Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philanthropic Foundations in the City Policy Process: A Perspective on Policy Capacity from the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Capacity and Governance

Part of the book series: Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy ((PEPP))

Abstract

In the United States, philanthropy has long been a powerful and integral force in political economy and society (Zunz 2012). With particular reference to the City of Baltimore, Maryland, this chapter explores the competences and capabilities of foundations to perform policy functions. In so doing, foundations demonstrate the importance of the policy capacity of non-governmental actors to how a city is governed. The chapter first considers the state-society relationships of urban governance. It then briefly explains the history of foundation philanthropy-of-place approaches in the US, and learnings that that have led to more locally embedded approaches. The policy capacity of foundations in formulating neighbourhood revitalization policy is then explored, followed by consideration of the role of foundations in both directly and indirectly implementing such policy via intermediary, non-profit organizations. It then considers the extent to which these city policy processes are open to genuine collaboration between government and non-governmental actors, and the extent to which they reflect differential power resources and relationships. The chapter concludes by considering the scope for development of progressive alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Annie, E. Casey foundation. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.aecf.org/AboutUs.aspx.

  • Auspos, P., Brown, P., Sutton, S., & Kubisch, A. (2008). Living cities and civic capacity. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnekov, T., Boyle, R., & Rich, D. (1989). Privatism and urban policy in Britain and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, I. (2013). Analysing urban governance networks: Bringing regime theory back in. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(2), 276–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, I. (2015). Between democratic network governance and neoliberalism: A regime-theoretical analysis of collaboration in Barcelona. Cities, 44, 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehike, D. (2004). Great neighborhoods great city: The healthy neighborhoods approach in Baltimore. Baltimore: The Goldseker Foundation. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from http://healthyneighborhoods.org/pdfs/goldseker_hni_study.pdf.

  • Boyte, H. (1980). The backyard revolution: Understanding the new citizen movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P., Butler, B., & Hamilton, R. (2001). The Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood transformation initiative: Lessons learned about community building and implementation. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin, R. J. (2003). Fostering neighborhood democracy: Legitimacy and accountability within loosely coupled systems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32(2), 161–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin, R. J. (2005). Democracy and bureaucracy in a community planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Building community capacity. New York: Walter de Gruyter Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Baltimore. (2006). City of Baltimore comprehensive master plan: A business plan for a world-class city. Adopted by the Planning Commission June 2006 and the Mayor and City Council November 2006. Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Baltimore. (2014). Housing market typology. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://archive.baltimorecity.gov/Government/AgenciesDepartments/Planning/MasterPlansMapsPublications/HousingMarketTypology.aspx.

  • City of Baltimore. (2015). One Baltimore fact sheet. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://servingonebaltimore.org/OneBaltimore%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

  • Collins, T. W. (2008). Unevenness in urban governance: Stadium building and downtown redevelopment in Phoenix, Arizona. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26(6), 1177–1196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. S. (2011). Challenging governance theory: From networks to hegemony. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. S., & Pill, M. C. (2012). Hollowing-out neighbourhood governance? Re-scaling revitalization in Baltimore and Bristol. Urban Studies, 49(10), 2199–2217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiGaetano, A., & Strom, E. (2003). Comparative urban governance: An integrated approach. Urban Affairs Review, 38(3), 356–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foundation Center. (2012). Key facts on community foundations. New York: Foundation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, J. C. (2004). Beyond gentrification: Mobilizing communities and claiming space. Urban Geography, 25(5), 437–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frisch, M., & Servon, L. J. (2006). CDCs and the changing context for urban community development: A review of the field and the environment. Community Development, 37(4), 88–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geddes, M. (2006). Partnership and the limits to local governance in England: Institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 76–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gittell, M., Newman, K., Bockmeyer, J., & Lindsay, R. (1998). Expanding community participation: The federal urban empowerment zones. Urban Affairs Review, 33, 530–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleeson, D. H., Legge, D. G., & O’Neill, D. (2009). Evaluating health policy capacity: Learning from international and Australian experience. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 6(3), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldseker Foundation. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.goldsekerfoundation.org/about_the_foundation.

  • Goldseker Foundation Healthy Neighborhoods. Retrieved January 27, 2016, from http://www.goldsekerfoundation.org/featured_initiatives/healthy_neighborhoods.

  • Imbroscio, D. (2013). From redistribution to ownership: Toward an alternative urban policy for America’s cities. Urban Affairs Review, 49(6), 787–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbroscio, D. (2016). Urban policy as meritocracy: A critique. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(1), 79–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karlstrom, M., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., & Richman, H. (2007). Embedded philanthropy and community change (Issue Brief 114). Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlstrom, M., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., & Richman, H. (2009). Embedded philanthropy and the pursuit of civic engagement. The Foundation Review, 1(2), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick, L. O. (2007). The two ‘logics’ of community development: Neighborhoods, markets, and community development corporations. Politics & Society, 35(2), 329–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kubisch, A., Auspos, P., Brown, P., Buck, E., & Dewar, T. (2011). Voices from the field III: Lessons and challenges for foundations based on two decades of community change efforts. The Foundation Review, 3(1–2), 138–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Living Cities. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from https://www.livingcities.org/about/.

  • Martin, D. (2004). Nonprofit foundations and grassroots organizing: Reshaping urban governance. Professional Geographer, 56(3), 394–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, M. (2003). The onward sweep of social capital: Causes and consequences for understanding cities, communities and urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27, 108–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuarrie, M. (2013). Community organizations in the foreclosure crisis: The failure of neoliberal civil society. Politics & Society, 41(1), 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NACEDA. (2010). Rising above: Community economic development in a changing landscape. Washington, DC: National Alliance of Community Development Associations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. (2005). Participative governance and the remaking of the public sphere. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking governance: Policy, politics and the public sphere (pp. 119–138). Bristol: The Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. (2013). Performing new worlds? Policy, politics and creative labour in hard times. Policy & Politics, 41(4), 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, A., & Ashton, P. (2004). Neoliberal urban policy and new paths of neighborhood change in the American inner city. Environment and Planning A, 36(7), 1151–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, P., & Eikenberry, A. (2009). A critique of the discourse of marketized philanthropy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(7), 974–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrander, S. A. (1999). When grantees become grantors: Accountability, democracy and social movement philanthropy. In E. C. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropic foundations: New scholarship, new possibilities. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, M., & Pierre, J. (2005). Unpacking policy capacity: Issues and themes. In M. Painter & J. Pierre (Eds.), Challenges to state policy capacity (pp. 1–8). Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, I., & Rietzler, K. (2014). American philanthropy and the hard, smart and soft power of the United States. Global Society, 28(1), 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. (1998). Geographies of governance: TECs and the neo-liberalisation of ‘local interest’. Space and Polity, 2(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck, J. (2012). Austerity urbanism: American cities under extreme economy. City, 16(6), 626–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G. (1996). The policy capacity of government (Research Paper No. 18). Canada: Canadian Centre for Management Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierre, J. (2014). Can urban regimes travel in time and space? Urban regime theory, urban governance theory, and comparative urban politics. Urban Affairs Review, 50(6), 864–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D., Germain, A., Bacqué, M., Bridge, G., Fijalkow, Y., & Slater, T. (2013). ‘Social mix’ and neighbourhood revitalization in a transatlantic perspective: Comparing local policy discourses and expectations in Paris (France), Bristol (UK) and Montréal (Canada). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 430–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scally, C. P. (2012). Community development corporations, policy networks, and the rescaling of community development advocacy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(4), 712–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, R. M. (2008). The influence of nonprofit networks on local affordable housing funding: Findings from a national survey of local public administrators. Urban Affairs, 44, 126–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, R. M. (2009). Sandwiched between patronage and bureaucracy: The plight of citizen participation in community-based housing organisations in the US. Urban Studies, 46(1), 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, R. M., Lewis, J., & Patterson, K. L. (2014). William Worthy’s concept of ‘institutional rape’ revisited: Anchor institutions and residential displacement in Buffalo, NY. Humanity and Society, 38(2), 158–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker, G. (2004). Transforming local governance: From Thatcherism to new labour. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. N. (1993). Urban regimes and the capacity to govern: A political economy approach. Journal of Urban Affairs, 15, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. N. (2004). It’s more than the economy after all: Continuing the debate about urban regimes. Journal of Urban Affairs, 26, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, C. N. (2005). Looking back to look forward: Reflections on urban regime analysis. Urban Affairs Review, 40, 309–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zunz, O. (2012). Philanthropy in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

    Madeleine Pill

Authors
  1. Madeleine Pill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madeleine Pill .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Public Policy, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China

    Xun Wu

  2. Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada

    Michael Howlett

  3. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

    M Ramesh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pill, M. (2018). Philanthropic Foundations in the City Policy Process: A Perspective on Policy Capacity from the United States. In: Wu, X., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. (eds) Policy Capacity and Governance. Studies in the Political Economy of Public Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54675-9_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation