Survey data collected from participants in the Ahmedabad Slum Networking Project (SNP) is analysed to examine the importance of community participation in explaining respondent complaints about the project overall and with the specific public services provided. Logistic regression results suggest that community involvement matters when asking about overall SNP satisfaction, but is less important in explaining negative comments concerning water, sewerage and street lighting. For these specific services, contact with NGOs and municipalities and community characteristics matter more. The paper identifies policy implications and suggests further research questions based on these findings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgarwalB. (2010) Does women’s proportional strength affect their participation? Governing local forests in south Asia, World Development, 38(1), pp. 98–112.
2.
AMC (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation) (n.d.) AMC concept note. Ahmedabad, India.
3.
BaruahB. (2007) Assessment of public–private–NGO partnerships: water and sanitation services in slums, Natural Resources Forum, 31, pp. 226–237.
4.
BaumS.ArthursonK.RicksonK. (2010) Happy people in mixed-up places: the association between the degree and type of local socioeconomic mix and expressions of neighbourhood satisfaction, Urban Studies, 47, pp. 467–485.
5.
BebbingtonA. (2002) Sharp knives and blunt instruments: social capital in development studies, Antipode, 34(4), pp. 800–803.
BlodgettJ. G.GranboisD. H. (1992) Toward an integrated conceptual model of consumer complaining behavior, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, 5, pp. 93–103.
8.
BourdieuP. (1986) The forms of capital, in: RichardsonJ. G. (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp. 241–258. New York: Greenwood.
9.
CarpenterJ. P.DaniereA. G.TakahashiL. M. (2004) Social capital and trust in south-east Asian cities, Urban Studies, 41(4), pp. 853–874.
CornwallA. (2003) Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development, World Development, 31(8), pp. 1325–1342.
12.
DasA. K.TakahashiL. M. (2009) Evolving institutional arrangements, scaling-up, and sustainability: insights into emerging issues in participatory slum upgrading in Ahmedabad, India, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29, pp. 213–232.
13.
DassopoulosA.MonnatS. M. (2011) Do perceptions of social cohesion, social support, and social control mediate the effects of local community participation on neighborhood satisfaction?, Environment and Behavior, 43(4), pp. 546–565.
14.
DiechmannU.LallS. V. (2007) Citizen feedback and delivery of urban services, World Development, 35(4), pp. 649–662.
15.
FoleyM. W.EdwardsB. (1999) Is it time to disinvest in social capital?, Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), pp. 141–173.
16.
FungA.WrightE. O. (2003) Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.
17.
GalsterG. C.HesserG. W. (1981) Residential satisfaction: compositional and contextual correlates, Environment and Behavior, 13(6), pp. 735–758.
18.
HippJ. (2010) What is the ‘neighbourhood’ in neighbourhood satisfaction? Comparing the effects of structural characteristics measured at the micro-neighbourhood and tract levels, Urban Studies, 47, pp. 2517–2536.
19.
HoppeP.RicksonR.BurchD. (2007) Governing rural landscapes and environments: the strategic role of local community and global partnerships, in: CheshireL.HigginsV.LawrenceG. (Eds) International Perspectives on Rural Governance: New Power Relations in Rural Economies and Societies, pp. 66–81. London: Routledge.
20.
JoshiR. (2002) Integrated slum development: case of Pravinagar-Guptanagar, in: KunduA.MahadeviaD. (Eds) Poverty and Vulnerability in a Globalizing Metropolis, ch. 8. New Delhi: Manak Publications.
21.
Ké ShonJ.-L. P. (2007) Residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood: disentangling dissatisfaction, a French survey. Urban Studies, 44(11), pp. 2231–2268.
22.
KleemeierE. (2000) The impact of participation on sustainability: an analysis of the Malawi rural piped scheme program, World Development, 28(5), pp. 929–944.
23.
KowalskiR. (1996) Complaints and complaining: functions, antecedents, and consequences, Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), pp. 179–196.
24.
MansuriG.RaoV. (2004) Community-based and -driven development: a critical review, The World Bank Research Observer, 19(1), pp. 1–39.
25.
MayerM. (2003) The onward sweep of social capital: causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, pp. 110–132.
26.
MosseD. (2006) Collective action, common property, and social capital in south India: an anthropological commentary, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 54(3), pp. 695–724.
27.
MotiramS.OsbergL. (2010) Social capital and basic goods: the cautionary tale of drinking water in India, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 59(1), pp. 63–94.
28.
NanceE. B. (2005) Multistakeholder evaluation of condominial sewer services, American Journal of Evaluation, 26, pp. 480–500.
29.
NarayanD. (2002) Empowerment and Poverty Reduction. Washington, DC: World Bank.
30.
NarayanD.PritchettL. (1999) Cents and sociability: household income and social capital in rural Tanzania, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4), pp. 871–897.
31.
ParkesA.KearnsA.AtkinsonR. (2002) What makes people dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods?, Urban Studies, 39(13), pp. 2413–2438.
32.
ProkopyL. (2005) The relationship between participation and project outcomes: evidence from rural water supply projects in India, World Development, 33(11), pp. 1801–1819.
WoolcockM. (1998) Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society, 27(2), pp. 151–208.
