public participation & community economic development

8/8/2019 Public Participation & Community Economic Development

1/21

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION &

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT: A MODEL OF

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY


2/21

Allison Houlihan, PhD CandidateSchool of Urban & Public Affairs

Center for Environmental Policy & ManagementUniversity of Louisville

Urban Affairs Association Annual ConferenceChicago, IL

March 6, 2009


3/21

INTRODUCTION

Community Economic Development Participatory Democracy

Community Economic Development &Participatory Democracy as MutuallyReinforcing

Why Brownfields?


4/21

COMMUNITY ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

THEORETICAL TRADITIONS

Underlying concept of CED incorporates two components:1. Community2. Economic development

Seeks to increase capital gains in such a way that benefits theentire community

Three underlying principles contribute to a logic for communityaction:

1. a theory of local economic development2. a strategy of social policy implementation rooted in citizen

empowerment3. a grassroots political orientation


5/21


PRACTICAL APPROACHES

Growth Promotion economic development issynonymous with job growth and increased income

and business activity Structural Change planned growth responds to

the limitations of investment-seeking and grants theneed to supplement or replace the goal of growthitself; emphasis on the quality of the economyrather than the quantity of growth

Communalization combines the concerns ofeconomic growth and stability with a more fairproduction and distribution of wealth; the primaryobjective is developing an economy thatstrengthens community


6/21


DEVELOPING A CONTEMPORARY

DEFINITION

CED occurs when people in a communityanalyze the economic conditions of that

community, determine its economic needs andunfulfilled opportunities, decide what can andshould be done to improve the economicconditions in that community, and then move toachieve agreed-upon economic goals and

objectives CED is not a rationale for maintaining thestatus quo but is a comprehensive concept forchanging the economic situation within thecommunity


7/21

CONTEMPORARY ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT

A NEW PARADIGM

Economic growth theory has moved through a naturalprogression that can be presented in terms of waves

1st wave based on export base theory and theattraction of capital resources from other locations via

tax subsidies, low-rent land and training funds 2nd wave focused on the expansion and retention of

existing business and entrepreneurship; strategieshave included increased investment funds for localfirms, incubator development, technical assistance forlocal firms and revolving loan funds

3rd wave focuses on collaboration and partnershipbuilding within and across communities has been thefocus of third wave economic development policies

It is the third wave of economic growth theory that hasfunctioned as the initial bridge between economicgrowth and development and community development


8/21

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTTENETS FOR POLICY & ACTION

PROGRAMS

a community is a logical economic unit that can exertsome control over its economic future

intervention in the form of conscious group decisionsand actions will affect local economic welfare morethan the sum of individual actions

the action/policy must be comprehensive and cannotfocus just on economic activity but must also includenoneconomic dimensions

the resources needed will be available or can befound to implement the policy (resources are morethan monetary and include all factors of production ,especially social capital and community assets


9/21

COMMUNITY ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT BASIC

STRATEGIES

Work with new and existing business in using existing resourcesdifferently

Increase the flow of dollars into the community

Looking beyond traditional extractive industries for communities rich innatural amenities

Increasing the recirculation of dollars into the community, Local factor resources are a critical element of CED specifically,

increasing the amount of resources available Acting smarter translates into how the community goes about making

decisions and sets up and implements strategies Changing (reinterpreting) the rules the community seeks a change in

rules that would benefit the community or seeks a change ininterpretation of rules


10/21

PARTICIPATORYDEMOCRACY


Maximum Self-Development: Recognizes political participation as a value that, in

itself, is necessary to the growth and development ofits citizens Argues that the provision of political conditions which

allow for maximum self-development and theopportunity to enlarge their vision and sense ofthemselves is compulsory

Ordinary citizens are both capable, and obligated, tostrive to develop an awareness of their self-interestand to cultivate an empathy with, and a commitmentto, the well-being of others.


11/21

PARTICIPATORYDEMOCRACY


Against an Elitist Orientation Expanding Democracy: a common critique of participatory theory and an

argument of liberal democratic theory, based onnumerous surveys and empirical studies, suggeststhat large portions of the American public are poorlyinformed and politically passive.

Participation & Equality participation and equality as mutually reinforcing

participation translates into power, generating greaterequality between the classes, which functions as acatalyst for subordinate classes to continue thestruggle for equality.


12/21

COMMUNITY ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT & PARTICIPATORY

DEMOCRACY AS MUTUALLY

REINFORCING

Both address and aspire to reduce inequalities, i.e. political,social, and economic

Both seek to strengthen democracy Both work to empower citizens Both emphasize community and seek to enhance the

quality of life Both promote collaboration and partnership building Both value inclusive citizen participation and encourage all

citizens to express their preferences

Both encourage citizens to develop a an awareness of theirself-interest as well as a commitment to the well-being ofothers


13/21

WHY BROWNFIELDS?

Brownfield: real property, the expansion,redevelopment, or reuse of which may be

complicated by the presence or potentialpresence of a hazardous substance, pollutant,or contaminant

Successful brownfields redevelopment requires(among other things) that public agencies

connect the reuse to broader community goals,including but not limited to, meaningful publicparticipation .


14/21

WHY BROWNFIELDS?

Federal commitment to pursue brownfieldredevelopment

o private development opportunitieso public job creation and increased tax revenues

Coinciding federal commitment to increase citizenparticipation in public and governmental processeso rests on the logic that citizens have the right to

influence decisions that affect them and should,

therefore, be included in scientific andenvironmental decisions


15/21

REFERENCES

ACIR (1979). Citizen participation in the American federal system. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Advisory Commissionon Intergovernmental Relations.Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.Bachrach, P. (1967a). The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little Brown.Bachrach, P. (1967b). The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Litle Brown.Bachrach, P. (1975). Participation and democratic theory. In J. R. Pennock & J. Chapman (Eds.), Participation in

politics. New York: Lieber-Atherton Press.Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy.Philadelphia: Temple University PressBarnard, F. M., & Vernon, R. A. (1975). Pluralism, Participation, and Politics. Politics and Society, 3, 185-204..Bartik, T. (January, 2003). Local economic development policies. Unpublished chapter in the Fifth Edition ofManagement Policies in Local Government Finance, edited by J. Richard Aronson and Eli Schwartz, andpublished by International City/County Management Association. Upjohn Institute.Beauregard, R. A. (1993). Constituting economic development: A theoretical perspective. In R. D. Bingham & R.Mier (Eds.), Theories of local economic development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


16/21

REFERENCES

Blahna, D. J., & Yonts-Shepard, S. (1989). Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap beweenpolicy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources, 2(3), 209-227.Boothroyd, P., & Davis, H. C. (1993). Community economic development: Three approaches. Journal of PlanningEducation and Literature, 12(3), 230-240.Bradshaw, T. J., & Blakely, E. J. (2002). Planning local economic development: theory and practice (3rd ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Checkoway, B., & Van Til, J. (1978). What do we know about citizen participation? A selective review of research. In S.Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America. Lexington: Lexington Books.Christenson, J. A., & Roninson, J. W., Jr. (1993). In search of community development. In J. A. Christenson & J. W.Roninson, Jr. (Eds.), Community development in America (pp. 3-17).Cunningham, F. (2002). Participatory democracy Theories of democracy: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge.Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale university Press.De Sousa, C. A. (2005). Policy performance and brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin*. ProfessionalGeographer, 57(2), 312.Desario, J., & Langton, S. (1987a). Toward a metapolicy for social planning. In J. Desario & S. Langton (Eds.), Citizenparticipation in public decision making(pp. 205-221). Westport: GreenwoodPress.


17/21

REFERENCES

Desario, J., & Langton, S. (Eds.). (1987b). Citizen participation in public decision-making. New York: GreenwoodPress.Dunn, J. (1974). Democracy unretrieved, or the political theory of Professor Macpherson. British Journal of PoliticalScience, 4, 489 - 500.Dye, T., & Zeigler, H. (1987). The Irony of Democracy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Eisinger, P. (1988). The role of the entreprenuerial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Eisinger, P. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic DevelopmentQuarterly, 9(4), 146-158.Fiorino, D. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of EnvironmentalLaw, 14(2), 501-547.Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entreprenuerial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient.Annals of theAmerican Association of political and Social Sciences, 529, 48-58.Glaser, E. L., & Kohlhase, J. E. (2004). Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs. Papers in RegionalScience, 83(1), 197-228.Godschalk, D. R., & Stiftle, B. (1981). Making waves: Public participation in state water planning. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Analysis, 17(4), 597-614.

Goodwin, N. R. (1997). Interdisciplinary perspective on well-being. In F. Ackerman, D. Kiron, N. R. Goodwin, J. M.Harris & K. Gallagher (Eds.), Human well-being and economic goals (pp. 1-15). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.


18/21

REFERENCES

Green, G. P. (2001). Amenities and community economic development: Strategies for sustainability. Journal of RegionalAnalysis and Policy, 31(2), 61-75.Green, G. P., Deller, S. C., & Marcouiller, D. (Eds.). (2006).Amenities and rural development: Theories, methods andpublic policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Gutmann, A. (1980). Liberal Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Hochschild, J. (1984). The New American Dilemma. New Haven: Yale University Press.Huntington, S. (1976). United States. In M. Crozier (Ed.), Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.Johannison, B. (1990). Community entreprenuership: Cases and conceptualization. Entreprenuership and RegionalDevelopment, 21(1), 71-88.Johannson, B., & Quigley, J. M. (2004). Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in Regional Science,83(1), 165-176.Kateb, G. (1981). The Moral Distinctiveness of Representative Democracy. Ethics, 91 (4), 357-374.Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding andmobilizing a community's assets. Cicogo: ACTA Publications.Lange, D., & McNeil, S. (June, 2004). Clean it and they will come? Defining successful brownfield development. Journalof Urban Planning and Development, 101-108.Lejano, R. P., & Wessells, A. T. (2006). Community and economic development: Seeking common ground in discourse

and in practice. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1469.


19/21

REFERENCES

Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets: The world's political economic systems. New York: Basic Books.Lovan, R. W., Murry, M., & Shaffer, R. (Eds.). (2004). Participatory governance: Planning, conflict mediation andpublic decision-making in civil society. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.Lukes, S. (1979). The real and ideal world of democracy. In A. Kantos (Ed.), Power, possessions and freedom.Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Lynn, F. M. (1990). Public participation in risk management: The right to define, the right to know, and the right to

act. Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1(1), 95-111.Macpherson, C. B. (1973). Democratic theory. London: Oxford University Press.Mayors, U. S. C. o. (2003). Recycling America's land: A national report on brownfields redevelopment.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conferrence of Mayors.McCarthy, L. (2002). The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: Reducing barriers to private redevelopmentwhile connecting reuse to broader community goals. Land Use Policy, 19, 287-296.Mill, J. S. (1873). Considerations on representative government. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Mishel, L., & Bernstein, J. (1996). The state of working America, 1994-1995. Washington, D.C.: Economic PolicyInstitute.Moote, M. A., McClaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). Theory in practice: applying participatroy democracytheory to public land planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 77-89.


20/21

REFERENCES

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pitkin, H. (1969). Representation. New York: Atherton Press.Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 63(1), 65-78.Reese, L. A., & Fasenfest, D. (1996). Local economic development of time. Economic Development Quarterly, 10,280-289.Reich, R. (1990). Policy making in a democracy. In R. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 123-156).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluatingmodels for environmental discourse Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation.American Review of Public

Administration, 34(4), 315 - 353.Rosenbaum, N. (1978). Citizen participation and democratic theory. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in

America (pp. 43-54). Lexington: Lexington books.Rosener, J. (1982). Making bureaucracy responsive: a study of the impacts of citizen participation and staffrecommendations on regulatory decision making. Public Administration Review, 42(2), 339-345


21/21

REFERENCES

Rousseau, J. J. (1968 [1762]). The social contract. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.Schrader-Frechette, K. (1990). Scientific method, anti-foundationalism, and public policy. Risk Issues in Health andSafety, 1(1), 23-41.Schweke, W. (1990). The third wave in economic development. Washinton, D.C.: Corporation for EnterpriseDevelopment.Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management.Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195.Shaffer, R., Deller, S., & Marcouiller, D. (2006). Rethinking community economic development. EconomicDevelopment Quarterly, 20(1), 59-74.Simon, W. H. (2001). The community economic development movement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Stirmon, J., Shands, W. E., & Liggert, C. (1993). Communities of interest and open decision making. Journal ofForestry, 91(7), 17-31.Turner, R. (1999). Entrepreneurial neighborhood initiatives: Political capital in community development. EconomicDevelopment Quarterly, 10, 115-150.Van Valey, T. L., & Petersen, J. C. (1987). Public service science centers: The Michigan experience. In J. Desario & S.Langton (Eds.), Citizen participation in public decision making(pp. 39-63). Westport: Greenwood press.

Wyly, E. K., Glickman, N. J., & Lahr, M. L. (1998). A top 10 list of things to know about American cities. Cityscape: AJournal of Policy Development & Research, 3(3), 7 - 32.

public participation & community economic development

Documents