See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239919315

The Role of Government in Community Capacity Building

Article · January 1999

CITATIONS READS

28 9,091

1 author:

Jim Cavaye
The University of Queensland
17 PUBLICATIONS   223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jim Cavaye on 27 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY
CAPACITY BUILDING

Dr Jim Cavaye

Principal Rural Development Officer

Department of Primary Industries
P.O. Box 6014
Rockhampton, 4702
Queensland, Australia
Phone 07 49 360 224
Fax 07 49 361484
E mail cavayej@dpi.qld.gov.au
 2

THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING

Dr Jim Cavaye

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Social and economic changes are transforming rural and regional communities. Government
has sought to respond by emphasising service delivery, supporting infrastructure, increasing
training opportunities and altering policy. An additional response is needed where
government agencies develop a greater role in helping communities build their capacity.

Community capacity consists of the networks, organisation, attitudes, leadership and skills
that allow communities to manage change and sustain community-led development.

Government can and does influence community capacity. A “technical assistance” approach
where services and programs are “delivered” into communities can limit local capacity. Yet,
government can also develop community partnerships that foster community capacity.

Government agencies are well positioned to support communities building their capacity.
Some government agencies already help communities utilise and build networks and skills.
Many public servants intuitively encourage community capacity. Government’s relationship
with citizens is also fundamentally linked to community social capital.

Principles

Developing government’s role in community capacity involves the following principles:

• Creating a “vehicle” for local people to express and act on existing concerns,
• Judging appropriate interaction with communities from “consultation” to genuine
partnership and facilitation,
• Personal relationships between local public servants and community members is crucial
to the invitation government can receive from local people, and the role government can
have in community capacity,
• Melding formal “structures” that mediate community involvement with a grassroots
culture of local participation.
• Community members “unlearning” the role of government solely as a “provider” and
government “unlearning” the historical technical assistance approach to communities.

New Approaches

The following new approaches are needed:

• Redefining the “real work” of public servants to not only be the delivery of delegated
services but also a dual “delegation and community” role where delegated work is
achieved in a way that supports community networks, partnership and capacity.
 3

• A dual “delegation and community” role maintains public servants within their field of
expertise or responsibility. It can enhance the value of technical expertise and reduce
potential conflict between multiple functions of agencies, e.g. research, extension,
regulation.

• Fostering relationships between community members and government workers by

increasing the “networking” role of public servants in communities and initiating contact
with a greater diversity of clients.

• Introducing accountability for the process with which government interacts with
communities, and accountability for community capacity outcomes. This involves
established qualitative methods of assessment - appropriate performance indicators and
methods of measurement are given.

• Coordination between agencies based on valuing existing cooperation, common goals

and values, and joint projects.

Avoiding Pitfalls

There are several pitfalls government needs to avoid. These include selectivity in dealing
with community members, the risk of co-opting community organisations and not being
sensitive to when it is appropriate to help communities build capacity.

A dual service delivery/community capacity role obliges government agencies to go through

the same process of capacity-building as the communities they serve.
 4

INTRODUCTION

In 1887, Woodrow Wilson – the political scientist who became President of the United States
- described the role of public agencies as the “detailed and systematic execution of public
law”. Wilson mirrored much of the thinking about the role of government agencies since –
the neutral implementation of “the broad plans of governmental action”.

Today, government finds itself in an environment that requires more than the neutral delivery
of services and the implementation of policy. Social and economic pressures are
transforming rural and regional communities in virtually every western country. The
economy is shifting from primary industry and manufacturing to information and knowledge-
based services (Henry et.al., 1988; Summers et. al., 1994). “Communities of interest” are
replacing “communities of place” (Putnam, 1993a). Multinational decision making and
global communication and commerce increasingly influence local economies (OECD, 1988).
Small towns near urban centres and regional hubs gain population while youth, in particular,
continue to leave rural communities (Luloff, 1990, Fuguitt, 1994). People are more cynical
and less trusting of government (Time Magazine, 26/9/94). Public norms are being
determined less by local social linkages and more by societal conventions, public opinion and
regulation (Seroka, 1997; Swanson, 1967).

How communities can remain vital in the face of these changes depends not only on their
ability to maintain infrastructure, employment, and income. Their vitality also depends on
the ability of local people to anticipate change, “reframe” problems, mobilise their
community, communicate widely, think strategically and make informed decisions. This is
community capacity - the ability, organisation, attitudes, skills and resources that
communities have to improve their economic and social situation. Indeed, community
capacity often underpins economic development.

To what extent then is government supporting community capacity? Government involves

citizens as it helps create jobs, a better environment, or more efficient health care, for
example. But to what extent do its civic benefits extend to the capacity and organisation of
communities? To what extent does contact between public agencies and local people lead to
stronger, more capable communities with greater human and social capital? How can
government best help local communities build their capacity? What problems are solved and
what dilemmas are created?

This paper attempts to answer these questions.

Government needs to develop a multiple response to the changing situation of communities.

A response that not only improves the delivery of services and adjusts policy but also
includes a greater government role in helping communities build their capacity to manage
change. Government is well placed to develop this additional role. However, it demands a
redefinition of “real work” in the public service, the management of dual roles, greater
coordination between agencies, fostering local community relationships, and developing new
skills, attitudes and culture in the public service.

This additional role does not diminish the need for efficient service delivery. Yet, as
pressures increase the need for communities to develop their capacity, it is time for
government to address how it can best contribute to community capacity.
 5

Before we proceed, there are three caveats to the role of government in communities. First,
government cannot build community capacity - only local people can build the capacity of
their community. However, public agencies can support and facilitate community capacity
building.

Second, government agencies and individual communities do not relate to each other
exclusively. Communities engage in a complex network of interaction, including private
enterprise, community groups, and individuals – as well as public agencies.

Third, there is no one “government” or “community”. In this paper, I refer to “government”

as mainly state government departments that interact with communities. As such,
government consists of a range of public agencies with different roles and cultures.
Communities are also diverse, consisting of a wide range of sectors, groups and individuals
with differing perceptions, interests and interactions with government.

I have deliberately drawn on overseas experience to illustrate issues and implications.

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

Democratic government has developed on legislative determination of the public good,

implemented by public agencies and the courts. Basic legislative principles separated policy
from its administration (Fesler and Kettl, 1991). The public service was established as
“neutral” professionals with specialist expertise providing government services and
implementing policies (Weber, 1947).

These founding principles have led to government largely using the concept of “technical
assistance” while interacting with communities - as both a direct service provider and
indirect policy setter. Technical assistance is development in or for the community, rather
than development of the community. Federal or state governments design programs or
services and “deliver” them into communities from “outside” - control remains outside the
community, experts have authority, and issues are largely technical or economic. (Fear et. al.,
1989). For example, extension agents demonstrate new agricultural practices, infrastructure
projects stimulate employment and subsidies support new industries.

Public agencies have expressed technical assistance in five main strategies as services and
policies for regional areas, in particular, have evolved over the last century. It remains a
cornerstone of rural and regional policy today.

First, clearly, government provides public services such as education, law and order, health,
social support, welfare, and infrastructure maintenance.

Second, government invests in physical infrastructure. It provides or subsidises public

works, such as dams, and transport and communication infrastructure increasing access to
resources and encouraging economic growth (OECD, 1986).

Third, government provides financial capital. It uses grants, subsidised loans, public
investment in private firms, and financial regulation to stimulate business and employment in
rural areas.
 6

Fourth, government policy seeks to stimulate rural adjustment, improve economic efficiency,
and alter private sector behaviour to bring about greater public benefit and achieve greater
equity.

Fifth, government has traditionally supported agriculture, mining and forestry industries to
facilitate economic development in rural areas and to stimulate the national economy. For
example, financial and policy support for agriculture dominates government rural affairs in
many western economies. In the U.S., agricultural subsidies and farm income support make
up about half of the $52 billion of federal funding for rural areas each year, even though 2%
of the total population farm (Flora et al., 1992). Similar approaches form the bulk of
government support for rural areas in other major OECD countries (OECD, 1996; OECD,
1986).

Finally, rural adjustment and welfare programs originating from the Depression aim to
reduce rural hardship and economic readjustment (Rasmussen, 1985). For example, in the
U.S., the War on Poverty in the 1960's boosted government assistance for depressed rural
areas (Marston, 1993). In Australia, drought relief payments, interest subsidies, rural support
workers and farm financial counsellors represent part of this government approach.

Government’s role is indeed to provide services and external support for communities. And
technical assistance has undoubtedly been successful. Government services and support
“delivered” into communities have contributed greatly to economic development,
infrastructure, and quality of life in communities.

However, technical assistance has a downside – it limits community capacity. Some

government approaches to “develop” communities using technical assistance can
disempower local people, create dependency, and suppress local organisation and leadership.
McKnight (1995) and Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) argue that by focusing on “needs”,
rather than community assets, public agencies limit community mobilisation and social
networks. McKnight and Kretzmann feel government agencies can encourage a “dependency
masked by service” and provide “disabling help”. Zody (1980) agrees that while technical
assistance solves short-term problems, it can “establish dependency relationships that
become part of the problem”.

Blagg and Derricourt (1982) show that while government work with the community can
generate new situations and opportunities, it has also “led working class groups into
incorporation and impotence”.

Brown (1980) argues that technical assistance does not address a community's capacity to
manage the assistance it receives. Putnam (1993a) points out that government programs,
such as urban renewal and public housing projects, have “heedlessly ravaged existing social
networks”.

The Community Development Project in Britain is an example of government “command

and control” overwhelming local organisation and leadership (Loney, 1983). Similar
examples exist in the Third World (Lea and Chaudhri, 1983; Chambers, 1983).
 7

Putnam (1993a) feels that while technical assistance efforts create financial and physical
benefits, their impact on community capacity can nullify any net community benefit. For
example, Flora and Flora (1995) describe how rezoning and other government incentives for
a meat packing plant created jobs in a small rural community in Iowa. However, high
employee turnover diminished social capital, and crime and insecurity increased. Putnam
(1995a) suggests that the consolidation of country post offices and small school districts may
achieve financial efficiencies, but reduce social capital.

Just as “top down” approaches can limit community networks and self reliance, government
can support communities in a way that helps to build social and human capacity. Policies
and interaction that encourage community participation, cooperation between groups, and the
inclusion of a diverse range of people can improve community capacity (Flora and Flora,
1995). For example, government’s role in establishing community colleges or incentives for
community organisations can encourage social capital (Putnam, 1995a). Government has
played an important role in the success of major voluntary organisations (Stengel, 1996).

With communities in today’s spiral of major change, government’s response largely reflects
technical assistance and traditional strategies of service and delivery:

• Service delivery – for example, the recent federal Regional Australia Strategy, strongly
emphasises the delivery of rural government services.

• Infrastructure (particularly information technology) – for example, Networking the

Nation devotes $250 million to regional telecommunications infrastructure,

• Agriculture – for example, Agriculture – Advancing Australia aims to stimulate greater

self-reliance in agricultural industries through better management and diversification.
“Doing More with Agriculture” has similar goals in Western Australia.

• Training – for example, Farmbiz and several other programs support skill development.

It is quite appropriate for government to boost infrastructure and services and retain a
technical assistance approach to some of government’s work. Government has a clear
obligation to deliver services and infrastructure “into” communities - and the benefits are
crucial. Yet, relying exclusively on a “delivery” role, or the assumptions of technical
assistance, no longer wholly meets the needs of rapidly changing communities. It also runs
the risk of limiting community capacity, just as pressures demand communities to develop it.

The States and the Commonwealth have indeed moved to increase community access to
government and provided incentives for joint government/community planning. For
example, the Regional Communities Program in Queensland, and regional federal
government forums, provide direct community access to government. Rural Plan and the
now completed Rural Partnership Initiative provide for joint strategic planning and activities
with communities.

An additional response is needed – where government orients itself to support and facilitate
community capacity. Just as changing circumstances saw and rural adjustment approaches
emerge in the past, we are at a turning point in the evolution of government’s role. The
 8

pressures mounting on rural Australia challenge government to develop a dual role to deliver
services, infrastructure and policy, as well as to facilitate community capacity – a challenge
to incorporate technical assistance into a wider approach.

And government is well positioned to develop such a role.

GOVERNMENT WELL PLACED TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY CAPACITY

A community capacity role is not completely new for government. Some public agencies
have existing community capacity roles and government has fundamental links to community
networks, organisation and leadership.

Existing Community Roles

Some government agencies already work closely with communities utilising and building
networks and skills. This not only includes community advisory panels or consultative
processes, but also ongoing involvement, such as public participation in education through P
& Cs, community policing, and partnerships in environmental management, health and
economic development. State departments of Natural Resources facilitate Landcare groups,
strengthening rural networks. Agriculture agencies foster community capacity through
agricultural extension, group planning activities such as property management planning and
rural leadership development.

Some public agencies also have a specific role in community-based work. For example,
Departments of State Development have a particular mission to facilitate community
economic development. Social service agencies also are specifically concerned about
community outcomes.

Public servants also facilitate specific industry or economic development initiatives, which
foster community capacity. Examples are community housing, the South West Queensland
Strategy, the Eastern Downs Turnaround Group, the Desert Uplands, and community health
initiatives.

Many of these roles focus on economic development and skill acquisition, rather than
community capacity per se. Yet the agencies involved are well positioned to expand their
contribution to community capacity.

Fundamental Links with Community Capacity

Community capacity, economic development and the effectiveness of government are bound
together. More “open” government encourages local people to participate and interact
(Bellone and Goerl, 1992; McGregor, 1984). In turn, greater community “social capital”
sustains more effective and collaborative public agencies. Social capital is the networks,
trust and social links in communities. As Putnam (1993b) puts it: “strong society, strong
economy, strong society, strong (more democratic) state”.

Putnam (1993b) found that communities with high social capital not only have more
economic opportunities, but also have a collaborative relationship with government (figure
 9

1). They share power with outsiders, manage conflict and develop trust with government.
Berry et. al. (1993) found a similar effect in neighbourhood organisations. As the
organisation of communities increased, the “quality” of participation grew, making
neighbourhoods communal and cooperative. At the same time, government responsiveness
to citizens’ concerns greatly improved (Berry et. al., 1993).

High High “Competent” Community-oriented

economic social community government
development capital

Low Low
economic social “Uncivic” “Command and control”
development capital community government

Figure 1. The polarisation of social capital and its link to the community orientation of
government (Putnam, 1993b).

The reverse is true in “uncivic” communities. Poor community cohesion and empowerment
leads to a dependence on hierarchy. Community members rely on rational “command and
control” decision making by government. Government control perpetuates low levels of
participation and empowerment (Putnam, 1993b).

Fundamental links to community capacity and existing community roles are examples of
government’s connection to community capacity. How then can government develop a dual
service delivery/community capacity role?

There are some key principles and approaches that are important to government helping
communities build their capacity.
 10

KEY PRINCIPLES

Developing government’s role in community capacity involves creating a vehicle for

“concerns”, building a more balanced spectrum of interaction with communities, developing
local personal relationships and melding “top down” and “bottom up” community
involvement.

Not Just Service Delivery

Recognising community outcomes expands government role beyond “service delivery”.

Through the late 1980’s and early 1990’s government passed through a phase of
“reinvention” emphasising business principles, “excellence” in delivery of client needs,
rationalisation and customer service (NPR, 1993; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992; Barzelay,
1992). Government emerged with a strong focus on service delivery and “customer” needs.

Government should indeed deliver “excellent” services that promptly and efficiently satisfy
clients. The public are clearly demanding greater service delivery, particularly in rural areas,
and enhancing service delivery it is an important government priority. Often public
“customers” only want efficient transport, education or health services, not greater
community capacity.

Yet delivering what “clients” perceive they need is only part of the role of government. It
does little to stimulate the “rethinking”, social networks or leadership that builds the ability
of communities to manage change.

Service delivery forms part of a new dual role for government that also includes the
facilitation of community capacity. Alternatively, the processes of community engagement,
partnership and facilitation could be considered as part of the “service” provided by
government (Halligan, 1995; Albrect, 1990).

A Vehicle for Existing Concerns

Government agencies can help communities build capacity by providing a “vehicle” for local
people to express and act on existing concerns. In examples of agency facilitation of capacity
building, staff organised meetings, discussions and activities that allowed motivated people
to come together and implement action (Cavaye, 1997). As a result, people built networks,
organisation, leadership and strategic thinking.

In providing a “vehicle” for local concerns, public agencies can interact with communities in
different cycles of contact. “Top down” approaches often engage communities and agencies
in a self-reinforcing “vicious cycle” of contact (figure 2).
 11

Agency uses delegated “Government never listens”

authority only

Self interest, VICIOUS Poor relationships

Reactive “potshots” CYCLE

Stereotypes reinforced Poor understanding

Figure 2. A vicious cycle of contact often developed by top down approaches to community

With a more community-oriented approach, agencies and communities can build a

constructive “virtuous” cycle of contact (figure 3). As people begin to express and act on
their concerns they meet other stakeholders and community sectors cooperate (Cavaye,
1997). Gradually, emotional and reactive thinking become more constructive and strategic.
Public agencies find it easier to “listen” and act on community concerns, building trust
between staff and local participants.

“Learning” and Changing attitudes

understanding

VIRTUOUS Community sectors

Good relationships CYCLE & agencies as partners

People “being heard” Constructive communication

Figure 3. A virtuous cycle of contact between communities and public agencies.

Putnam (1993b) found similar destructive and constructive cycles of contact in communities.
Berry et. al. (1993) also found that the organisation of urban neighbourhoods, and the extent
to which local government responded to citizen concerns, reinforced each other.
 12

Virtuous cycles build community capacity. Constructive contact fosters community

organisation and attitudes of responsibility and strategic thinking (Cavaye, 1997). As contact
between individuals and groups increase, participants build relationships and expand
personal networks.

How then can government and communities move from “vicious” to “virtuous” contact?
The answer is personal relationships and trust between community people and local public
servants.

Relationships – and the Role of Local Public Servants

“Virtuous” contact relies largely on the relationships, trust and confidence community
members have with local public servants. The personal relationships that the local police
officer, teacher, or health worker has in communities is critical to the invitation government
can receive from local people, and the role government can have in community capacity
building. Poor relationships maintain defensive communication and criticism. Good
personal relationships encourage constructive communication, building government’s
contribution to community networks and organisation. In short, local relationships form the
bridge between “vicious” and “virtuous” cycles.

These relationships involve more than public servants being well known in the community.
The “will” of staff to work with the public, their commitment to the local community, their
personal trust, and the reputation of their agency all have a bearing on the community’s
willingness to work with government (Cavaye, 1997).

Local relationships can also overcome cynicism about “government”. Cavaye (1997) showed
that many community people respected and felt “connected” to local public servants while
despising their agency or government as a whole.

The importance of local relationships has two major implications. First, the public agencies
in the best position to foster community capacity building are not just those with a specific
role or expertise in community development. It is also those agencies with staff “out there”
interacting with local people, regardless of their particular expertise. Agencies such as the
Police Service, the Education Department, the Health Department, the Department of
Primary Industries and the Department of Natural Resources hold the key to government’s
contribution to community capacity - simply because they have staff in local centres that
have the trust and confidence of local people.

Second, relationships join expertise as the asset of the public service. Up till now, the asset
of government agencies has been technical expertise and the capacity to deliver services
involving specialist knowledge and skills. Now, as global change demands greater
community capacity, the ability of the public service to contribute to community capacity
becomes more important. The asset of a modern public service is becoming not just
expertise, but also the relationships and trust between public servants and communities.

Building relationships is part of the next principle - building “higher level” interaction with
communities.
 13

Balancing Types of Interaction

Government and communities interact in many different ways ranging from independent
government action to true community partnership (figure 4). At one extreme, government
can act as a “benevolent dictator” with no citizen participation or ownership and strong
community dependence on government decision-making and resources. Citizens become
slightly more involved when government informs the community of decisions. People
participate only by being told of decisions already made.

Behaviour of Type of Participation*

Government

Benevolent Manipulative Dependence

dictatorship participation

Informing of Passive
decisions participation

Consultation Participation
by consultation

Structured Participation for

community material incentive,
involvement Functional participation
Citizen
Community involvement Interactive participation
partnership and ownership
Inter-dependence
Facilitation of Self mobilisation
community-led
development

* adapted from Pretty (1995)

Figure 4. A spectrum of government interaction with communities and progressive forms of

participation.

Consultation involves government in holding specific events or opportunities for citizens to

comment on a proposal or issue. Government defines issues and controls decisions, local
people provide information and opinion.

“Structured” community involvement entails advisory committees or representative panels

that mediate community input. People may join with government on specific projects or
other forms of formal involvement. Material incentives (such as a funded project) encourage
 14

citizen participation or people may contribute their time and resources. Government and
communities make some decisions jointly, but often project goals are pre-determined.

Community partnership involves government and communities in joint decision-making,

shared leadership and common goals. People participate equally and fully in a joint learning
process. Involvement is natural and self sustaining.

Finally, government agencies can act to facilitate community-led action. Communities self
mobilise, controlling decisions, resources and actions. Government can help facilitate the
community process at the invitation of the community.

Public agencies need to judge how to appropriately interact with local communities. A
community capacity role does not mean that government should seek to stimulate community
capacity at every turn. Not all interaction will, or should, involve community partnership,
ownership or capacity building. In many situations, government agencies providing
information or consulting “clients” is quite appropriate.

Yet it is true that many interactions have inappropriately “consulted” communities, rather
than helped communities build their capacity. In the spectrum of interaction with
communities, there remains an imbalance towards the lower end of community participation.
Government needs to develop its “higher level” interaction with communities that helps them
self-mobilise and build their capacity.

Learning

Government’s role in communities ultimately requires learning – new attitudes of

government as a partner and facilitator, not just a “provider”.

Current attitudes vary. On one hand, for many communities partnership could not be further
from their expectations of government. They have strong expectations of government as an
external “provider” where government’s responsibility is not to support community capacity,
but to directly alleviate community problems with additional infrastructure or assistance.

Indeed many people believe that economic and social decline in rural areas has been caused
by government. They would argue that community empowerment is government abrogation.
Fostering greater community control simply sets the stage for government to down size
services.

Across many western countries, cynicism about government is so strong that community
organisations are becoming a parallel “underground government” for citizens (Marston,
1993). For example, in Canada public trust in government was so poor that independent
crown corporations were needed to engage local citizens (Rabe, 1995). The percentage of
people who trust government in the U.S. has slumped from 76% in 1964 to 19% three
decades later (Time Magazine, 26/9/94).

Current attitudes harden as communities come under increasing pressure. With a paradigm
of government as “provider”, people experiencing the impact of major change are angry at
government’s perceived inadequate response – a provider that doesn’t provide.
 15

On the other hand, there are successful examples of community/government partnerships

based on attitudes of interdependence, and joint learning such as Landcare, the Eastern
Downs Turnaround Group, and the Burnett Food Alliance. There are also many long running
major government/community partnerships overseas including the Malpai Borderlands
Group, the Applegate partnership and Sonoran Desert Alliance in the USA (McAllister and
Zimet, 1994; Klinkenborg, 1995; USDA, 1993).

A greater role for government in supporting community capacity does not just depend on
community attitudes. The assumptions and expectations of government agencies are also
crucial. There is a risk of government “discovering” community capacity building – without
changing the basic assumptions of technical assistance and “delivery”. This can limit a
community capacity role to the provision of training, infrastructure and formal structures of
“consultation”, rather than true community partnership.

The process of community and government “learning” new attitudes and assumptions is
really “unlearning”. Community members need to unlearn the role of government solely as a
“provider”. Government needs to unlearn the historical technical assistance approach to
communities and the assumption that community involvement is “social work”.

The Expressive Role of Government

A final principle is government’s influence on the capacity of communities by expressing

ideas and values. Government and communities operate in a very uncertain environment.
Many issues are ill defined, emotional, and value-laden (Reich, 1988; Heymann, 1990).
Government can “frame” vague issues and cast participants in certain ways (Moore, 1988;
Ingram and Schneider, 1993). This constructs public meanings and attitudes, and helps
shape the organisation and power of communities. In short, policies create a new politics.

For example, the U.S. “War on Poverty” not only reduced poverty but also led to a new
landscape of community organisations and empowered citizens (Marston, 1993).
Conversely, government “constructing” unions as “advantaged”, caused them to become
more formally organised, more passive, and ultimately less relevant to members (Piven and
Cloward, 1979).

Government can use this “framing” ability to build social capital. For example, in Canada,
Crown Corporations treated citizens as owners and controllers, and “framed” hazardous
waste as an opportunity for economic development, dramatically improving community
organisation, contact and leadership (Rabe, 1994). Immigration policies have recast
immigrants positively, resulting in the formation of an immigrant political organisation
(Baker, 1993).

We have discussed the key principles involved in a greater government role in community
capacity. How then can agencies implement them? What new approaches are needed to
build relationships, expand government interaction with communities, and create a vehicle
for concerns? And how does government manage the implications of such a role?
 16

NEW APPROACHES

A greater role for government in supporting community capacity requires agencies to

redefine “work”, change accountability, meld structural changes with personal relationships,
and avoid pitfalls.

Mission before Structure

A greater role for public agencies in community capacity starts with agency mission. Change
has often been driven in the public sector by changes to agency structure. Structure is
important. It delineates organisational boundaries and responsibilities, and internal
communication. However, a stronger community role also requires a re-evaluation of the
fundamental mission of public agencies – which recognises community capacity outcomes as
well as education, health, or law and order outcomes.

Redefining Work

Achieving these dual outcomes means redefining what is “real work” in public agencies.
Agencies carry out work delegated to them by the legislature – police must enforce the law,
teachers educate etc. The basic principles of government define these delegated
responsibilities and service delivery as “work” for public servants. Public expectations,
government accountability and the culture of agencies hold this definition in place.

Delegated roles rarely include public engagement or community capacity outcomes.

Community involvement remains largely a desirable “extra” – specific “consultation” events
separate from the “core work” of service delivery (figure 5). Community involvement aims
to add value to delegated services, rather than create community outcomes per se

Assumptions Expectations “Work”

Legislature Responsive to public Maintain public services

Delegated responsibilities Make effective laws
etc.
Delegation only

Community Agencies provide services Must provide access

and efficient services

Agency Produce results Service delivery

Use of expertise

Community involvement as extra work

Figure 5. Delegation versus Community Involvement – the delivery of delegated services as

the “work” of public agencies
 17

A community capacity building role involves agencies in a dual function, which seeks not
only delegated outcomes but also greater community capacity (figure 6). With a “delegation
and community” approach, agencies would achieve delegated work as they do now. Nurses
care for patients, police arrest criminals and social workers provide counselling. Agencies
would carry out considerable delegated work without any community involvement.

However, appropriate delegated work would also be achieved in partnership with

communities where agencies not only deliver a service, but also help communities build
capacity. For example, in New Mexico the Bureau of Land Management achieves its
delegated role of overseeing the management of public lands together with local graziers and
environmentalists (Klinkenborg, 1995). The outcome is not just the management of public
land – but also a stronger more cooperative partnership between stakeholders that leads to
better drought management and environmental protection.

The Department of Natural Resources in Wisconsin involves local people in the delegated
role of monitoring fish populations (WDNR, 1989). This delegation and community
involvement has improved local confidence in the agency and improved local understanding
of natural resources.

Dual Assumptions Dual Expectations “Work”

Responsive Legislation and services

Legislature

Delegation
Closer to citizens Community outcomes

Agencies provide services Access and services

Community
Agencies involve Local ownership and
community partnership with government

Produce results Provide expertise & services

Agency
Agencies facilitate Community ownership
community capacity and partnership

Community involvement and delegation performed together

Figure 6. Delegation and Community Involvement - a dual model defining the work of
public agencies as both delegation and community involvement.

This dual role redefines the work of public servants. What is policing, educating, nursing, or
environmental protection now, and in the future, will continue to be the delivery of delegated
services. But a part of an agency’s work will also be conducting delegated work in a way
that fosters community relationships, shares power with local people and supports
communities becoming more organised and able. The skills of some public servants will not
 18

only be technical expertise, but also the ability to facilitate a process that engages a diversity
of people, supports community "champions", helps people plan action, networking, conflict
resolution, and provides a “vehicle for concerns”.

I mentioned earlier that because local relationships were so important to the role of
government in communities, agencies with local staff that are best placed to contribute to
community capacity. How government develops a delegation and community role depends,
not on specialist “community developers”, but on how a local police officer, nurse or teacher
defines their “work”.

How then can public servants redefine their “real work” as both delegation and community
involvement?

First, for some staff, it means making intuitive contributions to community capacity more
deliberate. Dual responsibilities for some public employees are not new. Some have carried
out delegated work and at the same time have intuitively supported community networks and
capacity for decades. It is a matter of recognising intuitive work and making it more
deliberate and purposeful.

Second, dual accountability can help redefine work. Agencies account for their delegated
roles through professional standards and bureaucratic structures. However, they can also be
accountable for the process of community involvement and resulting contributions to
community capacity. More on this later.

Thirdly, redefining “real work” relies on changes to the culture of the public service. Until
organisational attitudes and values hold supporting community capacity as “the norm” - the
“unwritten rule of the game” - work will remain defined as delegation only (Scott-Morgan,
1994; Schein, 1991). Accountability, training and rewards can support these attitudes. But
what will sustain them are the basic assumptions of staff that determine their everyday work.

The Relevant Community

A dual “delegation and community” role does not mean involving public servants outside
their field of expertise or delegated authority. For example, it would not mean that police
become involved in community health issues.

Rather, it involves public servants with their “relevant community” (figure 7). Police work
with citizens motivated about security – a “law and order community”. Teachers work with
the “education community” involving teachers, students, parents, concerned citizens and
elected officials. Department of Agriculture staff relate to a “primary industries community”.
Hence, government can support the capacity of communities through the contribution that
each agency can make to the functioning of their “relevant” community.
 19

Community - at - Large

Transport
Heath Community
Community Dept. of
Dept.of Health Transportation

Education Natural
Community Resources
Dept. of Community
Education Dept. of Natural
Resources

Figure 7. The “relevant communities” of government agencies within the “community at

large”.

Expertise

A “delegation and community” role also maintains the technical expertise of public servants.
In a public service framed around technical assistance it is easy for staff to feel that building
relationships and supporting community partnership devalues expertise. Police, teachers or
agricultural extension workers may perceive that a dual community role forces them to
become “de facto social workers” or “generalist facilitators”, rather than technical experts.

However, involvement with local communities can not only maintain technical expertise but
also enhance its importance to the community. Cavaye (1997) found that the more involved
agency staff were with local community initiatives the more value local people placed on
their technical expertise. This arose from staff being accessible and more able to response to
technical issues raised by community members.
 20

The Multi-Function Dilemma

Redefining work also has implications for interaction between staff roles. Public agencies
fulfil several different roles at the same time – regulation, delivery of specific services,
extension, research, advising, counselling, and enforcement. These multiple functions can
make it difficult for agencies to develop trust and confidence with communities. For
example, it is hard to be a community facilitator one day, and a regulator/enforcement agency
the next.

In working with communities, agencies need to manage the perception and integration of
these roles. Importantly, agencies with multiple roles have found that being involved with
communities “softened” their regulatory role and increased coordination between functions
(Cavaye, 1997).

Yet redefining work to include a dual role does create dilemmas for agencies.

Dilemmas

In a public service delivering delegated services and supporting community capacity, the
sheer public demand for basic services can be a strong force putting delegated roles before
community outcomes. While some delegated roles and community outcomes can be
achieved together, many government’s are struggling to deliver basic delegated services to an
aging population with increasing service demand.

A second dilemma is that while delegated work can be achieved with community
involvement, developing true community partnership and engagement requires additional
skills, time and effort. At least in the short term, this can be effort taken away from
delegated roles.

So there is a “Catch 22”. Complex change puts pressure on public agencies to support
community capacity as well as deliver delegated services. Yet the need to deliver basic
services limits the capacity of agencies to invest time and skills in developing a dual
“delegation and community” role.

Managing this dilemma, and redefining “work” requires agencies to foster community
relationships and change methods of accountability.

Fostering Relationships

The potential for government to support community development is largely due to the
“virtuous” contact and personal relationships between public servants and local people.

Agencies can support local relationships in at least three ways. First, staff can increase their
“networking” role in communities with more activities that create personal interaction
between local public servants and the community.

Second, staff need to pro-actively initiate more contact with “non traditional” clients. In a
Wisconsin catchment coordination effort, DNR staff built considerable community
engagement around personal visits to over 200 stakeholders – many deliberately chosen as
 21

“new” stakeholders for the agency (WDNR, 1989).

Third, agencies can better maintain the continuity of staff in communities. Many public
servants move between communities to further their careers and interests. Experiences in
different situations also allow staff to develop skills and experience. For particular roles,
such as police, transfers helped officers to maintain objectivity and authority in their
regulatory role. Yet, decisions to locate or transfer staff need to better include impacts on
local relationships and issues such as staff commitment to the community.

Agencies need to link these grassroots relationships with structures that involve communities
more formally.

Linking “Top down” and “Bottom up” Community Involvement

Many structures mediate government/community interaction, such as advisory committees,

peak organisations, community consultation efforts and specialist community participation
programs. These structures orient agencies to communities from the “top”, down. They
provide the organised formal arrangements for community partnership with, or at least input
to, government. For example, State Rural Development Councils in the United States
created a learning environment for state and federal governments and the private sector
(Radin, 1992; Radin et.al., 1996; Shaffer, 1993).

Conversely, personal links between staff and local people represent “bottom-up” community
involvement. It is the “will” and culture of involvement between public servants and the
local community that occurs on a personal level everyday.

Agencies need to meld “top down” and “bottom up” community involvement. Top-down
changes will not succeed without an ethic of community involvement at the “grassroots”.
Everyday relationships will largely remain at an informal intuitive level without top down
structures providing the organisation to make them more deliberate.

Developing a dual “delegation and community” role which encourages local relationships
requires new ways for agencies to be accountable - for both the delivery of services and their
contribution to helping communities build their capacity.

Accountability

Helping communities become more able requires government agencies to be involved in a

very flexible “learning process” with experimentation and ill-defined outcomes. It requires
spending time with local people, developing trust with a long process of “listening” and
“taking the heat” from community members frustrated with past experiences. It involves
investing government time and money with community control and a risk that beneficial
outcomes may not be reached. Community outcomes also take years to foster and are
difficult to measure.

Government accountability could not be more different. Government has strict performance
indicators, detailed pre-planning, clear “concrete” outputs and outcomes and rational ways to
measure them, relatively short time frames and clear estimates of money in, services out.
 22

The advent of accrual budgeting and “managing for outcomes” that ties budgets to
performance criteria increases pressure on agencies to deliver specific delegated services.

No one would argue with that. Agencies must account for the efficient delivery of services.
Yet ideally a government agency would be accountable to the public for not only providing
services, but also for contributing to communities that are better organised, more cooperative
and more able to manage change.

So how can government agencies account for supporting community capacity?

I propose two forms of accountability – one for the process with which government interacts
with communities, and another for community capacity outcomes.

Process Accountability

Government can be accountable for the process of community involvement – how well
government agencies interact with communities. For example, the representation of the
community on advisory committees, the extent of shared decision-making, the quality of
facilitation and the extent to which government agencies encourage participation. These
criteria provide some accountability of how well agencies engage their “relevant”
community.

Table 1 outlines a potential set of criteria and performance indicators for “process
accountability”. It covers process issues such as the breadth of community participation, the
level of coordination between agencies and the extent of participation, partnership and
community awareness.

The aspects of process accountability outlined in table 1 relate to “high level” community
partnership and involvement. As shown in figure 4 on page 11, government agencies interact
with citizens in many ways. Sometimes only consultation or “structured” participation is
appropriate. In these cases process accountability may revert to the timeliness of the
information provided to communities or the representativeness of advisory panels. Yet the
principle of government being accountable for the quality of the process remains.

Community Capacity Accountability

A second form of accountability assesses actual change in community capacity. This is the
ultimate outcome of government’s “delegation and community” role. This role obliges
government to use established qualitative methods of assessing government’s contribution to
community change. Table 2 describes a range of criteria and performance indicators.
Table 1. A Format for Process Accountability for Public Agencies Contributing to Community Capacity
COMPONENTS DESIRABLE RESULT
OF PROCESS
BREADTH OF Diversity of community people
PARTICIPATION involved
COORDINATION Community contact is
coordinated with relevant
agencies and service providers
PARTNERSHIP Government shares power and
decisions with community
FACILITATION High quality facilitation that
stimulates participation,
ownership and action planning
ENGAGEMENT Active participation by
/PARTICIPATION community people and public
servants
COMMUNITY Wide community awareness of
AWARENESS activity and knowledge of open
invitation to participate
Table 2. A Formant for Community Capacity Accountability for Public Agencies
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
• All relevant stakeholder groups
and individuals are invited to
participate.
• Specific efforts to involve non-
traditional “clients”
• Contract/participation with
other relevant
agencies/providers
• Shared leadership, authority and
decision making between
government and community
• Quality and appropriateness of
facilitation and skills and
techniques
• Level of ownership
• Level of participation (active,
passive, not at all).
• Community awareness of
activity and opportunity to
participate
HOW MEASURED
• “Roll Call” of stakeholder groups
• Extent of involvement of the community
• Extent to which involved groups and
individuals represent the various sectors of
the community.
• Extent of participation by relevant agencies
• Extent to which government participants
represent different agencies.
• Joint activities involving government and
community people
• Participant feedback
• Participant feedback
• Peer review
• Participant feedback
• Repeat participants
• Number of community/government
participants or contacts.
• “Straw poll” of community
• Local media output
• Opinions of community participants
23
 ASPECT OF COMMUNITY DESIRABLE RESULT
CAPACITY
ORGANISATION Organised active cooperation
between community members.
LEADERSHIP Highly effective community
leaders
Shared leadership between
community members
ATTITUDES Greater feelings of self-reliance,
cooperation, enthusiasm and
strategic thinking.
SKILLS AND ABILITIES Local people with greater skills
and expertise
CIVIC PARTICIPATION A high level of self-sustaining
community participation
PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
• More active community
organisations
• New community organisations
formed
• Activity of local government
• Emergence of new community •
leaders
• Improved leadership skills
The extent of:
• confidence
• cooperation
• strategic thinking,
• responsibility – “its up to us”
Level of skills and ability
Level of citizen involvement
HOW MEASURED
• Perceptions of government
contribution to community
organisation
• New organisations formed
• Perceptions of activity and
effectiveness of organisations
• Local actions taken
• Membership of organisations
Perceptions of government
contribution to leadership
• Fostering of new leaders
• Perceptions of local leadership
• Formal training of leaders
• Perceptions of government
contribution to attitudes
• Interview surveys
• Content analysis.
Perceptions of government
contribution to local skills
• Perceptions of government
contribution to participation
• Numbers attending activities
• Volunteerism
24
 25

Government can therefore account for its effectiveness using three forms of accountability:

• “concrete” service delivery outcomes such as infrastructure provided, services delivered,

crimes solved, student test scores, patients treated etc.,

• the quality of the process with which government interacts with local people,

• community capacity – the organisation, networks, cooperation and capability of

communities.

These three forms equate to the hierarchy of outcomes that government seeks to achieve from
service delivery to changes in communities (figure 8).

Community Outcomes Community Capacity Accountability

Process of Interaction Process Accountability

Services Accountability for Service Delivery

Figure 8. A broad hierarchy of government outcomes and accountabilities.

Three forms of accountability seem daunting. You could argue that government agencies are
struggling to effectively assess the outcomes of the delivery of discrete services, let alone
community capacity outcomes. The challenge is to achieve an appropriate balance between
these forms of accountability to recognise both service delivery and a “delegation and
community” role. For example, accounting fro government’s contribution to the South West
Queensland Strategy would involve some service delivery aspects, some measure of the
process of engagement and a limited assessment of community capacity changes.

Coordination Between Agencies

The final new approach required to orient government to community capacity is the need for
coordination between agencies. The complex and interrelated issues facing communities
require agencies to work far more cooperatively. No one department or agency can help
communities build capacity. All government agencies have a role.

Indeed, the American experience with Rural Development Councils led Beryl Radin to
conclude “Rural development cannot proceed without …. cooperative
interagency/interorganisational efforts” (Radin et.al., 1996)
 26

“Whole of government” approaches are not new. Yet, difficulties in implementing

cooperative responses stem from the fundamentals of bureaucratic government. The
responsibilities and authority of government agencies are clearly delineated in a bureaucratic
structure (Weber, 1947). These organisational arrangements specify agency roles to prevent
duplication, determine communication and relationships between organisations, and give
clear lines of authority and accountability (Fesler and Kettl, 1991). The aim is efficiency and
accountability.

Bureaucratic demarcation suits the delivery of specific services. Yet, even in the delivery of
government services we are seeing greater demand for collaboration between agencies. A
role in community capacity building demands even greater coordination and collaboration.
The challenge for government is to retain the efficiency that comes from bureaucratic
demarcation, and simultaneously build strong interagency coordination.

There are several aspects to achieving this. First, government needs to better value existing
coordination. Many agencies do already work cooperatively. Encouraging greater
collaboration starts with better recognising and valuing existing formal and informal
collaboration.

Second, agencies need to better recognise points of coordination. It is not a matter of

collaborating on every issue. In many situations collaboration may not be necessary. Yet
agencies need to quickly recognise the situations where collaboration will enhance service
delivery and community capacity outcomes.

Third, interagency collaboration depends fundamentally on joint goals, compatible values

and principles, and shared power. Many of the problems in coordination stem, not from
disagreements over funding or responsibilities, but from agencies not having similar values
and interests. Agencies need to more overtly recognise this when building linkages and
opportunities for cooperative work.

Finally, the collaboration needed to support community capacity extends beyond

government. It requires “vertical” cooperation between federal, state and local government.
It also demands “horizontal” coordination within community networks. In each community
or region there is a network of government agencies, non profit organisations private sector
businesses, community groups and individuals who can support community capacity.
Community capacity depends not just on how well individual “players” perform, but how the
whole network operates together. Each “player” has an obligation to optimise the operation
of the network.

For example, my team in my agency hosts social gatherings of the community development
“network” in our region. The objective is to help people build relationships and strengthen
the network itself to improve our support for communities.

Coordination between agencies, encouraging relationships, redefining work, melding top-

down and bottom-up community involvement, and new forms of accountability together
support the contribution public agencies can make to community capacity. Yet public
managers need to not only make changes to encourage community involvement, but also
recognise and avoid potential pitfalls in a greater community role.
 27

Pitfalls

Over-involvement

Agencies embracing greater community involvement can easily expect far greater input from
community members than they can provide. Community members are rightly less and less
able to devote time and effort altruistically to consultation events or other activities for which
they have little ownership. Lack of coordination between agencies has fuelled “over-
consultation”. Agencies can reduce over-consultation by coordinating better, focusing on the
quality of participation and interacting with people in more convenient ways.

Selectivity

Any hint of agencies being selective in the community sectors, groups or individuals they
interact with can destroy confidence and trust. Agencies need to demonstrate equity and
diversity throughout processes of community involvement.

Co-option

Government can also risk co-opting community organisations. As agencies work more
closely with communities they can overlook the possibility of altering the function and
community perception of local organisations.

This risk is not remote. Piven and Cloward (1979) and Moynihan (1969) showed that
government can easily inadvertently co-opt community-based organisations. The fear of
being co-opted has made some community and interest groups shy away from collaboration
with government (McCloskey, 1996).

Taking it too far

Agencies can “do” community capacity building in situations where it is inappropriate. Not
all communities are ready to develop their capacity. Indeed, at any one time, only a small
proportion of communities have the necessary leadership and motivation. Even fewer
situations are appropriate for government agencies to be active facilitators of community
capacity. Public employees need to judge not only how to engage with local communities,
but if and when it is appropriate to offer to support them.

There are several other dangers. A community capacity role can draw agencies into
advocacy. Local politics can also distort community deliberation of issues (Schattschneider,
1975). Public servants encouraging community input can become local “personalities”
adding their personal power to issues. The commitment of time and resources to community
involvement, once begun, can easily burgeon and not be simply reversed. Far from all local
people are able or willing to be involved with public agencies.

Not Changing Assumptions

Government agencies risk engaging communities while retaining the fundamental

assumptions of technical assistance. True support for community outcomes requires
 28

principles of partnership and community ownership. Yet with often unwitting assumptions
of technical assistance, government can approach communities with attitudes of control or
“delivery” and “government is here to build your capacity”.

Agencies Can’t Do It Alone

A greater community capacity role for government requires supportive political and
community expectations. Appropriate political priorities and community attitudes can help
agencies redefine work, balance day to day work with community involvement, and value
staff/community relationships.

Yet here lies another dilemma. There clearly is a very strong community attitude in many
rural areas that government should “fix” rural problems or at least, maintain and improve
services. Many rural people see government as a provider that is not providing, stimulating
recent “protest” votes. This electoral backlash places greater pressure on the service delivery
side of the service delivery/community capacity balance.

CONCLUSION

Much has changed since the days of Woodrow Wilson. The role of government has evolved
since Wilson’s concept of the public service as a neutral instrument “as machinery is part of
the manufactured process”. The latest iteration of this evolutionary process “reinvented”
government to deliver “excellent” customer service. Now, with communities facing
fundamental change, government faces a further iteration. A phase where government not
only efficiently delivers services, but is also “reinvented” to support community capacity.

This reinvention builds on the existing community roles of some agencies and the current
relationships between public servants and local people. It maintains the delivery of delegated
services but also involves a dual “delegation and community” role. Agencies need to
redefine “real work” with accountability that recognises not only outcomes of delegated
service, but also the process of community engagement and community capacity itself.
Government needs to foster relationships between public servants and local community
members, and judge when it is appropriate to offer to support communities. They need to
meld bottom up and top down community involvement, build skills in community
development, and avoid pitfalls.

Developing a delegation and community role creates risks and dilemmas. Yet avoiding the
risk of agencies developing a greater community capacity role is for them to continue to risk
developing “a dependency masked by service”.

Reorienting government to supporting community capacity requires not just structural

adjustments but fundamental changes in beliefs, assumptions and organisational culture. It
makes demands on the leadership, skills, resources and organisation - the capacity - of
agencies. They need to go through the same process of capacity-building as the communities
they serve.

After all, agencies are communities themselves.

 29

REFERENCES

Albrecht, K. 1990. Service Within, Business One. Homewood, Illinois. Irwin.

Baker, S.G. 1993. “Immigration Reform: The Empowerment of a New Constituency.” In

Public Policy for Democracy, edited by H. Ingram and S.R. Smith, pp. 136-158.
Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Barzelay, M. 1992. Breaking Through Bureaucracy: A New Vision for Managing in

Government. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bellone, C.J. and G.F. Goerl. 1992. “Reconciling Public Entrepreneurship and
Democracy?” Public Administration Review 52: 130-134.

Berry, J.M., Portney, K.E. and K. Thomson. 1993. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy.
Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Blagg, H. and N. Derricourt. 1982 “Why We Need to Reconstruct a Theory of the State for
Community Work.” In Community Work and the State, edited by G.Craig, N.
Derricourt and M. Loney, pp. 11-23. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Brown, A. 1980. “Technical Assistance to Rural Communities: Stopgap or Capacity

Building?.” Public Administration Review, January/February 1980: 18-23.

Cavaye, J.M. (1997) The Role of Public Agencies in Helping Rural Communities Build
Social Capital. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development - Putting the Last First. London: Longman.

Fesler, J.W. and D.F. Kettl. 1991. The Politics of the Administrative Process. Chatham,
New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers.

Flora, C.B., Flora, J.L. Spears, J.D. and L.E. Swanson. 1992. Rural Communities: Legacy
and Change. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Flora, C.B. and J.L. Flora. 1995. “The Past and Future: Social Contract, Social Policy and
Social Capital.” In Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies,
edited by S.A. Halbrook and C.E. Merry, pp. 53-64. Oak Brook, Illinois: Farm
Foundation.

Fuguitt, G. V. 1994. “Population Change in Non-Metropolitan America.” In The American

Countryside: Rural People and Places, edited by E. Castle. Lawrence: University of
Kansas Press.

Halligan, J. 1995. “Service Quality in the Public Sector” In Quality for our Clients:
Improvement for the Future. Department of Finance, pp. 91-108. Canberra
 30

Henry, M.; Drabenstott, M. and L. Gibson. 1988. “A Changing Rural Economy.” In Rural
America in Transition, edited by M. Drabenstott and L. Gibson, Kansas City: Federal
Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Heymann, P.B. 1990. “How Government Expresses Public Ideas.” In The Power of Public
Ideas, edited by R.B. Reich, pp. 85-107. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.

Ingram, H. and A. Schneider. 1993. “Constructing Citizenship: The Subtle Messages of

Policy Design.” In Public Policy for Democracy, edited by H. Ingram and S.R.
Smith, pp. 68-98. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Klinkenborg, V. 1995. “Crossing Borders.” Audubon, September - October, 1995: 34-47.

Kretzmann J.P. and J.L. McKnight. 1993. Building Communities from the Inside Out - A
Path Towards Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Chicago: Center for
Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University.

Lea, D.A.M. and D.P. Chaudhri. 1983. Rural Development and the State. London:
Metheun.

Loney, M. 1983. Community Against Government - The British Community Development

Project 1968-78. London: Heinemann.

Luloff, A.E. 1990. “Community and Social Change.” In American Rural Communities,
edited by A.E. Luloff and L.E. Swanson. Boulder: Westview Press.

Marston, S.A. 1993. “Citizen Action Programs and Participatory Politics in Tucson.” In
Public Policy for Democracy, edited by H. Ingram and S.R. Smith, pp. 119-135.
Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

McAllister, W.K. and D. Zimet. 1994. “Collaborative Planning: Cases in Economic and
Community Diversification.” United States Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service.

McCloskey, M. 1996. “The Limits of Collaboration.” Harper's Magazine, November 1996.

McGregor, E.B. 1984. “The Great Paradox of Democratic Citizenship and Public Personnel
Administration.” Public Administration Review. 44: 126-32.

McKnight, J.L. 1995. The Careless Society - Community and its Counterfeits. New York:
Basic Books.

Moore, M.H. 1988. “What Sort of Ideas become Public Ideas.” In The Power of Public
Ideas, edited by Robert Reich, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Moynihan, D.P. 1969. Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action and the
War on Poverty. New York: The Free Press.
 31

NPR (National Performance Review) 1993. “From Red Tape to Results: Creating a
Government that Works Better and Costs Less.” Report of the National Performance
Review, Vice President Al Gore, Washington D.C.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 1986. Rural Public
Management. Paris:OECD.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 1988. New Trends in
Rural Policy Making. Paris: OECD.

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) 1996. Better Policies
for Rural Development. Paris:OECD.

Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial

Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Piven, F.F. and R.A. Cloward. 1979. Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How
They Fail. New York: Vintage Books.

Pretty, J. N. 1995 Regenerating Agriculture. Policies and Practice for Sustainability and
Self-Reliance. London Earthscan Publications Ltd.

Putnam, R.D. 1993a. “The Prosperous Community. Social Capital and Public Life.” The
American Prospect (Spring): 35-42.

Putnam, R.D. 1993b. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R.D. 1995a. “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital.” Journal of
Democracy 6: 66-78.

Rabe, B. 1994. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste in Canada and the US. Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Radin, B.A. 1992. “Rural Development Councils: An Intergovernmental Coordination

Experiment.” Publius 22: 111-127.

Radin, B.A.; Agranoff, R; Bowman, A; Buntz, C.G.; Ott, J.S.; Romzek, B.S. and R.H.
Wilson. 1995. “Intergovernmental Partnerships and Rural Development: An
Overview Assessment of the National Rural Development Partnership.” Rural
Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Staff Paper No. AGES 9508.

Rasmussen, W.D. 1985. “90 years of rural development programs.” Rural development
Perspectives. October 1985: 2-9.

Reich, R.B. 1988. “Policy making in a Democracy.” In The Power of Public Ideas, edited
by R.B. Reich, pp. 123-156. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
 32

Schattschneider, E.E. 1975. The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in

America. Hinsdale: Dryden Press.

Schein, E. 1991. “Defining Organizational Culture.” In Organizational Culture and

Leadership, edited by E.H. Schein, pp. 1-22. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott-Morgan, P. (1994) The Unwritten Rules of the Game. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Seroka, J. 1997. “Rural Public Administration and Sustainability: Reasserting Governance

over Government.” In Rural Sustainable Development in America, edited by I.
Audirac. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Shaffer, R.E. 1993. State Rural Development Councils and the National Partnership for
Rural Development. Pacific Regional Science Organization Conference, Whistler,
British Columbia.

Stengel, R. 1996. “Bowling Together: Civic Engagement in America Isn't Disappearing but
Reinventing Itself.” Time, July 22.

Summers, G.F.; Horton, F. and G. Gringeri. 1994. “Understanding Trends in Rural Labor
Markets.” In The Changing American Countryside: Rural People and Places, edited
by E Castle. pp. 197-210. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Swanson, B.E. 1967. “Political Change in the Small American Community.” In Change in
the Small Community, edited by W.J. Gore and L. C. Hodapp, pp. 124-154. New
York: Friendship Press.

USDA. (United States Department of Agriculture) 1993. “The Power of Collaborative

Planning.” Report of a National Workshop, FS-553. Washington D.C.: USDA.

Weber, M. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. edited by T.Parsons.
New York: The Free Press.

WDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources) 1989. “Winnebago Comprehensive

Management Plan.” Oshkosh, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Zody, R.E. 1980. “The Quality of Rural Administration.” Public Administration Review
January/February 1980: 13-17.

View publication stats