Collective Action and Community-driven Development in Rural and Urban Indonesia

Abstract

The article analyses differences in collective action in rural and urban communities that participated in a poverty alleviation project in Indonesia. It was found that the main determinants of collective action are relationships among multiscalar social, political and historical factors, internal and external to communities. Two distinct forms of collective action are also identified. The first form is based on community cohesion, stable social relationships and adherence to social hierarchy. The second form is based on a community's perception of an interdependent future and a shared desire for structural change. Both forms of collective action are effective in delivering project resources to beneficiaries; however, only the second form demonstrates potential for social transformation.

Autonomous but constrained: CBOs and urban upgrading in Indonesia

“…The capacity of Indonesian CBOs and NGOs is manifestly weak, but efforts to build capacity tend to strengthen capabilities of individuals rather than the institution's (Fanany, Fanany, & Kenny, 2011). Therefore, post-decentralization, large community-based programs such as the Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) and Urban Poverty Project (UPP) in Indonesia, used existing CBOs or formed new ones, depending on the specific community context (Beard & Dasgupta, 2006;Guggenheim, 2006). But CKIP created at least one new CBO for managing microfinance.…”

Sustainable Engagement in Stakeholder Relationships: Crafting a Stakeholder Map

“…The most important sustainable engagement drivers for Sustainable engagement is a reasonable concept in activities with the external stakeholders in the processes with the partners and the customers of an enterprise. Sustainability requires the amalgamation of projects and people with the broader infrastructure to support community development (Beard and Dasgupta 2006;Grosjean and Kontoleo 2008;Hemphill et al, 2006;Jones-McCrae, 2008). Many authors perceive sustainability as being related with enhancing participation to improve governance and fostering eff ective and effi cient programs, policies and capacity building (Mathers et al, 2008;Mirabella et al, 2007;Smets and Salman, 2008;Sobek, 2008;Suarez-Balcazar et al, 2008).…”

A Tale of Two Communities

“…Pueblo Alto became a community development model. I define community development as local antipoverty measures that provide economic opportunities and goods for residents while enhancing their social connections and opportunities for decision making (Aigner et al 1999;Beard and Dasgupta 2006;Platteau and Gaspart 2003). This definition resonates with "deliberative development," a strategy that privileges popular participation (Evans 2004).…”

“…At the same time, divergent outcomes linked to globalization have eroded confidence in a one-size-fits-all development model (McMichael 2010). Rather than continuing to privilege the generic nation-state as the unit of analysis, scholars are increasingly interested in intracounty variation of development outcomes, with a focus on community development (Beard and Dasgupta 2006;Das Gupta, Grandvoinnet, and Mattia 2004;Platteau and Gaspart 2003).…”