Book•
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
01 Jan 2000-
TL;DR: Putnam as mentioned in this paper showed that changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's roles and other factors are isolating Americans from each other in a trend whose reflection can clearly be seen in British society.
Abstract: BOWLING ALONE warns Americans that their stock of "social capital", the very fabric of their connections with each other, has been accelerating down. Putnam describes the resulting impoverishment of their lives and communities. Drawing on evidence that includes nearly half a million interviews conducted over a quarter of a century in America, Putnam shows how changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's roles and other factors are isolating Americans from each other in a trend whose reflection can clearly be seen in British society. We sign 30 percent fewer petitions than we did ten years ago. Membership in organisations- from the Boy Scouts to political parties and the Church is falling. Ties with friends and relatives are fraying: we're 35 percent less likely to visit our neighbours or have dinner with our families than we were thirty years ago. We watch sport alone instead of with our friends. A century ago, American citizens' means of connecting were at a low point after decades of urbanisation, industrialisation and immigration uprooted them from families and friends. That generation demonstrated a capacity for renewal by creating the organisations that pulled Americans together. Putnam shows how we can learn from them and reinvent common enterprises that will make us secure, productive, happy and hopeful.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors synthesize and extend a suite of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and practice-based knowledge into an integrative framework for collaborative governance, which specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems.
Abstract: Collaborative governance draws from diverse realms of practice and research in public administration. This article synthesizes and extends a suite of conceptual frameworks, research findings, and practice-based knowledge into an integrative framework for collaborative governance. The framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or programbased intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collection action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross-boundary collaboration. It is presented as a general framework that might be applied to analyses at different scales, in different policy arenas, and varying levels of complexity. The article also offers 10 propositions about the dynamic interactions among components within the framework and concludes with a discussion about the implications of the framework for theory, research, evaluation, and practice.
1,942 citations
Book•
18 Nov 2002
TL;DR: Minkler and Wallerstein this article provide evidence that the field of community-based participatory research (CBPR) has reached an important developmental point as a field, even if we cannot as yet agree on a single name.
Abstract: If Thomas Kuhn (1962) is correct, a field of inquiry develops in stages. Some members of a field of inquiry recognize anomalies in the foundational beliefs and seek better explanations of problems, such as health and economic disparities, and practices of inquiry about them. A few distinctive achievements or discoveries provide the new approaches greater legitimacy. Eventually, a critical mass of information and researchers develops and the alternative explanations and research practices offer canons of practice, which mark an advanced stage of the development of an emerging field of inquiry. This special issue of the Michigan Journal and Meredith Minkler and Nina Wallerstein’s edited volume, Community-Based Participatory Research for Health, offer evidence that the field of community-based participatory research (CBPR) has reached an important developmental point as a field. The forthcoming Community-Based Research and Higher Education: Principles and Practices (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoecker, & Donohue, 2003); the recently published The Handbook of Action Research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001); and Ernest Stringer’s recent work (1999) and forthcoming work on participatory action research in higher education provide further evidence that we have exemplars of the methods of participatory research and canons for their practice, even if we cannot as yet agree on a single name. Whatever the nuances among the terms, there is coherence. We are talking about research that
1,905 citations
Book•
16 Jun 2006
TL;DR: McCarty et al. as mentioned in this paper examined the relationship of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.
Abstract: The idea of America as politically polarized--that there is an unbridgeable divide between right and left, red and blue states--has become a cliche. What commentators miss, however, is that increasing polarization in recent decades has been closely accompanied by fundamental social and economic changes--most notably, a parallel rise in income inequality. In Polarized America, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal examine the relationships of polarization, wealth disparity, immigration, and other forces, characterizing it as a dance of give and take and back and forth causality.Using NOMINATE (a quantitative procedure that, like interest group ratings, scores politicians on the basis of their roll call voting records) to measure polarization in Congress and public opinion, census data and Federal Election Commission finance records to measure polarization among the public, the authors find that polarization and income inequality fell in tandem from 1913 to 1957 and rose together dramatically from 1977 on; they trace a parallel rise in immigration beginning in the 1970s. They show that Republicans have moved right, away from redistributive policies that would reduce income inequality. Immigration, meanwhile, has facilitated the move to the right: non-citizens, a larger share of the population and disproportionately poor, cannot vote; thus there is less political pressure from the bottom for redistribution than there is from the top against it. In "the choreography of American politics" inequality feeds directly into political polarization, and polarization in turn creates policies that further increase inequality.
1,894 citations
TL;DR: Reducing SES disparities in health will require policy initiatives addressing the components of socioeconomic status (income, education, and occupation) as well as the pathways by which these affect health.
Abstract: Socioeconomic status (SES) underlies three major determinants of health: health care, environmental exposure, and health behavior. In addition, chronic stress associated with lower SES may also increase morbidity and mortality. Reducing SES disparities in health will require policy initiatives addressing the components of socioeconomic status (income, education, and occupation) as well as the pathways by which these affect health. Lessons for U.S. policy approaches are taken from the Acheson Commission in England, which was charged with reducing health disparities in that country.
1,879 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focus on the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do that are embodied in democratic education programs and demonstrate that the narrow and often ideologically conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at teaching for democracy reflects not arbitrary choices but, rather, political choices with political consequences.
Abstract: Educators and policymakers increasingly pursue programs that aim to strengthen democracy through civic education, service learning, and other pedagogies. Their underlying beliefs, however, differ. This article calls attention to the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do that are embodied in democratic education programs. It offers analyses of a 2-year study of educational programs in the United States that aimed to promote democracy. Drawing on democratic theory and on findings from their study, the authors detail three conceptions of the “good” citizen—personally responsible, participatory, and justice oriented—that underscore political implications of education for democracy. The article demonstrates that the narrow and often ideologically conservative conception of citizenship embedded in many current efforts at teaching for democracy reflects not arbitrary choices but, rather, political choices with political consequences.
1,875 citations