INTRODUCTIONCONCEPTUAL AND MEASUREMENT ISSUESAs retrenchment and proposals for reallocating public service benefits (and costs) enter the political agenda of elected officials, administrators and a cross section of residents, and the magnitude of differences between our society's haves and have nots widens, the issue of fair or equitable service allocation grows in importance (Beatley, 1988; Lucy, 1988; Phillips, 1990). Presently many scholars of urban affairs focus their attention upon concerns of political economy or return on public investment, failing to meaningfully examine the fair allocation of public services (Jones, 1989). In doing so, these urban researchers have neglected to examine the larger issue of social equity in favor of addressing the more pragmatic topics like efficiency and effectiveness (Frederickson, 1990). The literature and research that address equitable urban service delivery have generally been conceptual in nature (Hero, 1986). Jones' (1989) inciteful critique of urban research highlighted these shortcomings and underscored the need for more longitudinal research efforts and scholarly work to progressively develop a theoretical base and improve our understanding of urban governance.Precise measurement of service distribution patterns and budget allotments provides a quantitative basis for inferring the distributional consequences of government's actions. However, this approach does not reflect the intentions or will of those involved in the public decision making process, nor do such post hoc approaches adequately reflect the political and policy process (Hero, 1986). In the complex area of public sector decision making many approaches have been taken to explain policy development and budget execution. For example, Dahl's classic work Who Governs? (1961) examined the power and political influence of elites, Seley (1983) discussed the role of elected officials, and marketers like Crompton and Lamb (1986) advocated a greater reliance on the current preferences of clientele. However, the social equity goals held by elected officials, practicing professionals, and the general population are ultimately the foundation of governance. As equity based policy evaluation tools gain sophistication, public administrators will be better able to assess the normative service allocation preferences of their constituents. The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that valid and reliable measures of social equity perceptions may be possible.THE VENUE OF URBAN SERVICE DISTRIBUTION AND ALLOCATION: RECREATION AND PARKSThe most valid milieu in which to study the phenomenon of urban service allocation is to select a public service that incorporates the broadest range of equity options (Sharp, 1990). Studies of the equitable distribution of public leisure services have been completed by relatively few researchers. Gold (1974), Mladenka and Hill (1977), Jones (1980), and Farnham (1981) made important early contributions to the understanding of equitable park and recreation service allocation. More recently notable contributions have been made by Mladenka (1985, 1989) and Wicks & Crompton (1986, 1987, 1989, 1990). Mladenka compared the socio-political characteristics of Chicago's wards to single output measures of service such as acres of parks and quantities of amenities and found that no systematic differences in the level of park service provision existed between social groups. Mladenka's research convincingly supported Lineberry's (1977) hypothesis of unpatterned inequalities, and his more recent longitudinal analysis added a new dimension to the understanding of service allocation. He suggested that racially biased allocation practices are decreasing in some instances, and may now be rejected as a significant predictor of unequitable service distribution.Wicks and Crompton's work focused on the normative attitudes of fair service allocation held by residents, administrators and elected officials for park and recreation programs. …
Read full abstract
Oct 31, 2024
Jorge Urrutia-Mosquera + 4
Open Access