Bringing stakeholders together for urban health equity: hallmarks of a compromised process

International Journal for Equity in Health

Patricia O’Campo¹  Rebecca M. Cheff¹  Amy S. Katz¹ 

[1] Centre for Research on Inner City Health, St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, M5B 1W8, ON, Canada

关键词: Neoliberalism and cities;    Urban governance;    Urban health equity;    Stakeholder engagement;    Community engagement;    Participatory processes;    Health equity;   

Others  :  1233705
DOI  :  10.1186/s12939-015-0252-1

 received in 2015-03-05, accepted in 2015-10-20,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

There is a global trend towards the use of ad hoc participation processes that seek to engage grassroots stakeholders in decisions related to municipal infrastructure, land use and services. We present the results of a scholarly literature review examining 14 articles detailing specific cases of these processes to contribute to the discussion regarding their utility in advancing health equity. We explore hallmarks of compromised processes, potential harms to grassroots stakeholders, and potential mitigating factors. We conclude that participation processes often cut off participation following the planning phase at the point of implementation, limiting convener accountability to grassroots stakeholders, and, further, that where participation processes yield gains, these are often due to independent grassroots action. Given the emphasis on participation in health equity discourse, this study seeks to provide a real world exploration of the pitfalls and potential harms of participation processes that is relevant to health equity theory and practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Katz et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Executive Summary. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008. http://www. who.int/social_determinants/thecommission/finalreport/en/ webcite
• [2]Civil society’s report to the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Soc Med. 2007; 2(4):192-211.
• [3]Arnstein SR. A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc. 1969; 35(4):216-224.
• [4]Birn A. Making it politic(al): closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Social Medicine. 2009; 4(3):166-182.
• [5]Taylor M. Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Stud. 2007; 44(2):297-317.
• [6]Ballard R. Between the community hall and the city hall: five research questions on participation. Transformation. 2008; 66/67:168-188.
• [7]Geddes M. Partnership and the limits to local governance in England: institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2006; 30(1):76-97.
• [8]Davies JS. Against "partnership": towards a local challenge to global neoliberalism. In: Governing cities in the global era. Hambleton R, Gross J, editors. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke; 2008: p.199-210.
• [9]Allan B, Smylie J. First Peoples, Second Class Treatment: The role of racism in the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples in Canada. The Wellesley Institute, Toronto; 2015. (www. wellesleyinstitute.com/publications/first-peoples-second-class-treatment)
• [10]Levy J, Ansara D, Stover A. Racialization and health inequities in Toronto. Toronto Public Health, Toronto; 2013. (www. toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-62904.pdf)
• [11]Corburn J, Curl S, Arredondo G, Malagon J. Health in all urban policy: city services through the prism of health. J Urban Health. 2014; 91(4):623-636.
• [12]Hynie M, Ardern C, Robertson A. Emergency room visits by uninsured in Ontario, 2001–2010. Presentation to Toronto Health Network on Uninsured Clients, 2015.
• [13]Santos BS. Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Polit Soc. 1998; 26(4):461-510.
• [14]Avritzer L. Democratic innovation and social participation in Brazil. Taiwan J Democracy. 2013; 9(2):153-170.
• [15]Heller P, Harilal KN, Chaudhuri S. Building local democracy: evaluating the impact of decentralization in Kerala. India World Development. 2007; 35(4):626-648.
• [16]Ishii R, Hossain F, Rees C. Participation in decentralized local governance: two contrasting cases from the Philippines. Public Organiz Rev. 2007; 7:359-373.
• [17]Blakeley G. Governing ourselves: citizen participation and governance in Barcelona and Manchester. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2010; 34(1):130-145.
• [18]Leonard L. Participatory democracy against industrial risks: environmental justice in Durban. South Africa Politikon. 2014; 41(2):311-329.
• [19]Becher D. The participant’s dilemma: bringing conflict and representation back in. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2010; 34(3):496-511.
• [20]Baud I, Nainan N. “Negotiated spaces” for representation in Mumbai: ward committees, advanced locality management and the politics of middle-class activism. Environ Urban. 2008; 20(2):483-499.
• [21]Novy A, Hammer E. Radical innovation in the era of liberal governance: the case of Vienna. European Urban and Regional Studies. 2007; 14(3):201-222.
• [22]Agger A, Larsen JN. Exclusion in area-based urban policy programmes. Eur Plan Stud. 2009; 17(7):1085-1099.
• [23]Smith H. Costa Rica’s Triangle of Solidarity: can government-led spaces for negotiation enhance the involvement of civil society in governance? Environ Urban. 2004; 16(1):63-77.
• [24]Hopkins D. Planning a City through ‘dialogue’: deliberative policy-making in action in Western Australia. Urban Policy Res. 2010; 28(3):261-276.
• [25]Bussu S, Bartels KPR. Facilitative leadership and the challenge of renewing local democracy in Italy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2013; 38(6):2256-2273.
• [26]McTague C, Jakubowski S. Marching to the beat of a silent drum: wasted consensus-building and failed neighbourhood participatory planning. Appl Geogr. 2013; 44:182-191.
• [27]Miraftab F, Wills S. Insurgency and spaces of active citizenship: the story of Western Cape anti-eviction campaign in South Africa. J Plan Educ Res. 2005; 25:200-217.
• [28]Ellwood S. Neighbourhood revitalization through ‘collaboration’: assessing the implications of neoliberal urban policy at the grassroots. GeoJournal. 2002; 58:121-130.
• [29]Sirianni C. Neighborhood planning as collaborative democratic design: the case of Seattle. J Am Plann Assoc. 2007; 73(4):373-387.
• [30]Jessop B. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–Theoretical Perspective. Antipode. 2002; 24(3):452-472.
• [31]Swyngedouw E. Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state. Urban Stud. 2005; 42(11):1991-2006.
• [32]Overfelt D. Planning for possibility: opening democracy in an ordinary city. Crit Sociol. 2012; 39(4):593-613.
• [33]Souza ML. Together with the state, despite the state, against the state: social movements as ‘critical urban planning’ agents. City. 2006; 10(3):327-342.
• [34]Thunder Hawk, M. (2007) Native organizing before the non-profit industrial complex. In: INCITE! Women of colour against violence (eds.). (2007). The revolution will not be funded: beyond the non-profit industrial complex. Cambridge: South End Press, p. 101–106.
• [35]Pithouse R. A progressive policy without progressive politics: lessons from the failure to implement ‘Breaking New Ground’. Stads- en Streeksbeplanning = Town and Regional. Planning. 2009; 54:1-14.
• [36]Letter from Aboriginal Affairs Committee to Executive Committee. City of Toronto Statement of Commitment to Aboriginal Communities in Toronto: Building Strong Relationships, Achieving Equitable Outcomes. May 27th, 2010 (statement adopted July 2010). (www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-30867.pdf).
• [37]Tomiak J. Indigenous governance in Winnipeg and Ottawa: Making space for self determination. Institute on Governance. 2009. (http://iog.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/August2009_Indigenous_Governance.pdf).
• [38]Shaw M. Stuck in the middle? Community development, community engagement and the dangerous business of learning for democracy. Community Development Journal. 2011; 46(S2):128-146.
• [39]Lasker RD, Guidry JA. Engaging the community in decision making : Case studies tracking participation, voice and influence. McFarland & Co., Jefferson, N.C.; 2009.
• [40]Souza M. NGOs and Social Movements. City. 2013; 17(2):258-261.
• [41]Pithouse R. NGOs and urban movements: notes from South Africa. City. 2013; 17(2):253-257.
• [42]Sooknanan R. The problematic of “partnerships” and funding for immigrant women’s communities: exploring governmentality. Atlantis. 2000; 24(2):72-81.