Neoliberalism With a Community Face? A Critical Analysis of Asset-Based Community Development in Scotland
Référence MacLeod, M. A. et Emejulu, A. (2014). Neoliberalism With a Community Face? A Critical Analysis of Asset-Based Community Development in Scotland. Journal of Community Practice, 22(4), 430‑450. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2014.959147
Thèses et questions de recherche
Questions de recherche : « What are the implications of asset based approaches for the theory, policy and practice of community-led health interventions in scotland ?
Objectif de la recherche : « Many of the issues that the assets agenda raises, such as the role of the state and social welfare, the nature of civil society, and the sources of and solutions to poverty and inequality, are all explicitly feminist concerns. Given the dominance of the assets discourse in Scotland, as feminist researchers we are interested in critically examining it’s implications for the least powerful in society and whose interests might be served – and whose silenced – by this focus on “strengths”. » (p. 3)
Thèse centrale : « We argue that ABCD is a capitulation to neoliberal values of individualisation and privatisation » (p. 1) Sous-thèses : « Drawing from our empirical work, we discuss how ABCD generates dilemmas for community development. While some practitioners are able to adapt to ABCD to focus on renewing Scottish democracy, several practitioners are using ABCD to privatise public issues such as inequality and justify dramatic cuts to the Scottish welfare state (p. 1).
Méthodologie
« our empirical research involved a series of semi-structured interviews with : grassroots-based practitioners working in local community development organisations across the west of Scotland; directors and policy officers of national intermediary organisations which provide a link between community-bas groups and policymakers; and civil servants who have briefs on anti-poverty and health inequalities from one local authority in the west of Scotland. » (p. 4)
« Our interview participants were recruited and selected using a snowball sampling strategy from June 2012 to April 2013. […] An advantage of using this method is that it revealed a network of contacts, minimised issues regarding accessing key informants and ensured that those most likely to offer significant insight into our research topic were included in the study. » (p. 5)
« in terms of data analysis, we established our key themes through an iterative process in which we organized, coded and analysed our data in relation to the patterns emerging from the interview transcripts until we reached saturation point » (p. 5)
« In reporting our findings, we have chosen to use lengthy quotations and sought to contextualise our data by describing our participants and themes in detail. Providing this contextual detail we believe strengthens the credibility of our research and also enables the reader to make decisions about the applicability of our findings to other settings or similar contexts (Cresswell and Miller 2000) » (p. 6)
Arguments et concepts
Intro et contexte de l’étude : « As a result of the 2008 financial crisis, the United Kingdom is mired in a cycle of low economic growth and declining living standards. In response to the severity of the economic downturn, the current Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition Government is undertaking a radical experiment in austerity. The central programme of the Coalition Government is to spur economic growth and job creation through the rather contradictory process of drastically reducing state spending especially with regards to social welfare (Yeates et al 2010; Clarke and Newman 2012). […] As a result of this programme of austerity, the UK is experiencing the most significant transformation of its welfare state since its founding after the Second World War (Taylor-Gooby and Stoker 2010; TaylorGooby 2011). Key social welfare services are now being eliminated, means-tested, dramatically curtailed or privatized in order to save money (Sommerland and Sanderson 2013; Sosenko et al 2013). » (p. 1).
« As the state withdraws from different aspects of public life, the government argues that individuals, families and community groups will be able to fill this vacuum through their local knowledge, assets and energy to rebuild local services on their own terms and in ways that meet their interests and needs » (p. 2)
« ABCD seems to offer a way to navigate this new economic and social reality of drastic cuts to state spending and declines in living standards by removing the state as primary actor in social welfare and instead focus efforts to build capacity to put communities at the center of welfare provision. » (p. 2)
Asset Based Community Development : « the movement within the field of community development that seeks to reorient theory and practice from community needs, deficits and problems to a focus on community skills, strengths and power. » (p. 2)
Neoliberalism : « theory of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices (Harvey 2006: 2) » (pp. 2-3)
Problematising Asset Based Community Development in the United States
« We argue that the roots of this particular model of American Community development can be traced to two persistent and intertwined undercurrents of American political thought: a deep mistrust of the state and a championing of populist politics » (p. 6)
« The growth of the ABCD approach reflects a widespread assumption in some community development circles that Saul Alinsky’s (1946; 1968) conflict based approach to community organising was no longer relevant of effective. […] To effect change, he suggested, there was a need for “reorientation from confrontation over service distribution issues to confrontation over production and resources necessary to produce”. […] While it is indeed the case that de-industrialisation and suburbanisation were transforming urban communities, broader forces were at play that were shrinking and delegitimising the available spaces for articulating alternative models for community development – particularly radical forms of practice » (p. 7)
« In this context in which organisations that supported conflict models of social action were actively targeted for de-funding and marginalised by state actors, consensus-based partnership initiatives, which unite public, private and community-based actors and of which ABCD is but one example, grew in influence and importance. In this ideological context, we argue that ABCD represents a capitulation and compliance with the prevailing neoliberal reforms of the American welfare state under the Reagan Administration. […] Key New Right analysis of the welfare state – that it breeds a culture of dependency in poor communities and that the best remedy to poverty and inequality is the application of free market principles such as enterprise and entrepreneurship – are taken for granted and actively promoted in the ABCD model » (p. 8).
« [The welfare state] can also be a key guarantor and protector of equality and rights which makes individual liberty possible and meaningful. […] The state can undermine or suppress deliberative dialogue about the common good through “invited spaces” that direct and control both the process and the outcomes of citizen debate. The state, however, can also support the democratic participation of the most marginalised through a system of social welfare » (p. 9) « The decline in urban communities that Kretzmann and McKnight identified in the 1980s was due to unfettered free market capitalism in which industries and employment moved from cities to suburbs to overseas to maximise profit for private corporations. It is not clear how more capitalism or free market logic improves the situation on the ground in poor and working-class urban communities. Indeed, the asymmetrical impact of the 2008 financial crisis on poor African-American and Latino neighbourhoods in the United States appears to demonstrate how free market capitalism is not working to improve the life chances of these groups » (p. 9)
« The ABCD model draws heavily on a communitarian reading of Alexis de Tocqueville and his celebration of voluntary association as the vital building blocks of democracy in America. […] we argue, the ABCD discourse promotes the privatisation of public life by framing notions of civil society and citizenship as removed from any notion of state responsibility » (p. 10) Asset Based Community Development in the UK « the claims Russell [a research fellow at he ABCD Institute, who was appointed to the Expert Reference Group on Community Organising and Communities First] makes about what can only be achieved by “people power” appear to reflect a distrust of the state (p. 11). « interestingly, however, it also appears that the discussions of assets within this literature include a greater concern for social justice and material inequalities than is apparent in the American ABCD model […] Such discussion suggest that the ABCD agenda may create both challenges and possibilities in relation to austerity and welfare reform in the UK. If the discussion of assets in the UK is to include a greater concern for structural and material inequalities, then it has interesting implications for how the concept is redefined and applied in practice » (p. 12)
The assets agenda in Scotland
« In Scotland, discussions of assets and interest in asset based approaches are currently high on the public health agenda, in part due to significant support by the Chief Medical Officer. […] Burns states “an assets approach to health and development embraces a positive notion of health creation and in doing so encourages the full participation of local communities in the health development process” » (p. 12)
« Such discussions have placed psychological factors at the top of the health and wellbeing agenda although some would argue this diverts attention from significant issues of structural and income inequalities. […] policy makers and commentators in Scotland recognise the opportunities, challenges and tension that a discourse of assets creates and are aware that, as Mclean asserts, “a clear political position and direction to the debate remains absent” » (p. 13).
Assets, Democracy and Social Justice in Greater Glasgow
Problems defining asset-based community development : « Related to the difficulty of defining asset based approaches, were discussion of whether they offer anything new or different […] All of the practitioners interviewed were keen to point out that recognising and valuing people and their skills and interests were how they had always approached their work. […] By contrast, those participants who occupy more strategic roles within the sector tended to be less certain about the similarities between asset based approaches and community development […]. Andrea, a health policy officer in local government, commented: “I think a lot of work in community development has been about responding to a problem… responding to poverty, responding to unemployment, responding to deprivation. But I don’t see that as the same as an asset based approach. […] This comment, we suggest, resonates with a common theme identified in the literature that the assets agenda may marginalise discussions of significant structural and economic inequalities. » (pp. 14-15)
ABCD: a new model for social democracy in Scotland
« From the practitioners interviewed, there was a sense that an asset based approach might offer an opportunity to raise the profile and increase the scope of work which has long been championed by those working in community health and development. […] A focus on assets might allow people to have a more direct involvement in setting the priorities for service planning and delivery […] However, those interviewed also raised concerns regarding the challenges of sharing power and changing established ways of working, suggesting that although the asset based approach may offer the potential of working with community groups as equal partners, achieving that shift in power is a far more complex, long-term process » (p. 16).
« In seeking to work collaboratively and build partnerships across different individuals and groups in different sectors, our concern is in whose interests are ultimately served and whose voices are marginalised when the power held by different parties is unequal. […] those expressing a more consensus-based approach to community development work […] expressed views on the need to reduce dependency and increase individual responsibility, echoing both the scepticism and mistrust of the state which is a key theme of the ABCD literature » (p. 17)
« Importantly, this discussion of dependency and responsibility suggests that the assets agenda in Scotland, placed within a wider debate regarding the role of the state in austere times, could potentially be used to justify a reduction in the state’s role in tackling social problems […]. In contrast to there views, [for] several of our participants […] by identifying and seeking to develop the strengths, skills and knowledge of individuals and community groups, it was suggested, people become more confident to critically analyse and dissent from the prevailing views and representations of themselves and the problems they experience. […] Such discussion of community activism suggests that some practitioners may be able to use the assets agenda to provide a constructive contribution to on-going debates about the nature and purpose of democracy in Scotland» (p 18)
« Asset based approaches could potentially advantage the already influential and cohesive communities » (p. 19)
Conclusion critique :
J’ai voulu m’intéresser davantage aux possibles récupérations néolibérales des approches de développement communautaire. J’étais tombée il y quelques années sur des propositions émanant de milieux progressistes américains qui suggéraient pour des villes comme détroit le ABCD. J’ai été très déçue de cette critique, qui s’inscrit clairement dans une tradition sociale-démocrate, très optimiste face à l’intervention de l’État. Il serait vraiment intéressant de fouiller plus dans les références de Jeppesen, Sandra, Anna Kruzynski, Rachel Sarrasin et Émilie Breton, « The Anarchist Commons ». Cet article résumait la dynamique à l’œuvre, dans laquelle des communs sont produits, puis récupérés par le capitalisme dans une logique néolibérale de précarisation.