Mechanisms of Power Within a Community-Based Food Security Planning Process

Abstract

A community food security movement has begun to address problems of hunger and food insecurity by utilizing a community-based approach. Although various models have been implemented, little empirical research has assessed how power operates within community-based food security initiatives. The purpose of this research was to determine how power influenced participation in decision-making, agenda setting, and the shaping of perceived needs within a community-based food security planning process, with particular reference to disenfranchised stakeholders. Power influenced participation in decision-making, agenda setting, and the shaping of perceived needs through managing 1) problem framing, 2) trust, 3) knowledge, and 4) consent. To overcome these mechanisms of power, practitioners need to address individual-, community-, and institutional-level barriers to participation in community-based food security planning processes. Practitioners and researchers can work with disenfranchised groups to determine which agents have the power to create desired changes by utilizing theory-based methods and strategies that focus on changing external determinants at multiple levels.

Perception of needs and responses in food security: divergence between households and stakeholders

“…As other stakeholders in the sample stated, certain prejudices about lowincome and food-insecure households persist, even among field workers. Similarly, it was noted elsewhere (39,41) that the intervention milieu dealing with low-income households was not always impervious to society's ideology of individualism. As a result, some professionals intervene in order to change the 'disabilities' of individuals while ignoring the impact of their social environment on these apparent disabilities.…”

Confusion and Misunderstanding—Interpretations and Definitions of Local Food

“…Scholars have identified a variety of meanings of local food utilized by consumers, see Table 1. Some of these findings include: energy or transport efficiency [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], food security [35][36][37][38], supporting the local economy [18,[39][40][41]; animal welfare [42]; preservation of open landscapes, culture, and rural development [18,43,44], fosters relationships between the producer and consumer [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] and the opinion that local food is fresher and healthier than conventional food [54][55][56][57]. Alongside the plurality of consumer opinions about local food [58] meanings of local food also differ among entities in the food systems, and may relate to their objectives within the food system.…”

The Challenges of Fostering Community Participation: A Case Study of a Community-Based Organization in Rural California

“…Arnstein's (1969) eight-step ladder begins with manipulation and ends with citizen control, which she posited as the ideal. Her model reveals the ways participation can be used to manipulate the public (Cooke & Kothari, 2001), to "persuade employees to accept decisions that have already been made by the management" (Pateman, 1970, p. 68), or to manufacture consent by appealing to trust in a participatory process (McCullum et al, 2004). Wilcox's (1994) framework, a more pragmatic model, identifies five stances on a continuum from less to more control: information, consultation, deciding together, acting together, and supporting independent community initiatives.…”

“…However, Schafft and Greenwood (2003) contend that even if participatory methods are used, "the power relations that have historically structured community interaction will partially structure the processes and outcomes of participation" (p. 21). McCullum et al (2004), for instance, analyzed "how power influenced participation in decision-making, agenda setting, and the shaping of perceived needs" (p. 206) in a community-based food security project (e.g., through planners' selection of participants to attend search conferences and the failure to anticipate the history of distrust between farmers and welfare recipients). Finally, Freire's (1973) concept of the culture of silence-the process whereby relatively powerless groups are prevented from acting and reflecting on their actions, and thus socialized into compliance-indicates that inviting citizens to the table does not ensure that they will express their views, let alone challenge inequities (Gaventa, 1980).…”