Conventional economic development tends to emphasize efficiency and productivity, thus having become a process associated with increased marginalization of disadvantaged communities and greater harm to their residents’ interests. Community and Economic Development (CED) Movement is meant to redress these unintended consequences particularly by necessitating communities’ participation in addressing their challenges such as unemployment, poverty, loss of jobs, and environmental deterioration. CED is not against economic development. Instead, it argues for increasing economic opportunities as a means for communities to develop themselves holistically (including economy, society, environment, and culture) in a sustainable way.

CED is carried out mainly by community development corporations (CDCs). These corporations are nonprofit organizations which aim at providing communities with development services including but not limited to economic development, community organization development, and real estate development. Since CDCs usually target disadvantaged communities and low-income residents, their works tend to be relative to disadvantaged community development.

This case is derived from Oakland, California, the United States. Two CDCs are selected: 1) the “Alliance for West Oakland Development” CDC in the Mandela Village, and 2) the “Unity Council” CDC in the Fruitvale Transit Village. Despite their striking similarities in legal structure and redevelopment projects, the socio-economic outcomes produced by the two CDCs are very different. According to the author, the different outcomes can be attributed to the two CDCs’ internal structures as well as their external contexts. Variations in these two aspects seem to have influenced the two CDCs to operate in line with different redevelopment logics. The “Alliance for West Oakland Development” CDC is more aligned with the market’s interests, maximizing the community’s exchange value. However, the “Unity Council” CDC is more aligned with the community’s interests, maximizing the community’s use values.

This case sheds light on effective urban redevelopment. First, there is no one-size-fits-all model of effective urban redevelopment. In the Chinese context, more power needs to be shared with the market and the society so that urban communities can be redeveloped more in line with local needs. Second, effective urban redevelopment lies in establishing a mechanism through which strengths of the market and local communities can be leveraged and weaknesses of the two can be mitigated. It deserves mentioning that this insight echoes Polanyi’s ideas about the relationship between the market and the society in the context of globalization.