Social Equity Leadership Conference: Goals and Public Admin Theories

Conference Background and Theme

The conference theme is Globally Engaged, Locally Responsible: New Challenges for Social Equity. The emerging issues in social equity and leadership covered in the conference include: (1) education; (2) policing and corrections; (3) at-risk communities, including immigrants, the elderly, housing, and aging populations; (4) transportation; and (5) environmental protection.

The inclusion of social equity into public administration has been an uphill task for public administrators. The challenge many cite is the achievement of productive, effective, and economical government alongside social equity. The Social Equity Leadership Conference is a concept of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), held annually. NAPA is an authority in public administration and has assisted in defining social equity for the field. NAPA defines social equity as "the fair, just, and equitable management of institutions that directly or indirectly serve the public, the fair and equitable distribution of public services, implementation of public policy, and commitment to promotion of justice, fairness, and equity" (National Academy of Public Administration, n.d.). This white paper defines and describes social equity as it applies to the themes of the conference, and identifies relationships that exist between theories supporting those themes.

Conference Selection Rationale and Networking Goals

Although social equity was introduced into public administration in the 1960s and recognized as the fourth pillar of PA, it still does not hold an equal place alongside the traditional PA values of efficiency, effectiveness, and economy. The challenge among administrators across all sectors has been the elevation of social equity and the creation of a level playing field. The need to address social equity as a conference theme stems from the vital role it plays in leadership — specifically, social equity's ability to create awareness and concern among administrators, leading them not only to follow laws but to question and change them. This is a key concept the conference seeks to build among public administrators and leaders from key sectors.

To advance social equity, previous NAPA commissions have proposed evaluating it in four dimensions: access, procedural fairness, outcomes, and quality. The conference presents an opportune moment for key public administrators, scholars, and leaders to discuss approaches for increasing social equity. This is necessary given the need to sharpen the language public administrators use. Moreover, the conference addresses failures in providing due process in sectors including education, law enforcement and corrections, and transportation, as well as current issues of fairness in dealing with persons from at-risk communities such as immigrants and the elderly. There is mounting evidence that leaders today are facing a changing population that calls for the equitable distribution of public resources. Global connectivity has created a village in which individuals demand greater accountability, equity, and responsibility, especially in environmental protection.

The following networking goals are identified as essential in meeting the theme of the conference:

1. Explore and find solutions for diversity and social equity issues — such as race, disability, ethnicity, and sexual identity — that are affecting the education system, policymaking, and communities.

2. Build an equitable and multicultural curriculum for the current education system to handle an increasingly diverse world.

3. Create global awareness of the importance of leadership development as a tool to build and sustain equity for at-risk communities through education and policy change.

4. Create and encourage commitment to social equity, procedural fairness, and justice for all in society, to allow access to quality global resources such as transportation, natural resources, and education.

5. Create a need for administrators to develop leadership capacities as a way to develop policies and practices that protect and preserve a safe and clean environment for all.

6. Create a community of leaders motivated to change current practices, policies, and social ideologies to promote social equity and fairness, and to lead communities toward living responsibly.

These goals motivate the conference to draw practitioners and experts from major public sectors to share best practices, discuss social equity issues, and develop strategies. These approaches will bring knowledge of social justice and disparities to the forefront of policymaking and public administration. The goals will assist in drawing input from professionals in public and private organizations to the field of public administration and will lead public and private leaders to develop social equity benchmarks and indicators. These indicators will guide the next generation of public administration in reporting on social equity across every public and private sector (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). The goals will also create understanding of public policy matters and increase participation in public administration activities.

Moreover, the conference provides a platform for experts to educate public administrators on key competency areas of social equity and local responsibility. Public administrators will gain awareness of the importance of social equity through the creation of an equal public system that fairly distributes public resources (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). The conference will lead administrators to the realization that justice, equality, and fairness in all areas of society are central issues of effective and efficient public administration — applicable to sectors such as the environment, transportation, and education that serve whole communities. The need for addressing fairness and equality in these sectors arises from the fact that communities are increasingly diverse across knowledge sets, race, ethnicities, sexualities, and religions (Deniz & Wakin, 2007). Therefore, the goals of the conference are a reminder to leaders that public administration carries an obligation to address the social issues of justice, fairness, and equality.

Global Engagement and Local Responsibility in Public Administration

The main conference theme — Globally Engaged, Locally Responsible: New Challenges for Social Equity — reflects the current problems leaders face in equitable administration. Public policy and public administration are bound by the state, yet the state is increasingly shaped by globalization (Stone, 2008). Global private-public partnerships and transnational executive networks, created by liberalization and globalization, have generated new types of authority. These new forms of authority are manifested in regional and global policy processes that coexist alongside national-state policy practices. This situation presents challenges to public administrators who must make administrative decisions in a setting with significant global influence (Stone, 2008). Global connectivity implies that public administration is changing, as local leaders are now accountable to both their citizens and the global community — giving today's leader both a global and a local responsibility.

Today's leader also faces administrative challenges emerging from the blurring of public and commercial domains in the global era. This convergence spans various sectors including, but not limited to, education, transportation, environment, health, science, and research (Stone, 2008). Globalization is creating a growing global public space in which the public sphere is dynamic, fluid, and interconnected — closely associated with culture, society, markets, and politics (Stone, 2008). As a result, public administrators' decisions and experiences are shaped by the interactions of multiple actors and plural institutions.

Leaders are no longer faced only with the challenge of being responsible at both local and global levels; they must also incorporate local responsibility into management practice (Candler & Dumont, 2010). There is a change in governance in which renewed effort is directed toward democratizing administration. The trend is to find new avenues for direct citizen engagement in administrative agencies' work, especially at the local level. Current public administration faces the task of reframing democracy to allow citizens to take a greater and more direct share of the tasks of governing (Candler & Dumont, 2010). Public administration also carries the duty of creating and maintaining a commonwealth. However, in practice, the relationship between citizenry and administrators is complex, making government operation, citizen engagement, and administrative design difficult (Candler & Dumont, 2010). The global phenomenon that has led to the concept of direct citizenry engagement remains a challenge for leaders, as national integrated systems of administration stand in the way of future governance.

Conclusion

In seeking social equity in public administration, the administrator applies the theory of public leadership in terms of creating accountability, fairness, and equity. This creates a link between public leadership, administration, and social equity. In addition, public administrators are called upon to depart from the traditional command-and-control and hierarchical leadership approach. Leadership conferences over the last several years have called public leaders to adopt networking and collaboration, driven by a collaborate-and-connect model. The desire is that the 2013 Leadership Conference drives leaders to network across organizations, jurisdictions, and boundaries. This inter-organizational effort is expected to increase knowledge and develop solutions to challenges to social equity.

A notable theory of public administration is advocacy, which is identified as linked to policy development. Advocacy requires the influencing of outcomes — including resource allocation and public policy — that affect the public. Public administrators use advocacy methods, either direct or indirect, to influence decision-makers and policymakers to meet the needs of the public. Advocacy is not limited to public administrators; interest groups such as non-governmental organizations also use it to promote causes that improve the health, wellness, economic, or social aspects of the public or a particular interest group. Advocacy methods are directly associated with policy development as the main approach to creating public policy.

Advocacy is also directly associated with policy implementation and evaluation, since advocates put pressure on policymakers and public administrators to meet set goals. The review of public administration theories indicates that inter-organizational cooperation, leadership networking, and collaboration are valuable in the public sector. The impact of this networking and collaboration is felt most acutely in public policy implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Collectively, these theories support the conference's vision of a public administration practice that is equitable, globally engaged, and locally responsible.

Brian, A. E., & Adam, J. N. (2010). Building the reservoir to nowhere: The role of agencies in advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 653–678.

Buss, T. F., & Morse, R. S. (2008). Innovations in public leadership development. M.E. Sharpe.

Candler, G., & Dumont, G. (2010). The price of citizenship: Civic responsibility as the missing dimension of public administration theory. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 169–201.

Cichocki, D., Laberschek, M., & Rusanowska, M. (2011). Analysis of strategy of culture development in Krakow 2010–2014 as an example of public policy implementation. Zarzadzanie Publiczne, 13(1), 103–115.

Deniz, Z. L., & Wakin, M. (2007). Sustainable development in public administration planning: An exploration of social justice, equity, and citizen inclusion. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 29(3), 394–411.

Didehvar, F., & Danaeefard, H. (2010). Virtual governance networking policies: A comparative analysis. Public Organization Review, 10(1), 1–16.

Frederickson, H. G. (2010). Social equity and public administration. Referenced in the theoretical analysis of social equity in PA.

Katharaki, M., Prachalias, C., Linardakis, M., & Kioulafas, K. (2009). Business administration training seminar for public sector executives: Implementation and evaluation. Industrial and Commercial Training, 41(5), 248–257.

Kimbrough, L. C. (2007). Perceptions of leader ethical behavior and its relationship to organizational effectiveness: An exploratory study. [University thesis].

Laratta, R. (2011). Ethical climate and accountability in nonprofit organizations: A comparative study between Japan and the UK. Public Management Review, 13(1), 43–63.

Laurence, J. O., & Kenneth, J. M. (2006). Networking in the penumbra: Public management, cooperative links, and distributional consequences. International Public Management Journal, 9(3), 271–294.

London, M. (2010). Understanding social advocacy. The Journal of Management Development, 29(3), 224–245.

Lundin, M. (2007). When does cooperation improve public policy implementation? Policy Studies Journal, 35(4), 629–652.

Mercier, J. (2009). Equity, social justice, and sustainable urban transportation in the twenty-first century. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(2), 145–163.

National Academy of Public Administration. (n.d.). Definition of social equity. Retrieved from https://www.napawash.org

Nelson, P., & Dorsey, E. (2007). New rights advocacy in a global public domain. European Journal of International Relations, 13(2), 187–216.

Norma, M. R. (2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled? Public Administration Review, 69(3), 373–382.

Riccucci, N. M. (2009). The pursuit of social equity in the federal government: A road less traveled? Public Administration Review, 69(3), 373–382.

Rusaw, A. C. (2009). Administrative leadership in the public sector. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 551–553.

Stone, D. (2008). Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks. Policy Studies Journal, 36(1), 19–38.

World Health Organization. (2008). Cancer control: Knowledge into action — WHO guide for effective programmes: Policy and advocacy (1st ed.). World Health Organization.

Young, L., & Denize, S. (2008). Competing interests: The challenge to collaboration in the public sector. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28(1), 46–58.