Whose purpose does the policy goal of community empowerment serve?
社区赋权的政策目标究竟服务于谁？

In the 1990s, mode of governance in the United Kingdom began to change. Greater emphasis was placed on partnerships between government and society in which more responsibilities were put on individuals and communities. More attention, therefore, was drawn to roles of the community in processes associated with urban renewal and neighborhood regeneration. Power must be shared with communities so as to play their roles well. The government usually devolves certain power to communities so that they can participate in the process of addressing their local affairs. Some scholars have identified three benefits of community empowerment for public governance. First, community empowerment is more creative. Residents can come up with creative solutions to local problems. Second, it is more effective. Residents tend to engage with local affairs more actively. Third, it is more democratic. Residents’ involvement with national affairs can be increased by their engagement with local affairs. Consequently, community empowerment is often perceived as a prerequisite for the success of urban renewal and neighborhood regeneration.
上世纪九十年代开始，英国的治理模式开始转型，逐渐强调政府与社会的伙伴关系，个人、社区应承担更多责任，社区在城市更新和社区重建中的作用也因此被日益重视。而要充分发挥社区的作用就必须对社区赋权，通常做法是将政府的一部分权力下放到社区，使其能够处理地区范围内的事务。学者们认为社区在公共治理中有着几个天然的优势，一是更具创造力，社区居民可根据本社区特点设计出创造性的解决方案；二是更为有效，社区居民往往会亲力亲为处理本社区的事务；三是更加民主，居民通过参与社区事务，又能增加对于整个国家事务的参与度。因此，在实施城市更新和社区重建的工作时，社区赋权被视为项目成功与否的先决条件。

Authors of this article conducted research on the Clydemount estate in the United Kingdom for seven years. Researchers analyzed interactions among three main actors in the process of its neighborhood regeneration: 1) the Housing Association, 2) Tenants Organization, and 3) local residents. A key finding is that the phrase of “community empowerment”, despite being highly esteemed in policies, was often misused in practice. The empowerment was claimed on paper but did not turn into reality. Informed by this finding, authors raised a key question: Whose purpose does the policy goal of community empowerment serve?
本文作者基于在英国Clydemount estate进行的7年调查研究，分析了社区重建工作中的三个关键行动者（住房协会、租户团体组织和本地居民）的互动过程。研究结果发现尽管在政策中社区赋权被高度重视，但实际上这个词常被滥用，使得许多声称赋权的倡议实际中却没有对社区赋权。本文也因此提出了核心问题：社区赋权的政策目标究竟服务于谁？

The three conclusions of this article are also of great value. First, community empowerment may not be guaranteed when the strategic objectives of entire city come into conflict with the best interests of a community, even though such interests are generally regarded as central to neighborhood regeneration. Second, the claimed community empowerment may not be realized due to the common practices of ‘paying more attention to planning but not implementation”. Third, people tend to focus much on whether a policy includes certain procedure for community empowerment but lack due consideration of its applicability to the community as well as the community’s feedbacks on its empowerment.
本文的结论也十分具有价值。第一，尽管社区的最佳利益是社区重建的核心，但当社区利益与城市整体战略目标相冲突时，社区赋权很有可能无法得到保障。第二，在实际中，常出现“重规划、轻执行”的现象，使得一些声称的社区赋权在实际中无法实现。第三，人们往往只关注政策中是否有确保社区赋权的程序，却没有考虑与当地社区的适应性，以及社区对社区赋权的反馈。

In the Chinese context, community empowerment does not weaken the government’s management of local communities. It helps local communities not only to better carry out their responsibilities as shared by the government, but also to protect their interests more effectively. Community empowerment, therefore, should not be a popular idea on paper alone. It should become a concept of governance in practice. In addition, a mechanism for feedbacks on community empowerment should be further developed so that the voice of the community can be heard indeed. Otherwise, community empowerment will not match the best interests of the community, nor will it be implemented effectively.
对于中国来说，社区赋权不仅不会削弱政府对于基层的控制，反而有助于社区更好地分担政府下放的责任和义务，还能更有效、合理地保障社区居民的利益。因此，社区赋权不应仅仅是一个文本上的时髦概念，而应该是一个落实到工作中的治理理念。此外，我们还应构建完善的反馈机制，真正听取社区的声音，使社区赋权能真正适应社区并得到充分执行。