关于社会公平预算编制的多声部辩论

点击蓝字 ● 关注我们

尽管在社会公平研究方面取得了进展，但对预算程序在造成或加剧不公平方面所起的作用仍未进行充分的探讨。这一失误不仅是我们认识上的差距，也是亟待解决的问题。在这一领域开展更多研究对于理解和解决这些问题至关重要；本文正是为此而作。社会公平预算编制（SEB）是解决不公平问题的工具之一，它被明确强调为未来公共行政和公共部门会计研究的必要工具。社会公平预算编制将公平原则应用于公共预算和预算编制过程。SEB研究有四个重要的维度来确保(a)获取，(b)过程，(c)质量和(d)结果方面的公平性，无论是一起还是单独。尽管关于SEB的公共管理研究已经取得了显著的成果，但鉴于其重要性，在理论贡献、政策、实践和未来研究意义等方面的进展可能仍然不尽如人意。本文汇集了来自不同学科、研究方法和地理区域的10位国际学者，以促进不同思想、观点和方法的跨学科合作。它将表明，SEB已成为一个活跃的实践实验和学术研究领域。不过，这种多声部方法也将表明，虽然对SEB的特定方面（如性别、种族和阶级）正在进行的研究的重要性有很多共识，但对SEB的其他欠发达领域（哲学、理论和实证基础）也可以进行更多的研究。最后，我们将得出结论并讨论未来可能开展的研究。

While progress has been made in social equity research, the roles played by budgetary processes in creating or exacerbating inequities remain underexplored. This misstep is not just a gap in our understanding but a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. More research in this area is crucial to understanding and addressing these issues; this paper does just this. Among the tools to address inequities is social equity budgeting (SEB), highlighted explicitly as necessary in future public administration and public sector accounting research. SEB applies fairness principles to public budgets and budgeting processes. SEB research has four significant dimensions to ensure fairness concerning (a) access, (b) processes, (c) quality, and (d) outcomes, both together and separately. Although there has been noteworthy public administration research on SEB, given its importance, progress can remain evasive in theoretical contribution, policy, practice, and future research implications. This paper features 10 international scholars from various disciplines, research methods, and geographical areas to foster an interdisciplinary approach involving the collaboration of varying ideas, views, and approaches. It will show that SEB has emerged as a lively field of practical experimentation and scholarship investigation. However, the polyphonic approach will also show that while there is much convergence on the importance of ongoing research on specific aspects of SEB (e.g., gender, race, and class), there can also be more research on other underdeveloped SEB areas (philosophical, theoretical, and empirical underpinnings). We end our manuscript drawing conclusions and discussing possible future research.

3.1 McDonald: Looking for a Way Forward 寻找前进之路     
    公共预算编制是政府运作的核心组成部分，是公共行政的核心。它涉及政府决定和执行有关获取资源以及在相互竞争的需求之间分配资源的决策。然而，我们目前面临的挑战是，我们必须承认，这一过程对我们作为一门学科来说至关重要，但在实施过程中却可能而且已经造成了社区内的不公平。对公共预算编制中的社会公平问题的关注已有几十年的历史，但文献中缺乏统一的方法。在公共管理文献中，它被称为SEB；在会计文献中，它通常被称为批判性税收理论，或被纳入公共价值会计的范畴。由于分散的文献依赖于不同的术语，要将这些文献汇集在一起以提供一致且有影响力的变革建议，可能具有挑战性。我并不建议我们放弃我们学科的基础，或忽视使用某些术语的文化背景。相反，我建议建立跨学科参与的机会，将这些学者聚集在一起，共同探讨当今的问题，并找到将我们的工作联系起来以取得更大成果的方法。同时，我认为多种术语和方法为新的思考打开了大门。为了向前迈进，我们需要将各种文献汇集在一起，找出它们在哪些方面意见一致，哪些方面意见相左，通过研究全部工作可以做出哪些贡献，并找出理解上的真正差距。

    Public budgeting is a central component of the operation of governments, placing the budgeting process at the heart of public administration. It involves a government's determination and implementation of decisions regarding the acquisition of resources and their allocation between competing demands. The challenge we are currently facing, however, is an admission that this process, which is pivotal to who we are as discipline, can, and has, been implemented in ways that create inequities within our communities. Attention in the literature to social equity in public budgeting has been taking place for decades, but the literature lacks a unified approach. In the public administration literature, it has been referred to as SEB; in the accounting literature, it is often referred to as critical tax theory or incorporated under the umbrella of public value accounting. With a scattered literature relying on different terminologies, it can be challenging for the literature to come together to offer consistent and impactful recommendations for change. I do not suggest that we abandon the underpinnings of our academic disciplines or ignore the cultural context of why certain terminologies are used. Rather, I propose the establishment of opportunities for engagement across disciplines that would bring these scholars together to work through the issues of the day and find ways of connecting our work for greater outcomes. At the same time, I believe multiple terminologies and approaches open doors for new considerations. To move forward, we need to bring the pieces of literature together, find out where they agree and disagree, what contributions can be made by looking at the full body of work, and find out where the gaps of understanding really are.

3.2 Ahrens: How Can Qualitative Research Shed Light on Social Equity Budgets? 定性研究如何能助力于解释社会公平预算？     
    SEB是公共行政和公共部门预算编制研究的一个相对较新的领域。在这样的背景下，定性研究有助于描绘研究领域。虽然定性研究通常采取沉浸在当地环境中的形式，也许是通过使用民族志方法，但还有许多其他选择可以研究SEB如何在质上不同。

    SEB is a relatively recent area of public administration and public sector budgeting research. Qualitative research commends itself in such a context to help delineate the field of study. While qualitative research often takes the form of immersion in local contexts, perhaps by using ethnographic approaches, many other options exist for studying what makes SEB qualitatively different.

3.3 Jordan: Social Equity Budgeting as a Tool of Institutional Equity 社会公平预算是实现制度公平的工具  
    例1：芝加哥白人选区获得的增税融资（TIF）资金远远多于黑人和西班牙裔选区。例2：黑人、西班牙裔和土著学生受到的处罚，即使是轻微的违规行为，也比白人学生受到的处罚更多、更严厉。例3：在全国范围内，黑人家庭受到市政供水服务中断政策的影响尤为严重。这三个例子有什么共同点？它们都提供了政策和计划不公平结果的例子，而这些政策和计划的资金都来自公共预算编制过程。按照书面规定，这些政策是“不分肤色”的，但事实上却是种族主义的。制度性种族主义并不要求行为者有使种族主义长期存在的种族主义意图。制度性种族主义是指一个机构的运作和政策对非主流种族群体造成了不同的负面结果。制度性种族主义（与系统性和结构性种族主义一样）不需要一个坏苹果的行为来延续不公平的结果。不公平的结果是不可避免的，因为不公平是制度化的，或者换句话说，是 “蛋糕里烤出来的”。制度性种族主义需要制度性公平来对抗，而SEB可以成为将公平制度化的通用工具。

    Example 1: White wards in Chicago receive substantially greater tax increment financing (TIF) funding than Black and Hispanic wards. Example 2: Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous students receive more and harsher punishment, even for minor infractions, than their white counterparts. Example 3: Nationwide, Black households are disproportionately impacted by cutoff policies of municipal water service. What do these three examples have in common? They all provide examples of inequitable outcomes of policies and programs whose funding was derived from a public budgeting process. As written, these policies were “colorblind” and, yet, de facto racist. Institutional racism does not require an actor to have a racist intent to perpetuate racism. Institutional racism is when the operations and policies of an institution result in disparate and negative outcomes for the nondominant racial group. Institutional racism (like systemic and structural racismi) does not require the act of one bad apple to perpetuate an inequitable outcome. The inequitable outcome is inevitable because the inequities are institutionalized, or in other words, “baked into the cake.” Institutional racism requires institutional equity to counter it, and SEB can be the universal tool to institutionalize equity.

3.4 Joyce—A Modern Manifestation of Performance Budgeting 绩效预算的现代表现形式
    这里的重点是，这些努力——性别预算编制和种族平等预算编制——是60年来为使预算过程不再将资源本身作为目的，而是更加注重这些资源所产生的结果而进行的尝试的自然延伸。创新就是要像50多年前的明诺布鲁克会议参与者一样，认识到预算程序在做出资源分配决定时应考虑到过去歧视的影响。从这个意义上说，预算改革不应停留在性别和种族问题上，而应考虑到所有形式的歧视，以及在通过预算编制促进社会公平时应如何考虑到这些歧视。

    The point here is that these efforts—gender budgeting and budgeting for racial equity—are a natural extension of attempts, over a 60-year period, to make the budget process less focused on resources as an end in and of themselves, and more focused on the results that come from those resources. The innovation is to recognize, as the Minnowbrook participants did more than 50 years ago, that the budget process should account for the effects of past discrimination when making resource allocation decisions. And in that sense, budget reform should not stop with gender and race, but should consider all forms of discrimination, and how that discrimination should be accounted for in promoting social equity through budgeting.

3.5 Bartle—Learning From Gender-Responsive Budgeting 从促进性别平等的预算编制中学习
    40年间，80多个国家尝试或实施了促进性别平等的预算编制（GRB）。虽然这些不同的倡议在方法和成功方面存在很大差异，但已经出现了一些模式，不仅为实施促进性别平等的预算编制提供了指导，也为任何应用于预算编制的注重公平的倡议提供了指导。具体来说，五项一致的结论为在预算编制中实施公平倡议提供了指导：
1.主要决策者必须对公平做出政治承诺。
2.如果倡议被纳入政府的法律基础，则更有可能取得成功。
3.牵头预算机构的支持至关重要，既要确保各机构实施该倡议，又要为机构人员提供如何实施该倡议的培训。
4.需要有数据来进行必要的分析，以制定基于公平的绩效衡量标准，并定期监测机构的绩效。
政府外组织的支持往往对促进性别平等主流化倡议的成功产生重要影响。这些组织包括联合国妇女署、总部设在美国的种族与公平政府联盟以及社区团体。

    Gender-responsive budgeting (GRB) has been attempted or implemented in over 80 countries during a span of 40 years. While there is great variation in the approach and success of these various initiatives, certain patterns have emerged that provide guidance not only for the implementation of GRB, but for any equity-focused initiative applied to budgeting. Specifically, five consistent findings provide guidance for the implementation of equity initiatives in budgeting:
1.There needs to be a political commitment to equity on the part of key decision-makers.
2.The initiative is more likely to succeed if it is incorporated into the legal foundations of government.
3.The support of the lead budget agency is critical, both to ensure the initiative is implemented by the agencies, but also to provide training for agency personnel on how to do it.
4.Data need to be available to do the analysis needed to create equity-based performance measures and to regularly monitor agency performance.
5.The support of organizations outside government often had an important effect in contributing to the success of GRB initiatives. These organizations vary from UN Women and the US-based Government Alliance on Race and Equity to community groups.

3.6 Steccolini—Social Equity Budgeting in Context: Embracing Pluralism 社会公平预算编制的背景：拥抱多元化
    SEB被倡导用于促进公共部门的问责制和决策，新的重点是多样性、包容性和公正性，反映了国际上会计和预算系统向价值多元主义的广泛转变。这些发展有可能加强会计和预算编制的民主精神，但也需要解决四个相互关联的问题：(i) 会计和预算编制的价值性质；(ii) 潜在价值和绩效方面的多元性；(iii) 界定 “算数”过程的多元性；(iv) 将这一新重点转化为实际成果的重要性。
    SEB has been advocated to promote accountability and decision-making in the public sector, with a new emphasis on diversity, inclusivity, and justic, reflecting a wider, international shift toward embracing value-pluralism of accounting and budgeting systems. These developments have the potential to strengthen the democratic ethos of accounting and budgeting, but also entail addressing four interrelated issues (i) the value-laden nature of accounting and budgeting; (ii) the plurality of potential values and facets of performance; (iii) the pluralistic nature of processes for defining what “counts”; (iv) the importance of translating this new emphasis into actual outcomes.

3.7 McCandless—Four Levels Underpinning Social Equity Budgeting 支撑社会公平预算编制的四个层次
    预算编制涉及两个基本问题：什么重要，谁重要？人、组织和系统的规范性价值观决定了答案，然而，正如批判性种族理论传统提醒我们的那样，我们必须始终追问价值观是如何形成的，谁的价值观成为行政实践，包括在SEB中。支撑系统的价值观驱动着行动，该领域应至少从四个相互影响的层面研究这些价值观的来源。首先，任何行政行为所依据的价值观都产生于历史-辨证层面。其次，法律层面影响着如何界定和实施SEB。第三，“谁得到什么以及为什么”的政治层面影响着SEB所体现的价值观。第四，与组织动态和人力资源管理有关的行政层面影响着SEB。
    Budgeting harkens to two fundamental questions: What and who matters? Normative values across people, organizations, and systems shape the answers, yet as critical race theory traditions remind us, we must always ask how values get developed and whose values become administrative practice, including in SEB. Values underpinning systems drive action, and the field should study the sources of those values in at least four mutually-influential levels. First, values underpinning any administrative act arise from the historical-discursive level. Second, legal dimensions impact how SEB is defined and implemented. Third, political dimensions of “who gets what, and why”shape values embodied in SEB. Fourth, administrative dimensions related to organizational dynamics and human resources management impact SEB.

3.8 Polzer—(Digital) Data in Social Equity Budgeting 社会公平预算编制中的（数字）数据
    政府预算是用数字表示的政治。预算编制一般分为事前阶段（编制和批准）、执行阶段和事后阶段（报告和审计）。在所有阶段，特别是在事前阶段，已经开发了利用来自不同社会群体的数据的方法和工具。其基本假设往往是，基于经验的审议是基于数据的，因此使用这些工具将导致更好的决策。与SEB特别相关的是公平分析、需求和影响评估、在预算分配中为社会群体确定具体的优先事项以及确定要实现的产出和成果。然而，在这方面可能与传统的预算编制方法——增量预算编制方法——存在矛盾。数据在SEB中的作用，以及这些数据如今主要是借助数字系统收集、储存和分析的这一概念，在以下方面凸显了三大挑战：（1）数据的可用性；（2）量化；（3）数字系统的代表性。
    Government budgets are politics expressed in numbers. Budgeting is generally divided in an ex ante (preparation and approval), an execution and an ex-post (reporting and audit) phase. For all phases, but especially in the ex ante phase, approaches, and tools drawing on data from and of different social groups have been developed. The underlying assumption is often that empirically informed deliberation is based on data and that the use of these instruments will thus lead to better decisions. Particularly relevant to SEB are equity analyses, needs and impact assessments, defining specific priorities for social groups in budget allocations, and setting outputs and outcomes to be achieved. Tensions, however, might exist here with incremental budgeting, the traditional method of budgeting. Focusing on the role of data for SEB and departing from the notion that these data are today predominantly collected, stored, and analyzed with the help of digital systems, three major challenges come to the fore with respect to (1) data availability, (2) quantification, and (3) representation by digital systems.

3.9 Ferry—Social Equity Budgeting: A Philosophical Basis in Practice 社会公平预算编制：实践中的哲学基础
    虽然在社会公平和相关的SEB方面已经有许多值得注意的公共行政研究，但鉴于其重要性，其哲学、理论和实证深度还需要进一步发展。未来的研究可以通过以下方式填补空白：首先，研究社会公平与分配的互动方面，而不仅仅是程序和分配方面。其次，未来的研究可以更多地考虑基于实践的哲学方法，即考虑什么是有意义的做法所涉及的实际可理解性和实际的理解，而不仅仅是基于规则和/或结果论。
    While there has been much noteworthy public administration research across both the dimensions and questions regarding social equity and associated SEB, given its importance the philosophical, theoretical, and empirical depth needs to be further developed. Future research could help fill gaps by firstly looking at the interactional rather than merely the procedural and distributional aspects of SEB. Secondly, future research could take account of a greater philosophical informed practice-based approach that considers the practical intelligibility and practical understanding involved in what makes sense to do, rather than merely be rules-based and/or consequentialist.

3.10 Haslam—Developing Social Equity Budgeting for Social Betterment 发展社会公平预算以促进社会进步
    会计/透明度方面的关键性跨学科研究以及由此产生的概念化，为推进 SEB（学术界和从业人员关注的一个关键问题）提供了启示。在这方面，虽然会计/透明度不是对治理唯一有价值的东西，但它在调解治理与福祉 （后者包括公平和正义的概念）之间的联系方面具有实际/潜在的意义（经常与民主和问责 的概念相对应）。
    发挥跨学科/批判性工作的潜力，我们可以在不断进行交叉融合的基础上，丰富对公共行政/行政管理/会计的看法。我们（潜在）关注点的扩展性鼓励开展更具批判性的跨学科研究。它可以从更普遍的会计——治理主题的角度出发，对公共会计/管理的制度化形式，包括对SEB（及其透明度方面）进行比较鉴赏。在考虑评估/推进政府（地方/国家）的问题时，包括将社会公平制度化作为公共行政的一个重要支柱时，政府收入及其来源、如何在预算中分配资金、使用了哪些资金 （以及如何使用）和取得了哪些成果，都是值得关注的问题。缺乏获取渠道和透明度是一个问题。国际上要求政府透明的压力过于局限于建议，将关注点局限于阐明和影响自然资源诅咒和税收正义等概念。在实践中，存在着不同的透明度，有时甚至是微妙的不同。应详细探讨包括SEB在内的会计运作中的矛盾和动态。我们可以通过研究现有的公共透明制度及其差异来探索这些细节。它们的质量如何？涉及哪些冲突？有哪些影响？我们可以设想哪些制度能更好地与进步成果挂钩？干预的可能性是什么？批判性历史如何帮助重定现在的方向？这些细节/洞察力需要解读和阐释，以促进前进的道路。我们有令人振奋的工作要做，但我们的环境表明还有许多工作要做。
    Critical interdisciplinary research in accounting/transparency, and conceptualization entailed, suggests insights for advancing SEB, a key concern for academics and practitioners. In this regard, while accounting/transparency is not the only thing valuable for governance, it is of actual/potential significance (often articulated vis-à-vis notions of democracy and accountability) in mediating linkage between governance and well-being (the latter encompassing notions of equity and justice). 

    Mobilizing interdisciplinary/critical work's potential, we can build on ongoing cross-fertilization to enrich perspective on public administration/SEB/accounting. Expansiveness concerning our (potential) focus encourages more critical interdisciplinary studies. It can build a comparative appreciation of institutionalized formulations of public accounting/management, including of SEB (and transparency dimensions thereof), from a standpoint appreciating more generic accounting–governance themes. In considering concerns to evaluate/advance governments (local/national), including vis-à-vis institutionalization of social equity as a key pillar of public administration, government receipts and their source, how finances are allocated in budgets, what is spent (and how), and outcomes, are of interest. Lack in access and transparency constitutes an issue. Pressure on governments internationally to be transparent is overly constrained toward recommendations, delimiting concerns to illuminate and impact notions like the natural resources curse and tax justice. In practice, there are different, sometimes subtly different, transparencies. Detailed explorations should be made of ambivalences and dynamics in accounting's functioning, including SEB. We can explore these details in researching what public transparency systems exist and their differences. What is their quality? What conflicts are implicated? What impacts manifest? What systems can we envision better linking to progressive outcomes? What are interventionist possibilities? How can critical history help redirect the present? This detail/insight needs unpacking and unraveling to facilitate ways forward. There is exciting work to build upon, but our context indicates much to do.