Progressive Reform,Gender and Institutional Structure: A Critical Analysis of Citizen Participation in Detroit's Community Development Corporations (CDCs)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2003
Progressive Reform,Gender and Institutional Structure: A Critical Analysis of Citizen Participation in Detroit's Community Development Corporations (CDCs)
This article examines the institutional context in which community-based organisations are embedded. Two emergent themes in the literature on community development are examined critically: the woman-centred model for community organising; and the thesis concerning the community development industry system. The analysis is based upon data from field research with community development corporations (CDC) in Detroit, Michigan. The findings from this research indicate that the prospects for developing progressive community development strategies in grassroots organisations are constrained by barriers to financial resources and limited access to the policy-making process. As a result, recommendations are forwarded for the creation of autonomous funding sources, expanded democratic decision-making in community-based organisations and the linking of progressive reform to broad-based coalition building and multiple oppression politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alinsky, S. (1969) Reville for Radicals. New York : Vintage Books.
2.
Appleton, L.M. (1995) The gender regimes of American cities, in: J. A. Garber and R. S. Turner (Eds) Gender in Urban Research, pp. 44-59. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
Arnstein, S.R. (1969) A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp. 216-224.
4.
Baer, S.E. and Marando, V.L. (2001) The subdistricting of cities: applying the polycentric model, Urban Affairs Review, 36(5), pp. 721-733.
5.
Bockmeyer, J.L. (2000) A culture of distrust: the impact of local political culture on participation in the Detroit EZ, UrbanStudies , 37(13), pp. 2417-2440.
6.
Bratt, R. (1997) CDCs: contributions outweigh contradictions, a reply to Randy Stoecker, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), pp. 23-28.
7.
Chung, A.Y. and Chang, E.T. (1998) From Third World liberation to multiple oppression politics: a contemporary approach to interethnic coalitions, Social Justice, 25(3), pp. 80-100.
8.
Clavel, P. (1986) The Progressive City: Planning and Participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
9.
Clavel, P., Pitt, J. and Yin, J. (1997) The community option in urban policy, Urban Affairs Review, 32(4), pp. 435-458.
10.
Collins, P.H. (1993) Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection, Race, Sex, and Class,1(1), 25-45.
11.
Desena, J.N. (1998) Low-income women and community power, Sociological Spectrum, 18, pp.311-332.
12.
Feagin, J.R. and Vera, H. (2001) Liberation Sociology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
13.
Ferguson, R.F. and Stoutland, S.E. (1999) Reconceiving the community development field, in: R. F. Ferguson and W. T. Dickens (Eds) Urban Problems and Community Development , pp. 33-75. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press .
14.
Foster, M.K. and Meinhard, A.G. (2002) A regression model explaining predisposition to collaborate, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), pp. 549-564.
15.
Gittfll, M., Ortega-Bustamante, I. and Steffy, T. (2000) Social capital and social change: women's community activism, Urban Affairs Review, 36(2), pp. 123-147.
16.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldinede Gruyter.
17.
Goetz, E.G. and Sidney, M. (1995) Community development corporations as neighborhood advocates: a study of the political activism of nonprofit developers, Applied Behavioral Science Review, 3(1), pp. 1-20.
18.
Hyde, C., Meyers, M. and Cook, D. (2002) A new twist in nonprofit, for-profit, and public sector relationships: the community benefits district, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(9/10), pp. 55-76.
19.
Keating, W.D. (1997) The CDC model of urban development: a reply to Randy Stoecker, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), pp. 29-33.
20.
Minkoff, D.C. (2002) The Emergence of hybrid organizational forms: combining identity based service provision and political action, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), pp.377-401.
21.
Naples, N.A. (1998) Grassroots Warriors: Activist Mothering, Community Work, and the War on Poverty. New York: Routledge.
22.
National Congress For Community Economic Development (1999) Coming of Age: Trends and Achievements of Community-based Development Organizations. Washington, DC: National Congress for Community Economic Development.
23.
Otis, E.M. (2001) The reach and limits of asian panethnic identity: the dynamics of gender, race, and class in a community-based organization, QualitativeSociology, 24(3), pp. 349-379.
24.
Pardo, M.S. (1998) Mexican American Women Activists: Identity and Resistance in Two Los Angeles Communities. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.
25.
Rubin, H.J. (2000) Renewing Hope within Neighborhoods of Despair: The Community-Based Development Model. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
26.
Silverman, R.M. (2001a) CDCs and charitable organizations in the urban South: mobilizing social capital based on race and religion for neighborhood revitalization, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30(2), pp. 240-268.
27.
Silverman, R.M. (2001b) Neighborhood characteristics, CDC emergence and the community development industry system: a case study of the American deep South, Community Development Journal, 36(3), pp. 234-245.
28.
Sirianni, C. and Friedland, L. (2001) Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic Renewal. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Spain, D. (2002) What happened to gender relations on the way from Chicago to Los Angeles, City & Community, 1(2), pp. 155-167.
31.
Staeheli, L.A. and Clarke, S.E. (1995) Gender, place, and citizenship, in: J. A. Garber and R. S. Turner (Eds) Gender in Urban Research, pp. 3-23. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
32.
Stall, S., and Stoecker, R. (1998) Community organizing or organizing community?: Gender and the craft of empowerment, Gender and Society, 12(6), pp. 729-756.
33.
Stoecker, R. (1997) The CDC model of urban redevelopment: a critique and an alternative, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1), pp. 1-22.
34.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications .
35.
Trolander, J.A. (1987) Professionalism and Social Change: From the Settlement House Movement to Neighborhood Centers, 1886 to the Present. New York: Columbia University Press.
36.
Turner, R.S. (1995) Concerns for gender in central city development policy, in: J. A. Garber and R. S. Turner (Eds) Gender in Urban Research , pp. 271-289. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
37.
Vidal, A. (1992) Rebuilding Communities: A National Study of Urban Community Development Corporations. New York: Community Development Research Center.
38.
Warren, M.R. (2001) Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Wilson, W.J. (1999) The Bridge over the Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics. Berkeley, CA/ New York: University of California Press/ Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
Wood, R.L. (2002) Faith in Action: Religion, Race, and Democratic Organizing in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Wood, R.L. and Warren, M.R. (2002) A different face of faith-based politics: social capital and community organizing in the public arena, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(9/10), pp. 6-54.
42.
Yin, J.S. (1998) The community development industry system: a case study of politics and institutions in Cleveland, 1967-1997, Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(2), pp. 137-157.
