What Is Winning?

Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This chapter looks at scenes from the two main coalitions (Housing Justice and Tenants of South Los Angeles) to show just how different their campaigns were and why that matters, even though both fought for affordable housing. Accomplishments make sense only inside strategic arcs; scene style shapes the strategic choices advocates make. Scene style inflects the meaning of particular strategies and goals as well as winning itself. The chapter presents two trajectories of collective problem-solving that unfold on varying timelines, toward tentative and evolving goals. The two coalitions and their trajectories reveal different trade-offs that go with each, differently styled line of action. None of this is to imply that goals and outcomes themselves do not matter. In fact, accumulating evidence shows that different styles do shape outcomes that matter to advocates and the scholars who study them. There is much more to find out about how style contributes to outcomes as scholars usually treat them. The point is that one learns valuable and practical things when one understands particular outcomes in the context of strategic arcs that make those outcomes more, or less, meaningful to advocates and their constituencies.

Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This book renews the tradition of inquiry into collective, social problem-solving. The book follows grassroots activists, nonprofit organization staff, and community service volunteers in three coalitions and twelve organizations in Los Angeles as they campaign for affordable housing, develop new housing, or address homelessness. The book shows that to understand how social advocates build their campaigns, craft claims, and choose goals, we need to move beyond well-established thinking about what is strategic. The book presents a pragmatist-inspired sociological framework that illuminates core tasks of social problem-solving by grassroots and professional advocates alike. It reveals that advocates' distinct styles of collective action produce different understandings of what is strategic, and generate different dilemmas for advocates because each style accommodates varying social and institutional pressures. We see, too, how patterns of interaction create a cultural filter that welcomes some claims about housing problems while subordinating or delegitimating others. These cultural patterns help solve conceptual and practical puzzles, such as why coalitions fragment when members agree on many things, and what makes advocacy campaigns separate housing from homelessness or affordability from environmental sustainability. The book concludes by turning this action-centered framework toward improving dialogue between social advocates and researchers.


Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This chapter evaluates how the close juxtaposition of civic and noncivic in hybrid civic action provides better ways to discern whether or not, and how, nonprofits express the will of people in their immediate locale, and whether or not they pose an effective alternative to governmental action, as some commentators argue. All that should help clarify how civic action really works. The chapter focuses mostly on a locally prominent and successful, nonprofit affordable housing developer, Housing Solutions for Los Angeles (HSLA). It then compares HSLA briefly with efforts by a Tenants of South Los Angeles (ISLA) committee to administer the housing provisions of the community benefits agreement (CBA) that ISLA's campaign won from the Manchester apartments developer. This was a different kind of hybrid. ISLA's affordable housing work for the community ultimately was both financed and constrained by a big, for-profit real estate developer — the Manchester property owner.


Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This chapter explores how, if at all, housing and homelessness advocates made claims about both homelessness and housing problems together. Many advocates make fleeting claims about homelessness or homeless people. Yet they do not talk much about homelessness as a housing problem, even though it may seem like the most urgent one. Here is where investigating discursive fields and style can help. The chapter compares Tenants of South Los Angeles and Housing Justice coalition members' claims about homelessness with those of professional-led volunteer efforts organized to address homelessness as a problem in itself. The evidence suggests that in Los Angeles, cultural conditions conspired to make homelessness a marginal topic across different quarters of the housing advocacy world. And homeless service workers talked little, if at all, about affordable housing as a public issue.


Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This chapter shows how fighting for an interest works as a strategy of collective problem-solving. It describes what that strategy sounds and feels like, and the central dilemma it produces for participants. The chapter also looks closely at everyday tests: points at which participants in a community of interest are faced with challenges and potential alternatives to their usual style of action. The activists' responses to these tests show concretely what kinds of decisions, arguments, and avoidances perpetuate a community of interest. A community of interest is not intrinsically more strategic or effective than other forms of collective problem-solving. The Housing Justice (HJ) and Inquilinos del Sur de Los Angeles / Tenants of South Los Angeles (ISLA) coalitions both experienced victories and disappointments. When it was time to end the field research, ISLA participants had won more of what they said they wanted than did the more conventionally strategic-sounding HJ coalition.


Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This concluding chapter presents the practical findings on coalitions and social advocacy. It argues that civic action is not intrinsically good or bad, polite or risky, enlightened or reactive, humane or hateful. Neither is it necessarily a substitute for governmental action; in the United States, growth in civic action has accompanied growth in governmental initiatives. Civic action comes with no guarantees. Los Angeles housing advocates fought for more power over decisions about housing made, or allowed, by local government and private developers. When governments institute new policies to address social problems, such as through affordable housing mandates, it is often because of the pressure of civic action. Yet civic action is not necessarily always “progressive.” Sometimes people engage collective problem-solving with the goal of reducing citizen steering power.


Author(s):  
Paul Lichterman

This chapter studies how advocates “construct” social problems through claims making. Claims are demands, criticisms, or declarative statements that actors make in relation to public debate. By definition then, claims makers publicize problems for collective problem-solving. Claims making is thus a crucial part of civic action. Claims making happens in the context of not only a style of interaction but also a set of conventional categories for making claims. A discursive field provides those basic symbolic categories that advocates on multiple sides use to make claims about a problem. Scene style keeps some ways of talking about social problems outside the discursive field altogether, and relegates others to marginal enclaves or subordinate status inside the field. Following the action of claims making in the Tenants of South Los Angeles and Housing Justice coalitions, one can learn how a discursive field works.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Åsa Ode Sang ◽  
Frederik Aagaard Hagemann ◽  
Nils Ekelund ◽  
Jessica Svännel

AbstractResearch to date on urban ecosystem services has mainly been conducted in large cities, particularly in China, the USA and some European countries. This study examined the provision of urban ecosystem services in a Swedish municipality context, based on interviews with municipal stakeholders in strategic management and planning from six municipalities and a review of existing publications readily available to practitioners. The analysis focused on (1) the ecosystem services explicitly covered, (2) whether multifunctionality was covered and specific synergies and trade-offs identified and, (3) the spatial scale and context used for ecosystem services (valuation/mapping, planning, design or maintenance) in practical application. The results showed that regulatory services are very much the focus in municipal operations as well as in publications available to practitioners. This is reflected in the implementation of the concept through problem solving often related to regulatory services, using multifunctionality and win-win situations in ecosystem service supply. These findings contribute to the growing body of work exploring how the concept of ecosystem services is adapted and utilised in practice.


Author(s):  
Swati Srivastava

Abstract This research note unveils new archival evidence from Amnesty International's first twenty-five years (1961–1986) to shed light on the realization of international human rights as Amnesty balanced “nonpolitical politics” through multifaceted government relations. The research draws from minutes and reports of eighty meetings of Amnesty's executive leadership and interviews from the 1983 to 1985 Amnesty Oral History project, all collected from the International Institute of Social History. The records show that during this time Amnesty relied on government and foundation funding to exit a severe financial crisis. Amnesty also cultivated a private diplomatic network with governments for access and advocacy and conducted side bargains with closed countries for access and reforms. In one sense, the new evidence complicates the conventional wisdom that Amnesty was only financed from small, individual donors and stayed away from private government dealings. In another sense, the new data extend existing insights about INGO strategic action by revealing Amnesty's pragmatic trade-offs when maintaining arms–length relations with governments to better appreciate the organization's early challenges and accomplishments. The note ultimately contributes to scholarship on the strategic choices of INGOs and provides new data for future research on the agency of nonstate actors in global governance navigating complex government relations. Esta nota de investigación presenta nueva evidencia documental de los primeros 25 años de Amnistía Internacional (Amnesty International), de 1961 a 1986, para arrojar luz sobre el cumplimiento de las normas internacionales de derechos humanos mientras Amnistía balanceaba la “política no política” mediante relaciones gubernamentales polifacéticas. La investigación incorpora actas e informes de 80 reuniones del liderazgo ejecutivo de Amnistía y entrevistas de 1983 a 1985 del proyecto Historia Oral de Amnistía (Amnesty Oral History), recopiladas del Instituto Internacional de Historia Social. Los documentos muestran que, en ese momento, Amnistía necesitó financiación gubernamental y de fundaciones para salir de una crisis financiera grave. Amnistía también cultivó una red diplomática privada con gobiernos a cambio de acceso y defensa, y tuvo negocios paralelos con países cerrados a cambio de acceso y reformas. En un sentido, la nueva evidencia complica la sabiduría convencional de que Amnistía solo tuvo financiamiento de donantes pequeños e individuos y se mantuvo lejos de los negocios privados con gobiernos. En contraste, los nuevos datos amplían las percepciones existentes sobre la acción estratégica de organizaciones no gubernamentales internacionales (ONGI), revelando las concesiones pragmáticas de Amnistía al mantener relaciones independientes con gobiernos, y permiten apreciar mejor los desafíos y logros iniciales de la organización. La nota, fundamentalmente, contribuye a la investigación sobre las decisiones estratégicas de las ONGI y brinda nuevos datos para futuras investigaciones sobre la autonomía de los actores no estatales que navegan relaciones gubernamentales complejas en la gobernanza global. Cet exposé de recherche dévoile de nouvelles preuves issues des 25 premières années d'archives d'Amnesty International (1961–1986) pour apporter un éclairage sur l'application des droits de l'Homme tandis qu'Amnesty équilibrait la « politique apolitique » par le biais de relations gouvernementales à plusieurs facettes. Cette recherche s'appuie sur des minutes et rapports de 80 réunions de la haute direction d'Amnesty, ainsi que sur des entretiens qui ont eu lieu entre 1983 et 1985 dans le cadre du projet Oral History (Histoire orale) d'Amnesty. Ces données ont toutes été recueillies auprès de l'Institut International d'Histoire Sociale. Les archives montrent que durant cette période, Amnesty a dû compter sur le financement de gouvernements et de fondations pour sortir d'une grave crise financière. Amnesty a également cultivé un réseau diplomatique privé avec des gouvernements pour faciliter son accès et son plaidoyer dans le pays concerné tout en menant des négociations parallèles avec les pays fermés pour y favoriser son accès et les réformes. En un sens, les nouvelles preuves compliquent les idées reçues selon lesquelles Amnesty ne serait financée que par de petits donateurs individuels et resterait à l’écart des affaires gouvernementales privées. Mais en un autre sens, ces nouvelles données enrichissent les renseignements existants sur l'action stratégique des organisations non gouvernementales internationales en révélant qu'Amnesty s’était livrée à des compromis pragmatiques en entretenant des relations avec les gouvernements tout en restant à distance. Ces renseignements nous permettent donc de mieux apprécier les premiers défis et accomplissements de l'organisation. En définitive, cet exposé contribue aux études sur les choix stratégiques des organisations non gouvernementales internationales et fournit de nouvelles données pour les recherches futures sur l'intervention des acteurs non étatiques dans la gouvernance mondiale tandis qu'ils naviguent dans des relations gouvernementales complexes.


2005 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 668-673 ◽  
Author(s):  
LaVonna Blair Lewis ◽  
David C. Sloane ◽  
Lori Miller Nascimento ◽  
Allison L. Diamant ◽  
Joyce Jones Guinyard ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document