Search

There is a renewed interest in the potential of municipal governments working collaboratively with local communities to address health inequities. A growing body of literature has also highlighted the benefits and limitations of participatory approaches in neighbourhood interventions initiated by municipal governments. However, few studies have investigated how neighbourhood interventions tackling health inequities work in real-time and in context, from the perspectives of Community Developers (CDs) who promote community participation. This study uses a process evaluation approach and semi-structured interviews with CDs to explore the challenges they face in implementing a community development, participatory process in the City of Hamilton's strategy to reduce health inequities – Neighbourhood Action . Findings demonstrate that municipal government can facilitate and suppress community participation in complex ways. CDs serve as significant but conflicted intermediaries as they negotiate and navigate power differentials between city and community actors, while also facing structural challenges. We conclude that community participation is important to bottom-up, resident-led social change, and that CDs are central to this work.

Social capital has been the focus of considerable academic and policy interest in recent years. Despite this interest, the concept remains undertheorized: there is an urgent need for a critical engagement with this literature that goes beyond summary. This paper lays a foundation for a critical dialogue between social capital and health promotion, by examining problematics in the conceptualization and practice of social capital building and linking these to models of community development, a cornerstone health promotion strategy. In so doing, the paper contributes to the existing literature by providing a theoretical exposition and critique of various threads in social capital discourse, and linking these threads explicitly to community development practice. Distinctions between communitarian, institutional and critical approaches to social capital are elaborated, and the relationships between these three approaches and three models of community development-social planning, locality development, and social action-are discussed. The existing social capital literature is then critically examined in relation to three key themes common to both literatures: community integration, public participation, and power relations. This examination suggests that social capital cannot be conceived in isolation from economic and political structures, since social connections are contingent on, and structured by, access to material resources. This runs counter to many current policy discourses, which focus on the importance of connection and cohesion without addressing fundamental inequities in access to resources. This paper posits that approaches to community development and social capital should emphasise the importance of a conscious concern with social justice. A construction of social capital which explicitly endorses the importance of transformative social engagement, while at the same time recognising the potential negative consequences of social capital development, could help community organizers build communities in ways that truly promote health.

This article examines the degree to which relationships between social capital and health are embedded in local geographical contexts and influenced by demographic factors, socio-economic status, health behaviours and coping skills. Using data from a telephone survey of a random sample of adults (N=1504 respondents, response rate=60%), the article determines if relationships between involvement in voluntary associations and various measures of individual health are associated with neighbourhood of residence in the mid-sized city of Hamilton, Canada. Associational involvement and overweight status (assessed by body-mass score) were weakly but significantly related after controlling for the other variables; involvement had relationships with self-rated health and emotional distress before but not after controlling for socio-economic status, health behaviours and coping skills. Relationships between neighbourhood of residence and two health outcomes, self-rated health and overweight status, were statistically significant before and after controlling for the other characteristics of respondents; neighbourhood of residence was not a significant predictor of number of chronic conditions and emotional distress in multivariate models. The neighbourhood and associational involvement relationships with health were not dependent upon one another, suggesting that neighbourhood of residence did not help to explain the positive health effects of this particular measure of social capital.