(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 / Economic Capital

Natural 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 (ex. ACORN) Coalitions (ex. Citizen Action and Midwest Organizational description Tactics Constituency Change Strategy Small, geographically based units composed of individual members Direct action, organized protest and strategic pressure Low/moderateincome people To organize people in neighborhoods into a “union in the community” To build the basic organization The organizer frames and develops issues, members choose and the group works on Groups are often effective locally Membership contributions, foundations or religious philanthropic sources Flexible, tenacious, and tactically militant Academy) Issue-based units open to organizations with interests. Lobbying, public hearings, electoral work. Already organized public interest groups, unions To mobilize progressive groups to affect public policy. To unite existing organizations around a specific issue Staff frames and chooses issues, strategies, and tactics Formations are most effective in policy intervention at the state and city level Private philanthropic institutions and individual members Staff members are often savvy, experienced players Large units based in local institutions Institutionally Based Organizing (ex. IAF and PICO)

Large-scale public accountability sessions, negotiations Motivated members of religious institutions including clergy To develop leaders that can powerfully articulate and represent the interests of their constituency To develop indigenous leadership as a primary task Leaders and organizers frame issues, members choose to work on Groups often become significant “players” in the local political landscape Religious institutions and private foundations and corporations.

Staff’s Role Decision Making

Sphere of Influence Resource Base

Advantages

A highly developed model of leadership

12

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

7

Disadvantages

Often very small, short lived

on the political scene. Often do not include the very poor, power is vested in key individuals

Sometimes increases the power of the established leaders in the church, excludes people

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, multireligious 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
UPC/INDONESI A CISRS/INDIA Direct Membership and National Network- UP-LINK Institutionally Based Organizing

Main Issues
Urban and rural poverty Urbanization,

Tactics
Advocacy-Grassroots Organizing Cultural action,

8

CO programs in Calcutta, Mumbai, Bangalore

unemployment, homelessness-eviction, displacement and migration

grassroots organizing/advocacy, media networking coalition organizing Public interest groups, unions, citizen organizations Internet advocacy, action research, alliance building Mass base organizing / Provision of awareness education, alliance-building

CONET/KCHR/ KOREA Nojiren /JAPAN The Four Regions Slum Network/

CO work in low income communities in/outside Seoul

Public rental housing, vinyl house communities, joblessness, homelessness Evictions and unsustainable conditions in relocation Forced evictions and urban land issues

Coalition of homeless based in Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto (street sleepers) etc Independent people's movements network

Grassroots /mass-based organizing, autonomous people’s organization, alliance CO-M in 1993 and UPA in 1994 building Source: Profile of CO Groups in Asia (LOCOA Workshop, March 27, 2007, Tagaytay City, Philippines)

THAILAND COPE/ CO-M/ UPA/ PHILIPPINES

COPE established in 1978,

Urban poverty, eviction, local governance

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 nature/cleaner production
-Self-reliance demonstration farm -Food bank

2.Improve Physical Infrastructure/Facilities
-Establishing community center -Public works projects -Children’s center

3.Strengthen economic capital/community institutions/
-Enterprise units -Structural re-arrangement/CO training for senior officers

Incheon, South Korea

10

-Farming

Pasig Riverside, -Organizing/Advocacy to resist -partnership with Private foundations (Gawad kalinga) to Metro Manila/ environmentally destructive
flood control infrastructure

- People saving for social housing. - Micro credit facilities

Laguna de bay area

-River Annual Poisoner Awards (Polluting industries) -Engagement with lakeside authorities -Advocacy of fish cage as a sustainable technology to incorporate fishing their boats/equipment, etc,. -Redesign of lakeside dike to incorporate fishers demand for protection of fishing boats/gears during inclement weather.

build 2,000 units of social housing wit sweat equity as people’s counterpart

-installation of pathwalks in neighborhoods -Manila local govt. assistance to Punta community to facilitate resettlement

-Redesign of lakeside dike plan expropriation of site for onsite communities demand to protect -

Area /Country Incheon, South Korea

4.Increase of community capital / health, livelihood, education
-Community week-end medical services -Civil networks for medical services

5. Strengthen social cohesion through Governance/participation etc,.
-Incheon Civil Movement Against Unemployment(ICMU) -Advisory Committee with eight committees -Advocacy and social action -General assembly -Leadership formation -establishment of riverside

6. Strengthen Cultural capital /Social history
-“Sangjohoe” or traditional collective spirit promoted through the various community programs -Newsletter publication -Sports festival

Pasig

-Periodical medical missions for

- Community based Earth day

11

Riverside, check up/consultations/free medicines/dental services, etc,. Metro Manila/
-Establishment of “community

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

Laguna de bay area

based generic drugs store” or “botika sa Barangay” in about 8 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

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: Sociological Perspective. Harvard University Press, United States. Communes and Utopias in

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. KapatiranKaunlaran, 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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful