Chapter 6
Intergenerational Equity
Initial Comments
George Frederickson was among the first in the field of public administration
calling attention to public sector obligations to future generations and to patterns of
equity over the generations—although moral philosophers have actively pursued the
latter. On one hand, these ideas strike us as commonsensical and obvious: We want to
improve the lot of our children, and of their children, and we as a society ought to follow
suit for future populations. But you need to understand how Frederickson’s concern here
“flies in the face” of some traditional values and assumptions in public management.
First, consistent with our utilitarian roots (see Chapter One), we typically demand
“practicality” from government, and that usually means the realization of benefits
achieved in the short-term (and not of future generations). If we argue that “government
ought to be run like a business,” we may be implying (among other things) that payoffs
should accrue quickly (like within a three-month business period)—not over three
generations. Predictably, elected officials making policy endeavor to be rewarded (with
votes in elections) within the short tenure of their terms (after all, your greatgrandchildren won’t have the chance to vote for them!)
Second, the inherent nature of our political system makes it very difficult for
elected officials and public administrators to act comprehensively in the interests of longterm policy goals. Without pursuing a tedious lecture on decision making, suffice it to say
that we tend to address policy issues not by developing radically new approaches
(rational decision making) but instead by “tweaking the old”--existing laws, programs,
and administrative processes (incremental decision making). For example, it is unlikely
that Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaide—even given the severe problems they
face—will be scrapped in favor of completely new, streamlined programs. Instead,
Congress will enacted certain provisions (amendments to authorizations and
appropriations) that will “fix” them on a piecemeal basis—at least for a while. Our
political tendencies to react to pressing problems incrementally again focus on the
immediate rather than on long time horizons. In a nutshell, to do the latter would oppose
too many vested interests that operate in the “here-and-now.”
And third (closely related to the first and second), our governments and their
administrative processes are closely intermeshed with the private sector market. This
suggests a couple of impediments to intergenerational equity here: (1) many government
programs (at various levels) enlist the efforts of business in achieving policy goals (for
example, could the federal college loan program function without bankers’
participation?) and (2) successful public programs need to be recognized as legitimate by
the business sectors they affect. Thus, if programs adopted to address long-term
intergenerational equity concerns threaten corporate autonomy and profits (again,
calculated in the short term), they would likely be in deep trouble from the get-go.
Merely two words need mentioning here to underscore this—global warming. The U.S.’s
resistance to signing the Kyoto treaty lies largely in costs (of global warming remedies)
that would be borne by the petroleum industry and U.S. economy. In short, it is not hard
to show the short-term focus of the market as inhibiting long-term (and, at least in the
short term, costly) policies to future-oriented policy issues. In response, “hard line” free
market proponents might claim faith that “new technology out there”—waiting to be
discovered and marketed—offers potential solutions for “curing”all of our long-term
problems.
So, in view of these obstacles, intergenerational equity could be alternatively
approached as (a) a “nice” (but pie-in-the-sky) idea that is impractical and unrealistic or
(b) a matter of extreme importance in a diverse society undergoing globalization. I
suggest that the “smart money” is on (b) and Frederickson. Political language, interest
alignments, and policy systems are taking on new shapes in a globally interdependent
world. And some major corporations are recognizing the inadequacies of our current
public sector policies and business strategies for sustainable development in the not-sodistant future. But the intergenerational implications of responses to the 2001 terrorist
attacks are as sobering as unpredictable. On one hand, the effective curtailment of
international terrorism would surely “make the world safer” for our progeny. But on the
other, the accompanying deflection away from domestic concerns (such as education and
the environment) may prove very costly to our nation in the long term.
In the second section of Chapter Six, Frederickson applies the compound theory
of social equity as a basis for assessing patterns of intergenerational (in)equity for public
sector activities and issues. In so doing, his tables offer a convenient but meaningful way
to assess costs and benefits over various intergenerational time frames. Given the unique
natures of Hawaiian geography and culture, it is especially intriguing to probe an issue
affecting the Islands—the Hawaiian native sovereignty movement—from the standpoint
of intergenerational equity. Thus, some background on this issue is linked to the chapter
in lieu of a case study. (You should seek out additional information should you pursue
related portfolio items below.) Native sovereignty issues raise some tangential questions
beyond chapter coverage, such as the nature of leadership skills required and of the
significance (if any) of historical injustices to a generally future-oriented concern for
intergenerational equity.
Objectives
1. to understand the general concept of intergenerational equity, how it can be “outof-step” with traditional public management concerns, and how it involves public
sector leadership.
2. to apply the compound theory of social equity to discern patterns of
intergenerational equity.
Key Questions
1. Can our society afford intergenerational equity? Be specific.
2. Some argue that leadership implies something different or more than
management. Discuss this with regard to a public administrator’s challenge to
foster intergenerational equity.
3. Intergenerational equity is often meant to imply an obligation to future
generations. Do efforts aimed at rectifying historical injustices facilitate or
impede it? Explain.
Portfolio Items
6-1 Discuss the intergenerational implications of goals, policies, or actions of your
agency/organization (focus on actualities where different than “flowery” mission
statement language). Where possible include tables that show patterns (such as 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3). (1 unit)
6-2 Discuss the intergenerational implications of the Icelandic government’s action
selling the national gene pool to a private sector entity (and speculate about a similar
situation if it were to occur in the U.S.) (1 unit)
6-3 As specifically as possible, define what you understand as the critical elements of the
native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Then discuss these issues in terms of
patterns of intergenerational equity. (1-2 units)
6-4 6-4 [not available to those pursuing 6.2] Discuss the problem of leadership in
reference to the native Hawaiian sovereignty movement, especially as related to
intergenerational equity. (1 unit)
6-5 Several Native American groups have been legally authorized to own and operate
gaming casinos. Drawing on at least one particular case (find background on the
Internet or elsewhere), discuss whether and how this type of policies is effective in
fostering intergenerational equity. (1 or 2 units)