Article Review - the Ownership of Assets by Place-Based Community Organizations

...

Moore and McKee’s arguments are interesting and challenging. They manage to draw on several research in the field of localism along with policy trends to support their claim for further research and a critical understanding of the concept of community asset organizations as it relates to the other overlapping concepts and processes (in the UK context of devolution). They claim that there is a huge knowledge gap in the geographies of community organizations as most research has been focused on England and Scotland, with relatively little attention in Wales and Northern Ireland. They show some level of scepticism towards the concept of community but they avoid being biased by relating it to a need for more nuanced understanding of the topic. From a personal point of view, I agree that a sound understanding of the complex nature of localism (as it gains more traction) is necessary, rather than the romanticised manner in which the concept is being promoted. However, one interesting point I think the article omits is the fate of the role and authority of the welfare state in the context of devolution (paradigm shift) towards community democracy.

In summary, this article provides insight to the field of community asset organizations and will be beneficial for development specialist and policy makers in this area of interest. It also provides academics with further thoughts for future research.

References

Mohan, G., and Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and empowerment: The Dangers of Localism. Third World Quarterly, 21, pp. 247-268.

Schragger RC. (2001). Limits of Localism: Michigan Law Review, 100, 2, pp. 371-472