Social Equity in the Asia-Pacific Region

Conceptualizations and Realities

Morgen Johansen

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9783030159184
• eBook ISBN:
  9783030159191
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Asian Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

First edited collection to expand the discussion of Social Equity outside of the US.

Provides 12 case studies by public administration scholars with international reputations and real-life experience in their respective countries

Of interested not just to public administration but to researchers in political science, international relations, law, and social work

© The Author(s) 2019

Morgen Johansen (ed.)Social Equity in the Asia-Pacific Regionhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15919-1_1

Begin Abstract

1. In Search of a More Global Definition of Social Equity

Morgen Johansen¹

(1)

Public Administration Program, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

Morgen Johansen

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Government, at its core, is about who gets what, when, and how (Lasswell 1950). The institutions that people create to make these decisions reflect their values, traditions, culture, and history. The structure of governmental institutions is based on the relationship between government and the people, and on how government is needed to prevent harm to society from “the rule of individuals’ unreflected desires and emotions” (Yang and Rutgers 2017, p. 800). How a country goes about addressing this need is based on a society’s values. For instance, Confucianism relies primarily on moral officials, whereas the Western tradition resorts to objective laws and institutions. These differences in values determine the relationships between the government and the people (e.g., government for the people, government by the people, or government of the people).

The clearest institution for showing how the relationship between the government and the people affects institutions is the legal system. “Western natural rights theories ... ‘regard society and the state as outcomes of a contract between rational individuals’ (Greer and Lim 1998, p. 85)” (Yang and Rutgers 2017, p. 791). In such societies, the underlying construct is that people must be protected from the tyranny of government and authority, and the best way to do that is with objective laws. In the Western tradition, the law exists to protect the people from the government (e.g., the rule of law). In the West, there is a “constitutional, legal, economic, political and professional” but not moral justification for government (Frederickson 2002, p. 610).

On the other hand, “Confucian good government relies on ethical persons to maintain a social hierarchy and harmony to ensure the natural order” (Yang and Rutgers 2017, p. 791). In the East, the law exists to give the government the authoritative responsibility to take care of the people properly (e.g., the rule by law); there is a moral justification for government (Frederickson 2002). For instance, in Confucian society, justice and fairness is the ruler’s responsibility to the people and this is rule by law (Im et al. 2013). In these nations, there is a paternalistic relationship between bureaucracy and the people; the king and the bureaucracy are seen as caregivers to the people. Indeed, because of this “in Confucian political philosophy, it is more important to have virtuous people in government than have a good system of laws (Tan 2011, p. 470)” (Drechsler 2018, p. 28).

Weberian and modern Western models of government value expertise, rationality, and neutrality. Virtue is preeminent in East Asian thought (Tao 2018, p. 73; Park 2013). As Park (2013, p. 71) writes, “greater emphasis is placed on the virtuous ruling class than on the development of social institutions to protect the governed from the governing class”. Indeed, the definition of “public” in the Asian context includes several dimensions, one of which comprises justice, togetherness, and communal spirit. Justice is an ethical concept with bearing on the actions of humankind but not determined by them. These dimensions of public result in a “complex construct denoting a ruling authority that governs in a fair and just manner” (Im et al. 2013, p. 288). Scholars writing about social equity often argue for a more normative approach to implementing policy; in this way, it is possible that “Asian” public administration may be more ahead of the curve than Western public administration.

The people who implement the law are public administrators. The United States’ National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA ) has identified four pillars of public administration: economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity. These four pillars embody the public service values that should guide public administrators’ decision making with regards to who gets what, when, and how. Given their importance, it is worth reflecting on them here.

Economy is “the careful or sparing use of resources” (Norman-Major 2011, p. 234). More specifically, public administrators should manage scarce resources with particular attention to “expending the fewest resources for an agreed upon level of public services” (Frederickson 2010, p. xv).

Public administrators should strive for efficiency; they should strive to achieve the “most, the best, or the most preferable public services for available resources” (Frederickson 2010, p. xv).

Effectiveness is “being successful in producing the desired result or accomplishing set goals” (Norman-Major 2011, p. 236).

Social equity was added as the fourth pillar by NAPA fairly recently. Rather than who gets what, when, and how, social equity is about asking “for whom is this program good?” (Guy and McCandless 2012, p. S12). Equity is most commonly defined by its synonyms: equality, justice, and fairness. More often than not, the terms are used interchangeably. As a result, social equity is a term that is “used very loosely…as if it meant the same thing as equality” (Cooper 2003, p. 6). And “concepts of equity, justice, and fairness are so amalgamated in the literate that distinguishing between them is difficult at best” (Murray and Davis 2001, p. 578).

Scholars and practitioners find it difficult to define social equity. One only has to look at Table 1.1 to see the many definitions of social equity provided by researchers over the last several decades. In their survey of social equity in public administration, Svara and Brunet (2004, p. 100) found that “definitions can range from simple fairness to equal treatment to redistribution and reducing inequalities in society”.

Table 1.1

Definitions of social equity in public administration

Source	Definition
Johnson and Svara (2011, pp. 3, 17)	“Equality in a society with deep social and economic disparities. It embodies the goals that the members of all social groups will have the same prospects for success and same opportunity to be protected from the adversities of life” “The ‘social’ aspect of equity means that public administrators are particularly attentive to differences in fairness and justice based on important social characteristics”
Frederickson (2010, p. 55)	“Social equity is: (1) The basis for a just democratic society; (2) Influences the behavior of organizational man; (3) The legal basis for distributing public services; (4) The practical basis for distributing public services; (5) A challenge for research and analysis”
Shafritz et al. (2009, p. 454)	“Fairness in the delivery of public services; it is egalitarianism in action—the principle that each citizen, regardless of economic resources or personal traits, deserves and has a right to be given equal treatment by the political system”
Svara and Brunet (2004, p. 100)	“The definition of social equity can range from simple fairness and equal treatment to redistribution and reducing inequalities”
Rawls (1971, p. 250)	“A principle of justice as ‘fairness’ in which ‘each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for all’”
Denhardt et al. (2014, p. 105)	“Equity, of course, involves a sense of fairness or justice—specifically, the correction of existing imbalances in the distribution of social and political values. In contrast to equal treatment for all, equity proposes that benefits be greater for those most disadvantaged”
National Association of Public Administration	“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”
World Bank (2006, p. 2)	“Social equity means equal access to the opportunities that allow people to pursue a life of their own choosing and to avoid extreme deprivation in outcomes—that is, equality in rights, resources and voice”
International Monetary Fund (2007, p. 106)	“Equality of rights refers to equality under the law, whether cu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. In Search of a More Global Definition of Social Equity
• 2. Understanding Social Equity in Public Administration
• 3. Characteristics and Cultures of the Asia-Pacific Region
• 4. Ho‘oponopono and the Kānaka Maoli: The Elusive Quest for Social Equity in the Hawaiian Islands
• 5. Social (In)equity in Australia?
• 6. Social Equity in the Pacific Islands
• 7. “Two Chinas”: Social Equity, Social Policies, and the Urban-Rural Divide in China
• 8. A Hong Kong Way of Social Equity
• 9. Social Equity in Japan
• 10. Social Equity and Public Sector Employment in the Republic of Korea
• 11. Social Equity in the Philippines: A Continuing but Elusive Promise
• 12. Social Equity in Singapore
• 13. Toward a More Global Conceptualization of Social Equity
• Back Matter