(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

riverside CO programs?

1

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 ScopeThe thesis aims to illustrate the interconnectedness of community capital, as foundations of sustainable

communities to community organizing.

2.2. Key WordsCommunity

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

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

1 Source: http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community

2

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_Gesellschaft3

? 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

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

developed without developing also the nearby area.

Integration of approach, program and areas should be considered especially in the field of developing

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.

Natural Capital /

Physical Capital

Cultural Capital /

Human Capital

Social Capital /

Economic Capital

4

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)

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

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

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

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,

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

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

Academy)

Institutionally Based Organizing (ex.

IAF and PICO)

Organizational

description

Small, geographically

based units composed

of individual

members

Issue-based units

open to organizations

with interests.

Large units based in local institutions

Tactics Direct action,

organized protest and

strategic pressure

Lobbying, public

hearings, electoral

work.

Large-scale public accountability

sessions, negotiations

Constituency Low/moderate-

income people

Already organized

public interest

groups, unions

Motivated members of religious

institutions including clergy

Change Strategy To organize people in

neighborhoods into a

“union in the

community”

To mobilize

progressive groups to

affect public policy.

To develop leaders that can powerfully

articulate and represent the interests of

their constituency

Staff’s Role To build the basic

organization

To unite existing

organizations around

a specific issue

To develop indigenous leadership as a

primary task

Decision Making The organizer frames

and develops issues,

members choose and

the group works on

Staff frames and

chooses issues,

strategies, and tactics

Leaders and organizers frame issues,

members choose to work on

Sphere of

Influence

Groups are often

effective locally

Formations are most

effective in policy

intervention at the

state and city level

Groups often become significant

“players” in the local political landscape

Resource Base Membership Private philanthropic Religious institutions and private

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

7

contributions,

foundations or

religious

philanthropic sources

institutions and

individual members

foundations and corporations.

Advantages Flexible, tenacious,

and tactically militant

Staff members are

often savvy,

experienced players

on the political scene.

A highly developed model of leadership

Disadvantages Often very small,

short lived

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 AsiaFrom 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

8

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/

INDONESIA

Direct Membership and National

Network- UP-LINK

Urban and rural poverty Advocacy-Grassroots

Organizing

CISRS/INDIA Institutionally Based Organizing

CO programs in Calcutta, Mumbai,

Bangalore

Urbanization,

unemployment,

homelessness-eviction,

displacement and

migration

Cultural action,

grassroots

organizing/advocacy,

media networking

coalition organizing

CONET/KCHR/

KOREA

CO work in low income

communities in/outside Seoul

Public rental housing,

vinyl house communities,

joblessness, homelessness

Public interest groups, unions,

citizen organizations

Nojiren /JAPAN Coalition of homeless based in Tokyo, Osaka, Kyoto (street sleepers) etc

Evictions and

unsustainable conditions

in relocation

Internet advocacy, action

research, alliance building

The Four

Regions

Slum Network/

THAILAND

Independent people's movements

network

Forced evictions and

urban land issues

Mass base organizing /

Provision of awareness

education, alliance-building

COPE/ CO-M/

UPA/ PHILIPPINES

COPE established in 1978,

CO-M in 1993 and UPA in 1994

Urban poverty, eviction, local governance

Grassroots /mass-based

organizing, autonomous

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

9

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.

IV. Case study and major finding4.1. Case Study – Korea and PhilippinesKorea - 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 BayThe 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

10

Area /Country 1.Less waste in

nature/cleaner

production

2.Improve Physical

Infrastructure/Facilities

3.Strengthen economic

capital/community

institutions/

Incheon,

South Korea

-Self-reliance demonstration

farm

-Food bank

-Farming

-Establishing community center

-Public works projects

-Children’s center

-Enterprise units

-Structural re-arrangement/CO

training for senior officers

Pasig Riverside,

Metro Manila/

Laguna de bay

area

-Organizing/Advocacy to resist

environmentally destructive

flood control infrastructure

-River Annual Poisoner

Awards (Polluting industries)

-Engagement with lakeside

authorities

-Advocacy of fish cage as a

sustainable technology

-Redesign of lakeside dike plan

to incorporate fishing

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.

-partnership with Private

foundations (Gawad kalinga) to

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

expropriation of site for onsite

resettlement

-

- People saving for social

housing.

- Micro credit facilities

Area

/Country

4.Increase of community

capital / health, livelihood,

education

5. Strengthen social

cohesion through

Governance/participation

etc,.

6. Strengthen Cultural

capital /Social history

Incheon, -Community week-end medical -Incheon Civil Movement Against -“Sangjohoe” or traditional

11

South

Korea

services

-Civil networks for medical

services

Unemployment(ICMU)

-Advisory Committee with eight

committees

-Advocacy and social action

-General assembly

-Leadership formation

collective spirit promoted

through the various

community programs

-Newsletter publication

-Sports festival

Pasig

Riverside,

Metro

Manila/

Laguna

de bay

area

-Periodical medical missions for

check up/consultations/free

medicines/dental services, etc,.

-Establishment of “community

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

-establishment of riverside

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.

- Community based Earth day

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

12

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

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.

13

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

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 CommunitiesA. 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

14

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

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.

15

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.

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.

16

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.

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.

17

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

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.

18

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.

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

19

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.

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.

20

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.

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