The individuals who are responsible for developing public policy attempt to achieve two goals simultaneously: equality and efficiency. Although the constructs can be complementary, it is more often the case that equality and efficiency conflict. In order to understand why, it is important to define each concept. The term efficiency refers to expediency, or the ease and speed with which a policy can be implemented and achieve its target goal. Another important variable of efficiency is the quantity, quality, and cost of resources that are needed to perform the policy implementation with ease and speed. As one might imagine, there are numerous obstacles to achieving efficiency, including bureaucracy, the variety of stakeholders affected by the policy and their varying degrees of influence, and budgetary constraints, to name just a few.
Equality is a much more complicated construct, though it too can be difficult to achieve. Equality is complicated because it is somewhat abstract, and is defined distinctly by different parties. In the example of the chocolate cake that was presented in the reading, for instance, no fewer than eight challenges to equality were identified, ranging from the claim that students did not have an equal chance to enjoy the cake if they were absent to the complaint that they did not have an equal chance to indulge if they had an allergy.
Equality implies notions of subjective judgment. In other words, when we say the word “equality,” do we truly mean an equal share for every individual, or do we mean an equal opportunity for each person to try to get a share, even if that share is not something that the individual needs or wants? Thus, we begin to see how efficiency and equality can collide. The people who will be affected by a policy may not value efficiency over the alternative of taking the time to discern what equality means for the affected group(s). Therefore, public policy makers must constantly attempt to strike a viable balance between efficiency and equality, recognizing that a complete balance is rarely possible.
As the example of the chocolate cake demonstrated so effectively, it is possible to have at least eight competing visions of equitable distribution. While the individual or entity that is in charge of facilitating the distribution of goods or services to a group of recipients may have the best intentions to do so equitably, the process can be confounded by the fact that equality may be defined differently according to the needs, desires, and interests of each individual or group. One entity may believe that each recipient should be entitled to an equal share of that good or product, while another entity may believe that each recipient should simply be given an equal opportunity to attempt to acquire that good or product. Using the cake example, these opposing viewpoints can be understood in the following way: One recipient believes each person should get the same size slice of cake, while another recipient contends that each person should be given a fork and may the fastest, most capable fork wielder win the greatest portion of cake.
The competing visions of equitable distribution, then, center around beliefs about whether access should be equal or actual receipt of a good or service should be evenly distributed. There are many public policy examples and historical/political examples that were offered in the reading that illustrated how the competing visions of equitable distribution have impacted the country, including voting rights by age, gender, and race. In addition, current examples include public policy debates about subjects including welfare and affirmative action, the arguments for and against which can be understood by the notion of competing visions of equitable distribution. The Constitution is often drawn into debates about equitable distribution—did the founding fathers intend for public policy to be crafted around equitable access or equitable distribution? Given that we still ask this question, it is unlikely that the competing visions will be reconciled any time soon.
Related Articles
Women, Science and Professional Limitations
