Institutionalization or interaction: Which organizational factors help community‐based initiatives acquire government support?
| Published date | 01 December 2021 |
| Author | Malika Igalla,Jurian Edelenbos,Ingmar Meerkerk |
| Date | 01 December 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12728 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Institutionalization or interaction: Which
organizational factors help community-based
initiatives acquire government support?
Malika Igalla | Jurian Edelenbos | Ingmar van Meerkerk
Department of Public Administration and
Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Malika Igalla, Department of Public
Administration and Sociology, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of
Social and Behavioural Sciences, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands.
Email: igalla@essb.eur.nl
Funding information
Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award
Number: 406.16.520
Abstract
Increasingly, Western local governments are dealing with
community-based initiatives (CBIs) of citizens providing
public services. Municipalities possess critical resources
CBIs generally lack, including subsidies, buildings, and expo-
sure. There is still little knowledge on CBIs' factors for
government support. Therefore, this study adopts an orga-
nizational perspective distinguishing among institutionaliza-
tion (intraorganizational, e.g., organizational size and
democratic legitimacy) and interaction (interorganizational,
e.g., boundary spanning leadership [BSL]) factors for the
support CBIs obtain from local government. Analyzing large
Ndata (N= 2331) from CBIs in six countries by using struc-
tural equation modeling, we found that interaction factors
are related to more government support, whereas institu-
tionalization factors are less significant. More specifically,
we found stronger relationships for BSL and linking social
capital than for the factors related to the formalization and
development of organizational infrastructure, including the
much-discussed democratic legitimacy of CBIs, suggesting a
limited interest of governments in this topic as a factor for
support.
Received: 19 December 2019 Revised: 14 October 2020 Accepted: 19 December 2020
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12728
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which
permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Public Admin. 2021;99:803–831. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm 803
1|INTRODUCTION
With the shift toward the community in the public service delivery of various Western states, citizens increasingly
become active in community-led co-production projects and initiate community-based initiatives (CBIs). In these ini-
tiatives, the community provides the practical delivery of public services and goods, controlling the aims, means, and
implementation of activities (Bailey, 2012; Bovaird, 2007; Healey, 2015). Examples of CBIs derived from this study
concern community gardens in the Netherlands, neighborhood and property-fixing initiatives in the Unites States for
a safe and clean community, German CBIs supporting refugees with accommodation and integration in the commu-
nity, and initiatives aimed at development of the French youth with social, sports, and cultural activities. With such
CBIs, citizens provide a hands-on solution to various needs of their community, playing an important role in solving
local challenges, and they often have the ambition to form a durable cooperation (Healey, 2015; Igalla et al., 2019).
This sets CBIs apart from advocacy groups, citizens' panels, and formal citizens' initiatives, centered on influencing
political decision-making and public opinion.
In public administration, the shift toward the community does not only manifest in an increase in the number of
CBIs in local communities (e.g., Bailey, 2012; Hassink et al., 2016), but also in a growing interest of governments in
countries, like the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, and the United Kigdom in community self-organization and co-
production as alternative ways to deliver services and goods in the public sphere (Bailey, 2012; Wagenaar &
Healey, 2015). Even though CBIs are a form of self-control (Arnstein, 1969) and are often informal by nature, they
do not take place in “splendid isolation”when trying to establish service delivery. CBIs work in institutionalized envi-
ronments; they encounter rules, laws, and procedures, especially from governmental organizations, and they usually
build relationships with other organizations (Bakker et al., 2012; Healey, 2015; Kleinhans, 2017), which is also the
case for the above examples in this study.
Though reliance on external resources can be associated with costs and dangers, such as a loss of autonomy
(e.g., Froelich, 1999), local governments still form major sources of support for CBIs. They possess critical resources
CBIs generally lack, such as subsidies, buildings, assistance with resource acquisition, help with rules and regulations,
and exposure (e.g., Bailey, 2012). Given that many CBIs are not (yet) financially self-sustaining, they often rely on
government funding (Bailey, 2012; Hassink et al., 2016). Institutional support can even be critical for the long-term
viability and performance of CBIs, making government support an important and significant subject to study
(e.g., Dale & Newman, 2010; Kleinhans, 2017).
In the public administration literature, there is an increased attention for the government support of CBIs
(Kleinhans, 2017), but we still lack clear understanding and insights into the factors of CBIs' obtainment of gov-
ernment support. This question has gained more attention in the field of the third sector and nonprofit organi-
zations, in which organizational theory has proven to be a valuable lens (Froelich, 1999; Lu, 2015; Stone
et al., 2001; Suárez, 2011). In their form and approach, CBIs are distinct from established and institutionalized
organizations that are part of the traditional third sector or nonprofit sector (e.g., Brandsen et al., 2017). For
instance, CBIs are citizen-led, more informal and voluntary-based (see also Appendix A for more information on
the characteristics of CBIs). However, both are part of the broader civil society and share characteristics, su ch
as their non-for-profit goals and relationships with government (Brandsen et al., 2017). Therefore, this study
makes also use of the broader nonprofit and third sector literature, while simultaneously discussing differences
with CBIs.
This article seeks to add to the literature on government-CBIs interactions, by integrating different literature
fields to test CBIs' organizational factors that are related to government support. We analyze an integral theoretical
model based on survey research among 2331 participants of CBIs collected from six countries with the use of struc-
tural equation modeling. Our research question is: “How do organizational factors explain the support CBIs get from
local government?”
804 IGALLA ET AL.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting