{"title":"Participatory Bias and Participatory Neighborhood Governance: Reanalyzing the Most-Likely Case of the Stockholm Neighborhood Renewal Program","authors":"Nils Hertting","doi":"10.1177/10780874231203919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Strategies for revitalizing marginalized neighborhoods often include participatory innovations. According to the participatory bias argument, however, participatory governance arrangements benefit the privileged rather than the poor. In the present article, the validity of this argument is examined by analyzing how individual resources and social positions relates to recruitment to, participation within, and outcomes derived from participation in a most-likely case of bias in participatory neighborhood governance. Although the privileged were overrepresented in recruitment, the pattern was less clear regarding influence within the processes, and quite the opposite regarding certain outcomes of participation. Also in a most-likely case for bias, participatory neighborhood governance may induce empowerment among poor. Based on the observation that participants that differ with regard to available resources and social positions also have different motives for participation, a mechanism-based account regarding why and how bias in early phases under certain conditions may produce empowering outcomes is proposed.","PeriodicalId":51427,"journal":{"name":"Urban Affairs Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Affairs Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874231203919","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Strategies for revitalizing marginalized neighborhoods often include participatory innovations. According to the participatory bias argument, however, participatory governance arrangements benefit the privileged rather than the poor. In the present article, the validity of this argument is examined by analyzing how individual resources and social positions relates to recruitment to, participation within, and outcomes derived from participation in a most-likely case of bias in participatory neighborhood governance. Although the privileged were overrepresented in recruitment, the pattern was less clear regarding influence within the processes, and quite the opposite regarding certain outcomes of participation. Also in a most-likely case for bias, participatory neighborhood governance may induce empowerment among poor. Based on the observation that participants that differ with regard to available resources and social positions also have different motives for participation, a mechanism-based account regarding why and how bias in early phases under certain conditions may produce empowering outcomes is proposed.
期刊介绍:
Urban Affairs Reveiw (UAR) is a leading scholarly journal on urban issues and themes. For almost five decades scholars, researchers, policymakers, planners, and administrators have turned to UAR for the latest international research and empirical analysis on the programs and policies that shape our cities. UAR covers: urban policy; urban economic development; residential and community development; governance and service delivery; comparative/international urban research; and social, spatial, and cultural dynamics.