{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021377672209026127, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012351543942992874, 'mean_word_length': 5.643533123028392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Limits of Participatory Empowerment: Assessing the Minneapolis Neighborhood Revitalization Program

In 1991, the Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) launched the Neighborhood Revitalization Program (NRP) to national acclaim.1 Structured by formal neighborhood organizations, each of which has a history and its own internal politics, the program institutionalizes participation and enables citizens to determine how local community development funds will be spent. It has four goals: build neighborhood capacity, redesign public services, increase government agency collaboration, and create a sense of community. NRP envisions an active citizenry taking control of the democratic process by making crucial decisions about city spending. The NRP—heralded as one of the most progressive programs in the country to advocate civic engagement through viable neighborhood associations—may, however, both encourage and discourage certain groups from participating. Of late, the program has been criticized for promoting the interests of homeowners over those of renters, who tend to be minorities. The fact that political structures shape the outcomes of this policy highlights the limitations of the NRP and structure-based participatory empowerment. Thus, the controversy surrounding the NRP illustrates the pros and cons of remedying lack of civic participation by empowering citizens at the sublocal level of neighborhoods. Discussed in this article is the effectiveness of the NRP in particular and the logic of formalized participatory governance generally.2 Much of the rhetoric concerning the current “legitimacy crisis” in liberal democracy centers on the lack of citizen participation. Advocates claim that participation in governance is a primary way by which people gain more power in the political and economic system (Barber 1984; Boyte 1990; Bellah et al. 1991; Boyte and Kari 1996). The alleged connection between participation and power is epit[Political participation] enriches the lives of men not only by what it does for them but what it does to them. —Arnold Kaufman (1968)