Theme: Equality in an uncertain public sector Guest editor: Sarah Cooper

The term ‘uncertainty’ has adopted a more profound meaning in the public sector in 2020 than we have experienced across a generation. The original intentions of this Public Money & Management mini-theme, and endeavours that have remained at the heart of this project throughout, was to explore the levels and corresponding address on inequality in the public sector in a period of global flux and transition.

The debate articles and papers in the theme tackle these matters with great specificity, with matters ranging from inclusivity, public procurement, participatory budgeting and public inquires, but their collation into one issue could not be at a more relevant moment in public sector activity. The impact of COVID-19 is an ever-evolving situation that will undeniably encompass a disproportionate impact on sections of society and will require academic attention in the years to come. It is for these reasons that this PMM theme hopes to provide a welcome review of the nature and understanding of equality in the public sector.

The recognition of inclusivity, as one such thread, has steadily occupied a growing space on the public agenda with a more complex accompanying understanding of the matter. Utilizing US federal data, Hur (2019) explores the extent of this proposition in the workplace arena and traces the relationship between diverse practices—including empowerment orientated initiatives—on commitment and job satisfaction for LGBT public servants.

Driving a study of this nature beyond mere academic inquiry, however, is the potential for positive impact on a still marginalized population, both in regard to employment and service use. Barker (2019) eloquently outlines this very point in her exploration of the UK’s NHS and the apparent oversight of the LGBT+ community in key policy documents of recent years. Drilling down onto the grassroots, it is argued that harmful and exclusionary heteronormative practices flourish as a result—a trend similarly outlined by Matthews (2019) in public sector delivery within Scotland—and consequently Barker (2019) urges for the appreciation of the economic benefits of working with such target groups.

Unfortunately, doubt in the business case for equality in the neighbouring sector of public procurement is raised by Sarter and Thomson (2019). Their paper traces an apparent disconnect between notable statutory equality stipulations, and both their perceived limited prevalence, and interrelated incentive to adopt, by companies. O’Hagan et al. (2019) furthermore mirror this lack of integration in the alternative domain of local resource allocation decision making, instead highlighting a tendency of equality measures to run in parallel to participatory budgeting activity. Both papers thus importantly question the empirical experience of egalitarianism as separate from the top line of policy-making and rhetoric.

The need for effective levers for the implementation of equality measures is made ever more crucial, however, when the inability of formal mechanisms to rectify disparate social impact in the aftermath of a crisis is appreciated. Indeed, case studies explored by Thomas and Cooper (2020) indicate that the drivers for full statutory review rest heavily on the popular acceptance of an issue’s salience by the majority, as opposed to structural problems within public institutions affecting the minority.

The sentiment of previous editorials has often detailed the immense problems government must overcome (for example Ellwood, 2016). Even at the most prosperous of times, this can be targeted as an understatement, but this is certainly little to deny of the great tasks that lie ahead of the public sector in the coming months and years. The ability of PMM to disseminate new knowledge on the current state of inequality across diverging policy domains is therefore a relished and important positon.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.