Chapter 3 – Public Service Values
3.3 Administrative Values
These values represent the technical backbone of public administration. Concepts such as economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity form the benchmarks that administrators use to judge performance and balance trade-offs in daily decisionmaking.
In 2011, Kristen Norman-Major wrote an article called “Balancing the Four Es” to describe key values in public administration: economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and social equity. She explains what each value means, how we can measure them, and why it matters for government work. The article looks at how these values connect to each other and why public administration students should learn about all four throughout their education.
Economy Means Using Resources Carefully
Definition: The careful use of resources, specifically spending the least necessary to provide an agreed-upon level of public services.
Description: Economy is often the most closely examined value in public administration, especially when budgets are tight. It focuses on using taxpayer money wisely to deliver the best possible value. Because it deals with measurable factors like expenditures and cost savings, economy can be evaluated in clear, objective ways.
Examples:
- Getting the lowest bid on contracts for services or materials.
- A school district sharing bus routes with a neighboring district to cut transportation costs.
- A county government switching to energy-efficient lighting in public buildings to lower utility bills.
Economy & Fiscal Responsibility
Economy means using public money carefully. It focuses on spending only what is needed to deliver services. Fiscal responsibility goes further. It means managing public funds wisely to keep budgets balanced, reduce waste, and plan for the future.
Being fiscally responsible can include cutting spending, delaying projects, or choosing lower-cost alternatives when resources are limited. A city council might fund only the most urgent capital projects during a budget shortfall.
Some leaders follow a fiscally conservative approach. Fiscal conservatism means limiting government spending, lowering taxes, and reduced public debt. Others support targeted investments that may cost more upfront but produce long-term public benefits. Most public officials weigh both perspectives based on local needs and political realities. Others tax and spend more freely, but cities, in particular, need to be wary of this approach.
In 1981, political scientist Paul Peterson published the book City Limits. He argued that cities are not the best level of government to carry out redistributive policies that benefit disadvantaged groups. Citing New York City’s near-bankruptcy in the 1970s, he claimed that cities are more focused on delivering core services and encouraging economic development than on shifting resources between populations.
Efficiency Means Getting the Most Out of Resources
Definition: Achieving the most, the best, or the most preferable public services for available resources, or maximizing total value from the use of scarce resources.
Description: Often thought of in terms of process efficiencies, this value aims to minimize wasted effort or expense. While sometimes stereotyped as lacking in the public sector, most governments strive for it. However, some argue it is conceptually weak and difficult to contextualize for practical application.
Examples:
- A city permitting office moving applications online to reduce wait times and staff workload.
- A police department reorganizing patrol routes to respond to calls faster without adding more officers.
- A public works crew scheduling repairs by neighborhood to complete more jobs in fewer trips.
- A health department using a single form for multiple services to cut down on paperwork.
- A library adding self-checkout stations so staff can focus on helping patrons with research and programs.
What’s the Difference Between Economy and Efficiency?
Efficiency and economy are related but not the same.
Economy is about spending as little as possible to achieve a certain level of public service. It focuses on minimizing the cost of inputs. For example, getting the lowest price on road repair materials or buying office supplies in bulk.
Efficiency is about getting the most value from the resources you have. It focuses on how well resources are used to produce outputs. For example, organizing road repair crews so the same amount of material and labor fixes more miles of roadway in less time.
In short, economy is about cost control, while efficiency is about getting the most value from the resources you have. A government can be economical without being efficient (spending little but producing poor results) or efficient without being economical (producing great results but at a high cost). Responsible public administrators aim for both.
Effectiveness Means Reaching Intended Goals
Definition: Programs and services achieving the goals they were designed to meet.
Description: Effectiveness measures whether the intended results of a program or service are actually reached. It is often straightforward to measure using tools such as tracking outputs, program evaluations, pre- and post-tests, and benchmarking. However, challenges can arise when goals are not clearly defined or when the desired outcomes are less tangible and harder to quantify.
Examples:
- A job training program leading to more participants finding and keeping employment.
- A public safety initiative reducing traffic accidents at dangerous intersections.
- A reading intervention program increasing literacy scores among elementary students.
- An environmental program restoring wetland areas to improve water quality and wildlife habitat.
What’s the Difference Between Efficiency and Effectiveness?
They sound similar because both focus on results, but efficiency and effectiveness are different in what they measure.
Efficiency looks at how well resources (time, money, labor) are used to produce services. It is about the relationship between inputs and outputs. It’s about doing things in the least wasteful way.
Effectiveness looks at whether the service or program achieves its intended goals or outcomes. It is about the relationship between outputs and desired results. It’s about doing the right things to reach objectives.
Examples:
- If a city snowplows every street quickly and with minimal fuel use, it is efficient.
- If the streets are actually clear and safe for drivers after plowing, it is effective.
In other words:
- Efficiency = doing things right.
- Effectiveness = getting results.
Social Equity Means Fair Access to Opportunity and Outcomes
Definition: Social equity is the just distribution of public services and the implementation of public policy so that all people have a fair chance to meet basic standards of well-being (National Academy of Public Administration, n.d.).
Key Takeaway: Social Equity Is a Value
Social equity is not a neutral fact. It is a normative value—a belief about what is fair and just in society. Because people hold different values, equity is often debated in politics and public administration. Some view equity as essential for ensuring everyone has a fair chance, while others oppose government intervention. Understanding these debates is central to understanding public service.
Description: In everyday conversation, equity is sometimes confused with fairness, or treating everyone the same. In public service, however, fairness and equity are related but not identical.
- Fairness means applying the same rules and standards consistently.
- Equity means adjusting policies or services so that people with different needs still have a fair chance to succeed.
Some services are universal and provided equally to everyone. Others are targeted to address historic or structural disadvantages. The goal is not identical treatment, but just outcomes that expand opportunity and strengthen democracy.
Examples:
- A universal service: all neighborhoods receive weekly trash collection.
- A targeted service: only flood-prone neighborhoods receive government-funded flood control improvements.
The Politics of Social Equity
Social equity is a contested value in American public service. It reflects beliefs about what is fair and just in society, but those beliefs vary widely. Some see equity as essential for expanding opportunity and correcting the effects of past discrimination. Others argue government should not intervene, or that interventions are unfair to those who do not benefit directly. Because of this, social equity is both an ethical commitment and a political flashpoint.
One way social equity plays out in practice is through distributive and redistributive policies. Distributive policies provide broad benefits, like new parks or road projects, that most communities can enjoy. They are usually less controversial but may do little to close deeper gaps unless directed toward disadvantaged areas. Redistributive policies, on the other hand, shift resources from one group to another—such as through progressive taxes, food assistance, or student aid. These can reduce inequities but often spark political conflict because some groups see themselves as losing while others gain.
Inequities based on race, gender, and other factors illustrate why redistributive policies are often proposed. For example, Black infants in the United States face higher mortality rates than white infants, and women earn less on average than men. Supporters of equity-focused policies argue these measures reduce structural disadvantages; critics counter that they distort fairness, expand government’s role too far, or impose heavy costs. These competing perspectives feed ongoing political debates over what government should or should not do to promote equity.
Professional associations have also weighed in. Groups such as the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) and the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) have updated their codes of ethics to include explicit commitments to social equity.
Recent years have highlighted tensions between political leadership and professional ethics around equity. For example, President Trump issued executive orders eliminating many federal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, while at the same time professional associations like ASPA and AICP reinforced equity as a core ethical value. By doing so, they frame equity not just as a political choice but as part of professional responsibility. Moreover, in some states and localities, laws now restrict or forbid equity initiatives, while in others, leaders expand them.
Conversation Starter: Policy vs. Professional Ethics
What should public servants do when their legal duty under federal, state, or local policy conflicts with their professional code of ethics? How much discretion should they exercise in carrying out policies that touch on equity? Should they simply follow the law, or also consider broader commitments to fairness?
How would you navigate this tension if you were in public service?
References
Gooden, Susan T. 2015. Race and Social Equity: A Nervous Area of Government. Routledge.
Lowi, Theodore J. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review 32 (4):298-310. doi: 10.2307/974990.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Standing Panel on Social Equity in Governance (n.d). www.napawash.org/aa_social_equity/index.htm
Norman-Major, Kristen. 2011. “Balancing the Four Es; or Can We Achieve Equity for Social Equity in Public Administration?” Journal of Public Affairs Education 17 (2):233-252. doi: 10.1080/15236803.2011.12001640.
Peterson, Paul E. 1981. City Limits. University of Chicago Press.
Schuck, Peter H. 2003. Diversity in America: Keeping Government at a Safe Distance. Harvard University Press.
