Addressing (in)equity through public policy and local governance systems: A case study of Queensland, Australia

Abstract

AbstractEquity is a core social value that is widely debated in its conceptualisation and inclusion into policymaking and service delivery. Policymakers and street‐level actors often disagree about or have limited interest in defining (in)equity, leading to a lack of consensus about how to make measurable and long‐lasting impact for populations and communities experiencing disadvantage. Within this context, this paper draws on governance concepts such as hierarchy, market dimensions, and network dimensions to analyse key insights from in‐depth stakeholder interviews (N = 25) with government and non‐government actors in Queensland, Australia. The paper (1) examines the extent barriers to equity are created, reinforced, or reduced by centralised and street‐level public governance approaches and (2) determines what (and where) the opportunities are to address these barriers and build a systemic approach to achieve equity. The paper highlights important tensions for actors tackling issues of inequity, including centralised or distant policymakers and government and non‐government street‐level practitioners operating within disjointed systems for policy, delivery, and funding. Notwithstanding the increasingly prevalent ‘partnership’ narrative, the foundations remain anchored in policy and management practices that have been built on longstanding neo‐liberal market mechanisms or the ‘contract state’. A more integrated and adaptive approach that aligns high‐level policymaking with street‐level practitioners and local communities should be an important pillar in navigating these competing priorities and challenges.Points for practitioners Equity is debated both conceptually and in policymaking and practice, leading to a lack of consensus about how to design and implement effective solutions. Many universal policies and programs are designed and implemented in rigid silos, are not joined‐up, and have limited impact on the economic and social policy drivers of inequity and entrenched disadvantage. A more adaptive and collaborative approach that aligns high‐level governance and policymaking with street‐level practitioners and local voices is possible but challenging to sustain.