Responsible participation and housing: restoring democratic theory to the scene

Tensions between individual liberty and collective social justice characterise many advanced liberal societies. These tensions are reflected in the challenges posed for representative democracy both by participatory democratic practices and by the current emphasis on (so-called) responsible participation. Based on the example of ‘community’ housing associations in Scotland, this paper explores these tensions. It is argued that the critique of responsibility may have been over-stated – that, in particular, ‘community’ housing associations offer the basis for relatively more inclusive and effective processes of decision-making than council housing, which relies on the traditional processes and institutions of representative local government for its legitimacy

Tenant Participation in Housing Associations: Faifley Case Study

No abstract available

Effectiveness at what? The processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives

Community involvement is seen both as means and as ends in contemporary urban policy, and although increasingly popular with policymakers it is not universally welcomed. Incredulous opponents assert that it does not improve the position of poor people and that it distracts attention from structural inequalities, whereas sceptical believers hold that it boosts social cohesion, and improves the position of powerless groups. The authors provide a framework for understanding these conflicting accounts of the processes and impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives (ABIs). They draw on a review of the relevant literature commissioned by the Home Office. The work is grounded in theories of democracy that claim both developmental and instrumental benefits for participants. A third rationale is found in ‘due process’ claims for involvement as a fundamental right. This framework suggests that answering questions about what works in community involvement in ABIs requires an empirical focus on aims, processes, and effects. The evidence shows that believers are justified in being sceptical but optimistic, and that opponents will remain incredulous in the light of weaknesses in the practice and outcomes of community involvement in ABIs. The authors conclude by discussing the implications for policy and future research.

How would we know what works? Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement

In 2002 the UK Home Office commissioned a review of research on community involvement in area-based initiatives. This found comparatively few studies that set out to measure the impact rather than the extent and nature of involvement and hence few answers to the question of what works. This article takes that finding as its starting point and sets out to develop a more robust framework for evaluating the impact of community involvement. It notes the difficulties inherent in using a classic experimental design to evaluate processes as complex as community involvement and proposes a theory-based approach. To this end, it critically reviews the underlying theoretical claims of both community involvement and of area-based initiatives. An evaluation framework is then developed in which the potential benefits of greater involvement are considered for each stage of the process of developing an area-based initiative and positive and negative contextual factors are identified.No Full Tex