Why does similar community building lead to starkly different development logic?
为什么相似的社区建设会产生不同的开发逻辑？

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.
传统的经济增长过分关注效率的提升和产出的扩大，在此过程中一些弱势的社区逐渐被忽视乃至边缘化，当地居民的权益也因此受损。“社区经济发展”行动（Community Economic Development）是对这种观念的修正，认为社区所面临的问题，例如失业、贫困、工作流失、环境退化等必须以一种参与性的方式加以解决。社区经济发展并不排除经济增长，而是主张以增加社区经济机会的方式可持续地促进社区的经济、社会、生态和文化福祉的全面改善。

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.
社区发展公司(Community Development Corporations)是主要的实施者，它们是非营利性组织，成立的目的是提供促进和支持社区发展的服务，具体包括经济发展、社区组织和房地产开发等各方面。它们通常专注于为低收入居民或较为弱势的社区提供服务，因此常常与弱势社区的发展相关。 理论上社区发展公司都受制于相同的规章制度，从事着相同的业务，但是实际中不同类型的公司却产生了截然不同的社会经济结果。

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.
本案例详细比较了美国加利福尼亚州奥克兰市的两家社区发展公司，认为导致两家公司产生截然不同结果的原因一是两家公司不同的内部结构，二是面临的不同外部环境，两方面原因使得两家公司遵循两个不同的业务“逻辑”：一家是以市场利益为主导，最大化社区的交换价值；一家是以社区利益为主导，最大化社区的使用价值。

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.
本文非常具有启示意义。第一，本文并没有讨论两种模式的优劣，而是认为社区的发展没有一种固定的模式，关键是因地制宜。这需要我们避免国家层面一刀切的现象，对市场和社区适当放权，使社区能够充分根据实际情况合理开发。第二，本文更深次地回应了全球化背景下关于哲学家波兰尼（Polanyi）的市场和社会关系的论述。对于社区来说，外来的市场力量和本地的社区力量都能够产生有利和不利的影响，关键是有合理的机制能够使得二者平衡，并且适宜本地社区的发展。