01736nam a22001217a 4500008004100000100002000041245014400061260002700205300003200232520120800264650011501472773002701587241112b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aHertting, Nils   aParticipatory bias and participatory neighborhood governance:Reanalyzing the most-likely case of the Stockholm neighborhood renewal program  aUrban Affairs Review    a60(2), Mar, 2024: p.674-705  aStrategies for revitalizing marginalized neighborhoods often include participatory innovations. According to the participatory bias argument, however, participatory governance arrangements benefit the privileged rather than the poor. In the present article, the validity of this argument is examined by analyzing how individual resources and social positions relates to recruitment to, participation within, and outcomes derived from participation in a most-likely case of bias in participatory neighborhood governance. Although the privileged were overrepresented in recruitment, the pattern was less clear regarding influence within the processes, and quite the opposite regarding certain outcomes of participation. Also in a most-likely case for bias, participatory neighborhood governance may induce empowerment among poor. Based on the observation that participants that differ with regard to available resources and social positions also have different motives for participation, a mechanism-based account regarding why and how bias in early phases under certain conditions may produce empowering outcomes is proposed.- Reproduced 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10780874231203919
  aParticipatory neighborhood governance, Participatory bias, Neighborhood renewal, Most-likely case, Stockholm.   aUrban Affairs Review