CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Public Policy and Administration ResearchPublic Administration and GovernanceCritical Race Theory in Education

Towards inclusive public administration systems: Public budgeting from the perspective of critical race theory

Open access
Martínez Guzmán, Juan Pablo, Jordan, Meagan M., Joyce, Philip G.·2024·Public Administration
DOI 10.1111/padm.12956
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While there is a developing consensus that governments need to address systemic racism, public administration scholarship has not played a large role in supporting policymakers who want to achieve that end. To institutionalize that effort, we analyze the budget process as a setting to identify inequities and incorporate social equity given its overarching reach across all programs and policies. This article uses the tenets of critical race theory to illustrate how to use the budget process to incorporate equity. The resulting racial equity budgeting (REB) framework has three tenets: acknowledging and correcting historic biases, increasing the voice of nondominant groups, and disrupting the status quo by ensuring equity in current policies. The REB framework suggests how public officials may apply these tenets to the stages of public budgeting, including the use of reparation statements, increasing the participation of underrepresented minorities, and reviewing the disaggregated impact of policies, among others.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/padm.12956

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Public budgeting may be an effective tool for advancing social equity, particularly when equity considerations are integrated throughout the budgeting process.

    “However, there is a growing recognition that public budgeting may be an effective tool for advancing social equity, particularly when equity considerations are integrated throughout the budgeting process-from resource allocation to implementation and evaluation (Martínez Guzmán et al. 2024;Rubin and Bartle 2023).”

    From Participatory Budgeting for Social Equity: A Comparative Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Martínez Guzmán et al. 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Martínez Guzmán, J. P., Jordan, M. M., & Joyce, P. G.
Affiliations
  • School of Public Policy University of Maryland College Park Maryland USA
  • Old Dominion University (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
ORCID
Venue
Public Administration
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-08-26
Volume
102
Issue
3
Pages
797-814
ISSN
  • 0033-3298 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9299
DOI
10.1111/padm.12956
OpenAlex
W4386190921
Cited by
29
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5
FWCI
12.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Public Administration (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
Keywords
public budgeting, critical race theory, racial equity, systemic racism, underrepresented minorities, social equity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review