(May 18 Foundation)

Asia, Poor and Community

Organizing Towards Sustainable Communities:

By HYOWOO NA
ASIAN BRIDGE
15/08/2008

I. INTRODUCTION

The struggles of the urban poor in the cities of Asia needs to be anchored on a theoretical framework
that can mediate, its strategic links to the social movements that resist globalization and push for more
sustainable processes for economic production and management of basic resources. This
interconnection, based on a mediating theoretical framework can create a great impetus in the
organizing and advocacy strategies and contents of Asian community organizing movements.
Based on a clear link between CO and sustainable communities as foundations of sustainable
development and alternatives to globalization, empowered grassroots communities can be redefined as
the “battle sites for resistance to globalization and are the essential foundations of sustainable
development.” In the light of these phenomena, the accompanying questions that need to be reviewed
are:
-. how is community defined;
-. what is sustainable development;
-. what is community capital; and
-. what is its role in creating sustainable communities?
For the contextual aspect some questions raised in this thesis are:
-. What are the trends in organizing among groups influenced by Alinsky in the USA and Asia such as
Philippines, Korea, Thailand, and Indonesia?
-. What kind of typologies can be drawn from an initial examination of several CO programs in
Bangkok, Jakarta or other countries, as well as in South Korea’s Incheon and Metro Manila’s Pasig

1
riverside CO programs?

this paper asks the question HOW do the current CO practices illustrate the community capital
strengthening conceptualized by mark Roseland as foundations for sustainable communities.

While sustainable development and sustainable communities are part of the perspectives in community
organizing, there has been no clear connection between these two discourses: CO and community
capital. Thus, the case studies, and trends that will be identified from the findings aim to bring what
appears to be a natural interconnectedness, but remains obscure and unarticulated.
The thesis also raises the question: what strategies for organizing and advocacy, practical guidelines
for evaluating CO practices in Asia and concrete steps to sustain and to develop the integration of the
discourse on the community capital and CO, both on practical and theoretical realms. The thesis posits
that grassroots community organizing for empowerment can develop and strengthen community
capital. In turn, according to Roseland’s conceptual framework, strengthening community capital is
the foundation of sustainable communities. I view this study as a contribution to sharpen the
examination of the body of practical knowledge of CO for the last 30 years in Asia into the broader
resistance discourse to rapid globalization.

II. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1. Objectives and Scope
The thesis aims to illustrate the interconnectedness of community capital, as foundations of sustainable
communities to community organizing.

2.2. Key Words

Community
The term ‘community’ originates from the Latin word, “communitas” which means “the same’,
derived from the word “communis” meaning common, shared and added with the Latin prefix “con”
meaning together and “munis” meaning performing together.1 Human community is a group where
intent, belief, resources needs and risks are shared by its members and affects the level of identity and
cohesion. The definition used here draws from the German sociologist’s Ferdinand Tonnies category
of human association.
Tonnies introduced the definition of community as an association in which individuals are oriented to
1
Source: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

2
a larger association equally if into more than their own self-interest. The family is a basic unit of a
community and as such it could be based on shared place and belief, and kinship. Individuals in a
community are socialized to follow basic mores, beliefs involving the appropriate conduct and
responsibility of the members to one another and to the community as well.2 Tonnies further elaborates
that “community is characterized by a division of labor, personal relationships and simple institutions
and traditionally are homogenous racially /ethnically.”3
However, the notion of community has gone beyond the traditional homogenous, kinship based
associations. In these times, new communities have emerged within the traditional communities or in
separate enclaves due to push and pull factors: urbanization, migration, in armed conflicts/wars and
natural disasters lead to population movement as well as dramatic changes in demographics.
Geographical distance has been transcended by transportation technologies, and digital and electronic
technologies have spawned “virtual” communities or cyber communities. Each one can be
simultaneously a member of several communities that go beyond geographical boundaries.

Community Capital or Resource

In terms of sustainable community development, it is most relevant to think of community in terms of
assets, or capital. All forms of capital are created by spending time and effort in transformation and
transaction activities.4 Mark Roseland lists six forms of strengthening community capital as the
foundation of sustainable community development. This approach is premised on the appreciation of
community assets and also challenges (see Figure 1). The six forms of strengthening community
capital are:
1. Minimizing the consumption of essential natural capital and minimizing waste and developing
cleaner production.
2. Improving physical capital such as public facilities.
3. Strengthening economic capital focusing on “making more with less’ by trading fairly with others,
developing community financial institutions.
4. Increasing human capital focusing on health, education and community cohesion.
5. Multiplying social capital by effective and participatory local governance, strong organizations and
partnerships.
6. Enhancing cultural capital focusing on heritage, values, diversity and social history.

2
Source: Tonnies, Gemeinshaft and Gesellschaft,1887 and also Tonnies, 1912, 2nd edition as cited in http:// en.
Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemeinschaft_Gesellschaft
3

Ibid

4
Osrom, 1993 as cited by Mark Roseland in “Towards Sustainable Communities” 2005, p4, New Society
Publishers.

3
 Figure 1: Context for Sustainable Development

Social Capital / Natural Capital /

Economic Capital Physical Capital

Cultural Capital /

Human Capital

Community Organizing
It is a process that revolves around the lives, experiences and aspirations of the people. It is a process
that is people-centered and geared towards their continuing capability building, self-reliance and
empowerment.5

Integration
Sustainable development cannot be complete if the efforts are not integrated. Being integrated means
bringing together various components of development programs. In most cases, development projects
fails in the end because it fails to integrate one program to another. 6 Sectoral and cross-sectoral
concerns should also be addressed. Another area to consider is integration of geographical area. There
are issues and concerns that are not confined only in say, one village or municipality. One can not be
5
Angelito G. Manalili (1990), Community Organizing for People’s Empowerment. Kapatiran-Kaunlaran, Inc.
Manila. P65.
6
Institute of Politics and Governance (2002) Balangay - Resource Manual for Barangay Governance. Quezon City,
Philippines. P109.

4
developed without developing also the nearby area.
Integration of approach, program and areas should be considered especially in the field of developing
planning. The framework of this thesis draws from the discourse on Sustainable development and
Community Capital as foundations for Sustainable Communities.

III. COMMUNITY ORGANIZING

3.1. Community Organizing in the U.S.A.

Alinsky’s CO Philosophy and Practice in USA: Developments and Impact of Groups Influenced
by Alinsky i.e. ACORN, IAF and PICCO
The oldest of these organizing network is the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), founded by Saul
Alinsky. Alinsky’s pragmatic, non-ideological approach to social change has been passed on to
different groups but also and challenged by organizers. His search resulted in an experiment: the
establishment of an “organization of organizations” - Churches, labor unions, and service
organizations in the Chicago, which was heavily populated by Polish and other southern/eastern
European immigrants.
To build the Back of Yards Neighborhood Council, he recruited key actors from ‘existing community
institutions’ to constitute a sponsoring committee; then the committee members pressured, and
attracted other group into the ‘new organization.’

Alinsky laid out his organizing theory in two books; Rules for Radicals ([1970]1989) and Reveille for
Radicals ([1946] 1991). He had five basic premises:7
1) The role of the organizer and the role of the community leader should be distinct in order to reflect
an organizational model that has both local volunteer leaders and professional staff. In Alinsky-style
organizations, the unpaid volunteer leader represents the organization, gets in front of the media, and
negotiates with power structure. The organizer works behind the scenes-recruiting, coordinating, doing
research, taking notes.8
2) The building of the organization should be the major expression of a community’s growing power
in recognition of the fact that people power is mostly a matter of having overwhelming numbers.
3) Issue campaigns should be focused on a specific, individual decision maker.
4) Organizing should target wining immediate, concrete changes based on the “needs, interests and
issues” of local people rather than on developing an explicit ideology (Delgado, [1993] 1997, p.11)
7
Rinku Sen (2003), Stir It Up – Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy. Jossey-Bass. United States. Pp
Xlvi -xlvii
8
Saul D Alinsky(1989), Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, United States. P 79

5
5) The organizer needs to devote all emotional, physical, and intellectual resources to the work.

Edward T. Chambers, successor of Saul Alinsky says, “We began to build broader and deeper
organizations. We recognized moderates and the middle class as untapped potential. IAF affiliates are
organizations of other organizations. Individuals need not apply. The collective leadership of an
organization is trained in the culture of effective, efficient public life.” 9 He also cited social capital that
“IAF’s broad-based organizations are powerful social-capital generators… The social (capital) of a
Broad-based organization grows only when the organization is in action. Broad-based organizing is a
process for creating social capital and keeping it in motion. Creating significant social capital requires
organizing people on a size and scale that permits of others. Broad-based citizen’s organizations are
powerful instruments for the generation of social capital because its citizens are organized in place and
in position ready to act with purpose when called upon”10

John Baumann and Dick Helfridge, priest leaders of the movement among Jesuits to begin new
community organizations in the 1970s and 1980s, established an organization composed largely of
Christian churches and congregations. This model is what is known now as faith-based organizing
through a new network, the People’s Institute for Community Organizing(PICO).
According to Stephen Hart (2001), Congregation-based organizing is a movement that attends
seriously to the cultural dimension of politics.11 In it, participants wrestle with their basic values and
religious traditions, relating them to practical activism addressing concrete local issues. Terms for the
movement vary, including “congregation-based community organizing,” “faith-based organizing,” and
“broad-based organizing.”

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is the model of bringing
individuals together into new formations which are not dependent on existing institutions. It was the
first to design a replicable model for individual-membership organization founded Wade Rathke.
Rathke was sent to Arkansas to build National Welfare Rights Organization(NWRO) chapter in 1970.
According to Gary Delgado, the two major reasons for the successful expansion of ACORN…. “first,
the ability of the organization to train competent staff and leadership, and second, the use of a model
that enabled ACORN organizers to replicate the basic organizational structural.”
The model has as its goal the building of a “mass community organization” able to develop “sufficient
9
Edward T. Chambers (2003), Roots for Radicals – Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice. Continuum. New
York. P64.
10
Edward T. Chambers (2003), Roots for Radicals – Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice. Continuum. New
York. Pp68-69.
11
Stephen Hart (2001), Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics. The University of Chicago Press. United State.
P27.

6
organizational power to achieve its individual members’ interest, its local objectives, and in connection
with other groups, its state interests. The organization must be permanent with multi-issues concerns
achieved through multi-tacticized direct action, with membership participating in policy, financing and
achievement of group goals and community improvement.”12

Table 1: Major Approaches to Community Organizing in the U.S.

Direct Membership Coalitions Institutionally Based Organizing (ex.
IAF and PICO)
(ex. ACORN) (ex. Citizen Action
and Midwest
Academy)
Organizational Small, geographically Issue-based units Large units based in local institutions
description based units composed open to organizations
of individual with interests.
members
Tactics Direct action, Lobbying, public Large-scale public accountability
organized protest and hearings, electoral sessions, negotiations
strategic pressure work.
Constituency Low/moderate- Already organized Motivated members of religious
income people public interest institutions including clergy
groups, unions
Change Strategy To organize people in To mobilize To develop leaders that can powerfully
neighborhoods into a progressive groups to articulate and represent the interests of
“union in the affect public policy. their constituency
community”
Staff’s Role To build the basic To unite existing To develop indigenous leadership as a
organization organizations around primary task
a specific issue
Decision Making The organizer frames Staff frames and Leaders and organizers frame issues,
and develops issues, chooses issues, members choose to work on
members choose and strategies, and tactics
the group works on
Sphere of Groups are often Formations are most Groups often become significant
Influence effective locally effective in policy “players” in the local political landscape
intervention at the
state and city level
Resource Base Membership Private philanthropic Religious institutions and private
contributions, institutions and foundations and corporations.
foundations or individual members
religious
philanthropic sources
Advantages Flexible, tenacious, Staff members are A highly developed model of leadership
and tactically militant often savvy,
experienced players

12
Gary Delgado (1986), Organizing the Movement : The Roots and Growth of ACORN. Philadelphia : Temple
University Press. P63.

7
 on the political scene.
Disadvantages Often very small, Often do not include Sometimes increases the power of the
short lived the very poor, power established leaders in the church,
is vested in key excludes people
individuals

Source: Gary Delgado (1997), Beyond The Politics of Place - New Directions in Community Organizing, Applied
Research Center, Chardon Press, Berkeley, California, USA. P 17

Critiques of Alinskyst Approaches

As often as Alinsky’s ideas were taken up, they were criticized by other organizers. Particularly in
communities of color and among feminists, people took issue with Alinsky’s rules, the lack of a deeper
analysis etc.,

3.2. History of Community Organizing in Asia

From resistance to dictatorships, to organizing for sustainable communities
A. Organizing Prior to Alinsky’s CO Method
The Asian Committee for Peoples Organization (ACPO) was established in Quezon City, Philippines
on February 28, 1971, as an expression of Christian commitment to organizing of grassroots
communities in Asia. From the very beginning, ACPO has been clear that multicultural, multi-
religious and multi-racial Asia is the complex matrix of organizing. It has affirmed from the start that
people (the oppressed and exploited in Asia) are the basic textbooks and source of hope the subjects of
organizing.
On page 3 in “15 Years CO-Reports of the ACPO”, the efforts of ACPO is further elaborated:
Community organization is to build people’s organizations for a national transformation by enabling
people to have a hand in making decision that affect their lives.
In 1993 APCO became Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia or LOCOA.

3.3. Current Community Organizing in Asia

In November 1993, some 34 community organizers and local leaders from six Asian countries met in
Baguio, Philippines, to review 20 years of community organizing in Asia and to plan for the future.

Table 2: Asian Community Organizing Group

Name Description Main Issues Tactics
UPC/INDONESI Direct Membership and National Urban and rural poverty Advocacy-Grassroots
A Network- UP-LINK Organizing
CISRS/INDIA Institutionally Based Organizing Urbanization, Cultural action,

8
 CO programs in Calcutta, Mumbai, unemployment,
Bangalore homelessness-eviction,
displacement and grassroots
migration
organizing/advocacy,
media networking
coalition organizing
CONET/KCHR/ CO work in low income Public rental housing, Public interest groups, unions,
communities in/outside Seoul vinyl house communities,
KOREA joblessness, homelessness citizen organizations

Nojiren /JAPAN Coalition of homeless based in Evictions and Internet advocacy, action
Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto (street unsustainable conditions
sleepers) etc in relocation research, alliance building
The Four Independent people's movements Forced evictions and Mass base organizing /
Regions network urban land issues Provision of awareness
education, alliance-building
Slum Network/
THAILAND
COPE/ CO-M/ COPE established in 1978, Urban poverty, eviction, Grassroots /mass-based
UPA/ local governance organizing, autonomous
PHILIPPINES CO-M in 1993 and UPA in 1994 people’s organization, alliance
building
Source: Profile of CO Groups in Asia (LOCOA Workshop, March 27, 2007, Tagaytay City, Philippines)

Most important thing is that participants, in Baguio meeting, had discussed about some sort about
community capital. These are:
-. Organizers must have an organizer’s approach to income generating projects (IGP). For example,
IGPs must be related to people’s organizations and help their development. The IGPs should be under
the overall control of the PO but can be separately incorporated or registered.
-. IGPs should start small and increase with time. They should indicate what an alternative, more
equitable economy might look like.
-. We should produce items that can be sold in the community itself and thus benefit everyone. There
should be a good market study so it can be determined what items will sell. There is also a need to
educate PO members to use the products of their own IGPs, and a need to advertise.
-. While we use private and government grants and loans, we should when possible also use internally
generated funds. Every measure should be taken to professionalize our operation through good
accounting and management procedures.
-. A good way of proceeding is to provide funds for expansion to existing IGPs. Profits from the IGPs
should go to the POs expenses.

9
IV. Case study and major finding
4.1. Case Study – Korea and Philippines
Korea - The Organizing Experiences of Inchoen
60 NGOs joined together in Incheon City at the same time and established the Incheon Unemployed
Civil Movement (IUCM) in September 1998. “Sang-Jo Hoe (SJH, Mutual help association)” also
called “self-help group” or “mutual-help (aid) group” for overcoming unemployment problems is a
kind of “community spirit based on mutual help, collaboration and cooperation.” This includes social
value that is based on voluntary efforts among people for self-reliance in individual and community
level.

Philippines-The Organizing Experiences of Pasig Riverside / Laguna De Bay

The Philippines government and the ADB are contained in their Resettlement Action Program (March
2000) which provides the following: establishment of 10-meter wide environmental preservation areas
(EPAs) along approximately 23km. of both banks of the Pasig River.
There are 18 People’s Organizations (Pos) along the river grouped under ULAP (Ugnayang Lakas ng
mga Apektadong Pamilya sa Baybaying Ilog Pasig), and 182 POs of fishers grouped in the towns
around the lake. They are grouped under the federation called MAPAGPALA. They hope to have a
decisive role in what is finally done on the lake. Three main NGOs involved are Urban Poor
Associates(UPA), CO Multiversity and Community Organization of the Philippines
Enterprise(COPE). They help the people organize, analyze the solutions proposed and work for good
solutions. They train leaders to negotiate with government officials, to know the needs of their people,
to listen to the people in democratic meetings, to be courageous but not reckless, and to have many
other qualities of good leaders.

4.2. Six Forms to Strengthen Community Capital

Area /Country 1.Less waste in 2.Improve Physical 3.Strengthen economic

nature/cleaner Infrastructure/Facilities capital/community
production institutions/

Incheon, -Self-reliance demonstration -Establishing community center -Enterprise units

farm
South Korea -Public works projects -Structural re-arrangement/CO
-Food bank -Children’s center training for senior officers

10
 -Farming
Pasig Riverside, -Organizing/Advocacy to resist -partnership with Private - People saving for social
Metro Manila/ environmentally destructive foundations (Gawad kalinga) to housing.
flood control infrastructure build 2,000 units of social
housing wit sweat equity as
Laguna de bay -River Annual Poisoner people’s counterpart - Micro credit facilities
area Awards (Polluting industries)
-Engagement with lakeside -installation of pathwalks in
authorities neighborhoods
-Advocacy of fish cage as a -Manila local govt. assistance to
sustainable technology Punta community to facilitate
-Redesign of lakeside dike plan expropriation of site for onsite
to incorporate fishing resettlement
communities demand to protect -
their boats/equipment, etc,.
-Redesign of lakeside dike to
incorporate fishers demand for
protection of fishing
boats/gears during inclement
weather.

Area 4.Increase of community 5. Strengthen social 6. Strengthen Cultural

/Country capital / health, livelihood, cohesion through capital /Social history
education Governance/participation
etc,.
Incheon, -Community week-end medical -Incheon Civil Movement Against -“Sangjohoe” or traditional
services Unemployment(ICMU) collective spirit promoted
South through the various
community programs
Korea -Civil networks for medical -Advisory Committee with eight
services committees -Newsletter publication
-Advocacy and social action -Sports festival
-General assembly
-Leadership formation
Pasig -Periodical medical missions for -establishment of riverside - Community based Earth day

11
 Riverside, check up/consultations/free
Metro medicines/dental services, etc,.
Manila/
-Establishment of “community
Laguna based generic drugs store” or
de bay “botika sa Barangay” in about 8
area communities by grassroots women
organizations on upstream pasig
river or Laguna de bay area
-Reproductive health services for
local women’s organizations in
Santolan and Laguna de Bay
communities
- Conduct of a riverside wide
“People’s School” for community
leaders enhancement of organizing
skills and knowledge
federation named Ugnayan ng mga
Apektado sa Ilog Pasig (ULAP or
Coalition of Pasig riverside
Affected Communities )
-establishment of about 10
grassroots organizations belonging
to ULAP such as Dike side
Organization of Punta (DSOP),
Baseco , Makati, San Juan areas,
etc.
-Consolidation of about 180 local
fishing federations in the upstream
section of Pasig river along
Laguna de Bay area under
regional coalition called
MAPAGPALA
- Women’s Desk established in
Barangay, advocated by grassroots
women along Laguna de bay
-Access of Grant from Abanse
Pinay, women’s party list for
leadership formation program.
Commemoration (annual
fluvial parade to award River
Poisoner Awards to Polluting
industries and establishments
along Pasig river)
- Annual Commemoration of
“Kalbaryo”, the urban poor
version of “passion and death
of Jesus Christ on Good
Friday
-Annual Commemoration of
the “Panunuluyan” or Holy
Family’s Search for an Inn”
during Christmas season

The case study gives an opportunity to bring in the practical knowledge and experiences that I possess
in the course of my work as Community Organizer. Based on the above mentioned premises, the
following are major observations when comparing the two cases:
-. Immediate self-Interest/survival issues as basis for organizing. Both the Incheon and the
paig/Laguna de Bay organizing cases arise from day to day, immediate issues affecting survival of the
communities. For the Korean experience, it is the condition of unemployment leading to poverty and
powerlessness. For the Pasig/Laguna de Bay, the threat of eviction, leading to shelter displacement and
economic dislocation are instant triggers for organizing.
-. Organizing provides the opportunity for groups/communities to assert their views/analysis of their
conditions and the concrete ways to address and support them.
Both cases illustrate how groups/communities/movements move from the challenges to initiatives that
lead to concrete changes and improvements in the daily lives of the organized communities. In the
process of organizing and advocacy, both groups were able to access funds and services from

12
governments, private sector and other civil society groups which acknowledged the effectively of the
solutions to improving conditions of communities and beneficiaries.
-. The use of mass actions such as marches, rallies, pickets, media, cultural events and traditions to
draw attention /action to community demands. Defiance and resistance to existing government policies
or projects which threaten the communities characterize both cases.
-. Again, both cases illustrate the role of organized numbers, well planned strategies in engaging with
authorities. Pressure tactics such as pickets, shaming awards, careful research and data collection in
the smallest unit possible certainly provide strong basis for organizing and advocacy as well as
alliance with experts, scientists, etc.
-. Communities deal with day to day and survival issues, thus, sustainability of use of natural
resources/ less waste are basic perspectives in the community based initiatives.
Since both are marginalized communities/ sectors, resources are scarce and therefore, the use of
natural resources is an immediate, survival issue. The maximization of resources as well as its basic
protection come together in both cases.
-. Basic community services/facilities were established by both Korean/Philippines groups
strengthening of mechanisms for governance and accountability.
Aside from basic services added to the community resources, such as Medical missions, children’s
center, community generic drug store, etc were results of the organizing work in both cases,
mechanisms for community participation and accountability/monitoring are basic functions that
characterize the two cases.
-. The use of traditional events with infusion of current conditions of people/ affirmation of traditional
practices and values to unify community actions are likewise illustrated in both cases.
Both the Philippine and Korean cases reflect the use/affirmation of existing community values, and/or
commemoration of traditional events which highlight the conditions and efforts of the communities.
-. The communities as battle sites for challenging national/multilateral (global investments/capital).
The two cases, while different in the nature of issues being addressed, is both linked to the impact of
government’s accommodation of global capital/intervention in national economic/financial policies.
For Korea, there was the IMF intervention and in the Philippines, there are several multi-laterals in
joint partnership with government.
Both cases reflected the challenge and resistance of the marginalized groups to the policies that further
marginalize and disempower the communities. Based on the findings of the case studies, particularly
the results and strategies used by both groups, it can be observed that the results and outcomes of the
organizing can be easily categorized under the six items listed by Mark Roseland’s framework on
strengthening community capital.
In earlier case study documentations, the results and outcomes of the organizing are simply evaluated
and reflected on the basis of the concrete benefits and changes the communities experienced. By

13
categorizing the data on results and outcomes of the organizing results and strategies according to
Roseland’s framework, the old data on organizing emerge as “organizing phenomena” that take on a
new perspective. By linking the usual data collected by organizers and leaders and categorizing them
under the six ways of strengthening community capital, community organizing emerges as a naturally
interconnected process that brings about the strengthening of community capital.

4.3. Community Capital as a Foundation of Sustainable Communities

A. The two cases provide illustration of the different components of community capital as
presented in the diagram
1) People’s organizations are the essential resources here, doing voluntary work vis-a vis their daily
struggle for survival. Their community processes, from analyzing, and conducting surveys and
research on the community profile for their proposed upgrading alternatives or design for the mega
dike they challenge are valuable capital. This is the same with the NGOs and other support groups,
who may not provide financial but extend expertise and networks.
2) Ownership of the community over the development process being undertaken in partnership with
other stakeholders is central to sustainable communities. This case reflects phenomenon. However, the
authorities may have other interests in mind. Thus, the successes established do not get up scaled or
run into new constraints and obstacles, from legal to political circumstances.
By using the community capital conceptual framework, the organizations can formulate a coherent and
strategic campaign for organizing and advocacy that can be developed to engage the authorities and
relevant stakeholders.
3) The components of human capital are already in place and the urgency for this capital to be
translated into the social, cultural and physical have been manifested if not totally, partially. Thus, the
community organizing process is a logical expression of community capital at its maximum, but
requires deeper analysis to advance the sustainable development perspective of the practical work.

B. Community organizing provides the essential component of “community capital,” which is

human capital.
By doing this analysis, the community capital concept increases the value of the community
organizing. It is not only participatory and accountable, but also raises the mobilization of various
capital: human, social, cultural and physical. This in itself unleashes much creative and powerful
energies. Young architects from premiere universities, consultants from ADB and academics recognize
the value of community processes in the formulation of physical upgrading, including financial
feasibilities.
What must be worked out is addressing the power relations with the local/national authorities who

14
resist this kind of approach. Although, as the case mentioned, there also allies in the multilateral banks
and the government. This is where the philosophy of community empowerment example of pressure
tactics, such as, getting media coverage and mass actions illustrate the “social change aspect” of
community organizing.
Simply put, community capital includes addressing power relations to bring about social change that
can allow participatory and community owned alternatives: from design of community upgrading, to
massive infrastructure, which affect ecology and livelihood resource of communities.
Community organizing provides the essential component of “community capital,” which is human
capital that undertakes the process of creating, pushing, advocating and struggling to realize
“sustainable models in using land, water, energy and financial resources. In doing so, grassroots
organizing attempts to change power relations in order to make possible “sustainable political
institutions”, that will serve as partner and support to people’s development processes and aspirations
of all foundations of sustainable communities and sustainable development.
It can be said that community organizing provides the “community capital” that contains the processes
and energies that drive communities towards sustainable development and sustainable communities.
Communities must organize first in order to be able to develop their vision and concrete models of
community: reflecting the sustainable use of resources and development of sustainable institutions,
specially decision making aspects that can facilitate or hinder such alternatives.

C. Integrating the CO process to the concept of community capital

It certainly deepens, and opens new avenues for viewing day to day organizing struggles into strategic
and creative perspectives, essential in sustaining grassroots organizing movements.
REFERENCES

Alinsky, Saul D (1989), Reveille for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, United States.

Alinsky, Saul D (1989), Rules for Radicals, Vintage Books, New York, United States.

Asian Committee for People’s Organization (1981), ACPO ’82, ACPO, Hong Kong.

Asian Committee for People’s Organization (1987), 15 Years of CO - Reports of the ACPO
Assessment meeting, Katmandu, Nepal, ACPO, Hong Kong.

Babbie, Earl (1989), The Practice of Social Research, Wadsworth, Inc. United States.

15
Batistiana, Ma. Brenda S. and Murphy, Denis (1996), Rural Community Organizing in the Philippines,
COTRAIN, Quezon, Philippines.

Beckwith, Dave, with Lopez, Cristina, Community Organizing: People Power from the Grassroots.
COMM-ORG: The On-line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. Source:
http://comm-org.wisc.edu/papers97/beckwith.htm.

Bell, Brenda, Gaventa, John, and Peters, John (1990), We Make the Road by Walking : Conversations
on education and social change / Myles Horton and Paulo Freire, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia.

Bobo, Kim, Kendall, Jackie and Max, Steve (2001), Organizing for Social Change, Seven Locks Press,
United States.

Bollens, John C. and Marshall, Dale Rogers (1973), A Guide to Participation: Field work, role playing
cases, and other forms. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey.

Brown, Michael Jacoby (2006), Building Powerful Community Organizations: A personal Guide to
Creating Groups that can solve Problems and Change the World. Long Haul Press, Massachusetts.

CCA-URM (1988), Training in Practice, CCA-URM, Hong Kong.

Chambers, Edward T. (2003), Roots for Radicals: Organizing for Power, Action, and Justice.
Continuum. New York.

Chatterji, Samyadip (1997), Manual for Community Organizing in India, Christian Institute for the
Study of Religion and Society Publication Trust. India.

CO Multiversity (2006), Mainstreaming Gender in Community Organizing. Metamedia Information

Systems, Philippines.

Cunanan, Jose P.M (1994), Jesus, the Organizer, CCA-URM, Hong Kong.

Delgado, Gary (1986), Organizing the Movement : The Roots and Growth of ACORN. Philadelphia :
Temple University Press.

16
Delgado, Gary (1997), Beyond The Politics of Place - New Directions in Community Organizing,
Applied Research Center, Chardon Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

Denzin, Norman K. and Lincoln, Yvonna S. (2000), Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2000. Sage
Publications, Inc. United States.

Duchrow, Ulrich (1995), Alternative to Global Capitalism. International Books, The Netherlands.

Fagan, Harry (1979), Empowerment : Skills for Parish Social Action, Paulist Press, New York.

Fernandes, Kenneth (1997), How Communities Organize Themselves, Urban Resource Centre,
Karachi, Pakistan.

Flanagan, Hoan (1995), The Grass Roots Fundraising Book: How to raise money in your community,
Contemporary Books, Chicago.

Freire, Paulo (1968), Pedagogy of the Oppressed, The Seabury Press, New York.

Freire, Paulo (1973), Education for Critical Consciousness, The Seabury Press, New York.
Freire, Paulo (2003), Pedagogy of the Heart, The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc., New
York.

Gecan, Michael (2002), Going Public. Beacon Press. Boston

Gittell, Ross and Vidal, Avis (1998), Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a
Development Strategy, Sage Publications, United States.

Goodman, Paul and Percival (1960), Communitas. Vintage Books, New York.

Hart, Stephen (2001), Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics, The University of Chicago Press,
United State.

Hick, Steven F. and McNutt, John G. (2002), Advocacy, Activism, and the Internet: Community
Organization and Social Policy. Lyceum Books, Inc. Chicago.

Hope, Anne and Timmel, Sally (2001), Training for Transformation: A handbook for community

17
workers, book 1, 2, 3, ITDG Publishing, Nottingham UK.

Hope, Anne and Timmel, Sally (2003), Training for Transformation: A handbook for community
workers, book 4, ITDG Publishing, Nottingham UK.

Howley, Kevin (2005), Community Media: People, Places, and Communication Technologies.
Cambridge University Press.

IAF (1990), IAF 50 Years : Organizing for Change, Industrial Area Foundation, New York.

Institute of Politics and Governance (2002), Balangay - Resource Manual for Barangay Governance.
Quezon City, Philippines.

Jimenez, Ma. Elisa L. (1986), Annotated Bibliography on Community Organizing: Series 3. Institute
of Social Work and Community Development. University of the Philippines, Quezon City, Philippines.

J, Rubin and I, Rubin (2001), Community Organizing and Development. Allyn and Bacon. Boston.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1972), Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in
Sociological Perspective. Harvard University Press, United States.

Klein, Kim (1996), Fundraising for Social Change, Chardon Press. Oakland, CA.

Kretzmann, John and Mcknight, John (1993), Building Communities from Inside Out: A Path toward
finding and Mobilizing a community’s assets. The Asset-Based Community Development Institute,
Northwestern University.

Krile, James F. (2006), The Community Leadership Handbook: Framing Ideas, Building
Relationships, and Mobilizing Resources. Fieldstone alliance Publishing Center, Minnesota.

Krishna, Anirudh (2002), Active Social Capital: Tracing the Roots of Development and Democracy,
Columbia University Press, New York.

Letts, Christine W, Ryan, William P. and Grossman, Allen (1999), High Performance Nonprofit
Organizations: Managing Upstream for Greater Impact. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

18
LOCOA (2001), Being with the Poor: History of Asian Community Organization, Quezon,
Philippines.

Manalili, Angelito G. (1990), Community Organizing for People’s Empowerment. Kapatiran-

Kaunlaran, Inc. Manila.

Murphy, Denis and Pimple, Minar (1995), Eviction Watch Asia: Forced Evictions and Housing Right
Abuses in Asia, ACHR, Quezon, Philippines.

Murphy, Denis (2004), Community Organizing in Asia – History and Prospects, Social Policy, Winter
2004/2005, Volume 35, #2, ACORN Institute, New Orleans, United States.

Na, Hyo-Woo (2004), Dictatorship, Democracy and Organizing in Korea, Social Policy, Winter
2004/2005, Volume 35, #2, ACORN Institute, New Orleans, United States.

Ogle, George (1988), A Missionary’s Reflection on Minjung Theology. An Emerging Theology in

World Perspective Commentary on Korea Minjung Theology. Twenty-Third Publications, United
States.

Ondam, Bantorn and Teo, Stephen (1983), Organizing Experience from Thailand, CCA-URM, Hong
Kong.

Redclift, Michael (1995), “Sustainable Development and Popular Participation: A Framework for
Analysis”, Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in Sustainable Development,
Routledge, New York

Reed, David (1984), Evaluating Community Organizing in the Philippines. La Lgnaciana Apostolic
Center Printing Press, Manila, Philippines.

Roseland, Mark (2005), Toward Sustainable Communities - Resources for Citizens and Their
Governments, New Society Publishers, Canada.

Rothman, Juliet Cassuto (2000), Stepping out into the field: A field work Manual for Social Work
Students. Allyn and Bacon, The Catholic University of America, United States.

19
Schneider, Jo Anne (2006), Social Capital and Welfare Reform: Organizations, Congregations, and
Communities, Columbia University Press, New York.

Scott, W. Richard (1998), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall. New
Jersey.

Sen, Rinku (2003), Stir It Up: Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy. Jossey-Bass, United
States.

Smock, Kristina (2004), Democracy in Action: Community Organizing and Urban Change, Columbia
University Press, New York.

Staples, Lee (2004), Roots to Power: A Manual for Grassroots Organizing. Praeger Publishers,
London.

Stoecker, Randy (2001), Community Development and Community Organizing: Apples and Oranges?
Chicken and Egg? Pre-publication draft prepared for Ron Hayduk and Ben Shepard (eds.) From ACT
UP to the WTO: Urban Protest and Community Building in the Era of Globalization, Verso,. Source:
http://comm-org.wisc.edu/drafts/orgdevppr2c.htm

Stoecker, Randy (2004), The Mystery of the Missing Social Capital and the Ghost of Social Structure:
Why Community Development Can't Win. Prepublication Draft for Silverman, Robert Mark. (ed.)
Community-Based Organizations: The Intersection of Social Capital and Local Context in
Contemporary Urban Society. Wayne State University Press.
Source: http://comm-org.wisc.edu/drafts/socialcapitalprepub.htm

Sudman, Seymour and Bradburn, Norman M (1987), Asking Questions Jossey, Bass Publishers.
United States.

Tan, Jo Hann (1997), POP! : A training Manual for Community-Organizer Facilitators, SEA-PCP,
Malaysia.

Vivian, Jessica M. (1995), “Foundation for Sustainable Development : Participation, Empowerment

and Local Resource Management”, Grassroots Environmental Action: People's Participation in
Sustainable Development. Routledge, New York.

20
White, Margaret B. and White, Herbert D. (1973), The Power of People: Community Action in Asia,
Urban Industrial Mission- East Asia Christian Conference, Japan.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES:

Bello, Walden, “All fall down: 10 years after the Asian financial crisis.” The INQUIRER Newspaper,
July 25, 2007.

UNPUBLISHED REPORTS:

Bagasao, Fides F. (2000), The Gender Sensitivity Workshop as Feminist Research. Methodology
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.

CO Multiversity(2007), Report on Laguna de Bay, CO-M, Philippines.

COPE (1999), Evaluation Report, COPE, Philippines.

GABRIELA Network (2005), Retrieved, November. source: http://www.gabnet.org/.

21