Search

Despite the scholarly consensus on the importance of civic organizations for the livability of neighborhoods, there are relatively few empirical studies examining to what extent these organizations engage in various forms of political participation to contribute to the quality of the neighborhood. The authors argue that to get a better overview of neighborhood-oriented forms of participation, it is necessary to look beyond those organizations with an explicit focus on the neighborhood and to include newer forms of participation such as coproduction, government-initiated plans that seek to address neighborhood issues through extensive cooperation with organizations. The authors argue that three groups of factors determine organizational participation: resources, engagement, and network position. An empirical analysis of survey data collected in 2007 from 400 organizations in eight neighborhoods in two Dutch cities shows that the impact of resources is virtually absent, whereas concern about the neighborhood and relations to pivotal organizations are positively related to participation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes the relationship between social capital and neighborhood-oriented forms of participation within the context of an innovative Dutch neighborhood improvement program. On the basis of a survey among 307 residents, the author studies the link between three dimensions of social capital (neighborliness, trust in neighbors, and sense of duty) and three neighborhood-oriented forms of participation: informal governance, the conversion of specific neighborhood problems into action, and participation in the program. Neighborliness and a sense of duty are positively related to the various forms of participation, whereas the impact of trust is somewhat more ambiguous. A subsequent analysis of the residents' proposals shows that although some of them explicitly refer to the importance of social capital, the bulk of their plans simply demand resources (money, personnel, or policies) to address concrete issues. The author concludes that social capital is an important facilitator of people's capacity to prevent and solve such problems themselves but that at the same time a whole range of problems still needs to be addressed through direct governmental action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]