The purpose of this article is to construct a locality-based model of collective action useful for planners in understanding why collective action of any kind arises within the geographical boundaries of a residential terrain and how this in turn affects discretionary components of public service provision. The model is based on the premise that collective action is the cause and consequence of the local externality itself, the perceived needs of the residents, and the underlying power structure or the capacity to organize. The model is then tested in a case study that explores the conditions that led to locally initiated school-based care in 114 public elementary schools in Scarborough, Ontario, Canada. Policy implications and recommendations for action are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bondi, L.1987. School closures and local politics: The negotiation of primary school rationalization in Manchester. Political Geography Quarterly6 (3): 203-224.
2.
Bossons, J.1993. Regulation and the cost of housing. In House, home and community: Progress in housing Canadians 1945-1986, edited by J. Miron, 110-135. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
3.
Castells, M.1983. The city and the grassroots. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4.
Chicoine, N. , and D. Rose. 1991. Access to school day care services: Class, family, ethnicity and space in Montreal’s old and new inner city. Geoforum22 (2): 85-201.
5.
Cox, K.1983. Residential mobility, neighbourhood activism and neighbourhood problems. Political Geography Quarterly2 (2): 99-117.
6.
Cox, K. R. , and A. Mair. 1988. Locality and community in the politics of local economic development. Annals of the Association of American Geographers782: 307-325.
7.
Davis, J. E.1991. Contested ground: Collective action and the urban neighbourhood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
8.
England, K.1996. Who will mind the baby? In Who will mind the baby: Geographies of child care and working mothers, edited by K. England, 3-19. London: Routledge.
9.
Fainstein, N. , and S. Fainstein. 1974. Urban political movements. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
Fisher, R.1994. Let the people decide: Neighborhood organizing in America. New York: Twayne.
11.
Flyvbjerg, B.1998. Rationality and power: Democracy in practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Foot, D. , and D. Stoffman. 1996. Boombust and echo: How to profit from the coming demographic shift. Toronto, Canada: Macfarlane Walter and Ross.
13.
Forester, J.1989. Planning in the face of power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Galarneau, D.1994. Baby boom women. Perspectives in Labour and Income6 (4), Statistics Canada, catalogue 75-001E.
15.
Harris, R. , and G. Pratt. 1993. The meaning of home, home ownership and public policy. In The changing social geography of Canadian cities, edited by Larry Bourne and David Ley, 281-297. Montreal, Canada: McGill Queen’s University Press.
16.
Hart, G.1992. Imagined unities: Constructions of “the household” in economic theory. In Understanding economic process—Monographs in economic anthropology, Vol. 10, edited by Sutti Ortiz and Susan Lees, 111-129. New York: University Press of America.
17.
Hasson, S. , and D. Ley. 1994. Neighbourhood organization and the welfare state. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
18.
Hayden, D.1984. Redesigning the American dream: The future of housing, work and family life. New York: W. W. Norton.
19.
Kaufman, J. L.1987. Teaching planning students about strategizing, boundary spanning and ethics: Part of the new planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research6 (2): 108-115.
20.
Khawaja, M.1995. The dynamics of local collective action in the West Bank: A test of rival explanations. Economic Development and Cultural Change44 (1): 147-179.
21.
Laraña, E. , J. Hank, and J. Gusfield. 1994. New social movements: From ideology to identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
22.
Mackenzie, S. , and M. Truelove. 1993. Changing access to public and private services: Non family child care. In The changing social geography of Canadian cities, edited by Larry Bourne and David Ley, 326-342. Montreal, Canada: McGill Queen’s University Press.
23.
McKenzie, E.1994. Privatopia: Homeowner associations and the rise of residential private government. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
24.
Miron, J. 1995. View from the door: A GIS study of neighbourhood environment. The Proceedings of the Eight “Entretiens de Jacques Cartier,”Université de Lyon, France.
25.
Olson, M.1971. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
26.
Ostrom, E.1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review92 (1): 1-22.
27.
Rose, D.1990. Collective consumption revisisted: Analysing modes of provision and access to child care services in Montreal, Quebec. Political Geography Quarterly9 (4): 353-380.
28.
Sandler, T.1992. Collective action—Theory and applications. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
Shubik, M.1992. Game theory in the social sciences—Concepts and solutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
Susskind, L. , and C. Ozawa. 1984. Mediated negotiation in the public sector: The planner as mediator. Journal of Planning Education and Research4 (1): 5-15.
31.
Tarrow, S.1998. Power in movement: Social movements and contentious politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Young, N.1994. Kindergarten and school-age children....Who cares?Ontario, Canada: Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
