Citizens’ Governance Spaces: Democratic Action Through Disruptive Collective Problem-Solving

Abstract

This article investigates the practical form of citizen engagement that occurs in collective problem-solving efforts such as civic enterprises, grassroots initiatives and self-help groups. Drawing on extensive empirical evidence from diverse policy fields, it articulates the distinct experimental and disruptive policy work that citizens enact in these citizens’ governance spaces and challenges dominant interpretations which view them as either (i) a testament to the capacity of citizens to effectively solve complex public problems or (ii) a symptom of advanced neoliberalism where states off-load complex problems onto citizens. The article moves beyond this dualism to consider the motivations, challenges, available resources and distinct democratic work enacted by citizens in these spaces of bottom-up governance. Citizens’ governance spaces, the article concludes, offer important lessons – both in terms of potential benefits and risks – for the project of deepening the quality and reach of citizen participation in modern systems of democracy.

Disrupting from the ground up: community-led and place-based food governance in London during COVID-19

“…However, the community-led nature of disruptive actors such as the Hackney Food Network, point to both the strengths and limitations of such actors. They can contribute positively to the democratisation of food policy and food governance systems, engage in politics in an open and experimental way, efficiently reach out to marginalised residents and actively promote equality and power-sharing; but also reproduce existing inequalities in civic capacity, contribute to DIY governance that legitimates state withdrawal from social welfare commitments and, more importantly, only offer temporary solutions while failing to address deep underlying structural issues ( Hendriks and Dzur 2021 ).…”

“…Within localization debates of food governance, much attention has been dedicated to the role of urban actors, such as civil society representatives, community groups and social movements, who actively shape urban food policy by engaging with local governments to fill a food policy and welfare vacuum and rescale food policymaking at the community level ( Sonnino 2019 ). By doing so, they enact participatory food governance frameworks which identify policy needs and contribute to policy success at the local level, but also apply pressure from the community to the higher levels of food policymaking ( Stierand 2011 ), and create new spaces of citizen governance which challenge conventional thinking and can lead to change or disruption in traditional policy and governance frameworks ( Hendriks and Dzur 2021 ).…”

“…Disruptive thinking is seen to foster adaptation and increase resilience in unstable environments ( Mutius 2018 ) and builds on disruptive innovation debates which look at how new technologies entering the market from the bottom, grow in influence, to ultimately change the whole system ( Christensen 2016 ). Disruption can be seen as something unexpected or novel, but also as challenging conventional thinking or traditional policy and governance frameworks, more widely ( Hendriks and Dzur 2021 ). Cities are ideal arenas for disruption ( Dixon, Lannon, and Eames 2018 ).…”

“…These unconventional ways of working can cause governance disruption by opening-up new governance spaces ( Maginn, Burton, and Legacy 2018 ). By contrast, local institutions often struggle to accommodate or adapt to these new and disruptive governance landscapes ( Williams, and Shepherd, 2021 ; Hendriks, and Dzur 2021 ; Majchrzak, Jarvenpaa, and Hollingshead 2007). Both communities and institutions, however, work towards the common goal of providing fast, flexible and localised solutions that tackle sudden challenges.…”

“…Theoretically, the paper contributes to urban debates on community-led and place-based food governance. It also defines disruption in access to urban food as novel, unexpected organisations and initiatives that emerge to address food insecurity challenges, pushing against conventional thinking and, ultimately, changing for the better traditional policy and governance frameworks ( Hendriks and Dzur 2021 ; Mutius 2018 ). More broadly, it also touches on the informal production and re-production of cities and counter-democracy debates.…”