Community capacity building or state opportunism?

Building community capacity for end of life: an investigation of community capacity and its implications for health-promoting palliative care in the Australian Capital Territory

“…The increasing constraints on professional service provision are cause for concern, as is the health system's acute treatment-centric model which is inappropriate for the holistic needs of people experiencing life-limiting illness (Conway, 2007). Mowbray (2005) rightly warns against a critical embracing of community empowerment discourse, identifying its potential to obfuscate or justify cynical attempts to reduce State support of health and social services. We do not argue for simplistic partnerships between community and professional groups, but for recognition of community activities that show potential to support both the dying and their loved ones as they care, live and die in both social and institutional contexts.…”

Trojan Horse or Adaptive Institutions? Some Reflections on Urban Commons in Australia*

“…It must be acknowledged that the commons is not uniformly accepted as a locus of social organisation. Promotion of commons as a site for the development of institutions for social and environmental sustainability may be exposed to the sort of criticism levelled at earlier forms of community governance: a strategy for development on the cheap, masking withdrawal and defunding by the state (Mowbray, 2005;Tittensor, 2007). However, the emphasis in commons scholarship on institutional design takes us beyond speculation over the Trojan horse of state withdrawal, or excessive faith in communitarianism, to focus on the effective management of shared resources.…”

Harnessing the Bohemian

“…Firstly, the scope and diversity of activities grouped under the CCB label reflect a rapidly growing interest in mechanisms to develop and sustain viable and dynamic communities that is no longer limited to researchers and practitioners but has extended to government agencies, not-for-profit organisations, and communities themselves (Chapman & Kirk, 2001;Craig, 2007). There is also a growing recognition of the limitations of interventionist and paternalistic approaches in sustainable development of communities resulting in new arguments for the adoption of more inclusive practices, because community growth and development strategies must be contextualised and flexible enough to cater for the diversity that characterises individual communities (Mowbray, 2005). Lastly, and more significantly in terms of this research, problems with the specificity of CCB point to the multidimensional complexity of CCB -a reality that remains largely unacknowledged.…”

“…Principle 1: Communities should be empowered to control their own futures CCB recognises that solutions to problems are best developed and implemented by those closest to the problem as they have a detailed understanding of it as well as an acute appreciation of the potential and workability of solutions (Healy & Hampshire, 2002;Howe & Cleary, 2001;Mowbray, 2005).…”