The Paradox between Community and Self-Interest: Local Government, Neighborhoods, and Media

Glaser, Markus; Parker, Lee E.; Payton, Stephanie

doi:10.1111/0735-2166.00077

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(15 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been found, for example, that citizen trust and confidence in government are built on the perception that governmental policy is focused on the public interest. Research by Glaser, Parker, and Payton () and Glaser, Denhardt, and Hamilton () supports this contention; when government agencies visibly concentrate their efforts on increasing the well‐being of the community and the public interest, citizens’ trust and willingness to pay for civic investments increase.…”

Section: How Have the Values Of The Public Interest And Collaborativementioning

confidence: 99%

The New Public Service Revisited

Denhardt

2015

Public Administration Review

257

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Th e New Public Service describes a set of norms and practices that emphasize democracy and citizenship as the basis for public administration theory and practice. Th is article revisits some of the core arguments of the New Public Service and examines how they have been practiced and studied over the past 15 years. Th e authors conclude that neither the principles of the New Public Service nor those of the New Public Management have become a dominant paradigm, but the New Public Service, and ideas and practices consistent with its ideals, have become increasingly evident in public administration scholarship and practice.

show abstract

Section: How Have the Values Of The Public Interest And Collaborativementioning

confidence: 99%

The New Public Service Revisited

Denhardt

2015

Public Administration Review

257

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As already noted, relational community as it is defined here is patterned after citizen-based research that includes the internal conflict between self-interest and community well-being. This research consistently indicates that most citizens are partially attached to community and feel that they can rise above self-interest, but they do not have confidence that others have the capacity to behave similarly (Glaser, Denhardt et al, 2002;Glaser, Parker et al, 2001). Consistent with this research, officers are asked to evaluate themselves as well as the behavior they expect from others.…”

Section: Findings Relational Communitymentioning

confidence: 56%

“…So, the existence of strong neighborhoods can be a double-edged sword. Neighborhoods have the potential of becoming the building blocks of community through civic engagement (Leroux, 2007) or they can insulate, isolate, and fragment community by becoming "civic cocoons" (Benest, 1996;Glaser, Parker, & Payton, 2001). If community policing is to play a role in both public safety and community building, then officers must be vigilant and resourceful in tying the agendas of neighborhood to the overarching agenda of community.…”

Section: Sociogeographic Neighborhoodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Policing and Community Building

Glaser

Denhardt

2009

The American Review of Public Administration

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research uses the responses from more than 500 officers serving a Midwestern city to understand their perceptions of themselves, fellow officers, the police department, neighborhood organizations, and the larger community in relation to community policing. Based on this data, the authors explore how community policing might be used to create a greater convergence of purpose among citizens, neighborhoods, organizations, and the broader well-being of the community. Findings indicate that officers doubt the ability of citizens to rise above their own self-interest, but they think that they and their fellow officers can do so. Furthermore, findings suggest the need for an overarching community agenda to prevent neighborhoods from becoming “civic cocoons” and to promote convergence of purpose between neighborhoods and the broader community. Finally, this research suggests that police departments that engage in transparent decision making that carefully balances departmental and community interests are better able to encourage this collaboration.

show abstract

“…Alternatively, perceptions of police effectiveness and satisfaction with police encourage the actioning of both formal and informal social control (Renauer, ; Sargeant et al., ; Silver & Miller, ; Warner, ). Furthermore, local government is fundamental to community safety and crime prevention (Glaser, Parker, & Payton, ; Homel & Fuller, ). A responsive local government influences residents’ use of informal social control (Renauer, ), and poor municipal services and police‐community relations are negatively associated with individual action against crime (Davis et al., ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different actions for different crimes: Explaining individual action in local crime problems

Schaefer

Mazerolle

Kapnoulla

2017

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The crime prevention literature finds extensive support for crimespecific approaches to organized interventions in crime problems. Yet within the communities and crime literature, little is known about the crime-specific (or generalized) way that individuals respond to different types of crime problems in their neighborhood. Using data from the Australian Community Capacity Study, this paper examines how individual characteristics, perceptions of agents of formal social control, and perceptions of informal community processes influence the decision a person makes to do something about different types of local crime problems. Results indicate that individual characteristics (prior police contact and previous victimization) and positive perceptions of informal community processes (frequency of neighboring) are positively associated with action; yet when people perceiveagents of formal social control as effective, they are less likely to take informal crime control action. We conclude that the mechanisms that prompt community action are best understood from a crime-specific approach.The crime prevention literature finds extensive support for crime-specific approaches to intervening in local crime problems (Clarke & Eck, 2005;Cornish & Clarke, 1986, 1989. Compared to a generalized approach that treats all offenses the same, situational crime prevention approaches create tailored responses based on the unique set of circumstances that lead to specific crime problems (Clarke, 1997). As Clarke reasons, "the commission of specific kinds of crime depends crucially on a constellation of particular environmental opportunities" and "these opportunities may need to be blocked in highly specific ways" (1997, p. 4). Research shows that different factors contribute to different types of crime, so disruptions to offending are likely also crime specific .This crime-specific perspective guides organizational responses to crime prevention, such as how police departments deal with an emerging crime problem. Yet within the communities and crime literature, little is known about the crimespecific (or generalized) way that individuals respond to crime problems in their neighborhood. Moreover, there is virtually no research that helps to differentiate the mechanisms that lead individuals to take action to address different types of local crime problems. In this study, we ask the following questions: What factors prompt a community resident to take action for different crime problems observed in the neighborhood? Do these factors differ depending on the type of crime? J. Community Psychol. 2017;45:922-939.wileyonlineliberary.com/journal/jcop

show abstract

The Paradox between Community and Self-Interest: Local Government, Neighborhoods, and Media

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

The New Public Service Revisited

The New Public Service Revisited

Community Policing and Community Building

Different actions for different crimes: Explaining individual action in local crime problems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About