P32 Social Equity in the Budgeting Process
Panel Members & Contact Details
Bruce D. McDonald III, Old Dominion University. Email/ Bmcdonal@odu.edu
Ileana Steccolini, Universita di Bologna, Italy. Email: ileana.steccolini@unibo.it
Sean A. McCandless, University of Texas at Dallas, USA. Email: Sean.McCandless@utdallas.edu
Alfred Tat-Kei Ho, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Email: ho.tkalfred@cityu.edu.hk
Laurence Ferry, Durham University, UK, Email: laurence.ferry@durham.ac.uk
Meagan M. Jordan, Clinton School of Public Service, USA. Email: mmjordan@clintonschool.uasys.edu
Summary
This panel explores the integration of social equity principles into public budgeting and financial management as a means to address systemic disparities and promote fairness in public administration. It invites interdisciplinary and methodologically diverse contributions that examine how budgeting decisions reflect institutional priorities and impact access, outcomes, and inclusion. By bridging equity and finance scholarship, the panel aims to advance both theoretical understanding and practical approaches to institutionalizing equity through budgetary processes.
Description
Incorporating social equity principles into public budgeting and financial management is increasingly essential for addressing inequitable outcomes and institutionalizing fairness in public administration. Since Frederickson’s (1971) seminal call for equity as a pillar of public administration, ongoing crises over the past 15 years—spanning health, economic, and social domains—have amplified disparities in access, wealth, and opportunity. These inequities pose serious threats to democratic governance and call for renewed attention to budgeting as a response mechanism (Ahrens & Ferry, 2015).
Social equity budgeting has emerged as a promising approach to address these disparities. It involves applying equity principles directly to budgetary decisions and processes, reflecting the fundamental question of “who gets what”—a direct expression of political and institutional priorities (McDonald & McCandless, 2024). Scholars have explored five central questions around social equity: its constitutional basis, changing definitions of inclusion, the extent and causes of inequities, and mechanisms of accountability (Gooden, 2015). Related research on social equity budgeting focuses on four dimensions of fairness: access, process, quality, and outcomes (Johnson & Svara, 2015a, 2015b).
Although literature is expanding on how budget actions affect racial and gender equity, much remains to be studied (Guzman, 2023; Rubin & Bartle, 2023). Budgeting processes and financial tools themselves may reinforce existing inequities if not critically examined (Kuenneke & Scutelnicu, 2021; McDonald & McCandless, 2022, 2024). International research enriches this conversation with studies on public value (Ferry et al., 2019), gender-responsive budgeting (Galizzi et al., 2021), and institutional reporting (Bracci et al., 2021), highlighting global momentum. Still, foundational questions about the philosophy, theory, and empirical basis of social equity budgeting remain underdeveloped.
Theoretical Framework and Methods
The panel will draw on interdisciplinary frameworks encompassing social equity, public budgeting, finance, and accounting. A key goal is to deepen theoretical engagement by bridging concepts from across these traditionally siloed areas, addressing the historical lack of integration between public finance and equity scholarship.
Methodologically, the panel seeks diverse approaches, welcoming both quantitative and qualitative submissions. Quantitative research can broaden our understanding of trends and disparities, while qualitative work provides needed nuance and context. In particular, we aim to encourage qualitative and mixed methods research, which has been underutilized in this field. This diversity of methods will help to advance the field of social equity budgeting by shedding light on how equity considerations are practically integrated into budget processes, how outcomes are evaluated, and how reforms can be institutionalized.
By bringing together varied perspectives and approaches, the panel aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how budgeting can be used as a tool to promote social equity, both in theory and in practice.
Relevance
This panel advances the understanding of social equity in the budgeting process by providing a forum for research and collective discussion. The results of this discussion have important implications for public management scholars as we begin to understand the interchange between social equity and public budgeting and financial management and how the financial policies established by governments can, and do, create inequities within our communities. The contributions from the papers that comprise this panel will help to provide a globally coherent and theoretical grounding for the study of social equity budgeting but also provide some of the first findings on the origins, impact, and implications of incorporating social equity principles into public finance.