreed upon level of public services" (2010, p.
xv). In practice,
economy in public administration often involves such things as
getting the lowest
bid on contracts for agreed-upon services or materials,
outsourcing or privatization of
public services, using network governance to partner across
sectors in providing
services, and generally figuring out how to do more (or
sometimes less) with
fewer resources.
It should not be difficult to convince students and practitioners
of public
administration of the need for economy in providing public
services. Economy
is an objective concept, and good stewardship of the public
dollar is a long-held
principle. Economy can also be easily measured through
evaluation of expenditures,

calculating cost savings, and monitoring the inputs to a
program compared to
the stated goals or agreed-upon level of service.
234 Journal of Public Affairs Education
2020 01:51:03 UTC
Administration?
Economy is most often considered in the short term, that is, by
looking at
immediate cost savings in providing services. However, given
sufficient short-term
resources, public administrators are sometimes willing to
sacrifice economy in
the short term to gain efficiency, effectiveness, and economy in
the longer term.
For example, governments will invest larger sums to develop
technology, data
systems, or computer applications that are expensive to build in
the short term
but expected to create money-saving efficiencies in the longer
term. This willingness
to sacrifice short-term economy for longer-term gains in
efficiency or effectiveness

is not usually shared when it comes to increased short-term
investments that are
expected to provide long-term gains in equity.
Efficiency
To many, efficiency in public administration might seem an
oxymoron.
After all, the stereotype of a public servant is not of one who is
productive,
well organized, and works to get the best outcome with the
least amount of
wasted effort or expense. However, in practice efficiency is a
key pillar in
public administration. Frederickson defines efficiency as
"achieving the most,
the best, or the most preferable public services for available
resources" (2010,
p. xv). Weimer and Vining define efficiency as "maximizing
the total value to
the members of society obtained from the use of scarce
resources" (2009, p. 1).
In practice, efficiency in public administration is often thought
of in terms of
process efficiencies reflected in measures such as timely
plowing of streets, short
turnaround times on applications, and short lines at government
offices. It can
also be reflected through reduced waiting times for trials,
faster responses from

emergency services, and "one-stop shopping" options for social
services. Tied to
this, however, are economic considerations. All of these
services must be provided
at minimum cost and using a balanced distribution of resources.
As with economy, it is relatively easy to get agreement on
efficiency as a key value
of public administration. Despite stereotypes to the contrary,
most governments
strive to provide services in the most efficient manner possible.
Ironically,
efficiency is often reflected in the lack of attention paid to
government. When
things work well, people don't complain or think much about
government's
role in providing services that affect their daily lives. It is only
when things go
wrong—streets aren't plowed, days are spent in line at the
Department of Motor
Vehicles, or Public Works employees are caught taking too
many breaks—that
attention is paid to how government is working. While
inefficiencies are put in
the spotlight, efficient operations are rarely recognized or
publicly praised.
Increasingly, public administrators are using practices such as
Balanced

Scorecards, LEAN processes, customer satisfaction surveys,
and process and
output evaluation to measure how efficiently services are being
provided. These
measures are concrete and provide objective information on the
efficiency of
services. As defined here, efficiency, like economy, is also
considered mostly in
Journal of Public Affairs Education 235
2020 01:51:03 UTC
Administration?
the short term; but administrators are often willing to invest
resources to develop
systems that are assumed to improve process efficiencies in the
longer term.
Effectiveness
Simply put, effectiveness is being successful in producing a
desired result
or accomplishing set goals. As a pillar of public administration,
effectiveness
became more prominent with increasing calls for accountability
that began with
the National Performance Review in the Clinton administration

and continued
through the George W. Bush administration (Gormley & Balla,
2008; Kamarck,
2007; National Performance Review, 1993). While government
may operate in
an economical and efficient manner, it is also important that it
is doing what
it set out to do in the first place. In the practice of public
administration,
effectiveness is reflected in such things as reduced welfare
roles, increased
employment rates, improved test scores, lower crime rates,
better roads, improved
water quality, reduced pollution, and the like. Effectiveness is
usually considered
in the short term, especially when renewing budgets. Policy
makers' patience for
long-term outcomes is often limited by election cycles. Results
that need to be
proven within a 2- to 4-year time frame make it harder to
propose investment in
longer-term programs and services that may not show clear
results for several years.
While there is not always agreement on which outcomes should
be used to
define effectiveness, it is not difficult to find objective ways to
measure outcomes
for many public services. Common tools include tracking of
outputs, program
evaluations, pre- and post-tests, client follow-up, economic
indicators, report

cards, and benchmarking. Some outcomes are less tangible and
thus harder to
measure than others, and often costs of data collection can be
prohibitive. In
times of budget shortfalls or decreasing revenues, program
evaluation is often one
of the first items cut; many times, it never makes it to the table
when programs
are initially established. However, when desired public
agencies have a wealth of
tools available to help them measure program effectiveness.
Like its partners economy and efficiency, effectiveness is not a
hard sell as
a value of public administration. It is a concrete concept with
proven tools for
measurement. Few, if any, would argue that public services
shouldn't be effective.
The main arguments arise when defining what the final goals
should be and then
what variables serve as clear measures for the given outcomes.
A key example of
this is the debate in the past several years over standardized
testing as the best
way to measure educational effectiveness under No Child Left
Behind.
Social Equity
In calling for the inclusion of social equity as a pillar of public
administration,

the scholars at Minnowbrook argued that it is not sufficient to
have economical
and efficient government services if we don't also consider who
is being served at
the same time. As Frederickson wrote in an essay almost 10
years after the first
2020 01:51:03 UTC
Administration?
Minnowbrook conference, "the most productive governments,
the most efficient
governments, and the most economizing governments can still
be perpetuating
poverty, inequality of opportunity and injustice" (2010, p. 48).
However, part of
the challenge in raising equity to a level playing field with
economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness is that it is a normative concept that lends
itself to debate over
what it looks like and what the proper role of government is in
establishing it once
defined. While economy, efficiency, and effectiveness deal
with how government

operates, equity delves into questions of for whom government
operates. In Freder
ickson's words, this is the debate over "for whom is the
organization well managed?
For whom is the organization efficient? For whom is the
organization economical?
For whom are public services more or less fairly delivered?"
(2010, p. xv).
In 2000 when the National Academy of Public Administration
(NAPA)
established the Standing Panel on Social Equity, it put forth the
following definition
for social equity in public administration:
The fair, just and equitable [emphasis added] management of
all
institutions serving the public directly or by contract; and the
fair
and equitable distribution of public services, and
implementation of
public policy; and the commitment to promote fairness, justice
and
equity [emphasis added] in the formation of public policy.
(National
Academy of Public Administration, n.d.)
This definition clearly dismisses the idea of public
administration as the neutral
implementation of public policy by calling for fairness, justice,
and equity in

the provision of public policy, However, unlike the relatively
objective nature of
economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, the terms fair, just,
equitable, and equity
are highly normative and make it more difficult to reach
agreement on what
they mean and how they are incorporated in practice. The
combination of
highly normative concepts along with the lack of a clear and
applied definition
of social equity exacerbates the struggle in raising the status of
equity as a pillar
of public administration. As Svara and Brunet noted in their
2004 article
examining coverage of social equity in introductory public
administration
texts, it is a "skeletal pillar" that needs to be filled with more
solid definitions
and measures.
This confusion over just what social equity is and what the
appropriate role
of government is in implementing it makes it harder for public
administrators to
advocate for social equity as an equal to economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness,
much less for them to have the courage to argue that trade-offs
with short-term
economy or efficiency can lead to long-term gains in equity.
The remainder of
this article looks at ways to better define and measure equity,

its relationship with
the other pillars, and ways to educate public administrators so
they can be courageous
advocates for social equity.
2020 01:51:03 UTC
Administration?
Refining the Definition of Social Equity
To help start the work of assessing social equity in public
administration, the
NAPA included with its definition a set of criteria for
measuring achievement.
These criteria include
• Procedural fairness—under which due process, equal
protection, hiring,
promotion, awarding of contracts are all guaranteed.
• Distributional equity—assures equal access, targeted
intervention,
and commitment of resources to achieve fair results.
• Process equity—guarantees consistency in the level of service
delivery

regardless of distributional criterion used, and
• Outcome disparities—probe for reasons why disparities may
still exist
as a result of policies and programs that may in fact meet all
input
criteria (www. napawash. org/aa_social_equity/index, html).
Given all of these criteria, the reality may be not that social
equity has no clear
definition but instead that it has too many. The argument here
is that in practice,
social equity in public administration has three major aspects:
1. Simple fairness and equal treatment
2. Distribution of resources to reduce inequalities in universal
programs
and services
3. Redistribution of resources to level the playing held through
targeted
programs
All three of these factors have in common an end of goal of
either maintaining or
creating a "level playing field" or equality of opportunity
For example, simple fairness and equal treatment are core
concepts in
public administration. In the daily operations of government,
such practices
include due process, procedural fairness, equal access to
government services,

and fairness in hiring and promotion. Often in developing rules
and imple
menting programs addressing these issues, equity is considered
to be equality;
that is, everyone is treated equally or given the same access to
services. In this
case, equality of opportunity is maintained. That is, all
constituents have access
to services. If they are already on a level playing field, then
they are all treated
the same. If some are disadvantaged, then extra help or
consideration is given
to create equality of opportunity in receiving the services. For
instance, with
today's increasing use of technology and e-government,
agencies must consider
how to provide equal access to services for those without
computers or Internet
access. When applications must be completed online, are there
public computer
kiosks available for the community to use? Are spaces held in
park and recreation
programs for people unable to register online? Such policies
help assure fairness
2020 01:51:03 UTC

Administration?
and equal access to government programs and services; that is,
equal opportunity
to participate and receive services.
These types of policies are considered good practice in
administering public
services. They can also be easily measured. Simple data
collection on clients
served can provide measures of access. Evaluation of
application and other
system processes can determine procedural fairness and due
process. This is the
simplest form of social equity and yet the type of service least
closely associated
with it. Clearer recognition of the role of due process and equal
access as key
aspects of social equity, defined here as maintaining or creating
equality of
opportunity, may be a stepping stone to building greater
acceptance for the role
of government in providing equity
The next two forms of social equity in public administration
are more
closely related to distribution and redistribution of resources to
create equality of
opportunity. Such policies get at the heart of John Rawls's
arguments involving
social justice and the distribution of resources in a society.
Social equity scholars
often cite Rawls's work in A Theory of Justice (1971) as setting

the context for
establishing equity in the distribution of public resources.
Rawls argues that in
a society, all members have the same basic rights of liberty and
thus resources
should be distributed to provide the greatest benefit to the least
advantaged. We
do this, according to Rawls, not out of altruism but out of
interdependence. As
Frederickson notes, Rawls argues for justice not because it is
good or right, but
"because there is an increasing importance to the
interdependence of persons
that make notions of advantages and disadvantages less and
less acceptable"
(Frederickson, 2010, p. 45).
It is argued here that this conception of justice supports the
definition of
social equity as policies and the distribution of resources that
provide equality of
opportunity. That is, each person being guaranteed the same
basic rights in society
receives the resources and support necessary to provide the
same opportunity to
participate in the public sector and provide for their basic
needs. Under such a
definition, outcomes may be unequal; but everyone will have
the opportunity to
have their basic human needs and rights met at a minimum.
Building on this argument, the second form of equity in public

administration
of the three listed earlier involves distribution of resources to
reduce inequalities
in universally available services. These types of programs can
be controversial
and often involve normative arguments over the proper role of
government in
correcting what might otherwise be considered a problem of the
marketplace.
Rawls's arguments regarding justice and the distribution of
resources in society
counter such arguments, and constitutional rights that
guarantee equal access to
public services can usually support implementation of such
policies. For example,
to alleviate disparities in education funding caused by variance
in the local
property tax base, states may develop funding formulas for K-
12 education that
provide a set amount of money per pupil, regardless of location
or ability to levy
2020 01:51:03 UTC

Administration?
local taxes. Another example are the local government aid
programs that provide
additional state support to local governments to help them
cover the cost of basic
services such as public safety and libraries that might not
otherwise be affordable
given the local tax base. Such programs create equity by
reducing disparities in
services that are provided on a universal basis and provide
equality of opportunity
for members of society to access and benefit from these public
goods.
The final form of equity in public administration and policy
listed earlier
involves providing service to targeted populations to help level
the playing field
and increase equality of opportunity in specific service areas.
As Mitchell Rice notes,
"social equity can also be a value commitment that may involve
implementing
targeted programs as a way of bringing about equality of
results (outcomes) as
opposed to input equality—that is, treating every resident,
consumer or client
the same" (2004, p. 144). In other words, some groups are
given extra benefits in
order to correct for past discrimination or to reduce risk factors
that might keep
individuals from participating as productive citizens. A classic

example of such
programs is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under
this legislation,
individuals with disabilities who might otherwise not be able to
participate in
the marketplace or community are provided with benefits that
help level the play
ing field, ranging from things as simple as cutouts in sidewalks
for wheelchairs
to complex systems of adaptive education technology.
Programs that provide
scholarships to low-income families to pay for quality child
care in order to support
school readiness or that provide medical insurance to the
otherwise uninsurable
are other examples. These targeted programs redistribute funds
by providing
extra resources to specific populations versus providing more
equal levels of
universal services such as described previously. While not
guaranteeing equality
of outcome, targeted programs are designed to at least try to
provide equality of
opportunity, thus getting at the heart of how social equity is
defined here.
These last two forms of equity in public administration are the
most complex
and raise the most consternation over what the appropriate role
of government is
in reducing inequity. The normative nature of the debate over
who is deserving of

more or better services may cause administrators and scholars
to shy away from
focusing on these types of equity. Such programs are also often
criticized due to
the difficulty in providing clear measures of results. In part this
difficulty stems
from the fact that often the returns from such programs are not
recognized in the
immediate term. As noted earlier, the long-term nature of these
results conflicts
with the immediate need of policy makers to show results in
time for the next
election or for administrators to argue for continuation or
increases in the next
budget cycle. Because of the difficulty in showing immediate
results, investments
in social equity often fall prey to debates over what is the
"right or moral" thing
for government to do versus what provides the best return on
investment. Without
clear and immediate results, it is difficult to build support for
programs that are
designed to reduce inequity and argue that they are economical,
effective, or

2020 01:51:03 UTC
Administration?
efficient. In fact, it is most often assumed that there is a trade-
off between equity,
economy, and efficiency.
While more difficult, however, it is not impossible to provide
measures of
results for social equity programs that redistribute resources or
level the playing
field. As with programs aimed at due process, equal access, and
procedural fairness,
some of the results can be measured using benchmarks,
surveys, statistics on
participation rates, and the like. For example, since
implementing ADA regulations,
have the number of people with disabilities in the workplace
increased? Has
the number of people needing public assistance decreased as
they have been
able to access more education or technology that allows them
to participate in
the workforce? If states provide local government aid, they
could then look at

measure of such things as library materials or hours per capita,
number of public
safety personnel per capita, crime rates and emergency
response times, and miles
of road maintained. All of these—if compared over time,
including pre- and
post-program investment—can provide measures of
effectiveness for programming
related to reducing inequity.
Cost-Benefit Analysis and Social Return on Investment
While the measures just discussed are helpful, only some may
be available in
the immediate term. There is still the issue of longer-term
results from investments
in social equity. Along with the recognition that the payoffs for
social equity are
often long term, there is also a growing recognition that the
effects of investments
in equity can fall outside of the issue area where the immediate
investment is
made. One of the most prominent examples of this is the
increasing amount
of research done that shows the long-term return on investment
for programs
that provide high-quality early education to children considered
to be at risk for
failure in school.

For years, advocates for early childhood education argued that
investing in
high-quality preschool experiences for children was not only
the morally right
thing to do but also that it would save money in the long run
through such
things as a decreased need for special education, reduction in
juvenile crime and
welfare roles, and increased graduation and employment rates.
However, the
evidence for these claims was merely anecdotal and often
dismissed by policy
makers. Over the past decade, however, an increasing amount
of work has been
done by economists and policy analysts that shows concrete
evidence of long-term
social returns on investment of between 9 and 16 percent for
every dollar invested
in early childhood education for children considered to be at
risk of school
failure (Kirp, 2007; Rolnick & …
ASSIGNMENT 10
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: This assignment contains 2 parts
which cover the Urinary System (Ch. 15). This is a submission
AKA text box assignment. When you have completed the
assignment, submit your work for both parts using the
Assignment 10 Text Box provided in this week’s module. This
assignment may be completed and submitted any time this week
before Saturday midnight. This assignment must be submitted
by midnight Saturday (11:59 pm). Each part is worth 15 points
(30 points total).

Part A: Urinary System A & P Matching
INSTRUCTIONS:
· Use your textbook to determine which DESCRIPTIONS
correctly match with the TERMS provided. Terms may be used
once or not at all.
· A Reference Citation List is NOT required for Part A.
· Format your work so that you submit the number of each
description with the letter of the term that matches correctly.
Please do not submit the descriptions or terms. Follow the
example below.
EXAMPLE FORMAT:
Part A:
1. A
2. B
3. C
Etc.
DESCRIPTIONS:
1. When blood volume & pressure are too low, the pituitary
gland releases this hormone which increases water reabsorption
from filtrate into blood, thus conserving body water and
producing a highly concentrated urine
2. Urine in its final form leaves the collecting duct of a
nephron and enters this space which funnels urine into the renal
pelvis
3. A long, slender, muscular tube which undergoes peristalsis
to conduct newly formed urine from the renal pelvis of the
kidney to the urinary bladder
4. This portion of a nephron functions to control the amount of
water in urine so that concentrated urine is produced when one
is dehydrated (low blood volume/pressure) or dilute urine is
produced when one is overhydrated (high blood

volume/pressure)
5. These expandable folds in the lining of the wall of the
bladder enable it to expand in size as urine volume increases;
the stomach lining also has these folds
6. The yellow color of urine is due to the presence of this
product of hemoglobin breakdown
7. As the bladder fills, urine volume & pressure increase; high
fluid pressure stimulates these sensory neurons embedded in the
bladder wall and they then send impulses to the spinal cord to
initiate the micturition reflex
8. 70% of filtrate is reabsorbed into blood from the proximal
convoluted tubules by epithelial cells which possess these short,
finger-like extensions that increase absorptive surface area
9. A fluid pressure gradient pushes water and small solutes out
of the blood in glomerular capillaries and into the glomerular
capsule; this is the first step in urine formation
10.In males, this tube conducts urine during urination and it
conducts semen during ejaculation
11. Renal pyramids are found in this inner region of the kidney
12. This circular skeletal muscle surrounds the urethra as it
passes through the pelvic floor and can be controlled
consciously to either stop or permit urination
13. Although glucose enters the renal tubule during the first
step of urine formation, it is actively transported back into
blood during this second step in urine formation
14. This is the most important electrolyte influencing the
amount of water that is either retained in blood or eliminated in
urine
15. This layer of dense connective tissue forms the exterior
covering of the kidney
TERMS:
A. rugae
B. trigone
C. loop of Henle
D. glomerulus

E. baroreceptors
F. interneurons
G. calyx
H. filtration
I. secretion
J. reabsorption
K. antidiuretic hormone
L. aldosterone
M. urethra
N. ureter
O. urochrome
P. urea
Q. microvilli
R. cilia
S. medulla
T. cortex
U. sodium
V. calcium
W. potassium
X. capsule
Y. external urethral sphincter
Z. internal urethral sphincter
Part B:Urinary Tract Infections (UTI)
INSTRUCTIONS:
· Perform research using your textbook and at least 1 reliable
website to gather scientific and medical information regarding
Urinary Tract Infections (UTIs).
· Answer each question thoroughly. Pay attention to key terms
or phrases which have been highlighted in bold. Answer
questions using complete sentences. Be sure your answers are
free of writing errors (incorrect grammar and spelling). Define
scientific terms.
· Provide a list of Citations (sources used) at the end of the

assignment. Include the textbook and at least 1 reliable
website. Format your citations in APA style. Be sure that
website citations include functional URLs. Refer to the
document How to cite References in an Assignment (in the
Course Resources module) for instructions on how to format
citations in APA style. Failure to include a Reference Citation
List results in a 0 score for Part B. Five points will be deducted
for failure to format citations in APA style.
· PARAPHRASE: Information taken from sources must be
written in your own words. Paraphrasing demonstrates that
students understand the information they have read and that
they can correctly use that information to explain the answer to
a question. Do NOT include any direct quotes (with or without
quotation marks) from sources. Answers with direct quotes
receive no credit.
· Format your work to include the question number, topics, and
your answers. Before submitting your work, check to make sure
your answers are numbered correctly. Follow the format
example below.
EXAMPLE FORMAT:
Part B:
1. TOPIC: Overview of UTIs
A. Your answer
B. Your answer
2. TOPIC: Microorganisms cause UTIs
A. Your answer
B. Your answer
C. Your answer
ETC.
QUESTIONS:

1. TOPIC:Overview of UTIs
A. What is a UTI? Provide a description of the disease as if
you were explaining it to a friend who does not know any
scientific terms or concepts.
B. Which urinary system structures may be affected by a UTI?
Explain how the structure and function of these structures is
compromised by the infection.
2. TOPIC:Microorganisms cause UTIs
A. UTIs are caused by bacteria. Give the specific names of 2
types of bacteria that cause UTIs. Example: Staphylococcus
aureus (NOTE: Genus and species are italicized)
B. What are the potential sources of bacteria that cause UTIs?
In other words, where do the bacteria come from?
C. Where do the bacteria enter the urinary tract?
3. TOPIC:Signs & Symptoms
Explain the cause of each of the following common signs and
symptoms of a UTI:
A. pain with urination
B. orange or red color of urine
4. TOPIC:Diagnosis and Treatment
A. Name 2 diagnostic tests used in the clinic to diagnose a UTI.
What is the purpose of each test? What kind of information
does each test provide?
B. Name 2 common medications prescribed to treat UTIs.
Describe how each medicationworks to treat the infection or
relieve signs & symptoms.
5. TOPIC:Women vs. Men
A. UTIs are more common in women than men. Provide 2
reasons why.
B. Sometimes, a UTI can be prevented. Describe 2 ways that
women can reduce their risk of getting a UTI.

Citations:
Provide a list of References (sources)used to complete this part.
Include the textbook and at least 1 reliable scientific website.
Be sure your citations are APA formatted.
Bottom of Form
Part A:
1. K
2. D
3. N
4. C
5. A
6. O
7. F
8. Q
9. H
10. M
11. S
12. Y
13. I
14. U
15. X
Part B:
1.
A. UTI is short form for Urinary tract infection. Means
infection which affects organs of urinary tract. Such as urethra,
urinary bladder and kidney. This are main organ for formation
of urine and helps to expel it out of body.
B. Kidneys, urethra and urinary bladder gets affected during
Urinary tract infection. Generally infection begins with urethra
then travels to kidney.
When only lower part gets affected which is called lower UTI
also cystitis because involves bladder

And when infection spread to upper side involving kidneys
known as pyelonephritis.
2.
A. Microorganism in UTI
Escherichia coli
Klebsiella pneumoniae
B. Coli bacteria lives in intestine. So they also seen near anal
canal. From which gets transferred to urethra.
C. Bacteria enters urinary tract from urethra. In very less cases
kidney gets infected by blood stream.
3.
Signs and symptoms:
A) Pain with urination:
The infection cause inflammation of urinary tract, the urine
from the inflammed urinary tract cause pain in urination.
B) orange or red colour urine:
The inflammation of urinary tract may cause a orange or red
colour urine. It is common sign in UTI due to inflammation of
urinary tract.
4.
UTI:
Urinary tract infection (UTI) any infection on the urinary tract
causing difficult in urination. It most commonly affects the
woman because thet are more prone to it.
Diagnosis And treatment:
A) The diagnostic test for UTI:
The two major diagnostic test for UTI are:
Urinalysis:
Urine is collected from the patient who came for test. This test
shows the bacterial or any infectious organism in the urine.
The collected urine sample is added to the substance which
promotes the growth of the organism in the urine.
If the growth is organism doesn't takes place then the test is
negative.
If the organism growth in the urine takes place then the test is
positive.

Ultra sound:
The sound waves from the transducer of ultra produce a imaging
of the internal organs.
Patient lower abdomen is scanned by ultra sound to detect any
abnormality in the organs and structures of urinary tract.
B) The medications for UTI are antibiotics or antimicrobial.
The two drugs are amoxicillin, sulfasulfamethaxazole.
Both of these drugs act on UTI by fighting against the
microorganisms in the UTI. By assisting the immune system, it
fight against the microorganisms and that relieves the symptoms
of UTI.
5.
answer. a) In women at the time of pregnancy the drainage
system from the kidney towards bladder become wide, hence,
urine does not pass out as quickly. This makes it easier to get an
infection. Similarly women has shorter urethra than a man have,
the shorter distance make the way easy to bacteria to travel into
the bladder.
b) There are no of ways by which women can reduce the risk of
getting UTI. Like women should drink plenty of water this will
help of getting rid from UTI, a women should protect their
urethra by not spraying ferfumes, bubble bath, by not using bath
oil. Sexual intercourse also irritates the urethra and is also one
of the reasons that sexually active women are more liable to
UTIs
Social Equity Is a Pillar of Public Administration
Author(s): James H. Svara and James R. Brunet
Source: Journal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 11, No. 3
(Jul., 2005), pp. 253-258

Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40215707
Accessed: 09-05-2020 20:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to
This content downloaded from 139.182.75.138 on Sat, 09 May
2020 20:14:50 UTC
Social Equity Is a Pillar
of Public Administration
James H. Svara and James R. Brunei
North Carolina State University
Abstract

In this article, the authors respond to
points raised by David Rosenbloom regard-
ing our 2004 J-PAE article "Filling in the
Skeletal PillanAddressing Social Equity
in Introductory Courses in Public
Administration." We conclude with an
operational definition of social equity
for public administrators.
The standing and importance of social equity in public
administration is
elevated by giving it careful scrutiny. In our article in the J-
PAE symposium
on teaching social equity (Svara and Brunet, 2004), we
examined and
defined the concept, noted its vague and imprecise usage and
the surpris-
ing lack of attention given to it in public administration
textbooks, and pro-
posed how the major elements of social equity could be
incorporated into
an introductory course. David Rosenbloom has provided
scrutiny by con-
fronting self-satisfying assumptions about social equity and
fuzzy pro-

nouncements about what it means. He challenges the basic
notion that
social equity is a useful- much less central- concept in public
administra-
tion. In the final analysis, the points he makes help to clarify
what social
equity means and why it is important for public administration
as a profes-
sion to be committed to its advancement. We will respond to
each of the
points Rosenbloom makes and then present, with refinements
stimulated
by his commentary, an operational definition of social equity.
1. What are the pillars? We acknowledge that we simply
accepted the
social-equity-as-third-pillar analogy from the literature and
sought to give it
more precise meaning. We did not consider the fundamental
question:
What are the pillars of public administration? The rule of law
is critically
important, and we did not suggest that it was a subordinate
component of
social equity itself, although aspects of law are part of our
measures of
social equity. Dismissing the idea that administrators have a
"duty" to "redis-

tribute resources" (from White, 1 13), Rosenbloom argues that
MPA students
should "understand that public administrators are bound by the
rule of law
to implement regulations, such as regressive taxes, that may
not comport
with concepts of social equity."The binding nature of the law,
however,
does not preclude administrators from recognizing that the
taxes they col-
lect are regressive and trying to change this condition through
legitimate
methods. Without an awareness of and concern for social
equity, adminis-
trators might simply follow the letter of the law or fail to
question whether
the law should be changed.The concern for social equity also
can guide
administrators in the exercise of discretion under the law.
Having a com- J-PAE 11 (2005)3:253-258
2020 20:14:50 UTC

mitment to social equity is, therefore, crucial as a
major perspective in public administration. We feel
that social equity deserves the prominence of pillar
status. Re-examining what the other pillars are
would be a useful topic for a separate discussion.
2. Definition. Rosenbloom complains that the def-
initions of social equity in two of the symposium
articles are tautological.1 We start our definition by
linking the concept to "fairness, justice, and equi-
table distribution" (101). It may be redundant to
include "equitable" along with fairness and justice in
the definition of social equity, but one can argue that
equitable administrative practices promote social
equity. We suggest that for social equity to be mean-
ingful, it must be measurable and- drawing on the
work of the NAPA Social Equity Panel- propose four
dimensions that build on the definition and provide
the basis for measurement: procedural fairness,
access, quality, and outcomes. We describe the condi-
tions that are consistent with social equity in each

dimension.
Rosenbloom raises the substantive complaint that
we "confound equity and social equity"2 and ignore
that "constitutional procedural due process is over-
whelmingly an individual right, not one that protects
large groups from unfair deprivation of liberty or
property by government." If individual rights are pro-
tected in a universal and consistent way across all
groups, there are no social equity concerns. Much
negative experience, however, indicates that proce-
dural fairness should be examined from a social
equity perspective (and, in addition, many social
equity shortcomings would persist even if procedur-
al fairness were the same for all citizens.) To sharpen
the language we used in our article, practices such
as failure to provide due process before relocating a
family as part of an urban renewal project or unfairly
denying benefits to a person who meets eligibility
criteria raise equity issues. When the unfair practices

are used disproportionately in dealings with mem-
bers of identifiable groups, there is a social equity
issue, just as there is when using racial characteris-
tics alone to "profile" criminal suspects. When indi-
vidual rights are systematically denied to members
of groups identified by characteristics such as gen-
der, income, race, ethnicity, or age, there is a social
equity problem.
Rosenbloom indicates that constitutional tests
of equal protection are more appropriate to the
"'social' in social equity," but then focuses entirely
on equal protection as a judicial standard that tends
to focus on individuals. (This matter is discussed fur-
ther in the next section.) A commitment to equal
protection helps to prevent social equity problems
from arising or leads to the correction of socially
inequitable practices such as assigning unqualified
teachers or sending old textbooks to low-income
schools.3
Procedural fairness is the obvious starting point in

defining social equity and specifying corrective
action because the behavior is not problematic-
indeed constitutional competence is required of
public administrators (Rosenbloom and Carroll,
1990)- even if it is complex.As Rosenbloom says,
public administrators should "do equal protection"-
as well as due process and equal rights- "on the
job." But this is not all they should do with respect
to social equity. We will return to the matter of pro-
viding a more coherent, clear, and operational defini-
tion of social equity.
3. Confront the inequities of social equity. It is
important to consider in a dispassionate way the
potential inequities of social equity, as Rosenbloom
observes. Still, one cannot ignore the fundamental
inequalities in society, many of which cannot be
explained by differences in individual aptitude or
inclination.The commitment to social equity indi-
cates that public administrators are not indifferent to
these conditions. Proponents of reducing inequality
are guided by Rawls' second principle: "social and
economic inequalities are to be arranged so that
they are to the greatest benefit of the least advan-

taged" (1971, 302).Through developing policy pro-
posals to reduce social and economic problems and
through choosing proactive administrative and man-
agement practices within existing policy,4 public
administrators seek to address the effects of discrimi-
nation based on personal characteristics or the
restricted prospects produced by inadequate socio-
economic resources.
254 fournal of Public Affairs Education
2020 20:14:50 UTC
Public administrators need to be constantly aware
that, in efforts to reduce inequality, there will be
losers as well as winners, even if the "losers" are in
theory more advantaged.
In devising remedies that change the distribution
of benefits,5 the equal protection test is relevant, as
Rosenbloom has argued. Court decisions require
race- and ethnicity-based public policies to be "nar-

rowly tailored," and applicants for public benefits
must be given "individualized consideration."These
requirements do not preclude taking race into
account if it is not the only or deciding factor. In
Grutter v. Bollinger, regarding the University of
Michigan, Justice O'Connor wrote that "the Equal
Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's
narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions
to further a compelling interest in obtaining the edu-
cational benefits that flow from a diverse student
body." In its undergraduate admission policies in
Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruled that the university
went too far in automatically awarding points to
minority candidates, although once again the court
permitted race to be used as a factor in admission if
it was not the deciding factor. The concern about
creating inequities should be a salient one to admin-
istrators, but it should not cause administrators to
ignore the persistence of inequalities nor immobilize
them from seeking to correct inequalities, even if
this means testing the limits as the University of

Michigan did.
4. Explain the advantages, if any, of applying
the term social equity to standard, longstanding
subject matter in MPA education Rosenbloom
argues that MPA education should cover the rule of
law- constitutional rights and equal employment
opportunity law- and representative bureaucracy
and that nothing is gained and much is lost when
subsuming these topics under the discussion of
"social equity." In his view, "these subjects stood and
can continue to stand on their own."These subjects
are important and will be recognizable in the cur-
riculum, but can they be viewed as covering the full
scope of social equity? The reason that we proposed
teaching social equity across the introductory course
is that these and many other topics, contribute to a
full understanding of social equity. Similarly, repre-
sentative bureaucracy may be "more inclusive than
social equity" because it can examine more cate-
gories, but this topic focuses only on public sector
employment patterns and not the full range of poli-
cy and management issues covered by social equity.
In our view, Rosenbloom provides an argument

for retaining an emphasis on social equity along with
examination of the rule of law. He observes that
equal protection analysis by the courts permits (or
does not provide the basis for invalidating) public
school financing systems that provide less money for
each student in districts with predominantly ethnic
minorities than those that have predominantly non-
minority student bodies (San Antonio Independent
School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 [1973]).6
Social equity analysis emphasizing the distribution of
resources and legal analysis emphasizing equal pro-
tection may lead to differing views. A legal remedy
in the form of a court-ordered redistribution of
funds is not permissible in the Texas case, but that
does not mean that the court would overturn a state
plan to achieve greater uniformity in funding across
districts. There is a wide zone of acceptable activi-
ties around equal protection. A commitment to
social equity prompts one to analyze and explore
the activist limits of equal protection, whereas the
absence of this commitment might cause one to tol-
erate instances of inequality out of concern that

remedies might not pass the equal protection test.
Although Rosenbloom is concerned that social equi-
ty will be "muddled when it is treated as a pillar built
of sometimes incompatible concerns and concepts,"
an opposing view is that it is stronger because it is
based on considering and balancing multiple forms
of analysis reflecting the four dimensions.
Rosenbloom's final concern seems misplaced.
There is no reason why the coherence of equal pro-
tection and representative bureaucracy need to be
compromised when the concepts are applied to the
examination of social equity and also examined sepa-
rately. Indeed, it seems that the understanding of
equal protection is expanded by applying it to test
the adequacy of administrative practices as well as
the Constitutional appropriateness of policy remedies.
2020 20:14:50 UTC
We state the question in the opposite way: What

is lost by not talking about social equity as a central
concept? Rosenbloom seems to dismiss advocating
social equity as a self-satisfying diversion for MPA
faculty and students but a practice that is irrelevant
to practicing administrators. We think that it should
be a concept that deserves serious intellectual
inquiry in the academy and also a major responsibili-
ty for public administrators. Practitioners should do
social equity analysis and- within appropriate lim-
its-action.
5. Avoid "stealing" popular sovereignty. What
indeed are the appropriate limits? Just because, as
Rosenbloom reminds us, some aspects of the New
Public Administration implied an illegitimate pre-
sumption that administrators should substitute their
preferences for those of elected officials, promoting
social equity as a pillar does not carry the same pre-
sumption. As we argued- and Rosenbloom recog-
nizes-examining the appropriate limits of adminis-
trative action are an essential part of the study of
social equity. We stress that public administrators
should make elected officials and the public aware
of social equity problems, should promote social
equity in their policy recommendations to elected
officials, and should examine their own administra-

tive and management practices to ensure that social
equity is being observed and advanced. We share
with Rosenbloom the emphasis on advocacy rather
than "imposition of personal and professional val-
ues." Consistent with this view, there are extensive
opportunities to advance social equity in administra-
tive and management behavior as well as in the
appropriate advocacy of policy proposals.
6. Analysis of textbooks. Rosenbloom asserts that
we were mistaken in the way we characterized his
textbook co-written with Robert Kravchuk. He
points out that they do not index social equity (nor
did we rely on index references alone), but they inte-
grate subject matter that we treat as part of social
equity throughout the book. We recognized that
broad coverage, but the coverage of due process and
equity in different parts of the text make no refer-
ence to "social" equity. The preponderance of materi-
al related to social equity in their book- discrimina-
tion, sexual harassment, EEO/AA, and representative-
ness-is included in their personnel chapter. Thus,
our generalization about the two approaches is

appropriate: explicit coverage of social equity occurs
either in a stand-alone chapter or in the human
resources section of the book (108).Their book pro-
vides extensive discussion of topics related to social
equity but not social equity itself.
This brings us back the fundamental question.
Should social equity be a topic that receives explicit
attention, or should we rely on discussion of other
topics that may develop awareness, understanding,
and commitment to the some of the concerns
encompassed by the concept of social equity? We
prefer the former approach, because the clarity,
coherence, and importance of the concept may oth-
erwise be lost. How do students know that the vari-
ous topics are related to social equity if it is not
emphasized as a separate theme? Still, this approach
of making social equity a central theme is defensible
only if the concept has clear meaning and is accept-
ed as a core value of public administration.
Conclusion: Operational definition of social equity
We conclude with a response to Rosenbloom's
challenge to provide a "clearer, operational defini-
tion'The definition of the NAPA Social Equity Panel

(2000) provides the starting point, as in our original
article:
The fair, just and equitable management of all
institutions serving the public directly or by
contract, and the fair, just and equitable distrib-
ution of public services, and implementation of
public policy, and the commitment to promote
fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of
public policy.
In operational terms, public administrators should
demonstrate the following commitments:
Procedural fairness. Provide due process, equal
protection, and equal rights to all persons regardless
of their personal characteristics. Each individual
should be treated fairly, and any instances of unfair
treatment of individuals should be corrected.
2020 20:14:50 UTC

Furthermore, existing and new practices in imple-
mentation, service delivery, and management should
be examined to ensure that procedural fairness is
not disproportionately denied to any groups of per-
sons.Any deviations should be corrected and factors
that contribute to this behavior should be eliminat-
ed.
Distribution and access (equity in availability
of services/benefits). Services and benefits should be
distributed equally or in such a way that those who
are less advantaged receive greater benefits. These
general principles should guide the observance of
requirements that are multiple and complex and that
vary with the purpose of a program or the problem
that is being addressed. For existing policies and pro-
grams, distribution and access should match the
intended purpose. For example, if all are to receive a
service or benefit, then it should be made available

to all equally. If all are eligible, then it should be
accessible to all equally. If special conditions are
required to receive a service or benefit, efforts
should be made to reach all who are eligible, and
legal discretion should be used to include rather
than exclude persons whose eligibility is borderline.
In formulating new policy, promote equal distribu-
tion, compensatory redistribution, and efforts to cor-
rect past discrimination, depending on the nature of
the problem being addressed. Avoid creating barriers
to access, such as service fees for essential services
that impose a disproportionate cost for persons with
fewer resources. In developing policy proposals that
entail redistribution, take into account the obligation
to be accountable to the rule of law and the impor-
tance of making best use of scarce resources.
Quality (equity in the process of providing ser-
vices and benefits). Ensure that there is consistency
in the quality of services and benefits delivered to all
groups of people. Although some persons have the
means to secure enhanced quality, public administra-

tors should strive to ensure that prevailing standards
of acceptable practice are met for all groups.
Outcomes. Seek to achieve an equal level of
accomplishment or outcomes in the social and eco-
nomic conditions for all individuals and seek to elim-
inate differences in outcomes for groups. While rec-
ognizing the importance of individual behavior on
outcomes and the constraints that general condi-
tions impose on outcomes in specific areas, e.g., the
impact of poverty on educational performance, pub-
lic administrators should examine why different out-
comes occur and identify possible approaches to
reducing disparities. Public administrators should ask
how much inequality is acceptable and to what
extent government can and should-on its own and
in partnership with the business and nonprofit sec-
tors-intervene to reduce the inequality in out-
comes.
Related responsibilities. Guarantee all a place at
the table so that they can express their own views
about public policy choices and service delivery.
Take proactive and affirmative efforts to involve all
citizens and solicit feedback.

It is a step into uncharted territory to specify
what it means to put the commitment to social equi-
ty into action. We acknowledge David Rosenbloom
for challenging us to take this step and invite others
to help move beyond this initial effort. This state-
ment makes it clear how broad-ranging and funda-
mental the commitment to social equity is for practi-
tioners and scholars. Social equity defines the larger
purpose to which public administration is dedicated
that stands alongside (but cannot override) account-
ability and rises above (but cannot ignore) instru-
mental management values. In sum, social equity is a
pillar on which public administration rests.
Notes
1. He criticizes Gooden and Meyers for defining social equity
tautologi-
cally as "fairness or social justice" (92). Except for the double
use of
"social," the definition seems appropriate. The Oxford
dictionary
defines equity as "fairness, impartiality, even-handed dealing;"
a defin-

ition of equitable is "just." We identify four dimensions of
social equi-
ty as procedural fairness, access, quality, and outcomes, but we
see
these as elaborating what social equity is, not restating the
same idea
in different words.
2. Similarly, Frederickson distinguishes between equity and
social equi-
ty. "Certainly, there has always been a concern for fairness in
the bet-
ter practices of public administration, but it was not until the
1960s
that the phrase 'social equity' became a feature of public
administra-
tion with an attendant set of concepts and a cluster of shared
val-
ues" (2005, 2-3.) Still, later in the paper Frederickson returns
to
a view of social equity as concerned with "fairness, justice, and
equality."
fournal of Public Affairs Education 257
2020 20:14:50 UTC

3. Rosenbloom usefully points out that "remedial law" is a
practice used
by courts to correct pervasive failure in administrative
performance.
As indicated in the closing section, we feel that administrators
should undertake systematic examination of their own
practices.
4. For example, the Raleigh, North Carolina, police chief last
year insti-
tuted new procedures in dealing with illegal encampments.
Officers
are to ask residents to dismantle the camp and give them
reasonable
time to do so, to counsel homeless persons about available
services,
and inventory to protect their property if it is removed from an
ille-
gal encampment (Raleigh News & Observer, Jury 11, 2004, Bl).
5. As noted earlier, examining equal protection can also be
used to pre-
vent or correct practices that violate social equity.
6. From our reading of this case, the decision does not permit
unequal
funding in the same district, as Rosenbloom indicates.
References
Fredenckson, H. George. 2005. The State of Social Equity in
American

Public Administration. Paper delivered at the Fourth Social
Equity
Leadership Conference, Cleveland Ohio, February 17-19.
Gooden, Susan, and Samuel L. Meyers, Jr. 2004. "Social Equity
in Public
Affairs Educations/own^/ of Public Affairs Education, 10: 91-
97.
National Academy of Public Administration, Standing Panel on
Social
Equality, "Issue Paper and Work Plan," October 2000, amended
November 16, 2000.
Rawlsjohn. 1971.4 Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Rosenbloom, David H., and James D. Carroll. 1990. Toward
Constitutional Competence: A Casebook for Public
Administrators.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Svara, James H., and James R. Brunet. 2004. "Filling in the
Skeletal Pillar:
Addressing Social Equity in Introductory Courses in Public
Administration.n/owrna/ of Public Affairs Education, 10: 99-
109.
White, Susan. 2004. "Multicultural MPA Curriculum: Are We
Preparing
Culturally Competent Public Administrators?" Journal of
Public

Affairs Education, 10:111-123.
James H. Svara teaches administrative ethics and the doctoral
course in foundations of public administration in the Public
Administration Program at North Carolina State University. He
is chairman of the Research Committee of the Social Equity
Panel of
the National Academy of Public Administration.
James R. Brunet teaches introduction to public administration
and administrative ethics at North Carolina State University. He
is cur-
rently conducting a review of social equity measures in
criminal justice policy and administration in the United States
for the Social
Equity Panel of NAPA.
2020 20:14:50 UTC
Contentsp. 253p. 254p. 255p. 256p. 257p. 258Issue Table of
ContentsJournal of Public Affairs Education, Vol. 11, No. 3
(Jul., 2005) pp. i-iv, 167-264Front MatterFrom the Editor-in-
Chief [pp. ii-iii]Symposium on Leadership
EducationIntroduction: Symposium on Leadership Education
[pp. 167-168]Leadership Education in Public Administration:
Finding the Fit between Purpose and Approach [pp. 169-
179]Public Leaders Are Gendered: Making Gender Visible in
Public Affairs Leadership Education [pp. 181-192]Challenges of
Introducing Leadership into the Public Affairs Curriculum: The
Case of the Humphrey Institute [pp. 193-205]Should Leadership
Be in the Core Curriculum? [pp. 207-210]Student Evaluations
of Teaching: How You Teach and Who You Are [pp. 211-

231]What Is Homeland Security? Developing a Definition
Grounded in the Curricula [pp. 233-246]Taking Social Equity
Seriously in MPA Education [pp. 247-252]Social Equity Is a
Pillar of Public Administration [pp. 253-258]Gazette [pp. 259-
264]Back Matter
Government Coercion (Taxation Policy), Revenues,
Social/Economic Equity-Key Terms & Practices
Alvin Holliman, DM, CPA (retired/inactive)
1
Taxation Policy & Terms
Progressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income
from high-income groups than from low-income groups.
Proportional tax—A tax that takes the same percentage of
income from all income groups.
Regressive tax—A tax that takes a larger percentage of income
from low-income groups than from high-income groups.
Comparing Regressive, Progressive, and Proportional Taxes
apps.irs.gov › les05 › media › ws_ans_thm03_les05
These terms most commonly apply to income taxes but to
appropriately determine a government’s overall tax burden on
various income groups, all types of taxes must be considered
such as sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes (alcohol,
cigarettes, etc.), gasoline taxes, and tolls.
2
Taxation Policy & Terms
(continued)
For income tax calculation purposes another important concept
involves deductibles from adjusted gross income. These
typically include itemized deductions.

Home-owners generally benefit from itemized deductions as a
result of mortgage interest and property tax write-offs.
Renters typically do not receive such benefits except for
charitable contributions and the deductibility of state and local
taxes on a federal tax return; but these items generally do not
exceed the standard deduction allowed to non-home-owners.
It is quite fair to say, and backed up by long-standing empirical
evidence, that income tax systems (federal or state) are very
slanted in favor of married individuals and homeowners as well
as people with dependents (usually children).
3
Federal income tax rate schedule Tax RateTaxable Income
(Single)Taxable Income
(Married Filing Jointly)10%Up to $9,700Up to
$19,40012%$9,701 to $39,475$19,401 to $78,95022%$39,476
to $84,200$78,951 to $168,40024%$84,201 to
$160,725$168,401 to $321,45032%$160,726 to
$204,100$321,451 to $408,20035%$204,101 to
$510,300$408,201 to $612,35037%Over $510,300Over
$612,350
2019 Tax Brackets for Single/Married Filing Jointly
4
California income tax rate schedule - singleTax Bracket Tax
Rate $0.00+ 1% $8,223.00+ 2% $19,495.00+ 3% $30,769.00+
4% $42,711.00+ 8% $53,980.00+ 9.3% $275,738.00+ 10.3%
$330,884.00+ 11.3% $551,473.00+ 12.3% $1,000,000.00+
13.3%
5
California income tax rate schedule

married
California - Married Filing Jointly Tax BracketsTax Bracket
Tax Rate $0.00+ 1% $16,446.00+ 2% $38,990.00+ 4%
$61,538.00+ 6% $85,422.00+ 8% $107,960.00+ 9.3%
$551,476.00+ 10.3% $661,768.00+ 11.3% $1,000,000.00+
12.3% $1,074,996.00+ 13.3%
6
Progressive vs. Regressive Overall Tax Example
Whether or not taxes in any given government are progressive,
regressive, or proportional, depends on many factors and cannot
be precisely applied in a uniform manner- it depends on
individual or family circumstances.
So, a fairly realistic example for California follows:
1. The average state sales tax rate is 8.65%
1. Assume couple A is living together (legally unmarried)
and is renting a home in Los Angeles. They pay
$2,700 a month for rent, each earns $55,000 per year
(adjusted gross income) and each takes the standard
deduction for a single person. One member of the
household smokes one pack of cigarettes a day (about $4 per
pack for federal and state tobacco taxes) and their alcohol
consumption equates to $40 per month in federal and state
taxes. They spend $8,000 per year on items susceptible to state
sales tax (they pay $692 in annual sales taxes).
7
Progressive vs. Regressive Overall Tax Example
(continued)
2. Assume couple B is married and pays a mortgage on a
home in Los Angeles. They pay $3,500 a month for the
mortgage, including property taxes and interest which total
$2,700 a month for the interest and property taxes. Each earns
$75,000 per year (adjusted gross income, or $150,000 as a

couple) and they deduct $3,000 per year for charitable
contributions and $8,000 per year in state and local taxes
(excluding property taxes)on the federal return only. Like
Couple A, one member of the household smokes one pack of
cigarettes a day (about $4 per pack for federal and state tobacco
taxes) and also like Couple A, their alcohol consumption
equates to $40 per month in federal and state taxes. Again, like
Couple A, they spend $8,000 per year on items susceptible to
state sales tax (they pay $692 in annual sales taxes).
OK, let’ see if this is a regressive or progressive tax situation.
8
Progressive vs. Regressive?
(continued)
Couple A net annual tax calculation:
Person # 1
Person # 2 Total
Adjusted gross Income 55,000
55,000 110,000
Federal standard deduction (12,200)
(12,200)
Taxable Income 42,800
42,800
Federal Income tax 5,274 5,274
10,528
(10% x 9,700) + (12% x 29,774) + (22% x 3,324)
9
(continued)
Couple A net annual tax calculation:
Person # 1

Person # 2 Total
Adjusted gross Income 55,000
55,000 110,000
California standard deduction ( 4,537) (
4,537)
Taxable Income 50,463
50,463
State Income tax 1,123
1,123 2,246
(1% x 8,223) + (2% x 11,272) + (3% x 11,274) + (4% x
11,942)
10
Progressive vs. Regressive
(continued)
Couple A Total Tax
Adjusted Gross Income $110,000
Federal Income Tax $10,528
State Income Tax 2,246
Cigarette Taxes ($4 per day x 365) 1,460
Alcohol Taxes ($40 per month x 12) 480
Sales Taxes 692
Total Taxes $ 15,406
Taxes as a % of AGI 14.00%
11
(continued)
Couple B net annual tax calculation:
Total

Adjusted gross Income
150,000
Federal itemized deductions
( 43,400)
Taxable Income
106,600
Federal Income tax
(10% x 19,400) + (12% x 59,949) + (22% x 27,649)
15,169
12
(continued)
Couple B net annual tax calculation:
Total
Adjusted Gross Income
150,000
California’s Itemized Deductions (excludes $8,000 in
federal local
tax deductions)
(35,400)
Taxable Income
114,600
State Income tax
6,855
(1% x 16,446) + (2% x 22,544) + (4% x 22,638) + (6% x
23,885) + (8% x 22,538) +
(9.3% x 6,640)
13

(continued)
Couple B Total Tax
Adjusted Gross Income $150,000
Federal Income Tax $15,169
State Income Tax 6,855
Cigarette Taxes ($4 per day x 365) 1,460
Alcohol Taxes ($40 per month x 12) 480
Sales Taxes 692
Total Taxes $ 24,656
Taxes as a % of AGI 16.40%
14
(continued)
So, in the example/exercise leading up to this slide:
Couple A = $110,000 in AGI and an overall tax rate of
14.00%
Couple B = $ 150,000 in AGI and an overall tax rate of
16.40%
Does this scenario represent a progressive or regressive tax
condition?
What might the impact be if Couple A also owned a home and
was paying mortgage interest.
What might the scenario be if Couple A (an unmarried couple)
be if they owned a home with similar income and payments as
Couple B?
What might the scenario be if Couple A smoked 2 packs of
cigarettes a day and Couple B smoked none (no other changes to
scenario).
What are some key elements missing from this scenario so far
that need to be included for a more realistic assessment?

15
(continued)
Well, what about gasoline taxes – let’s assume each couple uses
1500 gallons of gasoline a year at $1.20 per gallon in total
gasoline taxes; this equals $1,800 per year.
With this additional consideration, Couple A pays a total of
$17,206 in taxes, or 15.64% of AGI: Couple B pays $26,456 or
17.6% in taxes.
What a minute, but what about housing costs and other essential
living expenses? OK, let’s assume each couple incurs $24,000 a
year in living expenses beyond housing – what is the disposable
income versus taxes now?
Couple A = $110,000 AGI less $32,400 in housing less $24,000
in other living costs = net disposable income before taxes of
53,600; taxes = 17,206; tax rate = 32%; Couple A = 150,000
AGI less 42,000 in housing and 24,000 in other living costs =
net disposable income before taxes of 84,000; taxes = 26,456;
tax rate = 31.4%
16
Revenue Forecasting
As stated in Module 3, Revenue, expenditure, and capital
project forecasting and planning should all consider external
data markers as well, such as CPI, interest rates, state, national,
and global political and economic changes, and any potential
adverse environmental issues such as water contamination,
excessive poor air quality, earthquakes, floods, storms, etc.
Forecasting systems can be complex, using computer modeling
which incorporates all internal and eternal possible factors, or
they can be simple and tackle factors one at a time and then
blend them into one overall projection. Honestly, gut instincts
are also often used and tainted by political preferences.

17
Revenue Forecasting
(continued)
Revenue forecasting practices often involve the use of
sophisticated consulting firms for projecting property tax and
sales tax income. In California, some of the main firms include
Henderliter D’Llamas & Associates (HdL) as well as Municipal
Resource Consultants (MRC).
These firms have access to county property tax rolls as well as
sales tax data from the California Board of Equalization.
Basically, they tell cities ad counties what the real data and
trends are for property tax revenue and sales tax revenue.
If all other key factors remain equal, property taxes typically
grow by the 2% annual inflator per Proposition 13 and any
increases in value pursuant to property sales (however, sales
data can also be negative in times of distressed property values
such as the period between 2008 and 2012).
18
Revenue Forecasting
(continued
Factors involved in forecasting sales tax receipts include
projected changes in the consumer price index (CPI), significant
new retail entrants into the local marketplace, or large retailers
who have moved out, and projected consumer demand for
certain goods.
Again, assuming all other factors remain equal, if City A had
sales tax revenues in fiscal year 2017-18 of 5,000,000 and the
CPI is 2% and consumer demand is expected to increase by 1%,
the 2018-19 projection would normally be 5,000,000 x 1.02 x
1.01 = 5,151,000.
Further assuming all other factors remain equal, if property tax

revenue was 4,000,000 in 2017-18 and the only expected change
is the 2% annual Proposition 13 inflator of 2%, 2018-19
property tax revenue would be projected as 4,000,000 x 1.02 =
4,080,000.
19
Revenue Forecasting
(continued
While property taxes and sales taxes typically represent the
largest portion of local government revenues, there are other
sources as well including hotel occupancy taxes (transient
occupancy taxes), fees for services, intergovernmental grants
and other receipts/transfers, motor vehicle license fees, and
fines and forfeitures.
Each of these other revenue sources must include forecasts that
consider not only changes in CPI but changes in population,
changes in laws/regulations, changes in tourism or out of area
business travel, and changes in local fee ordinances.
20
Social/Economic Equity
The Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance of the
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) defines
Social Equity as “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
implementation of public policy, and the commitment to
promote fairness, justice, and equity in the formation of public
policy.”
In the broader sense social/economic equity also considers the
nature of governmental taxation systems (progressive,
regressive, or proportional), and is biased toward progressive
systems whereby the more income one has, the higher
percentage of taxes he pays.

When the revenues from the higher income taxpayers are
transferred into social expenditures (Aid for Dependent
Children, Welfare, Section 8 Housing Assistance, etc.) this
constitutes a form of income redistribution and is intended to
provide greater social/economic equity.
21
(continued)
The Public Administration principle of fair and equal
distribution of services is, of course, very noble but has many
realistic challenges relative to practice such as:
1. Most policies that concern social/economic equity
occur on a macro scale – global (Big 3 NGO’s + NATO and
WHO), national (US, etc.), and states (California, etc.)
2. Most cities and counties have very little control over
laws and revenues that can enact social equity at a local level
(especially in California where tax generation is very restricted
by statute.
3. Reduced or no fees for low income or disadvantaged
groups relative to things such as park entrance fees, toll
roads, etc. is impacted by the threat of Tragedy of the
Commons and the local governments own fiscal capacity.
22
(continued)
Despite the umbrella of macro laws and policies beyond a local
government’s control, there are many things which can be and
are often done:
For locally owned utilities, reduced rates for lower income
groups
Depending on funding availability, provision of “access”

materials such as personal computers (in-home or libraries) –
sometimes working in partnership with local non-profits and
seeking grants.
Provision of adequate and accessible public transportation at
reduced rates.
Coordination and counseling services for public health
facilities, education (including English as a second language),
Meals on Wheels, and extensive Parks and Recreation programs
(after-school, weekends, etc.)
23
Instruction
· Discuss how the assigned material met, or did not meet, the
Module Learning Objectives.
· Describe 2 or 3 new things you learned from the module
· Students should write journal entries in complete sentences
and paragraphs with their name on the first page along with the
journal # and number all pages. These should be 12-point font,
written in Microsoft Word. Entries should be a minimum of 600
words and a maximum of 800 words.
· Do not list items
· APA criteria are not applicable for the journals but writing
quality will be considered in the grading rubric.
MLO’s
#1
Calculate and describe the effects of government taxation
policies relative to citizens regarding
progressive, regressive, or proportional structures.
# 2
Identify the key aspects of the revenue forecasting process for
local governments.

# 3
Articulate the meaning and applications of Social/economic
equity in public administration.

Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Socia.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Socia.docx

Similar to Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Socia.docx (18)

More from joney4

More from joney4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Socia.docx