Community-Action Partnerships:

Bettering Government By Sharing Power With Citizens

3/25/97

Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Fall 1997.

I. Old Problems, New Solutions

Today's crisis in governance

The fundraising circus atmosphere of the 1996 U.S. election illustrates one facet of the grave crisis of governance confronting representative government today. "Contributions" — which are little more than legal bribes to gain influence — totaling more than three billion dollars from business, labor and Political Action Committee (PACs), flooded campaigns at all levels, from Presidential to local. Citizen disenchantment with the actions of national, state, and local legislative bodies reached a new high, as many voters believe government is run for the benefit of special interests and/or find the content of electoral discourse debased and banalized by television commercials and staged debates (Citizens, 1992). Less than half the eligible voters bothered to cast their ballots — the lowest turnout in half a century. Japanese voters appear similarly discontented with their national and local governments (Gomi, Table 5).

The national policymaking process in the United States seems structurally incapable of meeting today's challenges: growing economic inequality and unemployment and other effects of global capitalism, education failures, drug use, urban blight, health and elder care and other human service inadequacies, environmental degradation and pollution, continuing racism, etc. Analysts worry whether nation-level government structures themselves can offer more than flawed and partial solutions to these problems, which exist and persist because of institutional rigidities, deeply-held cultural values, and powerful economic self-interests.

This litany of persistent structural problems cannot be solved by politicians or bureaucrats alone. A disillusioned public believes that entrenched leaders have the most to lose from genuine systemic change and cannot be trusted to author or enforce real change. Challenging new candidates from major parties — i.e., the ones who receive the vast bulk of campaign contributions — usually offer proposals that only tinker with the status quo, or are empty promises unlikely to be fulfilled.

A new political process is emerging

A hopeful sign, however, is that all around the world people are insisting on controlling their geographical community, and localizing politics. People want to influence their own futures. In many nations today (especially those formally behind the Iron Curtain), power is being decentralized from national lawmaking bodies and administrative agencies to regional and local governments (Batley and Stoker, 1991). These trends are being amplified by the impending European Union and organizations such as the International Union of Local Authorities (Bennett, 1993).

Statehouse democracy. In most countries the national government serves as the major maker of public policies. In the U.S., although state governments are theoretically dominant, in fact the federal government has been considered the nation's number one problem solver since the New Deal period of the 1930s. Since the 1980s, however, the U.S. has seen a resurgence of "statehouse democracy," and citizens are much more satisfied with the public services and regulations dispensed from their state capitols than with those emanating from Washington (Erikson, Wright, and McIver, 1993).

Innovative policies have been greatly stimulated in the states by initiatives, referendums, and recall of elected officials — direct democracy practices not allowed at the federal level. Twenty four states and thousands of localities empower their citizens with some form of direct democracy tools (Cronin, 1989). In the environmental policies arena, for example, citizen led initiatives have impelled nuclear plant closures, mandatory beverage containers deposits, recycling programs and waste facility sittings, mandatory disclosure of commercial product toxicity, public land acquisitions, restrictions on logging, state agency reconfigurations, and multi-million dollar bond issues for an array of environmental purposes (Rabe, 1997). Numerous policies (such as term limits on elected officials and tax reforms) first launched in a single state through direct democracy have become models for initiatives in other states (Ringquist, 1993; Lester, 1994). Maine's voters passed an initiative in 1996 that sets up publicly financed campaign funding for elections.

The struggle over balancing government budgets is further changing the relationship between Washington and local governments. In an era of fiscal constraints and a rising ideology of devolving power, federal programs to solve problems of health care, affordable housing, welfare, environmental protection and deteriorating infrastructure are being cut, with responsibility for solving them transferred to states and cities.

Direct citizen involvement. This devolution of authority is going even further as new forums of decision-making are being created that involve direct citizen participation. We are seeing a transition away from a command-and-control, elite-centric style of government, to one that involves greater participation by average citizens. In its most democratic form, widely representative members of the community come together in a problem-solving mode to define issues, gather reliable information about the topic, arrive at consensual solutions, and follow-up with monitoring and oversight authority. These "citizen taskforces," "working groups," "community summits," "advisory committees," etc., mark the future of greater democratic governance, I believe. These new processes are helping to build a "civil society" that not only better solves specific problems, but enhances communal attachments and civic engagement by average citizens.

II. Community Action Partnerships:
A New Form of Government Policymaking

Dealing with difficult-to-resolve environmental issues has recently generated a more democratic, more effective mode of policy-setting that is seen as an alternative to more top-down and bureaucratically-enforced regulations. "Civic environmentalism" is a growing form of activism that stresses a decentralized, multiple-constituent, bottom-up approach to solving environmental problems (John, 1994).

Effective waste management in Washington State. Citizens and public officials in Seattle, Washington, and its surrounding area, King County, have worked together for several years in developing effective methods to reduce household waste and encourage recycling. Spurred by new federal regulations that made it more difficult and expensive to operate landfills and neighborhood opposition to the construction of new landfills and incinerators in their communities, a county organized citizens task force was formed in 1986 to consider all aspects of managing waste. After a year of information gathering and many meetings, the task force decided that waste reduction and recycling would be the preferred choices for managing trash. Soon after Seattle and most suburban cities adopted curbside pickups. Economic incentives were employed to discourage trash disposal and encourage recycling. An intensive public education program was enacted, including Recycling Weeks, programs in schools, brochures for homeowners, and technical assistance to businesses. Tax incentives and low cost financial loans helped establish remanufacturing and reprocessing plants, which enhanced the local market for recyclables and built up related local businesses. Many leaders of the early protests against more landfills and incinerators, and taskforces, became active and valued members of county and city advisory committees (John, 1994, pp. 1014).

The Washington State story illustrates how partnerships between citizens, businesses, and government are successfully managing whole ecosystems to deal with difficult problems such as widely dispersed sources of pollution (farm and landscaping chemicals, automobile exhausts, and household waste disposal). Civic environmentalism encourages locally based activities that work in conjunction with federal and state programs. Confrontation and litigation have been superseded by technical assistance and information sharing, and innovative market mechanisms and incentives such as pollution credits and "green" taxes (Roodman, 1995. 1996). Iowa's legislature enacted a host of tax incentives and education programs that reduced the mass use of polluting chemicals by changing the practices of tens of thousands of farmers. In Florida federal, state, and local leaders joined together to restore the endangered Everglades. Citizens in many states are pressuring public regulatory agencies to promote the production of electricity via solar and wind power instead of by fossil fuels that spew out CO2 and acid rain emissions (Flavin, 1992; Flavin & Lessen, 1993).

Other examples of partnership governance

Community coalitions. In 1991 over 100 New York City organizations ranging from block and community gardening associations to environment, health, and housing groups — agreed upon a "Platform for the Future of New York's Environment." The document served as a blueprint for debating the city's future from a quality of life perspective. A powerful coalition of over 200 civic, neighborhood, and interest groups was then built to enact the platform. ENVIRONMENT '92 challenged candidates running for office to endorse the detailed agenda of concrete solutions, held press conferences, published a newsletter, and set up environmental training workshops. Under coalition pressure, the Board of Education appointed an "environmental education coordinator," and the mayor appointed an ENVIRONMENT `92 coalition member to serve as Director of the new "Department of Environmental Protection." The coalition found itself in a cooperative rather than adversarial relationship with the government ("Influencing," 1990.)

Government partners with citizen groups. In St. Paul, Minnesota, neighborhood associations regularly decide each budget year which publicly funded projects and services in their area they desire from the city government. Each association then works closely with city administrators and other neighborhoods in allocating city resources (Scheibel, 1992). Seattle, Washington, has its "Neighborhood Matching Fund" program that combines the resources and creative efforts of ordinary citizens with the assets of the city. Rather than just complaining to city officials about some problem and asking government to fix it, citizen groups themselves come up with solutions. The City sets aside money for acceptable projects with the requirement that the neighborhood match the funds with donated time, materials, labor, or privately raised funds. The city allocates through the Department of Neighborhoods about $1.5 million each year to assist community policing, anti-violence programs, neighborhood planning, art projects, and so forth. (Morrow, 1997).

Finland's "village action movement." During the 1960s and early 1970s Finland, like all modernizing nations, experienced rural depopulation. By 1974, however, there were the first signs of a modest rural revival based on "village committees," which initiated projects in the areas of culture, leisure, communications, services, transportation, housing, and economic development. By 1988, 2,300 Village Committees had been formed that encompassed two-thirds of Finland's villagers. Because of their intimate knowledge of local social and economic resources, the committees became important channels for public investment. Some communities created "village corporations," locally owned and controlled, formally registered bodies that run public services and identify business opportunities.

In all, about 25,000 people have been directly involved, positively affecting the lives of some 500,000 people. Programs are grounded in citizens' knowledge of, and love for, their village, its culture and traditions and natural environment. Projects evidence a remarkable vitality and creativity and encompass a broad range of activities: the arts (music, drama, painting), traditional crafts (weaving, furniture making, herb production, printing), modern crafts (like photography and video), economic development and the encouragement of entrepreneurship, sports (especially winter sports), and social events of all kinds. Involving the whole village has generated a notable enthusiasm and liveliness in once declining communities (Ekins, 1992, pp. 194196).

Business-community partnerships. In 28 cities in England, business-community partnerships have organized into "Groundwork Trusts," to work together to accomplish extensive environmental restoration of rundown industrial properties and derelict urban lands. Trusts bring together companies, public agencies, and community groups to enhance the community's quality of life and economic prosperity. Under the guidance of Groundwork Trust experts, local staffers secure a mix of financial sponsorship from national government, private and local sources, and deploy the physical and human resources of the private sector, voluntary groups and individuals volunteers. The United Kingdom now has 28 operating Trusts and the movement is expanding both internally and to other European Community nations (Carley & Christie, 1993, pp. 206215).

Public-private partnerships. Government cannot be the sole problem solver in an increasingly complex society. It can serve as a facilitator and mediator of civic activities. In many cities nonprofit and public corporations build and operate affordable housing, halfway houses, elderly care facilities, family counseling centers, etc. They are supported by a mixture of private and government funding. Housing development partnerships to rehabilitate urban blight are springing up throughout the U.S., many supported by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, cleverly combined public and private resources to rebuild blighted downtown areas (Osborn and Gaber, 1993, p. 336). The mayor of San Jose, California, used her office to empower neighborhoods by supporting community action teams that successfully lobbied for district improvements and policing programs ("Democracy," 1996. pp. 3031).

"Community-based planning." Long-range land use plans and zoning designation for new developments has become a common practice in many U.S. cities. Such planning is increasingly resulting from lengthy meetings between representatives of government, business, community members, and others with a stake in the outcome, rather than just bureaucrats and public officials (Everitt, 1992; Gardner, 1992; Miller & Orr, 1992).

"Community benchmarking." Across the U.S., a planning process known as "community benchmarking" is being used by states, cities and neighborhoods to develop "shared visions" of their desired future. Part of the process calls for defining what constitutes "measurable indicators" of progress towards achieving their goals. Oregon, Minnesota, and Montana are most advanced in this process, with similar initiatives begun in Hawaii and elsewhere ( An Action Agenda, 1993; Ka Ala Hoku, 1996). "Benchmarking" programs developed with the cooperation of a wide range of participants offer a valuable tool for prompting government to better consider and implement planning for the long-term good of society.

Focusing on measures of results (indicators) brings a long-range perspective into public policy formulation and implementation. Translating strategic plans into measurable outcomes shifts the focus of decision-making and government performance from good intentions to achieving concrete results. By articulating desired outcomes and measuring performance by them, government agencies and government as a whole can perform with greater purpose, discipline, and accountability.

Community management of forests. In one Northern California area loggers and environmentalists realized they ALL were losing the battle over the forests, and found a way to work together. After years of costly and time consuming battles, a forum was jointly convened by a pro development county supervisor, an environmental lawyer, and a U.S. Forestry Department agent. In the process of sharing information about the forest and the watershed, and exploring solutions that would protect economic livelihood and the environment, the pro and antidevelopment factions crafted a long-range plan that promises to save both forests and jobs. Participation in the forum built personal trust between people who were once antagonists as well as a solid commitment to insure the health of the ecosystem and the economy dependent on it (Hetherton & Piotrowski, 1996).

Green plans. In the Netherlands, the development of the "National Environmental Policy Plan" brought together representatives from all sectors of the economy and community to determine national environmental goals and methods of meeting them. The first plan, issued in 1989, contained 220 policy changes designed to improve the environment and establish a sustainable economy within one generation (Steffen & Atkisson, 1995; Carley & Christie, 1993, pp. 249262; Johnson, 1995). Dutch companies, trade associations, farming groups and other organized interests negotiate "voluntary covenants" with the government to achieve phased goals. Each group is free to pursue whatever policies or technologies it finds most effective as long as they meet quantified goals. More than 20 U.S. states and cities are looking into formulating "Green Plans" based on the Dutch model ("Green Plan Center").

New Zealand's "Resource Management Act of 1991" focuses on maintaining the nation's highly regarded quality of life by protecting many facets of the environment, both natural and built. The Act replaces 60 national resource management, urban planning, and environmental laws, by devolving powers to local governments, and represents the largest public participation process in New Zealand's history. Grassroots and community group involvement is greatly encouraged in negotiating local policies in a less bureaucratic, more open process (Johnson, 1995).

Community-Action Partnerships

The above examples sample a variety of new forms of democratic governance being practiced around the world. Carley & Christie (1993), in their book Managing Sustainable Development, call this emerging style of policymaking "action-oriented networks." Such networks emphasize partnerships between diverse sectors and interests, private and public, and the fostering of consensus and learning among all stakeholders.

"Community-Action Partnerships" is the generic name I use to label consensus-seeking policymaking processes that involve a wide range of participants, who include:

Not only experts, bureaucrats, or elected representatives;

Not only big contributors, lobbyists, or powerful economic interests;

But also, many citizens invested with real authority, not just a token few who are assigned "advisory" roles or able to give limited "inputs" only. Stakeholders fully participate from the beginning to the end of the process. All parties jointly set agendas, decide whether to add new members, select advisors or consultants or technical experts, and draft initial and final documents, as equal partners.

A strong civil society — based on voluntary, nonprofit associations and empowered citizens involved in working groups — can serve as a counterweight to the government (centralized, bureaucratic) and private business (market values) sectors. Community-Action Partnerships are based on the recognition that the welfare of various interest groups is connected and therefore people need to find solutions based on the long-term good of the whole. A collective effort provides the resiliency and intelligence to work through intractable problems.

Building diversity into the decision-making process from the beginning increases the likelihood of finding workable solutions, acceptable to all parties, and fashioning commitments to carry them out. Getting to know one another through regular interaction overcomes the tendency to pigeonhole people into polarized stereotypes (developer versus environmentalist) or simple left or right positions (poor versus wealthy). When people share multiple or unbiased sources of information, subtleties of positions can be understood, and common grounds often found.

Major Problems in Implementing Community-Action Partnerships

Resisters to change. Unfortunately, in too many governments the dominant leadership is stuck in an old-fashioned "command and control" policymaking mode. Those in charge favor a hierarchical structure of top-down control, with policies crafted by a small group of inside players, staff and special interest, rather than involving all people affected by their decisions. They prefer to make decisions behind closed doors, rather than in public. They reluctantly accept token public involvement — "inputs" — and resist meaningful participation by a wide range of stakeholders in all stages of the process. In sum the prevailing elite prefers to issue directives, not base decisions on consensus.

Need to cultivate democratic skills. Unfortunately we are seldom educated on how to be effective citizens. The prevalence of hierarchical authority structures has promoted alienation and passivity as people subordinate themselves to the dictates of powerful economic interests, bureaucrats and experts. As Frances Moore Lappe and Paul Du Bois, cofounders of the Center for Living Democracy put it: "The arts of participation — from active listening to negotiation to evaluation — must be deliberately nurtured" (Lappe & Du Bois, 1997).

Genuine citizenship entails much more than being a spectator to yearly political campaigns and merely voting for one candidate or another, much like one chooses one's favorite soft drink from competing brands advertised on television. Instead, true citizens invest in gathering information, serious discussions, analysis, thoughtful reflection, making decisions, and following them up. Community-Action Partnerships further build democracy because participants learn to both speak and listen carefully to one another. Such "political talk" "engenders empathy, nourishes affection, and engages imagination," says the author of Strong Democracy (Barber, 1984).

Partnerships produce not only important specific policy innovations, but change people's attitudes as well. As an observer of Finland's Village Committees movement reports:

Adequate resources. Community partnerships required basic resources if they are to be effective. Ideally a paid secretariat organizes meetings and disseminates information; consultants, travel expenses and stipends to nonprofessional committee members should be paid. With the recognition that Community-Action Partnerships are a desirable and necessary ingredient to public policymaking, some form of an Office of Planning should be institutionalized, with adequate financial resources and staffing to facilitate activities and offer professional support on technical issues.

Implementation. Probably most problematic is the question of implementation — who carries out agreements reached by Community-Action Partnerships? First, proposals need backing by powerful political and business leaders. Too often Partnerships are dependent on the goodwill of elected officials who may lose interest in the project, or are defeated in the next election. Second, some institutionalized follow through must be established with permanent staffing and resources sufficient to move from design to action. Absent sponsorship and adequate organization, proposed solutions will end up being simply another study pigeonholed in some bureaucrat's filing cabinet.

III. Other Ways to Enhance Citizen Access to Decision-Making

Although enacting Community Action Partnerships on a widespread basis represent a fundamental change in the governance process, many reforms can be instituted in existing institutions that would enhance the public's ability to influence policymaking.

Home rule. One path to greater involvement by ordinary citizens is to decentralize authority to lower levels of government. This way venues of decision-making are more accessible to average citizens. In my own home state of Hawaii, for example, I have advocated that we need to devolve state and county powers to cities, neighborhood boards, and community associations (Rohter, 1992). Municipal "home rule" means ordinary citizens living in a community directly exercise influence over government policies affecting their immediate district.

Smaller units of government allow citizens to place controls on the actions of elected officials, such as requiring open meetings, open records, and recall. Small governments can more easily establish alternative mechanisms for policymaking (initiative, referendum) and determine procedures for elections (date, frequency, timing, campaign regulations, whether candidates run from parties or as nonpartisans) that they believe gives the average voter the best choices possible. They can experiment with different kinds of policymaking structures: elected councils or boards of supervisors, elected or appointed mayors or chief administrators, employing mostly volunteer or paid employees, etc.

Power can be further localized. In urban areas Neighborhood Boards can be delegated specific legal responsibilities and spend funds allocated to them by higher levels of government. Neighborhood Boards can review proposals for traffic, parks, and planning issues; and more tightly integrate and fine-tune programs carried out by police, fire departments and elected officials. In rural areas similar direct democracy functions can be carried out by Community Associations.

More citizen-friendly government. Besides shifting the powers of state government to lower units of government, state legislatures can be made more accessible to ordinary citizens, so they are not the exclusive haunts of political insiders and lobbyists. We should shift to a unicameral (single house) rather than the bicamerical form we now have, so that average citizens aren't forced to attend multiple committees on both House and Senate sides, making the same arguments again and again, losing time and income from work. The length of legislative sessions should be extended (in the U.S., most meet only a few months each year) so that hearings can be held in the community during evenings and weekends, when working class citizens can attend easily, not during workdays and downtown, as now happens. "Publicly Financed Campaign Funding" must be enacted, so that public officials aren't beholden to special interest money that funds their election campaigns.

More direct democracy requires the empowerment of many ordinary citizens to participate in public decision-making processes (Barber, 1984). We need to strengthen efforts already underway to establish "community-based school management" so that parents, teachers, and students can directly run their own local schools, instead of having them run by centralized Departments of Education. Community and regional task forces must be established to push through a host of changes in land planning, the availability of affordable housing, care for the elderly and ill, environmental protection, the development of alternative energy and conservation measures, water usage, family farming, and urban redevelopment (Berg, 1989).

IV. Citizen Movements: Working Together to Solve the Global Problematique

In sum, many new ways are arising to supplant the monopoly of power held by traditional centralized political hierarchies, by transferring decision-making power to local communities and ordinary citizens. This is a hopeful sign if we are to solve global problems that are turning critical.

Integrating economy, equality, & environment. Today we are confronted by a global economy that is rapidly ravishing mother nature and producing grave social injustices. Reconciling how to put together an economy that is simultaneously productive, distributes wealth with reasonable equality, and protects the environment is unquestionably one of the great political issues of our time. These are issues that cannot be resolved on the basis of facts or expertise, but involve fundamental questions of ethics and values (Paehlke, 1997). Too frequently these issues have been resolved (or ignored) by powerful people, groups, and corporations who advance their own interests. Democratic solutions must be based on inclusivity and mutual accountability. Many people must participate in the careful review and shaping of the environmental, economic, and equity values guiding our collective future.

"Sustainable" development. The famous Brundtland Report of 1987 that popularized the notion of "sustainable development" expressly included in its advocacy of more productive, equitable and environmentally sound development "a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision-making." It recommended "decentralizing the management of resources upon which local communities depend, and giving these communities an effective say over the use of these resources." (WCED, 1987, p. 63).

Across the world many popular organizations and activities have been putting sustainable development into practice. Especially well known are the Sarvodaya Shramanda movement in Sri Lanka, the Six X Association / NAAM Movements in Burkina Faso, the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) and Grameen Bank, the Working Women's Forum (WWF) and Chipko Movements in India (Ekins, 1992; PyeSmith, 1994).

In the U.S., the President's Council on Sustainable Development, sponsored by Clinton during his first term in office, has adopted "collaborative planning and decision-making" as a critical ingredient in securing America's future economic wellbeing.

NGOs. Citizen movements and people's associations are key drivers in changing societies. Environmentalists, human rights advocates, professional groups, agriculturists, urban planners, and others have banded together to confront a wide range of global, national, and local issues that arise from the social and environmental impacts of present government policies and industrial technologies. Vocal advocates work diligently on issues such as air and water pollution, toxic chemicals, nuclear wastes, over-fishing, weather changes caused by damage to the ozone layer and global warming, overpopulation and inadequate family planning, hunger and poverty, social, economic, and gender inequalities. These networks of citizen groups have advanced humanitarian and environmental concerns that often have served as precursors to new national and international policymaking bodies. They constitute an evolving form of democratic governance. The United Nations officially recognizes these proliferating "third-sector" actors as "non-governmental organizations" (NGOs) (Henderson, 1992, 1993).

Citizen organizations have emerged worldwide as major actors in leading the search for global ethics (French, 1992). Although such groups initially organize around problem identification, they rapidly adopt more positive and prescriptive agendas. Pressure from NGOs on U.N. member-states has prompted a series of ad hoc U.N. conferences and summits, notably on the environment (1972, 1992), population (1973, 1994), food (1974), women (1975, 1995), new and renewable energy sources (1982), and habitat (1978, 1996). Each U.N. conference has had its agenda shaped by NGOs, new citizens' organizations, and broader social movements bringing pressure on member-states' governments. As one activist has noted about these conferences,

Indeed, many of the policies and social innovations proposed by NGOs at these forums have evolved into government policies in scores of countries.

The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the "Earth Summit" held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992, demonstrated a staggering outpouring of interest in paradigm shifting solutions to the global problematique. The Rio Conference provided a global forum for 13,000 citizen groups and reinforced their networking activities (Proceedings: Agenda 21, 1992).

The growth of a citizen-based politics, at all levels, from the local to the global, holds great promise for solving a host of seemingly intractable problems. Notes futurist Hazel Henderson (1993):

Bibliography

An Action Agenda to Redesign State Government. Reports of the State Management Task Force Strategy Groups. (1993) Washington, D.C., National Governor's Association.

Barber, Benjamin (1984). Strong Democracy. Berkeley, Un. of California Press

Batley, Robert and Stoker, G., eds. (1991). Local Government in Europe. Basingstoke, Macmillian.

Bennett, Robert J. (1993). Local Government in the New Europe. London, Belhaven Press.

Berg, Peter , et. al. (1989). A Green City Program. San Francisco, Planet Drum Foundation.

Carley, Michael and Christie, Ian (1993). Managing Sustainable Development. Minneapolis, Un of Minnesota Press.

Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America (1992). Philadelphia, Kettering Foundation.

Cronin, Thomas E. (1989). Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

"Democracy: the New Stories," (1996). Yes: A Journal of Positive Futures, Fall 1996.

Ekins, Paul (1992). A New World Order: Grassroots Movements for Global Change. New York, Routledge.

Erikson, Robert, Wright, Gerald, and McIver, John (1993). Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion And Policy in the American States. New York, Cambridge Un Press.

Everitt, Skip (1992). "Bellingham 2000 Project — An Experiment in Midsize Community Planning," in Kemp, Roger L., ed., Strategic Planning In Local Government: A Casebook. Chicago, Planners Press.

Flavin, Christopher & Lessen, Nicholas 1993. Power the Future: Blueprint for a Sustainable Future. Worldwatch Paper #119, Sept, 1993. Washington, D.C., Worldwatch Institute.

French, Hilary F. (1992). "Strengthening Global Environmental Governance," in Lester Brown, ed., State Of The World 1992. New York, W.W. Norton.

Gardner, Doug (1992). "Playa Vista: The Planning Process," in Bob Walter, Lois Arkin, & Richard Crenshaw, eds., Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Ecocity Development. Los Angeles, EcoHome Media.

"Green Plan Center" At http://www.rri.org.

Gomi, Taishi (1997). "Local Government's Decisionmaking in Japanese Community Building." Journal of Behavioral and Social Sciences. Fall.

Henderson, Hazel (1992). "Global Networks," In Context #33, Fall, 1992.

Henderson, Hazel (1993). "Social Innovation and Citizen Movements," Futures, Vol 25, No 3, April 1993, pp. 322339.

Hetherton, Arlene & Piotrowski, Lou (1996). "Democracy in the Woods: Stewards of a Watershed Build Trust." Yes: A Journal of Positive Futures, Fall, 1996, ß2, pp. 41 43.

"Influencing Big City Environmental Policy: New York City," (1990), Ecocity Conference 1990: Report of the First International Ecocity Conference, Berkeley, California, p. 89.

John, DeWitt (1994). Civic Environmentalism. Alternatives to Regulation in State and Communities. Washington, D.C, Congressional Quarterly Press.

Johnson, Huey D. (1995). Green Plans: Greenprint for Sustainability. Lincoln, Un of Nebraska Press.

Ka Ala Hoku: Program for Charting the Course (1996). Honolulu, Hawaii Community Service Council.

Lappe, France Moore and Du Bois, Paul, 1997. "A Place for Democracy," pp. 3738. Yes: A Journal of Positive Futures, Winter 1997.

Lester, James P. (1994). "A New Federalism? Environmental Policy in the States," in Environmental Policy in the 1990s, ed. Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1994), 5168.

Miller, John Wesley & Orr, Will (1992). "Civano: Tuscon Solar Village," in Bob Walter, Lois Arkin, & Richard Crenshaw, eds. (1992). Sustainable Cities: Concepts and Strategies for Ecocity Development. Los Angeles, EcoHome Media.

Morrow, Theresa (1997). "A Settle Troll," Yes: A Journal of Positive Futures, Winter, 1997, pp. 3839.

Osborn, David and Gaebler, Ted (1993). Reinventing Government. New York, Plume.

Paehlke, Robert C. (1997). "Environmental Values and Public Policy." In Environmental Policy in the 1990s, (3rd ed.) edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft (Washington, D.C., CQPress, 1997), 7594.

Proceedings: Agenda 21: the Rio Declaration. (1992) New York, United Nations.

PyeSmith, Charles, Feyerabend, Grazia Borrini and Sandbrook, Richard (1994). The Wealth of Communities: Stories of Success in Local Environmental Management. West Hartford, CN, Kumarian Press

Rabe, Barry G. (1997). "Power to the States: The Promise and Pitfalls of Decentralization," in Environmental Policy in the 1990s, (3rd ed.) edited by Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.

Report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable America. (1996). Chapter 4, "Strengthening Communities." Washington, D.C.

Ringquist, Evan J. (1993) Environmental Protection at the State Level: Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.

Rohter, Ira S. (1992). Chapter 8, "Green Politics: Creating Democracy in Hawaii" in A Green Hawaii: Sourcebook for Development Alternatives. Honolulu, Na Kane O Ka Malo Press.

Roodman, David Miller (1995). "Public Money and Human Purpose: The Future of Taxes." WorldWatch, Sept/Oct, 1995.

Roodman, David Miller (1996). Paying the Piper: Subsidies, Politics, and the Environment. Worldwatch Paper #133, Dec. 1996. Washington, D.C, Worldwatch Institute.

Scheibel, James (1992). "Strategic Planning in St. Paul — Goals for the 1990s," in Kemp, Roger L. (ed.), Strategic Planning In Local Government: A Casebook. Chicago, Planners Press.

Steffen, Alex and AtKisson, Alan (1995). "The Netherlands' Radical, Practical Green Plan," Whole Earth Review, Fall 1955, pp. 9498.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, Oxford Un. Press.