Abstract
A number of arguments exist that suggest that community development corporations (CDCs) represent an apolitical, technocratic, and non-democratic arm of the neighborhood movement. This paper evaluates that,argument by examining national level studies, and using Minneapolis and St. Paul as case studies. The findings reveal that CDCs retain a high level of political activism primarily through the creation of new institutions, citywide coalition bodies, to carry out their political agenda. The findings also suggest that government influence over CDCs is greater in the area of program strategies than political activity.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
