Advertisement

The Co-production of a Community: Engaging Citizens in Derelict Neighbourhoods

  • Daphne Vanleene
  • Joris Voets
  • Bram Verschuere
Original Paper

Abstract

In order to deal with “wicked problems” like inequality and social exclusion, one needs the support of committed citizens (Brandsen et al. in Manufactured civil society: practices, principles and effects, Palgrave, London, 2014). A promising setting to examine to what extent this is the case is that of community development projects in derelict neighbourhoods where the largest representation of ‘marginalised’ citizens can often be found (Head in Community development: theory and method of planned change, Vikas Publishing House, New Delhi, 1979; Needham in Personal co-production, 2009). In this article, we examine to what extent citizens are actually involved in local co-productive community development projects (in the city of Ghent, Belgium), and how professional field workers influence this engagement. We focus on three different potential effects of co-productive community development (inclusion and empowerment of citizen co-producers and the equity in the benefits they receive), and whether professional support can influence these effects. We find that co-production in community development projects may lead to more inclusion, empowerment and equity. Moreover, it is posited that the presence of professionals in their different roles does have a positive impact on co-productive community development.

Keywords

Co-production Citizen engagement Vulnerable groups Community development 

Résumé

Le fait d’engager les communautés pourrait favoriser la gestion de problèmes d’envergure comme l’inégalité et l’exclusion sociale (Brandsen et al. 2014). Les projets de développement communautaires réalisés dans des quartiers miséreux où les citoyens «marginalisés» sont souvent les plus fortement représentés offrent un contexte prometteur pour l’examen de cette hypothèse (Head 1979; Needham 2009). Nous tentons de voir dans quelle mesure les citoyens sont réellement impliqués dans des projets de développement coproductif locaux (à Gent en Belgique), et comment les professionnels sur le terrain influencent cet engagement. Nous nous concentrons sur trois effets possibles du développement communautaire coproductif, à savoir l’inclusion, l’habilitation de coproducteurs citoyens et l’équité des bienfaits qu’ils en retirent. Nous cherchons aussi à savoir si le soutien professionnel peut influencer ces derniers. Nous découvrons que, dans le cadre de projets de développement communautaire, la coproduction peut rehausser l’inclusion, l’habilitation et l’équité. On peut de plus avancer que la présence de professionnels aux rôles variés a une incidence positive sur le développement communautaire coproductif.

Zusammenfassung

Die Einbindung von Gemeinden kann möglicherweise helfen, ernste Probleme wie Ungleichheit und soziale Exklusion anzugehen (Brandsen et al. 2014). Ein Erfolg versprechendes Szenario zur Untersuchung, inwieweit dies der Fall ist, sind Gemeindeentwicklungsprojekte in heruntergekommenen Wohngegenden, wo häufig der größte Anteil „marginalisierter“Bürger vertreten ist (Head 1979; Needham 2009). Es wird untersucht, in welchem Umfang die Bürger tatsächlich in örtlichen gemeinschaftlich durchgeführten Gemeindeentwicklungsprojekten (in der Stadt Gent in Belgien) involviert sind und wie Fachkräfte vor Ort dieses Engagement beeinflussen. Man konzentriert sich auf drei unterschiedliche potenzielle Effekte der gemeinschaftlich durchgeführten Gemeindeentwicklung (Inklusion und Empowerment der mitwirkenden Bürger und eine gerechte Nutzenverteilung) und untersucht, ob eine professionelle Unterstützung diese Effekte beeinflussen kann. Man kommt zu dem Ergebnis, dass die gemeinschaftliche Durchführung von Gemeindeentwicklungsprojekten zu mehr Inklusion, Empowerment und Gerechtigkeit führen kann. Weiter wird behauptet, dass sich die Präsenz von Fachkräften in ihren unterschiedlichen Funktionen positiv auf die gemeinschaftlich durchgeführte Gemeindeentwicklung auswirkt.

Resumen

La implicación de las comunidades podría ayudar a tratar problemas nefastos como la desigualdad y la exclusión social (Brandsen et al. 2014). Un prometedor escenario para examinar en qué medida esto es así, es el de los proyectos de desarrollo comunitario en vecindarios descuidados en los que pueden encontrarse con frecuencia la representación más amplia de ciudadanos marginados (Head 1979; Needham 2009). Examinamos en qué medida los ciudadanos están implicados realmente en proyectos de desarrollos comunitarios locales coproductivos (en la ciudad de Gante, Bélgica), y cómo los trabajadores de campo profesionales influyen en esta implicación. Nos centramos en tres efectos potenciales diferentes del desarrollo comunitario coproductivo (inclusión y empoderamiento de los coproductores ciudadanos y la equidad en los beneficios que reciben), y si el apoyo profesional puede llevar a más inclusión, empoderamiento y equidad. Asimismo, se postula que la presencia de profesionales en sus diferentes funciones, tiene realmente un impacto positivo en el desarrollo comunitario coproductivo.

Chinese

社区参与有助于解决诸如不平等和社会排斥等恶劣问题(Brandsen et al. 2014)。为准确理解这层意思,您最好了解一下最能代表“边际化”居民的贫困社区的社区发展项目(Head,1979年;Needham,2009年)。我们调查了居民实际参与(比利时根特)地方合作型社区发展项目的力度以及专业领域工作人员对项目参与的影响。我们主要关注合作型社区发展项目三种不同的潜在效果(吸纳和授权居民参与者以及他们所得福利的公平性)以及专业支持对这些效果的影响。我们发现,共同参与社区发展项目可提高参与度 、执行度和公平性。另外,据推断,不同领域的专业人士会对合作型社区发展项目产生积极的影响。

Japanese

コミュニティ活動は、不平等や社会除外(ブランドセン、トロメル、ベルシューレ、2014年)のような厄介な問題を取り扱うのに役立つ。どの範囲で事例を調査するかという将来的な設定では、下位の市民による最大の説明が明らかにされる(ヘッド1979年、ニードハム2009年)という義務怠慢におけるコミュニティの開発プロジェクトである。市民が実際にどの程度、地域の共同コミュニティの開発プロジェクト(ベルギーのハント市)に関与しているか、どのように専門分野の労働者が、この活動に影響を与えるかについて調査する。共同生産のコミュニティ開発(市民の共同生産者の包括と権限付与と受益の正当な権利)における3つの異なる潜在的な効果、専門的な支援がこれらの効果に影響を与えることができるかについて焦点を当てる。コミュニティ開発プロジェクトにおける共同生産は、包括、権限付与、正当な権利をより導くことができる。さらに異なる役割を持つ専門家の存在は、共同生産におけるコミュニティ開発に肯定的な影響を持つことを仮定する。

Arabic

قد يساعد إشراك المجتمعات المحلية في التعامل مع المشاكل المزعجة مثل عدم المساواة والإستبعاد الإجتماعي(Brandsen et al. 2014). من التجهيزات الواعدة التي يجب أن تدرس إلى أي مدى يكون هذا هو الحال بالنسبة لمشاريع التنمية المجتمعية في الأحياء المهجورة حيث يمكن غالبا” العثور على أكبر تمثيل للمواطنين المهمشين (رئيس، 1979؛ (Needham)، 2009 (. نحن ندرس إلى أي مدى يشارك المواطنون فعليا” في مشاريع التنمية المجتمعية المحلية المنتجة (في مدينة (Ghent) ، بلجيكا)، و كيف يؤثر العاملون في المجال المهني على هذه المشاركة. نحن نركز على ثلاثة تأثيرات محتملة مختلفة للتنمية المجتمعية المشتركة الإنتاجية (تضمين وتمكين المواطنين المنتجين المشاركين والمساواة في المنافع التي يتلقونها) ، وإذا كان الدعم المهني يمكن أن يؤثر على هذه الآثار.ونجد أن الإنتاج المشترك في مشاريع التنمية المجتمعية قد يؤدي إلى مزيد من الإندماج والتمكين والإنصاف. علاوة على ذلك، فمن المفترض أن وجود المهنيين في أدوارهم المختلفة، له تأثير إيجابي على تنمية المجتمع المشترك الإنتاجي.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agger, A., & Larsen, J. N. (2009). Exclusion in area-based urban policy programmes. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 1085–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310902949646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aigner, S. M., Flora, C. B., & Hernandez, J. M. (2001). The premise and promise of citizenship and civil society for renewing democracies and empowering sustainable communities. Sociological Inquiry, 71(4), 493–507.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2001.tb01129.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batten, T. R. (1974). The major issues and future direction of community development. Community Development Journal, 9(2), 96–103.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/9.2.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bendapudi, N., & Leone, R. P. (2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 14–28.  https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blakeley, G., & Evans, B. (2009). Who participates, how and why in urban regeneration projects? The case of the new ‘city’ of east manchester. Social Policy & Administration, 43(1), 15–32.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2008.00643.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465.Google Scholar
  7. Brandsen, T., Trommel, W., & Verschuere, B. (2014). Manufactured civil society: Practices, principles and effects. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckwalter, N. D. (2014). The potential for public empowerment through government-organized participation. Public Administration Review, 74(5), 573–584.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Craig, G., Popple, K., & Shaw, M. (2008). Community Development in Theory and Practice: An International Reader. Nottingham: Spokesman.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Cuthill, M. (2010). Strengthening the ‘Social’ in Sustainable Development: Developing a Conceptual Framework for Social Sustainability in a Rapid Urban Growth Region in Australia. Sustainable Development, 18(6), 362–373.  https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Graaf, L., van Hulst, M., & Michels, A. (2015). Enhancing Participation in Disadvantaged Urban Neighbourhoods. Local Government Studies, 41(1), 44–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2014.908771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Denters, B., & Klok, P.-J. (2010). Rebuilding Roombeek: Patterns of Citizen Participation in Urban Governance. Urban Affairs Review, 45(5), 583–607.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087409356756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Durose, C. (2011). Revisiting Lipsky: Front-Line Work in UK Local Governance. Political Studies, 59(4), 978–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00886.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fledderus, J. (2015). Does User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery Increase Satisfaction and Trust? Evidence From a Vignette Experiment. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 642–653.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.952825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frieling, M. A., Lindenberg, S. M., & Stokman, F. N. (2014). Collaborative Communities Through Coproduction: Two Case Studies. American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 35–58.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012456897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gilchrist, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). The Short Guide to Community Development. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodlad, R., Burton, P., & Croft, J. (2005). Effectiveness at what? The processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy, 23(6), 923–938.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c45m.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Halvorsen, K. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535–543.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6210.00317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Head, W. A. (1979). Community Development in Post Industrial Society: Myth or Reality?.” Community Development: Theory and Method of Planned Change. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.Google Scholar
  22. Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., Tomkins, A. J., & Zillig, L. M. P. (2012). Public Participation, Procedural Fairness, and Evaluations of Local Governance: The Moderating Role of Uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815–840.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakobsen, M. (2013). Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 27–54.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and Equity in Public Service Delivery. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 704–713.  https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lombard, M. (2013). Citizen Participation in Urban Governance in the Context of Democratization: Evidence from Low-Income Neighbourhoods in Mexico. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(1), 135–150.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01175.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marschall, M. J. (2004). Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the Coproduction of Local Public Goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3219867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275–293.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michels, A. (2015). Hoe we uit het ideologische doe-democratie-debat kunnen komen. Samenlevingsvraagstukken.nl.Google Scholar
  29. Needham, C. (2009). Personal co-production. Paper commissioned by LARCI.Google Scholar
  30. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pestoff, V. (2006). Citizens and co-production of welfare services. Public Management Review, 8(4), 503–519.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030601022882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1102–1118.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9308-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66(4), 568–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. SCDC. (2011). Community development and co-production. Issues for policy and practice SCDC Discussion Paper. Retrieved from.Google Scholar
  35. Simmons, R., & Birchall, J. (2005). A joined-up approach to user participation in public services: Strengthening the “participation chain”. Social Policy & Administration, 39(3), 260–283.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2005.00439.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Staes, B. (2012). Rabot is de armste Gentse wijk, Drongen de rijkste. het Nieuwsblad, 12/10/2012.Google Scholar
  37. Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(17), 137–146.Google Scholar
  38. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strokosch, K., & Osborne, S. (2016). Asylum seekers and the co-production of public services. Journal of Social Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000258.Google Scholar
  40. Tuurnas, S. (2016). The Professional Side of Co-production. (Doctoral Dissertation), University of Tampere, Tampere.Google Scholar
  41. Van Dooren, W., & Thijssen, P. (2015). Who you are/where you live. Do neighbourhood characteristics explain coproduction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 81(2), 88–109.Google Scholar
  42. van Eijk, C., & Steen, T. (2014). Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services. Public Management Review, 16(3), 358–382.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.841458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Meerkerk, I., Boonstra, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Self-organization in urban regeneration: A two-case comparative research. European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1630–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vanleene, D., Verschuere B., & Voets, J. (2015). The democratic quality of coproduction: A theoretical review and initial research design (2015). Paper presented at the EGPA Conference, Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  45. Vanleene, D., Voets, J., & Verschuere, B. (2017). Co-Producing a nicer neighbourhood: Why do people participate in local community development projects? Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government, 15(1), 111–132.  https://doi.org/10.4335/15.1.111-132(2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2000). Rational action and political activity. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 12(3), 243–268.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692800012003001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1083–1101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Verschuere, B., & Hermans, K. (2016a). Welzijn in Vlaanderen : Beleid, bestuurlijke organisatie en uitdagingen. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar
  50. Verschuere, B., & Hermans, K. (2016b). Welzijn in Vlaanderen : Beleid, bestuurlijke organisatie en uitdagingen. Brugge: Die Keure.Google Scholar
  51. Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation - How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline. American Review of Public Administration, 37(1), 17–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074006296208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Webler, T., & Tuler, S. (2000). Fairness and competence in citizen participation - Theoretical reflections from a case study. Administration & Society, 32(5), 566–595.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00953990022019588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weinberger, K., & Jutting, J. P. (2001). Women’s participation in local organizations: Conditions and constraints. World Development, 29(8), 1391–1404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-750x(01)00049-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, D. S., Ostrom, E., & Cox, M. E. (2013). Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 90, S21–S32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Management and Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations