Urban Affairs Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lelieveldt, H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 39, No. 5, 531-551 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1078087404263601

Helping Citizens Help Themselves

Neighborhood Improvement Programs and the Impact of Social Networks, Trust, and Norms on Neighborhood-Oriented Forms of Participation

Herman Lelieveldt

University of Twente, the Netherlands

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.

Key Words: political participation • civic participation • social capital • urban politics • neighborhood improvement programs


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Youth SocietyHome page
M. Leonard
Social and Subcultural Capital Among Teenagers in Northern Ireland
Youth Society, December 1, 2008; 40(2): 224 - 244.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
M. Filipovic
Influences on the Sense of Neighborhood: Case of Slovenia
Urban Affairs Review, May 1, 2008; 43(5): 718 - 732.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban StudHome page
R. Kleinhans, H. Priemus, and G. Engbersen
Understanding Social Capital in Recently Restructured Urban Neighbourhoods: Two Case Studies in Rotterdam
Urban Stud, May 1, 2007; 44(5-6): 1069 - 1091.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Urban Affairs ReviewHome page
B. Denters and K. Mossberger
Building Blocks for a Methodology for Comparative Urban Political Research
Urban Affairs Review, March 1, 2006; 41(4): 550 - 571.
[Abstract] [PDF]