权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Illuminating the evolution of community participation: an Inter-disciplinary international review

阐明社区参与的演变：跨学科国际审查

基本信息

批准号：
AH/J501464/1
负责人：
Catherine Durose
金额：
$ 2.46万
依托单位：
De Montfort University
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2011
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2011 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FJ501464%2F1
关键词：
Illuminating evolution community participation Inter

项目摘要

Community participation is an ongoing pre-occupation of governments in developed democracies as evidenced in the 'Big Society' flagship policy programme of the current Coalition government. In presentational terms, the government has explained and portrayed the Big Society as a 'triangle' of questions directed towards communities with implied policy agendas set in response: 'what can you do for yourselves?' (community empowerment); 'what can you do for each other?' (philanthropy); 'what can the state do for you?' (public sector reform). Each of these policy strands has been translated from discernible historical and geographical settings or what are called here 'illuminators'. Community empowerment policies draw strongly on the community organising model associated with Saul Alinsky's work in Chicago. Philanthropy stems from the British 'classic' philanthropy in the 19th century. The public sector reform agenda is driven by the fiscal restraint but also has clear parallels with the period of fiscal retrenchment and anti-statism associated with Thatcherism in the UK in the 1980s. The review understands the 'Big Society' as an example of policy translation (Freeman 2009). Through reflecting on what is 'lost in translation', the review identifies spaces for contestation and challenge.

正如当前联合政府的“大社会”旗舰政策方案所证明的那样，社区参与是发达民主国家政府持续关注的问题。从表象上来说，政府将大社会解释并描绘成一个针对社区的“三角形”问题，并制定了隐含的政策议程来回应：“你们能为自己做什么？”“（社区赋权）;”你们能为彼此做些什么？“（慈善事业）;”国家能为你做什么？“（公共部门改革）。这些政策的每一条都是从可辨别的历史和地理环境中翻译出来的，或者说是从这里所谓的“启蒙者”中翻译出来的。社区赋权政策强烈借鉴了扫罗阿林斯基在芝加哥的工作相关的社区组织模式。慈善事业起源于英国世纪的“经典”慈善事业。公共部门的改革议程是由财政紧缩推动的，但也与20世纪80年代英国撒切尔主义的财政紧缩和反政府主义时期有明显的相似之处。该评论将“大社会”理解为政策翻译的一个例子（Freeman 2009）。通过反思“反思中的迷失”，指出了反思和挑战的空间。