Non-participation and participation in neighborhoods : barriers and opportunities in Amsterdam and Mumbai

(1)

Non-participation and participation in

neighborhoods: barriers and opportunities

in Amsterdam and Mumbai

Master thesis for Research MA Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam

Student:_{Pedro Carvalho, 11657561} Supervisor:_{Prof. Dr. Ir. Luca Bertolini} Second Reader:_{Dr. Nanke Verloo} Date: _{20 August 2019}

(2)

(3)

Summary

While participative governance becomes normative and a default characteristic of democratic governments, supposedly creating more opportunities for people to participate in national and local public projects, studies’ results show that non-participation levels are still high. However, non-participation is yet a secondary research topic within the theme, since many studies are focusing on how to improve the process of participation, marginalising the importance of understanding non-participation in a democratic context. What we know is limited mostly by explanations based in passive behaviourism and income determinism. For this reason, this research explored new perspectives on non-participation by investigating neighborhood dynamics in different types of areas in two cities and found out that neighborhood dynamics become entangled into structural factors that have a major impact on participation. The research identified age, belonging, types of problems and governance context as key factors that create non-participation, moving beyond the sole focus on income of most of the current literature .

(4)

1. Introduction

“[...] much of the governance literature suggests that a fundamental shift is taking place in modern societies, variously labeled as a shift from governing to governance, from hierarchies to networks, from representative to deliberative democracy, and from direct control by the state to strategies designed to engage civil society in collaborative governance.” (Newman et al., 2004, p. 217).

The literature on public participation in urban planning seems now to be reaching a saturation stage. The numbers of research articles about the theme are rising, yet mostly in a similar direction. The studies look for ways to improve different public participation models, developing new explanations to the achievement of successful collaborations. As assured by Brownill and Parker (2010) “[...] there is a lot of gathered knowledge about processes and structures that might ‘work’ and what conditions might need to be in place to enable effective participation”.

The vast number of studies focused on tools that might increase population engagement raise the question “how do people participate?” instead of “why don’t they?”. Consequently, “[...] we know more about participants than about nonparticipants” (Oegema and Klandermans, 1994). The literature marginalizes the pre-conditions needed before starting a public participation project. The investigation of the processes of participation often starts in the moment that the public joins the project, not in the preliminary stage, in the preparation of the study of a specific area and its population. It does not put in perspective the contexts that facilitate or make participation difficult to happen in the first place. And the scenario remains quite the same: “Only a small proportion of the public actively engage with the planning system, a factor that has not changed significantly over many decades (Fagence, 1977) and remains a problem even since the introduction of neighbourhood planning (Parker et al., 2014).” (Wilson et al., 2017).

What we know about non-participation so far is mostly connected to behavioral studies on citizen passivity, relating them to a consumer behavior: apathetic, not interested and waiting for the public institutions to act (Pateman, 2012). And the other most common explanation is related to income. The importance of different political economic aspects are a major part in the studies of collaborative governance, they often explore the comparison between high-income and low-income populations.

Goodin and Dryzek (1980) expose that wealthy citizens participate more at different levels of civic action, such as voting for municipal elections or being members

(7)

of a neighborhood association. On the other hand it is not only about wealth, “As Cornwall (2004) notes, ‘invited spaces’, which are provided by institutions on their terms, result in different dynamics and outcomes than ‘popular spaces’, which are initiated by members of the public (see also Jupp 2008)” (Hoekstra and Dahlvik, 2017). As Singh and Parthasarathy (2010) assure, the first one is often a space that groups more educated people and the second one is more inclusive, welcoming the low-income population, which confronts an elitist idea that participation is mostly suited for a wealthy population. Hoekstra and Dahlvik (2017) also point to the importance of diverse contexts creating distinct models of participation and, consequently, also other types of barriers to participation, that are not financial.

In order to contribute in filling this gap, this study is interested in understanding how local specificities impact on public participation, and, in particular, it wants to unveil the reasons for non-participation when an opportunity of participation is introduced to a neighborhood population. By analyzing low-income and high-income neighborhood dynamics, it explores if income is a main factor affecting public participation or if there are other factors that are key ones for non-participation.

1.1 Research Question

Which factors within neighborhoods with different characteristics and dynamics, impact the level of participation and create specific barriers leading to non-participation?

a. What are the main populational motivations leading to non-participation in these neighborhoods?

b. Is income a main factor that impacts the level of public participation in neighborhoods?

c. Which other structural causes are responsible for participation and non-participation?

(8)

2. Theory

Public participation is not a recent topic in urban planning studies, but is going through a new moment and it is becoming one of the trend topics on the field. Since urban planning is utterly connected to policy making, the shift of governments to a collaborative governance model is having a big impact in the planning field. Lane (2005) defends that the planning practice is embedded in the decision-making context, being extremely connected to political practices and the government apparatus. With the shift from government to governance and the raise of public participation in public administration, part of the power also shifts, given the population more space for interfering in decisions and changing the practices of planning. However, how prepared are the population and the public power to deal with these changes? As this practice gets more importance, are the pre-conditions for public participation well set in cities?

This chapter explores the history and the current context of public participation in the urban planning and governance field and it makes a brief analysis on the theme literature: its actual phase, main topics and the knowledge gaps that can be further explored.

2.1. Collaborative governance background

Public participation finds its way back to the protagonism of the Social Sciences studies after being “promoted by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and international agencies, not least by the World Bank” in the 1980’s (Pateman, 2012). There are a few reasons for the resurgence of the topic, but most of the explanations are rooted in the complexity of the political administrative structures that turned to have much more actors and networks to deal with. The governments tasks and responsibilities have increased with the population growth and the diversification of its needs.

“The role of the state shifts from that of ‘governing’ through direct forms of control (hierarchical governance), to that of ‘governance’, in which the state must collaborate with a wide range of actors in networks that cut across the public, private and voluntary sectors, and operate across different levels of decision making”.(Newman et al., 2004).

In this new context of high complexity, the governments couldn’t respond to the population needs fast enough. In consequence, the public starts to demand more participation and organizes itself independently in grassroot movements and NGOs, so

(9)

they can be able to provide what the public power couldn’t (Pateman, 2012). Newman et al. (2004) describe this as a governance failure.

This failure and, consequently, the need for adaptation emerged together with the neo-liberal agenda expansion and it empowered the strategy governance of “[...] acting to alleviate ‘burdens’ on the state” (Brownill and Parker, 2010). For the governments, a collaborative governance model allows them the opportunity to embrace a political business-oriented model that shares the responsibility with the population. For the population, it gives a certain power that was long being demanded, leading to policies that set guidelines for co-creation and to the booming of public projects that are open for public participation. And, to that end, both parts legitimate a new model of governance that is being adopted by many democratic regimes.

2.2. Neighborhoods, decentralization and local administration

The cities growth and the increase of population diversity have a major impact on the convergence to the collaborative governance model. These urbanization aspects are leading to city fragmentation, bringing more complexity to the unitarian administration of the whole urban area. Governments, therefore, are taking public administration to the micro sphere, adapting it to a more local function in order to understand the needs of a specific place. This strategy, a decrease of state capacity through networks (Robinson, 2008), also aids to save resources by sharing the local administration responsibility with the population.

Therefore, neighborhoods are now an even more important unit for public administration. Most of these areas count with unique identities based on a local history, population, culture, architecture and even economy. These urban spaces are displaying their own dynamics, lifestyles and needs, which sometimes totally differ from other areas of the city. It is not surprising that the importance of sub-municipalities are increasing fast in many cities around the world. They are getting more responsibilities and more administrative independence within this new mode of governance - following a decentralization model of political administration (Bannink and Ossewaarde, 2012).

However, Bannink and Ossewaarde (2012) defend that decentralization might be a “virtue”, since it usually creates unclear roles and responsibilities. What tasks remain in the central administration and which ones are part of the local bodies? As neighborhoods become a type of micro city within cities, having major complex infrastructures and systems of their own, the public administration struggles to find a model that gives these local bodies administrative independence but at the same time

(10)

keeps the tasks of organizing and implementing the laws in the central sphere (Kok, 2018).

Sharing responsibilities from a macro administrative level to the micro spatial unit level in order to reach the citizens and foment public participation activities is a complex issue regarding governance balance. An issue that many democratic countries are dealing with.

2.3. Public participation and spaces of participation

The collaborative governance model’s rise is an important motor for public participation, still public participation is not a new subject, it has always happened in democratic and, even, in non-democratic systems in different ways. By official and non-official means. Such as, for example, residents that get together to build a well for the community they live in or, one of the most common democratic forms of participation, the right to vote for political representatives.

There are many types of public participation and there is a main onthologic issue that influences how the urban planning projects are conceived and the studies are conducted in this field. The concept of participation is really broad and there is a general disposition in the literature to connect public participation to official governmental projects and by that creating a dependent and, often, passive role for the participants.

There is a major confusion on what is public participation, civil engagement, public representation and other several terms: “In the public participation domain, unfortunately, the key concepts are not generally well defined, even after several decades (or, some might argue, centuries or even longer) of sporadic research interest” (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). Since participation is a word that can be translated into many different types of action, the way literature tries to solve this definition puzzle is usually creating different levels of participation. From the lowest degree of participation that is of people being communicated about decisions made, to the highest degree in which people have the role of decision makers (_{Arnstein, 1969).}

However, scholars such as Rowe and Frewer (2005) debate if these low degrees of participation might be defined as participation, in view of that they can reinforce the perspective of citizens being passive participants. And passivity and participation can be a paradoxical combination, as the authors emphasize by using quotation marks when mentioning this type of participation: “In some cases, the public may “participate” by being the passive recipients of information from the regulators or governing bodies concerned [...]” (Rowe and Frewer, 2005). When passive forms of involvement that are not proactive are identified as public participation, it creates a major problem in

(11)

differentiating participants from non-participants and, hence, on understanding the barriers for an active engagement.

The other main aspect that adds complexity to the theme is to connect public participation to official institutions and the public power leading collaborative projects. Cornwall (2004), therefore, creates an important differentiation between spaces of participation. The author calls ‘invited spaces’ the ones that are provided by official institutions. These institutions are the ones that are responsible for organizing and supporting participation in these spaces/projects/activities. And there are the ‘popular spaces’ that “[...] are initiated by members of the public” (Hoekstra and Dahlvik, 2017). This division of the spaces of participation shows that public participation doesn’t happen only under specific regimes or governances, but it can happen in different ways through different agents and through formal or informal ways.

Even if it is important to embrace the diversity within participation, it is also clear how important is to create some boundaries for the concept. The sub-definitions presented above impact the way one will describe and analyze participation, making the choice for a proper concept that is going to be used in a study greatly needed.

In this study, public participation is being analyzed as a proactive action on public issues. The studies on the topic often connect the lower degrees of participation to passivity, a definition that automatically blurries the roles of who is a participant from a non-participant. In order to identify the causes for non-participation, this research needs to make use of a concept that allows to distinguish participants from non-participants. Consequently, participation will be studied as an active action and a choice of the participant. In this study, public participation happens when it is not mandatory and it requires a conscious action that has as objective to influence someone or something by any means. This proactive actions can happen within public participation processes that have different institutions and agents involved in and that take place in informal or formal spaces.

2.4. Participation vs. Non-participation

While the studies in public participation reach a post-collaborative phase accordingly to Pateman, “which emphasizes the difficulties and challenges of participation from different perspectives” (2012), these perspectives are still connected to a specific part of the participatory process. They are not very diverse and not very different from the approach used in the first studies on the theme. The work of Arnstein in the 1960’s, “Ladder of citizen participation”, looks for definitions of level of participation. Many contemporary studies come from her ladder theory:, coming up with

(12)

new analysis on the participatory process or studies on how to create tools to improve participatory projects and to make it more representative and fair. But as in the past, great part of the evolution in the theme is still very attached to one side of the spectrum of participation: the participants.

In Arnstein’s theory of the ladder of participation (1969), the author explores the requirements for a fair project in which participants can really have the power over decisions, creating a division that goes from the lower level of participation until the higher (Lane, 2005). This characteristic of her theory leaded to future studies that were mainly interested in the period when a project is already in progress, so it would be possible to measure levels of engagement and understand what is required to improve participation in them. Since Arnstein ladder just look to the process in progress, then the non-participation term is not connected to the public that is not being part of the project, that is outside the process. Non-participation is thence actually defined as the lowest level of engagement, in which the participants of a project have no power of decision or impact in the process and results, since the government or other agents have total control of the mechanism. For her too, passivity and participation are different sides of a coin and this type of participation is only a decoy.

However, the focus on this theory and its contemporary ramification is placed in the stage of the project implementation and in how people participate in it, not in the preconception stage and in how people turn into participants or not. “[...] Painter (1992) levels at these analyses is that they tend to assume decision-making in policy-making and planning occurs at a single, final point in the process” (Lane, 2005). And by not looking to other phases of the process, Arnstein’s theory places non-participation outside the systems that are being analyzed, ignoring non-participants. She is only looking for the public that is inside the project and engaging with it on a lower or higher degree of participation.

As “her analysis remains pivotal to what continues to be one of the most central debates in the field” (Lane, 2005), her theory produces a lot of new ones. But since Arnstein addresses non-participation such as a participant of lower level, most of the new studies discard the outsiders non-participants of their investigations.

Mark Warren’s realistic democratic theory in the 1960s defines the public as apathetic, passive and not interested in participation, following a Schumpeterian democracy concept that sees citizens as consumers (Pateman, 2012). This theory is based on a behavioral aspect of participation and the studies that follow this approach assume a deterministic condition of non-participation that can’t be changed, leading to no further investigation about this aspect but focusing their attentions into other parts of the process that can be improved. Mostly, again, the focus remains in the implementation phase when the public is already part of the process.

Warren has a very strong opinion about public participation, he doesn’t believe that governments can get people to participate in the political life: “First, a familiar

(13)

criticism that is often brought against arguments for greater citizen involvement in politics is that most individuals are not sufficiently capable of doing so or are not interested. The idea that many people might be attracted by participation, according to Mark Warren, is ‘romantic dogma’”. (Pateman, 2012). Some governments follow Warren’s behavioral explanation, such as the case of the public participation project in the decision making process in Yogyakarta, Indonesia: “[...] the government point of view, it was asserted that although it was within their knowledge with regards to public participation rights, the local community chose not to pay any attention as they were not keen to be involved.” (Marzuki, 2015). When non-participation is connected to passivity, it opens room for a conditional explanation of a human aspect that doesn’t deserve full attention since it can’t be changed.

However, by negating or redefining passivity in public participation as Hirschman’s did in his book “Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action” (1982), it is possible to explore non-participation in a deeper contextual and structural way, systematizing non-participation definitions and looking for the empirical contrasts in it. Hirschman’s theory has a different approach for non-participation by shifting it to a more active perspective, as being a reaction to the frustration at the public life (1982). Thereupon, passivity might not be the proper term to be used as a correlation for non-participation.

Passivity is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as the lack of action: “Acceptance of what happens, without active response or resistance”. In the case of urban planning projects, the lack of response to participatory activities are often translated to motivations such as lack of time, lack of interest, lack of trust etc (Parvin, 2017). Hirschman’s theory shows a different side of this lack of will by transforming it into actions that are the results of structural matters affecting participation in public projects. The author assumes the existence of a cycle of frustration that catalysis people to participate in public projects and transform their surrounds, taking a more active role. However, when participating in the public life, people get disappointed with the regime, the process, its barriers and outcomes and they get back to their individual matters, not participating for a long period. Hirschman’s work allows studies to explore how these frustrations are linked to structural problems. The frustration cycle might exist because of deeper issues that are not only within the process of public participation, but probably deep-rooted in the whole political, economic and cultural aspects of different societies.

Hirschman’s work offers a perspective on non-participation that is not yet further explored. It is a good starting point, even if his theory has a generalist approach and presents a major cyclic explanation, not looking specifically for how structural matters and the contexts that they are embedded in has an impact on participation and

(14)

non-participation. It was not Hirschman’s objective to map the causes for the frustration in the public participation process and that leaves a great gap in the literature that can be explored.

2.5. The ground zero of public participation

Oegema and Klandermans (1994) warn about aspects that are being left behind investigations, about other areas on participation studies and phases on a plan that are not being covered. With governments following a collaborative governance model, it would be expected that these regimes were already prepared for public participation projects. However, that is not the case.

Most of the literature just investigates the period when a project is already in execution, when it officially has participants. The studies look for failures and possibilities of development within the process. Pateman takes the opposite direction on his article _{Participatory Democracy Revisited (2012) and highlights the importance of} looking for the pre-planning and the foundations of a project, recognizing the context that it is inserted in by analyzing Porto Alegre’s participatory budget case.

The government that developed the Porto Alegre participatory budgeting (PB) project - one of the most celebrated and studied contemporary public participation project in the theme’s literature (Balderacchi, 2016; Pateman, 2012) - counted with a preliminary preparation that hugely transformed the governance structure of the city in order to be apt to conduct this project. Pateman reinforces this important aspect from the project:

“Another part of the explanation for the popularity of PB lies in the wider changes that have been taking place during the last three decades. These include not only the fashion for participation in development, to which I have already referred, but trends summed up in the now ubiquitous jargon of transparency, capacity building, empowerment, stakeholders, good governance and the like, and developments such as New Public Management (which includes a participatory aspect). Suitably modified and diluted, PB finds its place in this broad complex.” (Pateman, 2012)

Most of the public participation literature seems to ignore this projects’ stage and defines the ground zero of a public participation project at the moment that it is

(15)

launched to the public. That approach doesn’t cover a major step of the planning process: the pre-planning and the creation of pre-conditions of a project to happen. Balderacchi (2016) reinforces Pateman’s idea that to create urban planning projects with a great number of participants it is necessary to look for the context that this project is embedded in. It is necessary to have a wider view of the project and recognize that the planning process starts long before from the point that contemporary studies assume. “Schönleitner (2006) comes to similar conclusions, noting that reforms of existing representative institutions in Brazil, particularly to limit clientelism, are needed to ensure the correct functioning of participatory institutions and should therefore precede participatory reforms.” (Balderacchi, 2016). In consequence, he points for the need to trace participatory barriers until the structural core of a governance and transform it before starting a project.

In his article “Problems and contradictions of participatory democracy: lessons from Latin America” (2016), Balderacchi explores different cases of public participation in Latin America. The author highlights structural and contextual differences in the countries studied, such as the political history of frustration of the population at their leaders, which might impact on public participation project’s results.

2.6. Socio-economic drivers of non-participation

Goodin and Dryzek (1980) in the 1980’s already warned to the inequality on public participation processes and the effects that different economic groups can have in the outcomes of collaborative practices. For Goodin and Dryzek, economic class differences have a huge impact on public participation projects and the ones that find great barriers for participation are the less wealthy participants.

The author points for an unbalanced division of power between classes and that the participants of high-income groups can often benefit the most from public participation projects, being able to get the best results from them. For the authors, the groups with higher income, the ones that know that they have more chances of getting better results from a public participation process, or simply “win” as they describe it, they are more susceptible to participate than the less wealthy (Goodin and Dryzek, 1980). Chattopadhyay (2015) reinforces this idea and adds more complexity to the income participation factor: “Critics have pointed out that the urban poor, due to their illiteracy, lack of information and confidence, appear to be reluctant to engage in horizontal organizations or get involved in collective actions”.

Nonetheless, Parvin (2018), in a more general global context, and Cook et al. (2014), in the USA context, evidence that even if the rates of participation have decreased in the low-income groups, it didn’t raise in the high-income groups. The rates

(16)

remained the same after the shift to a collaborative governance, in which a larger number of public projects and tools were open and offered to the population, indicating the existence of other barriers besides income.

In order to add new knowledge to the non-participation studies, this research will look for which factors create non-participation in different contexts. And it will extend the explanations of participation beyond passivity and income, mapping personal motivations and structural barriers, and how they are connected to each other.

If these factors that lead to non-participation can be fully mapped, they might

give the possibility to build urban planning projects that ensure a major population engagement in the future, since amends could be done in a basic structural level instead of in projects advanced stage.

2.7. Conclusion

As presented in this chapter, collaborative governance and consequently public participation became a main issue in many countries and cities. The necessity for decentralization in diverse levels brought public participation to the local sphere, where it is impacted by very specific contexts of micro spaces such as the neighborhoods.

The contextual importance drags public participation to a current stage that is still of experimentation, trying to improve processes of participatory activities. And in reason of that, the practical matters of public participation advanced further than the theory, since there is the urgency of making public participation to be a regular practice within many governments. As it is necessary to act fast to fulfill the political agenda, the contemporary studies are focusing on how to make public participation to be more representative, or on how to engage more people and get good results from it. Therefore, the studies are not checking for the existence or non-existence of conditions in a place in order to public participation to flourish. They are extremely practical, they support actions and wait to check the results.

This agenda is supporting a clear path in the literature: a lot has been discussed about how to engage people but not why the population is not participating. Public participation theories are still using concepts that are outdated in other fields of study, such as the population passiveness or income determinism. The public participation theory reached a stage that it is not being able to precisely explain why the levels of public participation are not rising. The theory needs to progress through other approaches that can lead to new explanations over the failure of public participation in a collaborative governance context, such as by addressing the importance of the non-participants.

(17)

In order to make a contribution to the theory of public participation, this study is using urban studies and political science’s current theories to disclosure non-participation. The subjects treated in this chapter are key concepts that help to define and shape non-participation in order to be able to acknowledge it and to study it, since the literature doesn’t quite conceptualize it. In order to be proper studied and analyzed, non-participation should be seen as an action instead of a passive behaviour. A proactive response to issues that surrounds us. An important subject that might be part of public participation studies in order to achieve the contemporary goals of urban planning practices and collaborative governance.

(18)

3. Research Methodology

In order to be able to answer this study’s research questions, a mixed methods scientific strategy was used relying mostly on qualitative research through small-n cases. Interviews were conducted and its data was crossed with surveys and documents analysis so it was possible to cover personal motivations for non-participation and structural barriers for participation. Therefore, this chapter presents the research design used in this study, it explains the case selection, the data collection processes and the process of analysis that was conducted.

3.1 Research design and data selection

Since urbanization is creating spatial units in cities with particular characteristics and decentralized administration, this research avoided to explore differences by merely looking for the democratic governance models in a national level, a common approach of the studies in collaborative governance. But it also looked for how an agroupment of factors influences the dynamic of a neighborhood and then crossing it with the current governance model, a less common approach in this field. By that, the investigation could find how different factors, such as structural and personal ones, can result in non-participation, shaping the dynamics of community collaboration in a neighborhood.

That one may understand which factors and motivations for non-participation are singular of a place and its context and the ones that have a similar impact on participation in different contexts, this research investigated three variables:

• level of democracy and collaborative governance; • population income;

• and availability of participation opportunities.

The first one was investigated in between a macro and micro scale perspective by choosing two countries and cities with very different governances in order to understand at which level the national government and the local public administration build barriers for participation on a neighborhood local level. The second and third variables are within the micro spatial unit. The neighborhood level approach supported to assure which factors affecting public participation are more connected to the local context, making it possible to understand to which extent they have independent or a dependent correlation to the model of governance. This level allowed to analyze if non-participation was caused mostly by local factors or macro structures factors.

Therefore, choosing a few neighborhoods with different population income, made it possible to identify how income affects participation, and in case of different results in

(19)

neighborhoods with similar income characteristics, it provided the necessary means to map other factors affecting participation rates. In order to be able to understand how participation is really connected to these factors, which could change according to a neighborhood context, all the cases chosen had as condition that there are participation activities and projects happening in the areas studied. These places offered clear opportunities for participation. Therefore, that variable functioned as a control variable: there were opportunities for participation in each case studied, but non-participation was still present, allowing therefore the study of its causes.

3.1.1. Level of democracy and collaborative governance

The macro contextual differences can be very evident when looking at India and the Netherlands, since they have very distinct types of governance, democracy and also differences in cultural dynamics. While the Netherlands is one of the countries with the highest quality of democracy according to the research institution democracyranking.org

, India has a medium score (Figure 1). 1

India is a very recent democracy and, not long ago, the country had to run some changes on the organization of the public administration of its local bodies. For that, in 1992, a major constitutional amendment, was approved and aimed to build a more participative system. The 74th amendment had different levels of impact in India cities. However, Mumbai was one of the cities that generated new municipal regulations in order to organize the local bodies, being the pioneer on the creation of the Advanced Local Management (ALMs): residents associations responsible for the waste management in neighborhoods. However, there is a still a strong top-down governance characteristic of a recent democratic state going through a late decentralization process that is affecting public participation projects and initiatives.

On the other hand, the Netherlands with a long democratic history has a very present speech of collaborative governance, public participation and democratization in many of its official documents and policies. Nonetheless, it is more of a statement than solid policies. There are no clear guidelines on public participation. And Amsterdam follow the same path, public participation is a major political topic, there is a lot of discussion between government and experts, but no regulations on how this should

1_{“The Democracy Ranking 2016 compares the development of quality of democracy in 112 countries}

during the years 2011-2012 with 2014-2015. It is based on the following dimensions: politics (weighted with 50%), economy (10%), ecology and environment (10%), gender equality (10%), health and health status (10%), and knowledge (10%). The possible values that a country can achieve go from 1 (minimum) to 100 (maximum) (the entire scale is thus 1- 100).” (Democracy Ranking 2016: Data Press Release,

(20)

happen in the city. Hence, Amsterdam lives a moment of experimenting with public participation by trying to give a lot of support to citizens initiatives.

In that way, India and the Netherlands are different cases as these particular types of democracy might have a great impact on how participation happens even in the micro sphere. A comparative analysis of these cases by analysing policies, public projects and public administration can help to unveil how participation happens in a local context, but also displaying which general structural governance aspects might cause non-participation.

Figure 1 - The Netherlands is ranked in the top 10 and India as a country with Medium quality of

democracy. (democracyranking.org, 2016) 3.1.2. Population income

As mentioned before, one of the main theories in the public participation field assures that the wealthy population participates more because they have more free time and they are more educated, being able to relate better with the complexity of local matters (Goodin and Dryzek, 1980). However, other studies points out for a low level of public participation in general, by low-income and high-income residents (Cook et al., 2014; Wilson et al., 2017; Parvin, 2018), raising the question if income is actually the main factor impacting on public participation. Because of that, four low-income neighborhoods and four high-income were chosen to be investigated.

(21)

The high number of cases facilitates a comparative analysis between similar neighborhoods, but also on finding similarities and differences between different types of neighborhoods.“[...] As Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (2000: 167) wrote, ‘a sample is considered representative if the analyses made using the sampling units produce results similar to those that would be obtained had the entire population been analyzed’. No ‘sample’ of a single neighborhood can meet this criterion.” (Small, 2009).

As referred before, this study has as objective to map the many barriers for participation embedded in a specific local context and consequently check if these same factors can be found in the other cases investigated. These steps would enable to relate these factors to the macro context where the neighborhoods studied are part of, as Burawoy called, the ‘macro foundations of a microsociology’ (Burawoy et al., 1991: 280; 1998). As important as looking for generalization, is to understand that each local context can produce different barriers in different ways. Variation was thereupon essential for this research in order to reach solid results regarding particularities and patterns in the unit of analysis.

The similarities found aided to the replication of results creating patterns for non-participation that cross different neighborhoods despite their different characteristics.

3.1.3. Availability of participation opportunities

The major point on the case selection was to choose a neighborhood that offers regular opportunities for participation through, for example, an active neighborhood association, or informal projects led by residents, or a consultancy that started workshops in the area. Places where participation has the potential to happen, but where non-participation still occurs.

A more general approach was needed for the case selection, therefore neighborhoods dynamics were selected to be the unity of analysis of this research. They were chosen instead of studying singular public participation projects in order to avoid an exclusionary process of case selection based in public participation numbers and results. In the public participation literature, most of the public participation projects mapped are connected to well organized and powerful institutions such as governments, some NGOs and private companies that can publish their projects and display their results. But many participatory activities happen without being mapped. These types of participation are also important in order to better understand non-participation in neighborhoods. Therefore, it is necessary to be open to study any participation initiatives being held in a community.

(22)

By looking at neighborhood dynamics in areas where participation opportunities are offered on a regular basis to people proves to be a more productive approach, since it gives this study the opportunity to understand all the mechanisms over the participatory activities happening in a place. That is why it is also crucial to not look for a specific institution or project, but to all the agents and processes that build a neighborhood.

Therefore, the cases had to display one major public participation project or initiative in the area that is open to all the residents. Or many small different opportunities of participation in a single area, also open to all the residents.

3.2. Data collection and process of analysis

To connect these three variables, a causality map in two levels approach was used (figure 2). “Two-level theories offer explanations of outcomes by conceptualizing causal variables at two levels of analysis that are systematically related to one another” (Goertz and Mahoney, 2005). In order to analyze these levels, this study traced back the causes for non-participation motivations on an individual level and crossed them to a structural root, to historical causes embedded in a macro context: political, economic and cultural.

On the basic level, non-participation is being treated like the result of many factors within the dynamics of a neighborhood, which can be divided in two groups: personal motivations and structural factors. In the first group of causes, non-participation is translated into personal motivations, since it is common that the population often relate and describe their motivations through personal feelings. Such as for example, feeling too busy and consequently having no time for neighborhood activities, or not feeling attached to the community, or feeling frustrated with the public power and others. To find the real motivations for non-participation, it is important to get this information from two different sides: directly from the residents and business owners of a specific neighborhood, since these motivations are related to a personal and individual level, but also from experts that can translate most of these motivations and connect them to a bigger scenario, to the local context and its dynamics.

A second level of causality was then explored in order to understand if the personal motivations found were generated by personal matters or if they are caused by social, political or economic reasons. The personal motivations then were connected to major institutional factors such as a local or national model of governance, or a neighborhood going through gentrification or problems with security that jeopardized the creation of a sense of community, since “ [...] differences in participation result not only

(23)

from individuals’ motivations, but also depend on the compositional characteristics of the neighbourhood” (Hoekstra and Dahlvik, 2017).

Figure 2 - Causality map for non-participation in neighborhoods.

By mapping these two causality levels, it was possible to understand what are the specific conditions in a neighborhood that can increase participation or create barriers. Having neighborhoods dynamics as the unit of analysis was therefore important, since it could enable the analysis of how non-participation is connected to structural factors, and how it happens in different ways depending on the local context. Does participation always occur in the same way in high-income neighborhoods? Does a wealthy population participates more than the less wealthy? If so, why? If not, what are the factors that increase or decrease participation in these locations? What is common to most of the cases and what is particular?

3.2.1. Step 1: interview with experts

In order to disclosure the motivations behind non-participation in a multilayered spatial unity such as neighborhoods, semi-structured interviews were the main method used in a sequential design. They were done with specialists with the purpose to understand the neighborhood context, the offers of participation in the area, who are the participants and who are the non-participants and, most important, the reasons for non-participation in local activities and projects.

(24)

More than giving a primary understanding over the motivations for non-participation, these interviews also helped to map macro factors that have an impact on participation in a neighborhood. Neighborhood association leaders, NGO participants, urban planners and municipality staff were interviewed in the two cities.

In Mumbai, seven interviews were conducted between August and November of 2018. Four of them with leaders of residents associations (ALMs and CBOs), being one leader interviewed for each neighborhood studied. However, in one of the cases, a group interview was done with the board of one of the CBOs and four leaders were presented at the same time. The other three interviews were done with residents and urban planners of the areas studied.

In Amsterdam, a total of ten interviews were made with municipality staff, urban planners, association leaders, residents and business owners during the months of February and May 2019. Mostly of the interviews were recorded. Five of them were not recorded and only notes were taken by request of the interviewees. An interpreter was needed during some of the interviews made in India due to language barriers, therefore some quotes used in this study are in the third person.

The selection for the interviews started by mapping the most notorious public participation associations, projects or activities in the neighborhoods. After contacting the leader of the main projects in each location, the interview selection followed a snowball process, getting references from the leaders in order to interview other residents or experts in the area.

To decrease the impact that a snowball process has in a study and reach a more diverse sample, a survey was sent to different groups of residents in the areas studied but also to residents in other areas of both cities.

3.2.2. Step 2: online survey with residents

After listing possible many causes for non-participation in a specific neighborhood, uncovering the local dynamics and the main urban issues of the neighborhood, a complementary survey was used in order to confirm the patterns that were mapped during the interviews with experts and participation leaders in the eight neighborhoods.

The survey helped to map participation patterns through personal motivations. It was conducted with residents and business owners from the chosen neighborhoods but also with residents from all over Amsterdam and Mumbai in order to analyse which factors are specific from an area context and which ones are similar on a city level, presenting a more general perspective.

(25)

The choice for eight neighborhoods, for a small-n research design was intended “[...] to produce knowledge that is both situated and universal” (Abbott, 2004). Since the interviews are the main method for data collection, by studying eight different cases, covering specialists, residents and business owners, theoretical saturation was expected. Therefore, the survey was the support tool used to create the connection between what is contextual and what factors for participation can be understood to be part of a general pattern. Which ones are repeated and which ones are specific of a place.

The survey was an instrument applied in order to understand a more vast universe of analysis, from the neighborhood unit to the city unit, enabling a more ample exercise of generalization. Since it is being used to substantiate patterns, the survey had a much more qualitative support goal than a quantitative one. Consequently, this research didn’t have a limitation of a minimum sample for the survey, as the survey also followed a theoretical saturation model, having a questionnaire mostly formed by open questions in order to understand behavioral differences on participation matters.

84 respondents answered the survey: 33 in Amsterdam and 51 in Mumbai. The online survey was sent to the leaders of neighborhoods that forwarded it to their contacts in the area and it was also sent to Facebook pages of group of residents of different neighborhoods. The online strategy of sending the survey to Facebook groups allowed to reach a more diverse group of respondents, however it also excluded a population that doesn’t have access to these types of digital tools.

The survey could be taken by any resident of Amsterdam and Mumbai, as this study opted to not differentiate participants from non-participants, since people in different moments can turn to be active participants or non-participants. Participation is not a permanent condition, but fluid that changes from time to time.

The first block of the survey asked for some demographic information about the respondents that could support the analysis of differences and similarities between the neighborhoods with different income profile, answering the subquestion “is income a main factor that impacts the level of public participation in neighborhoods?”. After understanding the motivations for the non-participation in each neighborhood (appendix 8.2.), the survey follows a sequence of questions that try to find a connection between structural matters and individual motivations. “The goals of this strategy are to develop an in depth description of this phenomenon, to identify key themes or properties, and to generate theoretical understanding”_{(Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003).}

The results of the survey were hence crossed with the motivations mapped in the interviews and they supported to ensure if the same results were found in both methods.

(26)

3.2.3. Step 3: document and policy analysis

The study was able to trace structural causes that impact the motivations by investigating years of local and national history through document analysis and through interviews with local experts. Since the basic-level of causality for participation is connected to personal motivations and the second-level of motivations are entangled in structural causes, the investigation had to continue through the analysis of policies on governance and public participation, public administration documents, and neighborhood history information.

This final step had as goal to understand the chain of facts that caused a specific motivation, answering the last secondary question if structural causes are responsible for non-participation and what causes are these. For example, if one of the survey results is that motivation is translated at first as a “lack of interest in the subject”. But, by covering the economic history of the area it is found that the motivation could really be explained by the lack of belonging to a neighborhood which is going through many changes and getting many new residents. Therefore, in this case, to study the real estate market impact in the area, housing policies and interviewing urban planners might be the answer to understand what lack of belonging is connected to. And if it is proven to be a structural causality, then it can be traced and be taken in mind when conducting public participation projects in the area.

To make that possible, the survey with residents and business owners was concluded by producing a map of the main personal motivations for non-participation. And further, a deep analysis of it generated a few hypotheses that helped to link these motivations to a number of other motivations and structural causes found in the interviews. Having those connections mapped and the topics for deeper investigation defined, then some inputs were generated and confirmed by document and policy analysis (figure 3).

Following this methodology, this research was able to explore the power that local context and structural restraints have on public participation in neighborhoods, mapping and adding new causes for non-participation. And in the case that these causes were proved to be rooted in the structure of regimes and institutions, then the study was able to prove the importance of dealing with non-participation not only through public participation tools used during collaborative projects but through an urban planning process that build pre-conditions for participation.

(27)

(28)

4. The Comparative Study

This chapter is divided into two parts. The first one explains how the cases were chosen by the variables criteria explained in the last chapter. The case selection was based on information gathered through public participation and urban planning articles and also through the analysis of government documents.

The second part introduces background history and census information about the places studied in order to better present the contexts where these cases are placed in and, hence, presenting how they fit the cases criteria. This knowledge was created through document reviews and interviews with specialists.

4.1. Case selection

For this study, two countries with different governance and levels of democratization were selected. India is an ex-colony of Great Britain and a recent democracy with a fragmented national cohesion, having a large number of states with2 different cultures, languages, religions and ethnic backgrounds. That partially explains why India states were the only sub-national units with legislative autonomy officially recognized in the constitution until 1992. That scenario changed with the 74th national amendment from 1992 that organized the local administrative system, setting rules and guidelines for how the Indian local bodies should function and reinforce citizen participation. This document remains to be the main one creating guidelines for public participation in the local units all over the country. The document provides some clear rules, but also many open frameworks so the states and municipalities can apply the policies according to their administrative model.

“The Netherlands has a long tradition of consultation and co-operation between government bodies, citizens and civil society organisations” and a well known3 administration that deals with policy making at a local level. In the Netherlands, despite a recent re-centralization wave, the municipal institutions are still the ones that lead the discussions and projects over public participation. Amsterdam, as the capital and the country’s main economic center, still has a lot of independence and power to define its own collaborative governance strategies

Amsterdam is the biggest and most populated city in the Netherlands and the most important economic area. A boom in the service sector helped the city to raise as the prominent economic epicenter of the country, attracting investments and workers from all over the world. A similar scenario is also found in Mumbai: it is the second biggest city of India and the heart of India’s economy. Likewise, Mumbai attracts

(29)

international companies that usually place their main offices there. The city is a magnet for migrants that come from all over the country looking for better job opportunities.

The large growth of these two cities in such a fast path is of big concern to the national and local governments. A rise in the population brings new issues to manage and an urgency on sharing the responsibilities and costs of this growth. Hence, not coincidentally, many projects of public participation can be mapped in these cities. Therefore, they were chosen because of these participatory offers and for having different models of governance and administrative needs. These different governmental models can aid to show how participation happens in similar and different ways in these contexts. And, consequently, how non-participation can be connected to the levels of democratization of a country.

The different income levels of the neighborhoods studied was the second criteria used for the cases selection. One could say that Amsterdam and Mumbai are already opposite cases in the sense of income, since Amsterdam is one of the richest cities of the world and Mumbai, despite being the economic capital, is known for having a big income disparity, where slums and rich houses share neighboring spaces. All the same, Amsterdam and Mumbai are going through a, somehow, similar scenario nowadays. The inequality in Amsterdam is rising during the last few years and the gap between 4 rich and poor is growing . 5

The city is growing in diversity but also becoming divided. The real estate got more power during the last years with the adoption of a more liberal governance; the housing prices are rising ; and the spatial division between rich and poor people is6 becoming more visible. Even the Dutch welfare governance model that establishes that a certain number of social houses are built in each neighborhood is not being effective against the class division. It is actually creating hybrid neighborhoods where the divisions between rich and poor are becoming more and more solid.

Since the context of a place is of major importance to this research, the neighborhoods were chosen to bring a great aspect of variety and diversity. Irrespective of being areas with low or high-income residents, the neighborhoods display a few different characteristics between them. Some of them were chosen because of their demographics differences, such as being isolated islands of wealthy or poverty, and others for having more of mixed population, even if having the prominence of a specific populational income.

4_{Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek - Gemeente Amsterdam (2019)}

5_{In the Netherlands, the wealthier 1% owns 45% of the country’s increased wealth in 2017. (Oxfam}

Novib, 2018)

(30)

However, the main aspect on the selection of these neighborhoods was the types of participation taking place there. The cases cover diverse types of participation and help to answer questions such as: What different or similar impacts do distinct forms of participation have on non-participation?

Dharavi, Sion, Dapperbuurt and Slotermeer - the low-income neighborhoods - and Parli Hill, Malabar Hill, Buiksloterham and the Negen Straatjes - the high-income cases - have, at first, clear similarities between them as a consequence of having a population with similar income. But some differences start to rise by looking at the history and geography of these areas. The same can be noted by listing the opportunities for participation on these places, some of them rely on the residents pro-activity, some on NGOs work, some on the municipality support. Therefore, many different types of agents and types of participation can be seen. There are opportunities for participation being offered in these places - open for residents and business owners - but they happen in different ways. Why do these places produce different types of participation? How these local dynamics and contexts can lead to participation and non-participation?

The low-income neighborhoods of Mumbai, Dharavi and Sion, have very similar demographics. They are neighbour areas with a major low-income population. However, while Sion participation happens mostly through an one-to-one model, not solving collective issues but personal problems, in Dharavi, there is less informality and participation takes place when big collective issues pop-up, such as the construction of a communitary toilet.

In Amsterdam, in the Dapperbuurt and in Slotermeer, there are many small public participation projects happening. Slotermeer is growing in a slower path compared to the other areas studied in Amsterdam and the residents profile is changing less during the years. Most of the participation initiatives are led by locals but with a strong support of the local municipality of Nieuw-West.

On the other hand, in the Dapperbuurt, the initiatives are also organized by non-residents. The Dapperbuurt is located in the middle of two neighborhoods have received public investments and went through a renovation process. By consequence, the Dapperbuurt is being affected by the gentrification process running in the area. The Dapperbuurt is receiving a lot of public attention and getting the interest of civic initiatives. The area is also receiving new families with higher incomes, while long term residents have mostly lower incomes.

The mix composition of the high-income cases chosen in Mumbai also suggest a different impact on participation. While Malabar Hill is situated in the extreme south of the city, like an island of prosperity, the Parli Hill neighborhood is a rich place within an

(31)

area of the city called Bandra, where expensive penthouses and poor houses stand side by side.

In the case of the high-income neighborhoods of Amsterdam, the composition is

more homogenous, however the Negen Straatjes is a very old neighborhood in the central area of the city, while Buiksloterham is part of the old industrial area of the city that is now an important zone for the real estate development. Buiksloterham is a new neighborhood that is being developed almost from scratch and the new residents and old business owners are having a say on how this new place should be shaped.

Eight cases, eight different contexts. Two countries with different levels of democracy. Two cities with big economic importance that are dealing with inequality income gap. Eight neighborhoods with different income profiles where participation is happening in different ways. Diverse cases that can help to disclosure similarities and differences in non-participation, that can help to map which factors are leading to non-participation and how they are connected to a local context and to macro aspects of a city and a country.

4.2. Mumbai and Amsterdam: understanding the cases context

Each city and each neighborhood chosen has its own characteristics and a particular history that shapes the dynamics of this place and how public participation happens. This subchapter presents the cities and neighborhoods studied in this research and the context within these areas.

4.2.1. The collaborative governance context in Mumbai and Amsterdam

There is a major similarity between the public participation governances in the cities of Amsterdam and Mumbai but they lead to different outcomes on participation in these cities. Both governments doesn’t count with a well defined framework for public participation, however, while in Amsterdam the results of not having solid policies and strategies lead to more control of the citizens activities by the public power in order to organize participation movements and ensure the success of its projects. In Mumbai, the lack of policies and regulations gives room to different forms of participation to flourish.

a. The decentralization impacts of India’s 74th Amendment

Collaborative governance is intrinsically connected to how the public administration of a place is organized. The current administrative characteristics that lead to a more democratic system or a less collaborative governance is part of the

(32)

political history of a place. Mumbai, as part of the national government of India, displays a very complex division of public and local administration regarding to its collaborative governance model in consequence of national official amendments dealing with decentralization and public participation in local units. The country is divided into “[...] urban areas, cities and towns, into electoral and administrative units, called wards” (Sudeept and Faria, 2017), supported by the 74th amendment. “India’s 74th CAA mandates the establishment of ward committees, comprised of one or more wards in the geographical area under a municipal corporation with a population of more than 3 hundred thousand people. States are required to enact or amend municipal regulations towards this objective, granting those committees with certain powers and responsibilities.” (Sudeept and Faria, 2017).

India is a parliamentary republic and the biggest democracy in the world, it has national laws followed by each state of the country, however its states have a great political and administrative independence, having their own laws and legislations. Since India is a large country with many different ethnic groups, religions, cultures, languages and geographical landscapes, the states have a great power and independence to take its own decisions.

Looking through the micro sphere of administration, there are also a few differences between cities in India and how they organize their public participation policies in neighborhood levels. The power given to the platforms of collaboration and how they are organized in each area of the city depend a lot on the main political goals of the political leaders, and of course, the context of each locality. “State governments have implemented the legislation to varying degrees, according to their willingness to shift power to local governments within their states” (Baud and Nainan, 2008).

India has nationally approved “[...] the 73rd and the 74th constitutional amendments (CAA) enacted on 1st June 1993 extends constitutional status to municipalities, empowering people and locally elected representatives the power to act in common interest and have a say in how their communities should develop” (Sudeept and Faria, 2017). These are milestones amendments in the democratic story of India and its constitution and they aimed for a decentralized administration and for more public participation in local units.

Mumbai is one of the cities in the country with more official platforms of collaboration, 16 ward committees and at least 700 Advanced Locality Management - ALMs - are listed in the municipality (Baud and Nainan, 2008). The scale of Mumbai is partly responsible for that. It is the second biggest city in India, with an area of 603 km² and 12 millions inhabitants in 2011. 18 millions were expected to be living in the city in 2017 according to the Census. The city attracts migrants from the rural areas of the

Non-participation and participation in neighborhoods : barriers and opportunities in Amsterdam and Mumbai