Public Participation

1
Public Participation Community Economic
Development A Model of Participatory Democracy
2

• Allison Houlihan, PhD Candidate
• School of Urban Public Affairs
• Center for Environmental Policy Management
• University of Louisville
• Urban Affairs Association Annual Conference
• Chicago, IL
• March 6, 2009

3
Introduction

• Community Economic Development
• Participatory Democracy
• Community Economic Development Participatory
  Democracy as Mutually Reinforcing
• Why Brownfields?

4
community economic developmenttheoretical
traditions

• Underlying concept of CED incorporates two
  components
• Community
• Economic development
• Seeks to increase capital gains in such a way
  that benefits the entire community
• Three underlying principles contribute to a logic
  for community action
• a theory of local economic development
• a strategy of social policy implementation rooted
  in citizen empowerment
• a grassroots political orientation

5
community economic developmentpractical
approaches

• Growth Promotion economic development is
  synonymous with job growth and increased income
  and business activity
• Structural Change planned growth responds to
  the limitations of investment-seeking and grants
  the need to supplement or replace the goal of
  growth itself emphasis on the quality of the
  economy rather than the quantity of growth
• Communalization combines the concerns of
  economic growth and stability with a more fair
  production and distribution of wealth the
  primary objective is developing an economy that
  strengthens community

6
community economic developmentdeveloping a
contemporary definition

• CED occurs when people in a community analyze the
  economic conditions of that community, determine
  its economic needs and unfulfilled opportunities,
  decide what can and should be done to improve the
  economic conditions in that community, and then
  move to achieve agreed-upon economic goals and
  objectives
• CED is not a rationale for maintaining the status
  quo but is a comprehensive concept for changing
  the economic situation within the community

7
Contemporary economic developmenta new paradigm

• Economic growth theory has moved through a
  natural progression that can be presented in
  terms of waves
• 1st wave based on export base theory and the
  attraction 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
  strategies have included increased investment
  funds for local firms, incubator development,
  technical assistance for local firms and
  revolving loan funds
• 3rd wave focuses on collaboration and
  partnership building within and across
  communities has been the focus of third wave
  economic development policies
• It is the third wave of economic growth theory
  that has functioned as the initial bridge between
  economic growth and development and community
  development

8
Community economic development tenets for policy
action programs

• a community is a logical economic unit that can
  exert some control over its economic future
• intervention in the form of conscious group
  decisions and actions will affect local economic
  welfare more than the sum of individual actions
• the action/policy must be comprehensive and
  cannot focus just on economic activity but must
  also include noneconomic dimensions
• the resources needed will be available or can be
  found to implement the policy (resources are more
  than monetary and include all factors of
  production , especially social capital and
  community assets

9
Community economic development Basic Strategies

• Work with new and existing business in using
  existing resources differently
• Increase the flow of dollars into the community
• Looking beyond traditional extractive industries
  for communities rich in natural 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 in
  interpretation of rules

10
participatory democracytheoretical traditions

• Maximum Self-Development
• Recognizes political participation as a value
  that, in itself, is necessary to the growth and
  development of its citizens
• Argues that the provision of political conditions
  which allow for maximum self-development and
  the opportunity to enlarge their vision and
  sense of themselves is compulsory
• Ordinary citizens are both capable, and
  obligated, to strive to develop an awareness of
  their self-interest and to cultivate an empathy
  with, and a commitment to, the well-being of
  others.

11
Participatory democracy theoretical traditions

• Against an Elitist Orientation Expanding
  Democracy
• a common critique of participatory theory and an
  argument of liberal democratic theory, based on
  numerous surveys and empirical studies, suggests
  that large portions of the American public are
  poorly informed and politically passive.
• Participation Equality
• participation and equality as mutually
  reinforcing
• participation translates into power, generating
  greater equality between the classes, which
  functions as a catalyst for subordinate classes
  to continue the struggle for equality.

12
Community economic development 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 their self-interest as well as a commitment to
  the well-being of others

13
Why brownfields?

• Brownfield real property, the expansion,
  redevelopment, or reuse of which may be
  complicated by the presence or potential presence
  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 public
  participation .

14
Why Brownfields?

• Federal commitment to pursue brownfield
  redevelopment
• private development opportunities
• public job creation and increased tax revenues
• Coinciding federal commitment to increase citizen
  participation in public and governmental
  processes
• rests on the logic that citizens have the right
  to influence decisions that affect them and
  should, therefore, be included in scientific and
  environmental decisions

15
References

• ACIR (1979). Citizen participation in the
  American federal system.  Washington, D.C. U.S.
  Advisory Commission on 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 Press
• Barnard, 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 of Management Policies in Local
  Government Finance, edited by J. Richard Aronson
  and Eli Schwartz, and published 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
references

• Blahna, D. J., Yonts-Shepard, S. (1989). Public
  involvement in resource planning Toward bridging
  the gap beween policy and implementation. Society
  and Natural Resources, 2(3), 209-227.
• Boothroyd, P., Davis, H. C. (1993). Community
  economic development Three approaches. Journal
  of Planning Education 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. Professional Geographer, 57(2), 312. 
• Desario, J., Langton, S. (1987a). Toward a
  metapolicy for social planning. In J. Desario
  S. Langton (Eds.), Citizen participation in
  public decision making (pp. 205-221). Westport
  GreenwoodPress.

17
references

• Desario, J., Langton, S. (Eds.). (1987b).
  Citizen participation in public decision-making.
  New York Greenwood Press. 
• Dunn, J. (1974). Democracy unretrieved, or the
  political theory of Professor Macpherson. British
  Journal of Political Science, 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 Development Quarterly, 9(4), 146-158.
• Fiorino, D. (1989). Environmental risk and
  democratic process A critical review. Columbia
  Journal of Environmental Law, 14(2), 501-547.
• Flora, C. B., Flora, J. L. (1993).
  Entreprenuerial social infrastructure A
  necessary ingredient. Annals of the American
  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 Regional Science, 83(1), 197-228.
• Godschalk, D. R., Stiftle, B. (1981). Making
  waves Public participation in state water
  planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral 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
references

• Green, G. P. (2001). Amenities and community
  economic development Strategies for
  sustainability. Journal of Regional Analysis and
  Policy, 31(2), 61-75. 
• Green, G. P., Deller, S. C., Marcouiller, D.
  (Eds.). (2006). Amenities and rural development
  Theories, methods and public 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 Regional Development, 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 and mobilizing a community's
  assets. Cicogo ACTA Publications.
• Lange, D., McNeil, S. (June, 2004). Clean it
  and they will come? Defining successful
  brownfield development. Journal of 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
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 and public 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
  redevelopment while 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 Policy Institute.
• Moote, M. A., McClaran, M. P., Chickering, D.
  K. (1997). Theory in practice applying
  participatroy democracy theory to public land
  planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 77-89.

20
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 Evaluating models 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 staff recommendations on
  regulatory decision making. Public Administration
  Review, 42(2), 339-345

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 and Safety, 1(1), 23-41.
•  Schweke, W. (1990). The third wave in economic
  development. Washinton, D.C. Corporation for
  Enterprise Development.
•  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. Economic Development 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 of Forestry, 91(7), 17-31.
•  Turner, R. (1999). Entrepreneurial neighborhood
  initiatives Political capital in community
  development. Economic Development 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 A Journal of Policy
  Development Research, 3(3), 7 - 32.