Civic Engagement, Community-Based Initiatives and Governance Capacity

An International Perspective

Jurian Edelenbos, Astrid Molenveld, Ingmar van Meerkerk, Jurian Edelenbos, Astrid Molenveld, Ingmar van Meerkerk

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000334654
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Entrepreneurship
• Index: Business

This book intends to theoretically conceptualize and empirically investigate upcoming and established practices of community-based initiatives in various countries in which both citizens and governments join efforts and capacities to solve wicked issues. It aims to include and compare cases from various countries, departing from the notion that community-based initiatives take place in an institutional context of governmental structures, rules, procedures, regulations, and routines. This leads to government involvement in these initiatives and sharing the public space. Furthermore, the editors take into account what kind of leadership roles, knowledge, and resources are present and how they evolve in this collaborative or coordinative effort, which in turn can enhance the capacities of community-based initiatives. This book joins excellent researchers from renowned universities all over the world, aiming for a balance between upcoming scholars and renowned scholars in the field of community-based initiatives and governance capacity. Contributors were carefully selected on the basis of their experience in the field of community-based initiatives, citizens' engagement and governance capacity approaches. Aimed at researchers and academics, this volume will be of interest to those in the fields of business, economics, public administration, political science, social enterprise, sociology and third sector studies.

1
Positioning and Conceptualising Community-Based Initiatives in Waves of Civic Engagement

Jurian Edelenbos, Astrid Molenveld, Ingmar van Meerkerk, Patsy Healey, and Anat Gofen

In various countries around the world, we have observed a rise in community-based initiatives (CBIs) as a relatively new form of civic engagement. In contrast to other forms of civic engagement and social movements, CBIs are engaged in the local production of public services (Edelenbos & van Meerkerk, 2016; Gofen, 2012; Healey, 2015). This volume intends to theoretically conceptualise and empirically investigate upcoming and established practices of CBIs from an international perspective, including a variety of cases from different countries. Furthermore, the volume aims to gain understanding how CBIs relate to existing governmental institutions. Finally, the objective is to learn which mechanisms and factors explain the governance capacity of CBIs to deal with pressing wicked issues and delivering public services.

The phenomenon of CBIs, historically speaking, is not new at all. Think about various community initiatives to take over different welfare services, e.g. for the local poor and mutual aid and cooperatives among the working classes in the early period of industrial capitalism before the development of state-controlled welfare services (De Moor, 2013; De Swaan, 1988; Denters, 2016; Healey, 2015). However, the current wave of CBIs has several new characteristics based on the institutional context in which it has emerged (Brandsen, Trommel, & Verschuere, 2017; Denters, 2016; Edelenbos & van Meerkerk, 2016). Despite growing attention to the field of CBIs (e.g. Brandsen et al., 2017; Edelenbos & van Meerkerk, 2016; Healey, 2015), an international perspective on CBIs, especially with regard to the relationship between governments and CBIs, is lacking (Igalla et al., 2019).

This volume therefore aims to gain deeper understanding of the emergence and main characteristics of CBIs and their mechanisms for governance capacity in various country contexts. In this volume we deal with a variety of country contexts, including Israel, the US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the UK, Japan, China, and Belgium. We know that this is not a representative sample, but the variety of country contexts included in this volume gives at least an indication how CBI evolves and materialises in a variety of countries. Moreover, the variety of cases from different countries also gives us the opportunity to explore how CBIs are shaped in relationship to existing political-administrative practices and institutions. Bundled resources from government and CBI practices could enhance the governance capacity in dealing with wicked societal issues (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012). In the volume we especially discuss the characteristics of governance capacity and the mechanisms that are at play in developing this governance capacity. This concept of governance capacity will be further introduced in this chapter and further elaborated in Chapter 2.

The empirical core of the book consists of nine contributions on CBIs and their governance capacity, all originating from different countries. We asked the contributors to take the following three lead questions into account in writing their chapters:

1. What are the main triggers and motivations of CBIs in various institutional contexts?
2. What is the relationship of CBIs with (local) governmental institutions?
3. What is the governance capacity of CBIs, and which factors and mechanisms enhance this capacity?

This approach enabled us to develop a narrative and systematic analysis of all contributions. In the final chapter of this book (Chapter 12) we bring together all the case-cross findings, clustered around these three lead research questions.

Understanding CBIs in specific (country) contexts is far from easy. Focusing on civic engagement brings about a challenge even more puzzling, as these patterns seem to evolve over the years and there is a strong variety in forms of civic engagement. Due to this, and because explanations are context bound, individual country patterns still provide the main frame to understand civic engagement (Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001). Different forms and processes of civic engagement can however be understood and partly explained by the administrative and political contexts, and on a lower level by individual traits, practices, and community characteristics.

In this chapter we will introduce and conceptualise CBIs. We position CBIs in relation to other forms of civic engagement, thereby describing distinct characteristics. In this respect we will distinguish three different types of civic engagement which have evolved and come in different waves. The first being the ‘old social movements’. Secondly, we distinguish the new social movements. As a third, and most recent, type of wave, we describe ‘community-based initiatives’. Some of the waves have been and are studied with different country-comparative frameworks, for instance with Lijpharts’ framework for assessing democratic forms (Lijphart, 2012) about political life, Putnam’s Bowling Alone (Putnam, 2000), and the level of statism and corporateness (Jepperson, 1992, 2002; Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001).

In the next section we will provide a first and general definition of CBIs with constituting features. Then we will discuss three waves of civic engagement in which we position the rise of CBIs. Subsequently, we will deal with the relationship between government practices and institutions on the one hand and CBIs on the other hand, knowing that CBIs don’t take place in an institutional and contextual vacuum. This relationship will vary across country and polity contexts. Finally, we will return to the core ambition of this volume and briefly introduce the various chapters constituting this volume.

Defining Community-Based Initiatives

Sometimes CBI are approached as a specific form of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969) and co-creation (Voorberg et al., 2015). However, they differ from participation and co-creation. In Arnstein’s famous ladder of citizen participation (1969), citizen initiatives can be positioned at the highest level of citizen power, citizen control, meaning citizens being in full charge of a specific program or institution.

Edelenbos and van Meerkerk (2016) make a distinction between government-induced interactive governance, indicating that a process of citizen engagement is highly conditioned and controlled by government, by setting the rules for participation, and citizen-induced interactive governance, indicating that citizen engagement is initiated by the citizens themselves, by their own rules.

CBI also differ from co-production or co-creation, because citizens take the lead as initiators and the government acts as a follower or facilitator instead of citizens being involved in the production process under (strict) conditions and frameworks set by the government (c.f. Arnstein, 1969; Voorberg et al., 2015). Co-production of public goods and services comes in different shapes and sizes. Voorberg et al. (2015) have found that in general three different types can be distinguished: (1) citizen as co-implementer, (2) citizen as co-designer, and (3) citizen as initiator of public services. The first type is the most frequently found, whereas the third type is reported the least (and which is part of the bottom-up pathway). Some authors, like Bovaird et al. (2015), define co-production broadly as “making better use of each other’s assets, resources and contributions to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency”. This includes collective and community-initiated forms of co-production (the third type) in which long-term relationships with professionalised service providers are developed (Bovaird, 2007). However, most of the time co-production is studied in a narrower fashion, focusing on government-led forms of civic engagement in the production of public services. For instance, Brandsen and Honingh (2016) stress, based upon recurring elements in the literature, that co-production in the public sector is about active contributions of citizens to the work of public organisations.

An important knowledge gap is a clear overview of specific conceptualisations and definitions of community-based initiatives taking specific country context specifications into account. Based on a systematic literature review on CBIs, Igalla et al. (2019) identified the main characteristics of CBIs. Based on their review, they used different related terms, such as social or community enterprise, community initiative, and social cooperative.

Their first observation is that enterprise-related concepts are mostly used in Anglo-Saxon countries (e.g. for social enterprise: 65.4%). One explanation is that Anglo-Saxon countries have from their (neo)liberal tradition a more business and market orientation, and therefore approach citizen initiatives as (social) enterprises. Furthermore, citizen initiatives in South America and Africa use predominantly community-related concepts, such as community initiatives, community aqueduct associations, and community groups. In North America (Canada and the US) and Europe (especially the UK), community terms are also present as the second most used concept. In Asia, various concepts are used, ranging from community terms, such as community-based initiative in India, to voluntary specific terms, like non-profit organisations in China. Finally, in non-Anglo-Saxon parts of Europe, we can see different concepts as well, but it seems that social cooperatives are common in Italy and citizen initiative and self-organisation are used in The Netherlands, Sweden, and Finland.

Next, Igalla et al. (2019) looked at the definitions used to describe the many concepts. A first observation is that the topic of CBIs involves a search for a clear definition. Some studies (29%; n = 23) did not specify their concepts. One possible explanation might be the cultural familiarity with self-organisation in countries such as the US, resulting in self-evidence when it comes to conceptualising. The other 55 articles (70.5%) did define and discuss their central concepts. Based on the extensive definitions, Igalla et al. (2019) provide the following five central characteristics of CBIs (e.g. Bailey, 2012; Llano-Arias, 2015; Ornetzeder & Rohracher, 2013):

1. Citizen initiatives are community-based and often locally oriented, which means that:
   1. Local residents, often collectives of residents, are the (current) driving force behind the initiatives.
   2. They mobilise volunteers from within the community.
   3. They focus on community needs.
2. Citizen initiatives provide and maintain an alternative form of traditional governmental public services, facilities, and/or goods themselves, such as water distribution, education and training, and residential care.
3. Citizen initiatives strive for autonomy, ownership, and control regarding internal decision making.
4. Citizen initiatives are often linked to formal institutions, such as local authority, governmental agencies, and NGOs, especially for facilitation and public funding.
5. Citizen initiatives often use market-based approaches to increase financial stability but are not focused on profitmaking.

However, we need a better understanding of CBIs, taking country specifics into account. This volume’s ambition is to increase this understanding of CBIs from an international (multi-country) viewpoint.

CBI as a Specific Type of Civic Engagement

Civic engagement is a fuzzy concept. Various notions and definitions are used by scholars around the world. Different dimensions can be distinguished (Adler & Goggin, 2005). Some scholars define civic engagement in relation to delivering community services (e.g. Diller, 2001); others stress the collective dimension of civic engagement in pursuing community or societal issues (e.g. Healey, 2015); while again others emphasise political action or involvement (Diller, 2001; Ronan, 2004).

The term has its historical roots in the Latin word civic, referring to ‘city’ and ‘citizen’. Thus, civic engagement is about

rediscovering politics, the life of the polis, the city where men and women speak and act together, as citizens. The word civic, when connected to engagement, implies work, work that is done publicly and benefits the public, and is done in concert with other.

(Ronan, 2004, p. 240)

In distinguishing different forms of civic engagement, a useful distinction is between service activities and civic activities (Adler & Goggin, 2005). Service activities refer to meeting people’s needs, such as, for example, helping neighbors or participating in community associations. Civic activities refer to political activities, such as deliberation, advocacy for a certain policy, or active participation in a party, movement, or interest group. As we will further discuss, CBIs can be viewed as a hybrid form, engaged in both service and civic activities, which is in this respect different from other types.

Another dimension used to distinguish forms of civic engagement concerns the level of informal/individual actions versus formal/collective action (Adler & Goggin, 2005). In some countries, informal spaces for participation and community action are created in response to corruptive or fragile governmental structures and institutions (Bayat, 2000; Miraftab, 2009). In fact, some communities avoid these existing governmental structures and institutions in their local activities. Moreover, CBIs can be understood as signal of discontent with governmental policies and opt an exit strategy in which they develop ownerships and distinct working apart from governmental institutions (Gofen, 2012). Another way of looking the formal–informal divide is that certain community-based initiatives start informally in an ad hoc kind of way. In the first phase these initiatives are small with few members who work in close contact with few rules and procedures. However, as these initiatives mature they enter the next phases of organisational development. Greiner (1989) distinguishes s...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• List of Contributors
• 1 Positioning and Conceptualising Community-Based Initiatives in Waves of Civic Engagement
• 2 Community-Based Initiatives and Their Contribution to Governance Capacity
• 3 Citizen Innovation in Place Governance
• 4 Out of the Governance Capacity Comfort Zone: Noncompliant Community-Based Initiatives in Israel
• 5 Philanthropic Foundations in Community Benefit Agreements: Vital Partners or Third Wheels?
• 6 From Protesters to Professionals: Governance Approaches and Capacities in the Antwerp Ring Road Struggles
• 7 The Relationship Between Government and Community-Based Initiatives: Experiences From Sharing Economy Initiatives in China
• 8 Challenges and Efforts Towards Local Governance Capacity Development in the Era of Austerity in Japan
• 9 Community-Based Initiatives in the Rust Belt: Collaborative Land Use Governance in a Shrinking City
• 10 Community Renewable Energy and Collaborative Governance: Social Entrepreneurialism at the Local Level in Australia
• 11 Tying the Community and Administration for Success?: Unravelling the Role of Governance Capacity in the Performance of Community-Based Initiatives
• 12 Cross-Case Findings and Conclusions: CBI Motivations and Mechanisms Enhancing Governance Capacity
• Index