The Evolution of Community Self-Organization in Interaction With Government Institutions: Cross-Case Insights From Three Countries

Abstract

This article deals with the evolution of community self-organization in public administration. Within the literature of interactive governance, increasing attention is being paid to how communities take initiative in dealing with societal issues. However, we know little about the factors contributing to the durability of self-organization. We analyzed three cases of community self-organization in three different countries: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Netherlands. We found that community self-organization initiatives are strongly embedded in governmental environments, leading to different modes of interaction that change from phase to phase and in response to reciptiveness (or the lack thereof) among government counterparts. These modes of interaction strongly influence the evolution of community self-organization efforts. Moreover, we conclude that it is important that self-organized citizen initiatives represent and capture the perspectives and interests of large groups of citizens. This condition positively influences the evolution and duration of citizen initiatives. Those who manage to link with other citizens, including via community and volunteer organizations, can succeed. Those who do not can lose their legitimacy and fail.

False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: the case of Dutch community enterprises

“…(LG, Leeuwarden) This quote reflects the situation in which 'linking capital' (see Woolcock 2001) between residents and local institutions still has to be built in order to embark on co-production. Our purposive sample (see Section 3) includes professionals who cooperate with or support CEs on their own accord and the analysis reveals that many of them can be considered as 'boundary spanners': officials who are constantly negotiating between their own organization and the outside environment, in this case represented by CEs, in order to match interests and actions (Van Meerkerk, Boonstra, and Edelenbos 2013;Edelenbos, Van Meerkerk, and Schenk 2016). While the interviewed officials are basically enthusiastic about the CEs they work with, they encounter resistance whilst trying to take forward CEs' initiatives.…”

“…Second, giving full room to self-organization may result in increasing differences between community groups' resources and success, and hence issues of social inclusion and exclusion of weaker groups, which is highly unacceptable for politicians. Finally, the lack of empirical research on community-based entrepreneurship in Western Europe leaves scientists, policymakers, and citizens with open questions regarding the added value of CEs in terms of delivered benefits to deprived communities (Bailey 2012;Pierre et al 2014;Varady et al 2015) and the durability of this type of self-organization (Edelenbos, Van Meerkerk, and Schenk 2016;see also Pestoff 2014). These are clear challenges for further research in the burgeoning field of community-based entrepreneurship and public management.…”

The Dilemmas of Citizen Inclusion in Urban Planning and Governance to Enable a 1.5 °C Climate Change Scenario

“…Many of these partnerships are ad hoc, such as in the case of adaptation planning in the Bergpolder Zuid neighbourhood of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, where local stakeholders came together to synthesise climate projections, bridge sectoral interests, and uncover suitable actions (Groot, Bosch, Buijs, Jacobs, & Moors, 2015). Similarly, the Cambridge Climate Emergency Congress in Massachusetts, USA, brought together a cross-section of citizens and officials for a series of meetings to devise recommendations (Edelenbos, van Meerkerk, & Schenk, 2018). Ad hoc participatory processes such as these reflect particular strategic needs and are goal oriented.…”

“…As a result, some citizen-initiated processes fail to achieve their goals. For example, the Cambridge Climate Emergency Congress (see Section 2.1) struggled to balance its advocacy and governance roles, concurrently maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of public authorities, reflecting a diverse range of interests, and bringing about concrete climate change action (Edelenbos et al, 2018). These challenges notwithstanding, communitygenerated knowledge can ultimately increase the legitimacy of decisions, redress socioeconomic inequalities, and improve the likelihood of achieving locally appropriate outcomes (Ensor & Berger, 2009;Forsyth, 2013).…”

The Dynamics of Self‐Governance Capacity: The Dutch Rural Civic Initiative ‘Project Ulrum 2034’

“…In recent years, welfare state reforms, austerity measures, and decentralisation have motivated Western European governments to endorse active citizens' engagement in the public sphere (Van Dam et al ; Ubels et al ). At the local level, public authorities increasingly experiment with various approaches that facilitate citizen self‐governance and grant citizens prominent roles in initiating and steering local development projects and support the development of their self‐governing capacities (Sørensen and Triantafillou ; Healey ; Rauws ; Edelenbos et al ) . In the UK, for example, the Big Society agenda has devolved power to communities to respond to local social and financial challenges (Bailey ; Healey ; Hobson et al .…”