The term community is highly ambiguous, even though it is vastly familiar to the general population and used in every-day conversation. Local government presents both a traditional and operational perspective of community, that it is a planned environment identified as a collection of physical properties and attributes (Kyle and Chick, 2007, Bradford and Kerr, 2012). Chapter two canvasses that local government places a construction of place and space to community to fit the strategic governance and stewardship role of local government (Pike et al., 2006, Chambers, 1983). Obst (2004) and Pillora and McKinlay (2011) describe this physical construct of community by local government as disregarding the interdependence of other characteristics of community, particularly the social bondedness or human discourse relationships within community. In other words, a sense of community identity and belonging (McMillan and George, 1986).
While literature presents a clear perspective of community by local government (Pike et al., 2006, Chambers, 1983), results identify limited understanding by case study council respondents of a sense of place and councils’ role in developing a sense of place. However, each case study council presented strategic planning and place-shaping examples in discussions, which respondents considered fulfil this role of a sense of place. Sense of place is proposed by Local Government
Association of Tasmania and Tasmanian State Government (2013) as a key role for the reform of local government, particularly to improve community engagement outcomes with community. However, it is evident from results that the interpretation of community by case study councils has influenced the nature and extent of community engagement. Moreover, it has also identified an acknowledgement by some study councils of a greater need for local government to be both pragmatic in approach to community and sensitive to the needs of the social community at the same time (Pike et al., 2006, Stilwell, 1992).
Results clearly identify that case study councils acknowledge increased citizen expectations in participatory governance. These expectations have pushed councils to consider becoming more involved in delivering services to enhance social health and wellbeing within community and build community capacity for the future. Nevertheless, it is also evident from the results that most case study councils have not adopted broader community engagement practices, in particular cross-sectoral networking to source community knowledge and expertise to deliver better community development outcomes.
However, there is evidence of one case study council participating in a cross-sectoral collective impact project in an endeavour to solve local social issues. Brown and Keast (2003) propose that this broad community engagement approach places the focus of local government on community as a potential institutional site and governance mechanism. It is evident from the results that the remainder of case study councils focus on a traditional pattern of top-down community engagement and development initiatives (Duniam and Eversole, 2016), such as community funding grants and public arts policies which council respondents perceive built strong community social value.
Conversely, two case study council respondents emphasised the importance for councils to acquire knowledge of community that reflect its capacity and to understand what communities actually want for their future. Furthermore, for councils to use community engagement as a mechanism to capture that knowledge. Pillora and McKinlay (2011) point out that local community knowledge is a resource that can be applied to decision-making at a local level, which builds social capital, builds communities, engages and empowers citizens. This was explained by one case study council respondent that local community is an untapped and under-utilised resource and opportunity for community engagement. This respondent identified the lesson council has learnt from poor community engagement which resulted in poor decision-making.
This respondent also highlighted that council had in the past initiated too many community projects without community consultation, and now recognised that community feedback has helped shape council policy around issues of socio-economic development.
In this context, another respondent identified this approach requires a change of culture within the institution of local government, at both operations and governance levels. This notion is evident in the results where some case study council respondents demonstrate they are risk- averse to cultural change within local government as suggested by Jones et al. (2011), because they perceive their role should be maintained as one of traditional top-down government and governance (Worthington and Dollery, 2002).
By comparison to local government, social enterprises emerge from community of place as social change agents and as significant players in community development, involving different types of stakeholders in their membership (Brouard et al., 2015). Results identify that case study social enterprises are established because of community needs, and it is this social deficit which determines the unique agenda and social mission of each case study social enterprise. However, while results demonstrate social innovation and entrepreneurship of each social enterprise to tackle social needs (Campbell, 2011, Chell, 2007), it is also evident that the establishment of each social enterprise is more responsive to community needs rather than being organisationally strategic.
Chapter two canvasses that social enterprises see community as a resource to solve local socio- economic issues, by engaging with community members as stakeholders, participants and owners and utilising local knowledge and experience in this process (Laville and Nyssens, 2001, Defourny and Nyssens, 2006, McNeill, 2009, Campbell et al., 2011). Results demonstrate the reliance by social enterprises on stakeholder participation, particularly in the form of volunteers at all levels of operations and management. Results clearly demonstrate a bottom-up community engagement process by case study social enterprises, a process which Eversole (2015) suggests is actively driven by local communities in a specific place and community context.
It is evident from the results that community context also influences each social enterprise agenda. In this regard it is also evident that each case study social enterprises does not share the same contextual agenda or social mission. However, results demonstrate that the activities of all case study social enterprises have commonly established an enabling environment for individuals
and communities to achieve local social or community development outcomes (Brouard et al., 2015). It is evident from the r that case study councils and case study social enterprises have different perspectives on community development, what it is and how it can be achieved.
Community development scholars canvass the notion that the process of community engagement undertaken by local government is a mechanism to support community development initiatives (Cavaye, 2004, Demediuk, 2009, Moulder and O’Neill, 2009, King and Cruickshank, 2010). Results also identify that community development is a key role of local government in Tasmania and that in practice, case study councils have aligned community development and social investment under the one banner through standardised top-down philanthropic mechanisms, such as annual Community Funding Grants. However, as one respondent identified, councils do have a social responsibility to actually do some things for community, but only in the context of council’s strategic community development objectives.
With regard to community development by local government, results demonstrate that case study councils weigh up their social responsibility against available financial resources to determine economic return on investment, rather than measuring social return on investment. Pike et al. (2006) argues that the role of community development by local government is related to the governance principles and strategic development values within local government, and which reflect the political systems and relationships between State and local governments.
On the other hand, community engagement undertaken within community by social enterprises is described as a reciprocal arrangement between participants and community, and which supports active citizenship to build communities and capacity of citizens (Lowndes and Wilson, 2001, Wiseman, 2005, Verity, 2007). This is strongly evident in the results where each case study social enterprise provides examples of trading activities within community to support each social mission.
Results clearly demonstrate that social enterprises are significant stakeholders and key players in the community development arena. Results also emphasise the influence of variations of organisational structure, management and social mission of case study social enterprises in relation to community development. However, in contrast to the community development perspective presented by case study councils, social enterprises consider community development as multi-dimensional and place greater emphasis on the process rather than
community development outcomes. For example, one case study social enterprise respondent offered opportunities to the broader community to build individual skills and capacity, particularly with a focus on health, education, training and employment. Another case study social enterprise respondent described the purpose of their organisation is to provide for an unmet need within the community for people with any form of disability as a service to community. These activities demonstrate that case study social enterprises take advantage of social and economic opportunities so as to create social change, through a process of innovation and resourcefulness along a continuum of business and social intentions (Douglas and Grant, 2014, Douglas, 2014).
Case study councils and case study social enterprises present different perspectives of community, community engagement and community development. It is evident that these differences influence community collaborations and agency partnerships, and these two concepts are the focus of the next subsection.