Social equity in public budgeting: an analysis of Maryland’s counties

Social equity in public budgeting is an increasingly important topic as governments seek to address systemic inequalities and promote fairness in resource allocation. The budgeting process plays a pivotal role in shaping public policies by determining the allocation of resources across various sectors and influencing the effectiveness and reach of government initiatives. There is a growing recognition of the need to integrate equity considerations into budgeting processes to ensure that public resources are allocated in a manner that addresses disparities and promotes inclusivity (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2024; McDonald and McCandless, 2023).

The existing literature on social equity in public budgeting has largely focused on individual case studies and the development of frameworks to integrate equity considerations into the budgeting process. The frameworks, such as those developed by Martínez Guzmán et al. (2024) and Rubin and Bartle (2023), have enabled the conceptualization and structured study of equity-oriented budgetary practices. Empirical analysis of case studies is still nascent, including two recent studies that look at three jurisdictions each (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2025; Park and McShea, 2025) and a study that provides a broader view of some local governments that are starting to introduce racial equity in their budgetary decisions (McDonald and McCandless, 2023). Despite these advancements, a notable gap remains in comparative analyses involving multiple cases, which limits the ability to identify best practices and common obstacles faced by governments.

This gap underscores the need for further research that examines social equity budgeting from a comparative perspective. Our study aims to address this gap by conducting a qualitative comparison of the county governments and equivalents in the State of Maryland. We analyze the county governments through the lens of a theoretical framework that includes five explanatory factors: political context, economic context, budget institutions, budgetary and financial transparency, and leadership. We focus on two research questions:

We collect data through a survey of county budget officials, as well as from databases and government documentation.

Our findings reveal significant variations in the integration of equity considerations across Maryland’s counties. About half of the counties that participated in our study routinely consider equity information in some of their budgetary processes, such as the analysis of spending initiatives, contracting, awarding grants, and hiring personnel. The political ideology and quality of budgetary institutions emerge as key predictors of whether counties integrate equity considerations into their processes. These findings contribute to the growing body of literature on social equity in public budgeting, highlighting the complex interplay of factors that influence the prioritization of equity in government resource allocation.

Budgeting decisions are pivotal in shaping public policies as they determine the allocation of resources across various sectors, influencing the effectiveness and reach of government initiatives (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2024; McDonald and McCandless, 2023). In recent years, there has been an increased acknowledgment that equity considerations have not adequately informed public budgeting (Gooden, 2015; Grossi et al., 2023). Arguably, gender-responsive budgeting systems remained the only type of budgetary reform that explicitly focuses on the needs of a particular demographic. While a gender-based perspective can enhance equity, it provides a perspective that does not consider the needs of other demographic groups, such as those based on race. This realization has prompted a shift towards integrating social equity into budgeting processes to address systemic inequities and promote fairness in resource allocation.

Social equity budgeting is an emerging approach that seeks to integrate equity considerations into the budgeting process, ensuring that public resources are allocated in a manner that addresses disparities and promotes inclusivity. Frederickson (1990) defines social equity in public administration as a commitment to fairness and responsiveness in government services and decisions. It prioritizes addressing historical and systemic inequalities by fostering accountability, elevating citizens’ needs, and promoting change through practical, interdisciplinary approaches. In this study, we address social equity from a broad perspective, i.e. we do not focus on equity considerations for only a specific subgroup (such as race or gender), nor do we contrast the subgroups each government focuses on. The approach to embedding social equity involves analyzing the budget process to identify inequities and incorporate social equity across all programs and policies (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2024, 2025; McDonald and McCandless, 2023; McDonald et al., 2024; Park and McShea, 2025; Rubin and Bartle, 2023). Social equity budgeting can be informed by frameworks that aim to embed equity into each phase of the budget cycle, creating a more equitable and just allocation of resources. Martínez Guzmán et al. (2024) propose a racial equity budgeting framework that emphasizes acknowledging historical biases, amplifying the voices of nondominant groups, and challenging the status quo by ensuring equity in current policies. Similarly, Rubin and Bartle (2023) propose a framework that outlines a set of initiatives, including the creation of equity guidelines to review government spending, which enable the incorporation of equity considerations into budget formulation, approval, execution, and evaluation.

Research on the implementation of social equity budgeting reveals varied approaches and challenges faced by governments as they attempt to integrate equity into their budgeting processes. In a recent analysis of three case studies, Martínez Guzmán et al. (2025) show that some local governments have pioneered practices that incorporate equity assessments and participatory processes into budgeting decisions. Despite those advancements, the study highlights efforts to incorporate equity considerations, which are commonly introduced only for budget formulation, without significant changes in other budgetary phases. Another recent paper examining three different case studies also finds that most efforts to incorporate equity are conducted through questionnaires used during budget formulation, while little attention is given to budget execution and evaluation (Park and McShea, 2025). While these initial case studies offer a glimpse of social equity budgeting, a gap remains in understanding the prevalence and maturity of these practices among many local governments within a jurisdiction.

As with any public administration reform, government efforts to institutionalize equity considerations into the budget process have been shaped by a set of contextual and institutional factors. Our review of the recent literature on budgeting reforms, with a special emphasis on those with an equity orientation, highlights five key factors. The first two factors are the political and economic context of the government that is implementing reforms. The other three factors relate to the institutional capacity of those governments, more specifically to the qualities of those in leadership positions, the quality of the government’s budgetary institutions, and its budgetary and financial transparency.

The approach that political actors take towards budget decisions and budget reforms can be influenced by their intention to garner the most political support from their actions. Two recent studies have evidenced this situation by analyzing the role of clientelism in budget decisions. Afonso et al. (2015) highlight the significant role of political context and actors in shaping budget decisions during austerity reforms in Greece and Portugal. The authors argue that the nature of linkages between political parties and citizens, especially clientelistic linkages, greatly influences party strategies regarding fiscal retrenchment, ultimately showing that fiscal austerity is more problematic for parties with strong clientelistic linkages because it entails severe electoral consequences. Similarly, Stolfi and Hallerberg (2015) show that political actors manipulate fiscal policies for electoral gains in areas where voters have greater dependence on public spending.

The influence of the political context is also pronounced for the implementation of equity-oriented budget reforms. Rubin and Bartle (2005) emphasize that the political environment and prevailing social values are significant factors influencing the acceptance and success of gender-budgeting initiatives. For instance, the authors argue that in South Africa, the political context at the end of apartheid was conducive to adopting gender-responsive budgeting, as it aligned with the broader goals of racial and gender equality. In a review of governments in the United States that are introducing racial considerations into budgeting, McDonald and McCandless (2023) find that elected leaders are essential for reforms to progress.

Studies about performance budgeting systems have presented a clear picture of how the economic context can affect budgetary decisions and the fate of reforms. Based on evidence from US state governments through three different economic periods, it became evident that “during good economic times when revenues are bountiful, PBB provides a bargaining tool that agencies conveniently use for budget justification purposes. In contrast, during recessions when revenues fall below trend lines, agencies can expect and receive only reduced fiscal support, regardless of performance” (Hou et al., 2011, p. 376). This finding aligns with a recent study of three European countries, which concludes that fiscal austerity negatively impacts the implementation of budgetary reforms and the use of performance information (Raudla and Bur, 2022). Additionally, it aligns with a literature review of gender-responsive budgeting efforts, suggesting that reforms are more likely to occur during periods of economic prosperity and may face challenges during times of economic decline (Polzer et al., 2021).

As we move to factors that relate to the institutional capacity of governments, we start with the role of those in leadership positions. Recent studies on racial-equity budgeting and gender-responsive budgeting show a clear picture of the key role that internal leadership plays in the success of budgetary reforms. For example, a recent study of three pioneer cases in racial-equity budgeting found that leadership from senior officials advanced reforms and boosted overall support (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2025). The evidence is more extensive for gender-responsive budgeting, with case studies from varied countries around the world showing that leaders can serve as catalysts for reforms to advance or as obstacles to their success (Elomäki and Ylöstalo, 2021; Martínez Guzmán, 2024a; McDonald et al., 2024; Polzer and Seiwald, 2021; Stanimirović and Klun, 2021).

Our next institutional factor is the budget institutions that shape budgetary processes and delimit decision making. Budget institutions can be analyzed from several angles, including the fiscal rules that define budgetary authority, the presence of more advanced budgetary systems such as performance budgeting, and the overall capacity of the department leading the executive budget process. Fiscal rules are budgetary restrictions that aim to improve fiscal sustainability by limiting a government’s capacity to run budget deficits, increase debt, or impose other specific restrictions. While they impact budgetary processes, recent studies suggest that they have a null or limited effect on achieving fiscal sustainability goals (Heinemann et al., 2018; Kioko and Lofton, 2021; Martínez Guzmán and Joyce, 2020).

The type of budgetary system is another factor that shapes budgetary decisions. For instance, the use of performance budgeting, which calls for the inclusion of performance information for key budget decisions, has been argued to influence the implementation of gender-responsive budgeting (Downes and Nicol, 2020; Martínez Guzmán, 2024b). Finally, multiple studies, including those related to equity-oriented budgeting reforms, emphasize the importance of having a strong executive agency capable of effectively driving the budget process (Gupta et al., 2016; McDonald and McCandless, 2023; Steccolini, 2019). However, having these systems is no panacea, and some budgetary institutions can focus so much attention on the aggregate that they overlook the systemic discrimination faced by certain demographic groups (McDonald et al., 2024).

Our final factor is government budgetary and financial transparency. While research on transparency has often focused on the determinants of increased transparency, some recent studies provide more clarity on the impacts of increased transparency. The main example comes from a systematic review of decades of papers on transparency, which found that increased transparency is empirically associated with better financial management and less corruption (Cucciniello et al., 2017). The same study also notes that budgetary transparency is the most widely studied aspect of transparency. Studies published after that systematic review continue to show that increased transparency is associated with improved financial and budgetary outcomes, such as enhanced budget efficiency (Jung, 2022) and financial sustainability (Cuadrado-Ballesteros, 2022). Finally, a recent article on social equity budgeting argues that fiscal transparency is an area that needs to be refocused towards identifying and addressing equity considerations (McDonald et al., 2024).

Our study aims to answer two research questions: 1) How are social equity considerations incorporated in the formulation and execution of public budgets? 2) What is the relative importance of the key factors from the public budgeting literature in explaining the differences in the use of social equity considerations across governments? For our first question, we limit our study to budget formulation and execution because these are the stages of the public budgeting cycle led by the executive branch of the government. For both questions, we analyze social equity through a broad lens, focusing on budgetary measures designed to dismantle systemic barriers for historically disadvantaged populations. These groups include, but are not limited to, those defined by race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and disability. Based on our literature review, we selected the following five key factors to be the subject of our study: the political context of the government that is implementing reforms, the economic condition of the jurisdiction, the qualities of those in leadership positions, the quality of the government’s budgetary institutions, and the government’s budgetary and financial transparency. From the same review, we defined a theoretical framework that guides us toward a deeper understanding of equity-oriented reforms and the variables that influence their implementation (see Table 1).

We address these questions through a qualitative comparison of the 24 county governments and equivalents in the State of Maryland. The use of social equity considerations is not mandatory for Maryland’s counties, which means each county has the flexibility to either develop its own approach or disregard the issue entirely. The State of Maryland provides an ideal context for our study. Maryland is divided into 24 local jurisdictions, comprising 23 counties and Baltimore City, which has been treated as a county for public administration purposes since the adoption of the Maryland Constitution in 1851. Before selecting Maryland as the focus of our study, we conducted preliminary research to assess whether its 24 counties and equivalents would exhibit considerable variation in our dependent and explanatory factors. Our preliminary research involved collecting political and economic data for each county, along with easily observable facts about their budgetary processes and institutions. Additionally, we engaged in informal conversations with county budget officers and members of the Maryland Association of Counties. The findings from our preliminary research indicate that the 24 counties and equivalents display sufficient variation for comparative analysis, which will help address our research questions.

Our data comes from surveys, databases, and government documentation. Table 2 lists the sources of data and descriptive statistics for the variables built for each of the areas in our research framework, and Appendix 1 includes a detailed review of how each variable was measured. Data from government documentation and databases was gathered from May 2024 to August 2024. The survey was administered electronically via Qualtrics between August 2024 and February 2025. One survey respondent requested that we administer the survey over the phone. The survey was informed by Dillman et al.’s (1998) five principles for web surveys: having a purposeful welcome screen, starting with a simple question, following a simple and conventional format, limiting line length, and providing specific instructions. The [redacted] Institutional Review Board approved the survey instrument and administration protocols. As per the recommended practices of the Institutional Review Board and considering the potential for backlash against equity-oriented initiatives in early 2025, we have decided to keep the names of all counties anonymous.

The survey was sent to all county governments and equivalents in the State of Maryland. The survey invited individuals in leadership positions in the main budget department for each county—those invited to participate most often held titles such as Budget Director or Deputy Budget Director. The name of the main budget department for each county differs significantly. It includes the Bureau of Budget and Management Research, Department of Finance and Budget, Department of Management and Budget, Department of Budget, and Office of Management and Budget, among others. The response rate was 62.5% (15 out of 24 cases), and the completion rate among respondents was 80% (12 out of 15 cases). The three counties with incomplete responses failed to answer the section on leadership while completing all other sections. The fact that all counties were included suggests that the survey is unlikely to suffer from coverage and sampling bias.

Our methodological approach is not without limitations, which require that some of our findings be interpreted with caution. The main limitations relate to potential measurement and non-response bias in our survey data. Measurement bias may arise in self-reported surveys if the respondents do not understand the questions and/or if they do not recall the relevant information. We ameliorate this issue by having six individuals with expertise in survey administration and/or knowledge of Maryland’s county governments pretest the survey, and by including prompts in the survey that suggest respondents access relevant information when answering questions. Measurement bias may also occur if there are relevant unobserved variables that would have potentially influenced our findings and our interpretations. While we reduce the potential for unobserved variables by building a framework based on the available literature, we acknowledge that there might be cultural, historical, and other factors that may be relevant and remain unobserved. We also recognize that, with a response rate of 62.5%, our data might suffer from non-respondent bias. First, most non-respondents likely decided not to participate because they do not have good practices in the consideration of equity. While this would not affect our broader findings, we acknowledge that a full sample of counties would likely evidence that less than 47% of counties regularly consider equity in budgetary decisions. Second, the findings for our explanatory variables might also be affected by non-response bias. We compared respondents and non-respondents based on the two variables that can be observed without survey data (economic and political context), and we found that while there aren’t significant differences in terms of political context, the non-respondent counties rank significantly lower in our economic context score ^[1]. This suggests that our findings about the role of the economic context might be biased. This situation might also be true for other variables that we cannot observe in the absence of survey data for non-respondent counties.

An additional limitation is the limited generalizability of our findings, as this study relies exclusively on cases from the State of Maryland. Finally, our data on leadership was incomplete, limiting our ability to draw inferences about the role of leadership in the integration of equity considerations. For this reason, as is detailed in the findings section, we refrain from drawing any inferences about the role of leadership.

Our findings show that seven of the fifteen (or 47%) counties included in this study routinely consider equity information in some of their budgetary processes (see Table 3). However, the manner in which equity is integrated varies significantly across these counties. We examined a broad range of executive budget processes (see Appendix 1). We found that some counties focus more on analyzing spending during the budget formulation phase. In contrast, others incorporate social equity considerations into budget execution decisions, such as contracting, awarding grants, and hiring personnel. Our findings also show that participatory practices are deeply institutionalized, even in counties that do not routinely consider equity information.

The most pronounced differences among counties pertain to their use of equity considerations during budget decision-making processes. Among the seven counties that regularly incorporate equity information, four have prioritized institutionalizing equity reviews within their budget formulation processes. The first county mandates that all departments answer equity-focused questions for their top three new budget requests (although departments are allowed to answer those questions for additional requests). The information provided by the departments is then analyzed by an office specializing in equity issues, which in turn submits its analysis to inform county budget officers. The second county has a similar approach, which also includes an office specializing in equity issues to review the department’s information. Still, their focus is not on the main new budget requests but on the overall commitment of departments to advancing racial equity. The third county mandates that departments provide details on how their current programs and proposed initiatives will assist individuals or communities in need. The fourth county’s strategic plan includes a goal to enhance governmental equity, which becomes pertinent during budget formulation as departments are asked to align spending with the county’s strategic goals.

The remaining three counties that routinely consider equity information emphasize multiple decision types during budget execution. First, all these counties report that their county governments explicitly incorporate workforce diversity considerations into hiring guidelines. Second, two of these counties have mechanisms in place to account for equity in contracting decisions, such as prioritizing county-based businesses owned by minorities or women, and setting specific social and economic goals for bidding parties. Third, two of these counties consider the needs of various demographic groups when awarding grants, with one aiming to achieve the greatest outcome for the greatest need.

One interesting finding is that there is only minimal overlap between the counties that introduce equity considerations in budget formulation and those that introduce them in budget execution. The only exception is that one of the counties that focuses on budget execution reported relying on equity considerations when developing its capital improvement plan and for the allocation of federal funds from the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan Act.

The remaining eight counties (53% of total counties) —listed in Table 3 as the ones with limited equity considerations—provide very few examples of using equity information for budget decisions. Two of these counties stated that they informally give special consideration to minority and women-owned businesses when contracting or awarding grants. However, none of these eight counties routinely rely on equity considerations during budget formulation.

Additionally, our study explores a range of equity-focused practices currently neglected by all fifteen counties examined. Firstly, none of these counties has developed a comprehensive system of performance measures specifically targeting equity. This absence means that even counties integrating equity considerations into budgetary decisions cannot effectively monitor or evaluate their progress toward equitable outcomes. Secondly, our research reveals that none of the counties engage in retrospective analyses of historical policies to assess their impact and consider reparative actions.

Beyond the role of equity considerations in budget decisions, we also examined whether counties strive to enhance equity by facilitating community input on government resource allocation. We found that the practice of holding public budget hearings has become widely institutionalized. A review of the county charters of the fifteen counties included in this study shows that at least twelve (or 80%) of the counties have a legal mandate to hold public hearings. Survey responses and reviews of county websites confirm that all counties organize public hearings that allow community members to engage in the budgeting process. These hearings often follow an informational format, with government officials presenting budget proposals and allowing some community input.

Survey and documentation data show that some counties go beyond their legal mandates and work purposedly to make their public hearings more meaningful and/or accessible. Overall, participatory efforts are very similar across counties. However, three of the seven counties that regularly incorporate equity information in budgetary decisions are also the ones with the most advanced participatory processes. One of those counties allows community members to provide recommendations for budget allocations, including the proposal of new programs, through the public hearing and directly to the commissioners. This county also holds multiple hearings for specific sections of the budget and individual spending initiatives. It always includes relevant documentation with the hearing invitation to enable constituents to prepare for engagement. Finally, this county also offers accommodations for people with disabilities or those with language barriers.

Even the most advanced participatory processes have significant areas for improvement. For instance, no county publishes a report listing the main funding recommendations made by community members and how these were addressed in the budget. Similarly, there is no public information on the demographic composition of those attending participatory sessions, making it impossible to determine if they are reaching a representative audience.

This section examines the various factors that influence the degree to which equity considerations are incorporated into budgetary processes. Our findings suggest that the political ideology and the budgetary institutions of the county are key predictors. Additionally, our analysis reveals no correlation between the economic situation of counties or transparency practices with the integration of equity considerations. These insights highlight the intricate interplay of factors influencing the prioritization of social equity in public budgeting.

We find that the political ideology of the county is the main predictor of whether its government will routinely consider equity information in some of its budgetary processes. We rely on voter registration data to categorize the fifteen counties in our study as liberal, conservative, and neither liberal nor conservative (see Appendix 1). As Figure 1 illustrates, there is a significant political divide, with almost all liberal counties showing among those that rely more prominently on equity information. In contrast, all conservative counties are part of the other group.

The political data suggest that not being in a conservative region is a necessary condition for governments to successfully incorporate equity considerations into their budgetary processes. However, not being conservative is not a sufficient condition, as evidenced by the fact that three counties are not considered conservative and do not routinely consider equity information. We pay particular attention to the case of the only liberal county that does not routinely consider equity information, and we find that its situation is not explained by the other factors covered in this study. That county has more developed budget institutions than most other counties. While its economic situation and transparency practices are not particularly strong, they are nevertheless similar to or better than those of some of the counties that have stronger equity-oriented practices.

We continue our analysis with the other contextual factor covered in our study: the county’s economic situation. We focus on three indicators: the median household income, the educational attainment of its population (measured as the percentage of the population that has a high-school diploma), and the unemployment rate. We contextualize those indicators by analyzing how much each county deviates from the mean, and we compute a final score for each county by averaging the contextualized indicators (see Appendix 1).

We find a weak correlation between the economic situation of the county and the prominence of equity considerations in budgetary decisions. Counties that consistently integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes have an average index score for economic context that is only 2.8% higher than that of counties with limited equity considerations. In Figure 2, we plot all counties into a matrix based on their use of equity considerations and on whether they are above or below our average economic score. As Figure 2 shows, counties with a below-average economic condition are evenly divided among those that integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes and those that do not. However, we also find that counties with above-average economic conditions are more likely to integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes.

Our first institutional factor, the quality of budgetary institutions, is significantly associated with the use of equity considerations in budgetary decisions. As detailed in Appendix 1, we evaluate budgetary institutions by building an index that considers 14 indicators. We find a split among the 14 indicators, with six indicators showing no variation across counties and eight indicators showing significant variation. We focus on the latter as they explain the differences in the quality of budgetary institutions.

Overall, we find that the average score on our index on the quality of budgetary institutions is 45.9% higher for the seven counties that routinely consider equity information than for the eight counties with limited equity considerations. Except for one outlier county, the results are highly consistent, as the five counties with the highest score are among the counties that routinely consider equity information. The sixth county in that group is ranked eighth, with a score that matches the average, while the seventh county in that group is the outlier that ranks second-to-last. Excluding the outlier county, the difference between the two groups increased significantly, from 45.9 to 58.1%.

From a qualitative standpoint, excluding the outlier county, counties that routinely integrate equity information into their processes often exhibit several key characteristics. These counties tend to place a stronger emphasis on performance information within their budgetary frameworks, allowing for more informed decision-making. Additionally, they demonstrate robust practices in medium-term fiscal planning and are more transparent in their macroeconomic and fiscal forecasts.

Similar to our approach to budget institutions, we investigate budgetary and financial transparency by constructing an index based on 14 indicators (see Appendix 1 for more details). However, unlike the case of budgetary institutions, we only find very little correlation between government transparency and whether they consistently integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes. Counties that consistently integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes have an average index score for budgetary and financial transparency that is only 0.1% higher than that of counties with limited equity considerations.

Further examination of our findings on budgetary and financial transparency shows that the counties fall into one of three groups: those that meet all of the best practices in transparency, those that meet most of the best practices in transparency, and one county with very limited budgetary and financial transparency. The county with limited transparency is the same one that was described as an outlier in our review of budget institutions. The first of these groups includes eight (or 53%) counties that publish all the recommended budgetary and financial data, with the caveat that three of them experienced delays in publishing a key document, such as the audit report or the comprehensive annual financial report. Of the eight counties in this group, five are among those that consistently integrate equity considerations into their budgetary processes.

Six (or 40%) counties meet most of the best practices in budgetary and financial transparency. The main issue identified in the cases relates to the publication of additional information to accompany the budget, such as explanations of budget procedures, contact information for inquiries to budget staff members, and/or written or video explanations to help citizens understand the budget documents. Some of these cases also have outdated information on their budget websites. Only one of the counties in this group consistently integrates equity considerations in its budgetary processes.

Our final variable is the role of leadership. Our survey included 14 questions, all using a Likert scale to measure agreement, that measured qualities of public leadership and transformational leadership (see Appendix 1). Unfortunately, multiple factors suggest that our leadership index is less reliable than our other indexes. First, 20% of survey respondents did not complete the leadership questions, which significantly increased the potential for non-response error. Second, in contrast to our other variables, which are measured through objective questions, our leadership index is based entirely on the perception of survey respondents. Finally, the most relevant leadership position for budgeting practices across counties varies depending on the county government structure. Some respondents said their answers referred to elected officials, some to appointed officials, and some to both. Due to these limitations, we do not interpret the findings on leadership but only report that the results are almost identical for the counties that routinely consider equity information (score of 4.0) than for the counties with limited equity considerations (score of 4.1).

In this section, we discuss and draw inferences from our findings to answer our two research questions and to address the additional inquiries set forward in our theoretical framework. Our findings show that seven (or 47%) of the fifteen counties that participated in this study are actively incorporating equity considerations into their budgetary decisions. The analysis of social equity in public budgeting across Maryland’s counties reveals that the answer to our first research question is that county governments have developed varied and diverse processes to incorporate social equity considerations in the formulation and execution of public budgets, reflecting the unique contexts and priorities of each jurisdiction. County governments employ a range of strategies, from analyzing spending alternatives during budget formulation to incorporating social equity considerations into budget execution decisions, such as contracting, awarding grants, and hiring personnel. Participatory practices are also deeply institutionalized, even in counties that do not routinely consider equity information.

This study, a pioneering analysis of social equity budgeting across more than a dozen governments, significantly advances the existing literature by determining whether these practices have matured beyond informal, fledgling efforts into deeply institutionalized and comprehensive systems. Our findings reveal that, while there is forward movement, the integration of social equity into governmental budgeting remains fragmented and in its early stages. Reforms often address only specific segments of the budget cycle, such as applying equity considerations during budget formulation or integrating them into budget execution processes like contracting and hiring, with little overlap between these approaches. This siloed strategy suggests that counties are not yet adopting a holistic framework for social equity budgeting.

Furthermore, a critical gap exists in the ability of these governments to track and measure their progress effectively. Consistent with McDonald et al. (2024), who highlight data availability as a key challenge for social equity budgeting, our research shows that no county has developed a comprehensive system of performance metrics specifically designed to gauge equitable outcomes. This absence of a robust monitoring framework hinders their capacity for meaningful evaluation. We also found a universal lack of retrospective analysis, with no counties examining the historical impacts of past policies to inform reparative actions. This finding matches what has been found in other studies on budget equity reforms that the focus of governments “is not currently on reparations but on the seemingly more urgent front of ensuring that their current and future work does not repeat past failures” (Martínez Guzmán et al., 2025, p. 220). While a promising finding is the widespread institutionalization of public budget hearings—with over 80% of Maryland counties having a legal mandate to hold them—even these more developed participatory practices have room for improvement. The absence of public reports detailing how community feedback was addressed, as well as information on the demographic makeup of attendees, highlights a need for greater transparency and accountability to ensure these processes truly serve all community members.

Our findings also enhance the knowledge about social equity in public budgeting by providing a comprehensive analysis of the practices and challenges faced by county governments in Maryland. Our second question asks about the relative importance of the key factors from the public budgeting literature, including the political context of the government that is implementing reforms, the economic condition of the jurisdiction, the qualities of those in leadership positions, the quality of the government’s budgetary institutions, and the government’s budgetary and financial transparency. By exploring these factors, our study provides a nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with equity-focused budgeting practices. The broad answer to this question is that the political context of the jurisdiction and the quality of the government’s budgetary institutions are the key explanatory variables of whether governments are actively incorporating equity considerations into their budgetary decisions. The economic condition of the jurisdiction and the government’s budgetary and financial transparency are not correlated with the use of social equity budgeting. Finally, we do not interpret the findings on leadership due to data limitations.

Our findings reinforce the expectations from previous studies about the critical role of the political context in shaping budgetary decisions (Rubin and Bartle, 2005; Martínez Guzmán, 2024a). An analysis of our findings provides a deeper understanding of the dynamics between the political context and the inclusion of equity considerations in the budget process. A key finding is that no county identified as conservative engages in these practices. However, the reverse is not true, as not all liberal counties have engaged in budget equity reforms, and those in the middle of the political spectrum are evenly divided in their use of equity considerations. Based on this, we draw two key takeaways: (1) a non-conservative political environment is essential for these reforms to take root, but (2) the political context alone is not a sufficient condition to guarantee success.

Our study also supports the expectations from previous research regarding the importance of budgetary institutions (McDonald and McCandless, 2023; Steccolini, 2019). The counties with stronger equity practices had budgetary institutions that were, on average, 45.9% higher in quality. These institutions placed a greater emphasis on performance information and medium-term fiscal planning. This finding aligns with research on gender budgeting, suggesting that practices such as performance measurement can help integrate data collection practices (Downes and Nicol, 2020). This suggests that robust institutional frameworks are not only beneficial but potentially essential for translating a political will for equity into concrete and measurable budgetary actions. A deeper question remains for future studies: are these budgetary institutions just supportive, or are they a prerequisite for moving beyond a superficial commitment to equity toward a more rigorous, evidence-based approach?

Our research reveals a notable absence of correlation between a county’s economic condition and its level of financial transparency with the adoption of social equity budgeting practices. This finding challenges the assumption that only financially secure governments can afford to prioritize equity. This finding also suggests that transparency alone is not a direct catalyst for promoting equity in resource allocation. However, it does not imply that transparency should be disregarded, as it can have its own intrinsic value when it is used to shed light on inequities (McDonald et al., 2024).

We conclude by identifying lines of research that can continue to advance our understanding of how to incorporate equity considerations into public budgeting processes. First, our study adopts a broad perspective on social equity, without distinguishing between specific demographic groups. Additional studies are needed to learn about the demographic groups that tend to be included (and excluded) from reforms to incorporate equity in public budgeting. Based on the limitations of this study, as discussed in the Data and Methodology section, we suggest that further research be conducted to understand better the role of leadership in implementing and strengthening equity reforms in public budgeting, and to contrast our findings with those from other jurisdictions.

We are grateful to Luke Spreen, Joannie Tremblay‐Boire, and Ted Zaleski for their assistance in pretesting the survey instrument. We also extend our thanks to Kevin Kinnally and Kim Frock of the Maryland Association of Counties for their help with survey distribution.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.