Public Participation Community Economic Development: A Model of Participatory Democracy

1. Public Participation & Community Economic Development: A Model of Participatory Democracy

2. Allison Houlihan, PhD Candidate School of Urban & Public Affairs Center for Environmental Policy & Management University of Louisville Urban Affairs Association Annual Conference Chicago, IL March 6, 2009

3. Introduction Community Economic Development Participatory Democracy Community Economic Development & Participatory Democracy as Mutually Reinforcing Why Brownfields? This paper explores the role of participatory democracy in community economic development and presents brownfield redevelopment as an appropriate framework in which to implement both. I contend that because brownfields redevelopment is desirable for both investors and community residents and creates a situation in which diverse parties are drawn together, it can reconcile the objectives of community and economic development and can serve as an excellent context within which to implement CED. Today, I am going to talk about the concepts of CED and PD, how they are mutually reinforcing, and why brownfields are the ideal context in which to apply them simultaneously. This paper explores the role of participatory democracy in community economic development and presents brownfield redevelopment as an appropriate framework in which to implement both. I contend that because brownfields redevelopment is desirable for both investors and community residents and creates a situation in which diverse parties are drawn together, it can reconcile the objectives of community and economic development and can serve as an excellent context within which to implement CED. Today, I am going to talk about the concepts of CED and PD, how they are mutually reinforcing, and why brownfields are the ideal context in which to apply them simultaneously.

4. community economic developmenttheoretical traditions Underlying concept of CED incorporates two components: Community Economic development Seeks to increase capital gains in such a way that benefits the entire community Three underlying principles contribute to a logic for community action: a theory of local economic development a strategy of social policy implementation rooted in citizen empowerment a grassroots political orientation CED first gained momentum as a movement in North America as a response to the economic recession of 1981-82 Since that time, the call for CED reflects continuing dissatisfaction with the welfare state and its inability to maintain rising standards of living, adequate social and municipal services, and reduce regional disparity CED also represents an optimistic and innovative attempt to alleviate urban poverty and strengthen democracy CED first gained momentum as a movement in North America as a response to the economic recession of 1981-82 Since that time, the call for CED reflects continuing dissatisfaction with the welfare state and its inability to maintain rising standards of living, adequate social and municipal services, and reduce regional disparity CED also represents an optimistic and innovative attempt to alleviate urban poverty and strengthen democracy

5. community economic developmentpractical approaches  Growth Promotion – economic development is synonymous with job growth and increased income and business activity Structural Change – planned growth responds to the limitations of investment-seeking and grants the need to supplement or replace the goal of growth itself; emphasis on the quality of the economy rather than the quantity of growth Communalization – combines the concerns of economic growth and stability with a more fair production and distribution of wealth; the primary objective is developing an economy that strengthens community Three approaches to CED have been identified. While each approach focuses on a different aspect of CED, their division does not suggest a lack of common, intrinsic meaning. Irrespective of differences in focus and practical applications, the general objective of each approach is the same – to improve economic opportunity and quality of life through community-led decisions and actions. Growth Promotion is associated with “smokestack chasing” or the belief that growth occurs when new major employers locate within an economy growth promotion has evolved into growth planning, which emphasizes comprehensive planning and attempts to involve all relevant public and private stakeholders in determining targets, assessing opportunities and developing strategies With Structural Change the main goal is to foster both short- and long-term stability by increasing local economic control, through such means as increasing local and diversified ownership the diversification of exports Import replacement The Communalization approach Incorporates the goals of economic growth and economic stability It is participatory and communalistic in character, yet highly concerned with ensuring individual choice and freedom and it is highly concerned with creating fair access to the means of economic production Three approaches to CED have been identified. While each approach focuses on a different aspect of CED, their division does not suggest a lack of common, intrinsic meaning. Irrespective of differences in focus and practical applications, the general objective of each approach is the same – to improve economic opportunity and quality of life through community-led decisions and actions. Growth Promotion is associated with “smokestack chasing” or the belief that growth occurs when new major employers locate within an economy growth promotion has evolved into growth planning, which emphasizes comprehensive planning and attempts to involve all relevant public and private stakeholders in determining targets, assessing opportunities and developing strategies With Structural Change the main goal is to foster both short- and long-term stability by increasing local economic control, through such means as increasing local and diversified ownership the diversification of exports Import replacement The Communalization approach Incorporates the goals of economic growth and economic stability It is participatory and communalistic in character, yet highly concerned with ensuring individual choice and freedom and it is highly concerned with creating fair access to the means of economic production

6. community economic developmentdeveloping a contemporary definition CED occurs when people in a community analyze the economic conditions of that community, determine its economic needs and unfulfilled opportunities, decide what can and should be done to improve the economic conditions in that community, and then move to achieve agreed-upon economic goals and objectives CED is not a rationale for maintaining the status quo but is a comprehensive concept for changing the economic situation within the community As the concept and approaches to CED have evolved since the 1980s, it is important to establish a contemporary definition Read definition In a discussion of contemporary CED, it is important to also distinguish between economic development and economic growth Growth seeks to increase capital, employment and business revenues using the same strategies as in the past Alternatively, economic development implies change it is a more comprehensive and innovative concept than growth development involves social, economic and environmental efforts to enhance quality of life and, rather than a short-term pursuit of economic gains, development seeks long- term stability through the purposeful and permanent enrichment of a community’s economic situation As you can see, there is an emphasis on change: the resources for which are found in the community’s own leadership and citizens Some other important characteristics of CED include: a democratic political system in which people have an opportunity to express their preferences citizen participation that is as inclusive as possible As the concept and approaches to CED have evolved since the 1980s, it is important to establish a contemporary definition Read definition In a discussion of contemporary CED, it is important to also distinguish between economic development and economic growth Growth seeks to increase capital, employment and business revenues using the same strategies as in the past Alternatively, economic development implies change it is a more comprehensive and innovative concept than growth development involves social, economic and environmental efforts to enhance quality of life and, rather than a short-term pursuit of economic gains, development seeks long- term stability through the purposeful and permanent enrichment of a community’s economic situation As you can see, there is an emphasis on change: the resources for which are found in the community’s own leadership and citizens Some other important characteristics of CED include: a democratic political system in which people have an opportunity to express their preferences citizen participation that is as inclusive as possible

7. Contemporary economic developmenta new paradigm Economic growth theory has moved through a natural progression that can be presented in terms of “waves” 1st wave – based on export base theory and the attraction of capital resources from other locations via tax subsidies, low-rent land and training funds 2nd wave – focused on the expansion and retention of existing business and entrepreneurship; strategies have included increased investment funds for local firms, incubator development, technical assistance for local firms and revolving loan funds 3rd wave – focuses on collaboration and partnership building within and across communities has been the focus of third wave economic development policies It is the third wave of economic growth theory that has functioned as the initial bridge between economic growth and development and community development The foundation for contemporary CED is derived from economic theories of endogenous growth. Economic growth theory has moved through a natural progression that can be presented in terms of “waves.” While each wave has laid the foundation for the next, none have completely replaced that upon which it is predicated. It is the 3rd wave of economic growth theory that has functioned as the initial bridge between economic growth and development and community development. The foundation for contemporary CED is derived from economic theories of endogenous growth. Economic growth theory has moved through a natural progression that can be presented in terms of “waves.” While each wave has laid the foundation for the next, none have completely replaced that upon which it is predicated. It is the 3rd wave of economic growth theory that has functioned as the initial bridge between economic growth and development and community development.

8. Community economic development tenets for policy & action programs a community is a logical economic unit that can exert some control over its economic future intervention in the form of conscious group decisions and actions will affect local economic welfare more than the sum of individual actions the action/policy must be comprehensive and cannot focus just on economic activity but must also include noneconomic dimensions the resources needed will be available or can be found to implement the policy (resources are more than monetary and include all factors of production , especially social capital and community assets When looking at the guiding principles for CED policy and action programs, it is important to note the emphases on: Local economic control Collective autonomy The incorporation of economic and non-economic dimensionsWhen looking at the guiding principles for CED policy and action programs, it is important to note the emphases on: Local economic control Collective autonomy The incorporation of economic and non-economic dimensions

9. Community economic development Basic Strategies Work with new and existing business in using existing resources differently Increase the flow of dollars into the community Looking beyond traditional extractive industries for communities rich in natural amenities Increasing the recirculation of dollars into the community, Local factor resources are a critical element of CED – specifically, increasing the amount of resources available Acting smarter – translates into how the community goes about making decisions and sets up and implements strategies Changing (reinterpreting) the rules – the community seeks a change in rules that would benefit the community or seeks a change in interpretation of rules Basic Strategies work with new and existing business in using existing resources differently community’s need to increase the flow of dollars into the community by: attracting new basic employers increasing the out-of-community sales of existing basic employers increasing visitors to the community increasing intergovernmental aid to the community looking beyond traditional extractive industries for communities rich in natural amenities increasing the recirculation of dollars into the community, i.e. plugging leakages out of the local community’s economy firm location theory, specifically demand maximization central pace theory local factor resources are a critical element of CED – specifically, increasing the amount of resources available, i.e. increasing the amount of land, labor and capital available for producing output; remember the spatial component acting smarter – translates into how the community goes about making decisions and sets up and implements strategies changing (reinterpreting) the rules – the community seeks a change in rules that would benefit the community or seeks a change in interpretation of rules Basic Strategies work with new and existing business in using existing resources differently community’s need to increase the flow of dollars into the community by: attracting new basic employers increasing the out-of-community sales of existing basic employers increasing visitors to the community increasing intergovernmental aid to the community looking beyond traditional extractive industries for communities rich in natural amenities increasing the recirculation of dollars into the community, i.e. plugging leakages out of the local community’s economy firm location theory, specifically demand maximization central pace theory local factor resources are a critical element of CED – specifically, increasing the amount of resources available, i.e. increasing the amount of land, labor and capital available for producing output; remember the spatial component acting smarter – translates into how the community goes about making decisions and sets up and implements strategies changing (reinterpreting) the rules – the community seeks a change in rules that would benefit the community or seeks a change in interpretation of rules

10. participatory democracytheoretical traditions Maximum Self-Development: Recognizes political participation as a value that, in itself, is necessary to the growth and development of its citizens Argues that the provision of political conditions which allow for “maximum self-development” and the “opportunity to enlarge their vision and sense of themselves” is compulsory Ordinary citizens are both capable, and obligated, to strive to develop an awareness of their self-interest and to cultivate an empathy with, and a commitment to, the well-being of others. A contemporary theory of participatory democracy directly challenges the fundamental principles and assumptions of liberal democratic theory, claiming they are narrow and elitist oriented. The PD assertion of the need for maximum self-development is, perhaps, its most significant divergence from liberal democratic theory. The concept of maximum self-development is a fundamental aspect of PD. It recognizes political participation as a value in and of itself. Liberal theory, on the other hand, values, even requires, a degree of citizen passivity. Maximum self-development argues that a democracy needs to offer certain opportunities to its citizens. Whereas liberal theory only requires that a democratic polity to meet the material and social welfare needs of its citizens. Finally, maximum self-development see ordinary citizens as ... A contemporary theory of participatory democracy directly challenges the fundamental principles and assumptions of liberal democratic theory, claiming they are narrow and elitist oriented. The PD assertion of the need for maximum self-development is, perhaps, its most significant divergence from liberal democratic theory. The concept of maximum self-development is a fundamental aspect of PD. It recognizes political participation as a value in and of itself. Liberal theory, on the other hand, values, even requires, a degree of citizen passivity. Maximum self-development argues that a democracy needs to offer certain opportunities to its citizens. Whereas liberal theory only requires that a democratic polity to meet the material and social welfare needs of its citizens. Finally, maximum self-development see ordinary citizens as ...

11. Participatory democracy theoretical traditions Against an Elitist Orientation – Expanding Democracy: a common critique of participatory theory and an argument of liberal democratic theory, based on numerous surveys and empirical studies, suggests that large portions of the American public are poorly informed and politically passive. Participation & Equality participation and equality as mutually reinforcing participation translates into power, generating greater equality between the classes, which functions as a catalyst for subordinate classes to continue the struggle for equality. Against an Elitist Orientation – Expanding Democracy PD attempts to expand democracy and debunk the claims by liberal theorists that the American public are poorly informed and politically passive and that the survival of democracy, according to liberal democrats, depends on the cultivation of an “enlightened elite” whose leadership can protect the masses from their own antidemocratic tendencies. Participation & Equality The mutually supportive relationship between participation and equality is one of the fundamental assumptions underpinning participatory democratic theory. PD theorists argue that political participation can promote equality. They take issue with the liberal propensity to depoliticize participation by making economic equality a prerequisite for democratic participation. PD theorists argues that, ultimately, participation translates into power, generating greater equality between the classes, which functions as a catalyst for subordinate classes to continue the struggle for equality. Against an Elitist Orientation – Expanding Democracy PD attempts to expand democracy and debunk the claims by liberal theorists that the American public are poorly informed and politically passive and that the survival of democracy, according to liberal democrats, depends on the cultivation of an “enlightened elite” whose leadership can protect the masses from their own antidemocratic tendencies. Participation & Equality The mutually supportive relationship between participation and equality is one of the fundamental assumptions underpinning participatory democratic theory. PD theorists argue that political participation can promote equality. They take issue with the liberal propensity to depoliticize participation by making economic equality a prerequisite for democratic participation. PD theorists argues that, ultimately, participation translates into power, generating greater equality between the classes, which functions as a catalyst for subordinate classes to continue the struggle for equality.

12. Community economic development & participatory democracy as mutually reinforcing Both address and aspire to reduce inequalities, i.e. political, social, and economic Both seek to strengthen democracy Both work to empower citizens Both emphasize community and seek to enhance the quality of life Both promote collaboration and partnership building Both value inclusive citizen participation and encourage all citizens to express their preferences Both encourage citizens to develop a an awareness of their self-interest as well as a commitment to the well-being of others Now that we have reviewed the concepts of CED and PD, it is important to underscore the ways in which their agendas are mutually reinforcing: Both aspire to reduce inequalities Both seek to strengthen democracy and create stability Both emphasize community and seek to improve the quality of life Both promote collaboration and partnership building through enhanced local governance Both value citizen participation Both encourage citizens to develop an awareness of their self-interests as well as a commitment to the well-being of othersNow that we have reviewed the concepts of CED and PD, it is important to underscore the ways in which their agendas are mutually reinforcing: Both aspire to reduce inequalities Both seek to strengthen democracy and create stability Both emphasize community and seek to improve the quality of life Both promote collaboration and partnership building through enhanced local governance Both value citizen participation Both encourage citizens to develop an awareness of their self-interests as well as a commitment to the well-being of others

13. Why brownfields? Brownfield: real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant Successful brownfields redevelopment requires (among other things) that public agencies connect the reuse to broader community goals, including but not limited to, meaningful public participation . Why are brownfields the ideal context in which to simultaneously apply CED and PD? First, let me clarify the term brownfield: The Small Business and Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act, passed in 2002, defines brownfields as … In the past, the term brownfield has been used alternately with contaminated land and derelict land. In recent years, however, brownfield is used because it is not associated with the negative connotations connected with terms such as ‘‘contaminated’’ and ‘‘derelict,’’ and because it provides an effective counterpart to greenfield, the term used by planning and development officials which refers to an agricultural or undeveloped site in the urban periphery. Now, back to Why Brownfields? The successful redevelopment of brownfields requires that public agencies connect their reuse to broader community goals, including but not limited to, meaningful public participation. Traditionally, many developers and some public officials have viewed community involvement, in property redevelopment in general and in brownfield redevelopment in particular, as an impediment to an efficient land use planning process. However, numerous empirical studies show that early community involvement can help foster understanding and consensus and prevent protests and litigation. An evaluation of brownfield redevelopment pilot projects sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency found that: “Public involvement is more than the right thing to do; it is actually a mechanism for faster, better cleanup and redevelopment.” Why are brownfields the ideal context in which to simultaneously apply CED and PD? First, let me clarify the term brownfield: The Small Business and Liability Relief and Brownfield Revitalization Act, passed in 2002, defines brownfields as … In the past, the term brownfield has been used alternately with contaminated land and derelict land. In recent years, however, brownfield is used because it is not associated with the negative connotations connected with terms such as ‘‘contaminated’’ and ‘‘derelict,’’ and because it provides an effective counterpart to greenfield, the term used by planning and development officials which refers to an agricultural or undeveloped site in the urban periphery. Now, back to Why Brownfields? The successful redevelopment of brownfields requires that public agencies connect their reuse to broader community goals, including but not limited to, meaningful public participation. Traditionally, many developers and some public officials have viewed community involvement, in property redevelopment in general and in brownfield redevelopment in particular, as an impediment to an efficient land use planning process. However, numerous empirical studies show that early community involvement can help foster understanding and consensus and prevent protests and litigation. An evaluation of brownfield redevelopment pilot projects sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency found that: “Public involvement is more than the right thing to do; it is actually a mechanism for faster, better cleanup and redevelopment.”

14. Why Brownfields? Federal commitment to pursue brownfield redevelopment private – development opportunities public – job creation and increased tax revenues Coinciding federal commitment to increase citizen participation in public and governmental processes rests on the logic that citizens have the right to influence decisions that affect them and should, therefore, be included in scientific and environmental decisions Brownfields redevelopment benefits both the private and public sectors. For the private sector, they represent a significant opportunity as a large under-exploited source of land within otherwise developed communities. The creation of long-term jobs and the increase of local real estate and income tax bases are the two most notable public benefits of brownfields redevelopment. From a survey of 231 cities, the 2000 U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that brownfield redevelopment could produce over 555,000 new jobs and up to $2.4 billion in additional tax revenues. Other benefits include the opportunity to protect health, control urban sprawl, renovate obsolete civil infrastructure, and revitalize inner-city neighborhoods. For these reasons, brownfields redevelopment became a national priority in the early 1990s and have since been reaffirmed with initiatives such as the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative of 1993 and the Brownfields Action Program of 1995. Coinciding with this commitment to brownfields redevelopment, public and government officials have increasingly recognized the importance of direct citizen participation in public and governmental processes. Since the 1950s, there has been a discernable movement towards greater citizen involvement. Proponents of this movement have argued convincingly that citizens have the right to influence decisions that affect them and should, therefore, be included in scientific and environmental decisions. Brownfields redevelopment benefits both the private and public sectors. For the private sector, they represent a significant opportunity as a large under-exploited source of land within otherwise developed communities. The creation of long-term jobs and the increase of local real estate and income tax bases are the two most notable public benefits of brownfields redevelopment. From a survey of 231 cities, the 2000 U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that brownfield redevelopment could produce over 555,000 new jobs and up to $2.4 billion in additional tax revenues. Other benefits include the opportunity to protect health, control urban sprawl, renovate obsolete civil infrastructure, and revitalize inner-city neighborhoods. For these reasons, brownfields redevelopment became a national priority in the early 1990s and have since been reaffirmed with initiatives such as the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative of 1993 and the Brownfields Action Program of 1995. Coinciding with this commitment to brownfields redevelopment, public and government officials have increasingly recognized the importance of direct citizen participation in public and governmental processes. Since the 1950s, there has been a discernable movement towards greater citizen involvement. Proponents of this movement have argued convincingly that citizens have the right to influence decisions that affect them and should, therefore, be included in scientific and environmental decisions.

15. References ACIR (1979). Citizen participation in the American federal system.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224.  Bachrach, P. (1967a). The Theory of Democratic Elitism. Boston: Little Brown.  Bachrach, P. (1967b). The theory of democratic elitism: A critique. Boston: Litle Brown. Bachrach, P. (1975). Participation and democratic theory. In J. R. Pennock & J. Chapman (Eds.), Participation in politics. New York: Lieber-Atherton Press. Bachrach, P., & Botwinick, A. (1992). Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press Barnard, F. M., & Vernon, R. A. (1975). Pluralism, Participation, and Politics. Politics and Society, 3, 185-204.. Bartik, T. (January, 2003). Local economic development policies. Unpublished chapter in the Fifth Edition of Management Policies in Local Government Finance, edited by J. Richard Aronson and Eli Schwartz, and published by International City/County Management Association. Upjohn Institute. Beauregard, R. A. (1993). Constituting economic development: A theoretical perspective. In R. D. Bingham & R. Mier (Eds.), Theories of local economic development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

16. references Blahna, D. J., & Yonts-Shepard, S. (1989). Public involvement in resource planning: Toward bridging the gap beween policy and implementation. Society and Natural Resources, 2(3), 209-227. Boothroyd, P., & Davis, H. C. (1993). Community economic development: Three approaches. Journal of Planning Education and Literature, 12(3), 230-240. Bradshaw, T. J., & Blakely, E. J. (2002). Planning local economic development: theory and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Checkoway, B., & Van Til, J. (1978). What do we know about citizen participation? A selective review of research. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America. Lexington: Lexington Books. Christenson, J. A., & Roninson, J. W., Jr. (1993). In search of community development. In J. A. Christenson & J. W. Roninson, Jr. (Eds.), Community development in America (pp. 3-17).  Cunningham, F. (2002). Participatory democracy Theories of democracy: A critical introduction. New York: Routledge. Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale university Press. De Sousa, C. A. (2005). Policy performance and brownfield redevelopment in Milwaukee, Wisconsin*. Professional Geographer, 57(2), 312.  Desario, J., & Langton, S. (1987a). Toward a metapolicy for social planning. In J. Desario & S. Langton (Eds.), Citizen participation in public decision making (pp. 205-221). Westport: GreenwoodPress.

17. references Desario, J., & Langton, S. (Eds.). (1987b). Citizen participation in public decision-making. New York: Greenwood Press.  Dunn, J. (1974). Democracy unretrieved, or the political theory of Professor Macpherson. British Journal of Political Science, 4, 489 - 500. Dye, T., & Zeigler, H. (1987). The Irony of Democracy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Eisinger, P. (1988). The role of the entreprenuerial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Eisinger, P. (1995). State economic development in the 1990s: Politics and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 9(4), 146-158. Fiorino, D. (1989). Environmental risk and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 14(2), 501-547. Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entreprenuerial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. Annals of the American Association of political and Social Sciences, 529, 48-58. Glaser, E. L., & Kohlhase, J. E. (2004). Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 197-228. Godschalk, D. R., & Stiftle, B. (1981). Making waves: Public participation in state water planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 17(4), 597-614. Goodwin, N. R. (1997). Interdisciplinary perspective on well-being. In F. Ackerman, D. Kiron, N. R. Goodwin, J. M. Harris & K. Gallagher (Eds.), Human well-being and economic goals (pp. 1-15). Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

18. references Green, G. P. (2001). Amenities and community economic development: Strategies for sustainability. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 31(2), 61-75.  Green, G. P., Deller, S. C., & Marcouiller, D. (Eds.). (2006). Amenities and rural development: Theories, methods and public policy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Gutmann, A. (1980). Liberal Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hochschild, J. (1984). The New American Dilemma. New Haven: Yale University Press. Huntington, S. (1976). United States. In M. Crozier (Ed.), Crisis of Democracy. New York: New York University Press.  Johannison, B. (1990). Community entreprenuership: Cases and conceptualization. Entreprenuership and Regional Development, 21(1), 71-88. Johannson, B., & Quigley, J. M. (2004). Agglomeration and networks in spatial economies. Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), 165-176. Kateb, G. (1981). The Moral Distinctiveness of Representative Democracy. Ethics, 91 (4), 357-374. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Cicogo: ACTA Publications. Lange, D., & McNeil, S. (June, 2004). Clean it and they will come? Defining successful brownfield development. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 101-108. Lejano, R. P., & Wessells, A. T. (2006). Community and economic development: Seeking common ground in discourse and in practice. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1469.

19. references Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets: The world's political economic systems. New York: Basic Books. Lovan, R. W., Murry, M., & Shaffer, R. (Eds.). (2004). Participatory governance: Planning, conflict mediation and public decision-making in civil society. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Lukes, S. (1979). The real and ideal world of democracy. In A. Kantos (Ed.), Power, possessions and freedom. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lynn, F. M. (1990). Public participation in risk management: The right to define, the right to know, and the right to act. Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1(1), 95-111. Macpherson, C. B. (1973). Democratic theory. London: Oxford University Press. Mayors, U. S. C. o. (2003). Recycling America's land: A national report on brownfields redevelopment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conferrence of Mayors. McCarthy, L. (2002). The brownfield dual land-use policy challenge: Reducing barriers to private redevelopment while connecting reuse to broader community goals. Land Use Policy, 19, 287-296. Mill, J. S. (1873). Considerations on representative government. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Mishel, L., & Bernstein, J. (1996). The state of working America, 1994-1995. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. Moote, M. A., McClaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). Theory in practice: applying participatroy democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 77-89.

20. references Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Pitkin, H. (1969). Representation. New York: Atherton Press.  Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 63(1), 65-78.  Reese, L. A., & Fasenfest, D. (1996). Local economic development of time. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 280-289.  Reich, R. (1990). Policy making in a democracy. In R. Reich (Ed.), The power of public ideas (pp. 123-156). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315 - 353.  Rosenbaum, N. (1978). Citizen participation and democratic theory. In S. Langton (Ed.), Citizen participation in America (pp. 43-54). Lexington: Lexington books. Rosener, J. (1982). Making bureaucracy responsive: a study of the impacts of citizen participation and staff recommendations on regulatory decision making. Public Administration Review, 42(2), 339-345

21. references  Rousseau, J. J. (1968 [1762]). The social contract. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.  Schrader-Frechette, K. (1990). Scientific method, anti-foundationalism, and public policy. Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1(1), 23-41.  Schweke, W. (1990). The third wave in economic development. Washinton, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise Development.  Selin, S., & Chavez, D. (1995). Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental Management, 19(2), 189-195. Shaffer, R., Deller, S., & Marcouiller, D. (2006). Rethinking community economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 20(1), 59-74.  Simon, W. H. (2001). The community economic development movement. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.  Stirmon, J., Shands, W. E., & Liggert, C. (1993). Communities of interest and open decision making. Journal of Forestry, 91(7), 17-31.  Turner, R. (1999). Entrepreneurial neighborhood initiatives: Political capital in community development. Economic Development Quarterly, 10, 115-150. Van Valey, T. L., & Petersen, J. C. (1987). Public service science centers: The Michigan experience. In J. Desario & S. Langton (Eds.), Citizen participation in public decision making (pp. 39-63). Westport: Greenwood press.  Wyly, E. K., Glickman, N. J., & Lahr, M. L. (1998). A top 10 list of things to know about American cities. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development & Research, 3(3), 7 - 32.