Socio-spatial variations in community self-help

Community self-help involves not-for-profit help provided for and by kin, friends, neighbours or other members of one's community, either on an individual basis or through more organised collective groups and associations. The only difference between this and conventional definitions is that the term ‘not-for-profit’ is used rather than ‘unpaid’ help for reasons which will become apparent below (e.g., Field and Hedges, Reference Field and Hedges1984; Davis Smith, Reference Davis Smith1998; Lynn and Davis Smith, Reference Lynn and Davis Smith1992). To unravel the diverse activities covered by this definition, the convention has been to divide community self-help into two broad types, often depicted as a spectrum or hierarchy (e.g., Field and Hedges, Reference Field and Hedges1984; Lynn and Davis Smith, Reference Lynn and Davis Smith1992; Davis Smith, Reference Davis Smith1998; Home Office, 1999; Kershaw et al., Reference Kershaw, Budd, Kinshott, Mattinson, Mayhew and Myhill2000; Krishnamurthy et al., Reference Krishnamurthy, Prime and Zimmeck2001, Coulthard et al., Reference Coulthard, Walker and Morgan2002, Prime et al., Reference Prime, Zimmeck and Zurawin2002; Choi et al., Reference Choi, Burr and Caro2007). At one end lies participation in formal or ‘third sector’ community-based organisations, defined as engagement in formal organisations having an institutionalised character, constitutionally independent of the state and self-governing, non-profit distributing and involving some degree of voluntarism (Salamon et al., Reference Salamon, Anheier, List, Toepler and Wojcieck Sokolowoski1999). At the other end lie informal or ‘fourth sector’ activities, which involves providing aid on a one-to-one basis to members of households other than one's own, such as friends, neighbours and acquaintances.

Most UK surveys investigating formal and informal community self-help, however, tend to read such activity not as a continuum but as separate realms, not least due to the way in which the survey treats them as separate realms. This includes the British Crime Survey, Home Office Citizenship Survey, General Household Survey and National Adult Learning Survey (e.g., Krishnamurthy et al., Reference Krishnamurthy, Prime and Zimmeck2001; La Valle and Blake, Reference La Valle and Blake2001; Coulthard et al., Reference Coulthard, Walker and Morgan2002; Prime et al., Reference Prime, Zimmeck and Zurawin2002; Murphy et al., Reference Murphy, Wedlock and King2005; Pennant, Reference Pennant2005; Kitchen et al., Reference Kitchen, Michaelson, Wood and John2006; DCLG, 2008). Adopting this dichotomous depiction of separate formal and informal varieties of community self-help, these surveys reveal firstly, that both formal and informal community self-help is higher in affluent than deprived areas and, secondly, that community self-help in affluent populations revolves more around ‘formal’ voluntary endeavour, whilst in deprived populations it is more orientated towards ‘informal’ one-to-one aid (Williams, Reference Williams2003a, Reference Williams2003b, Reference Williams2005, Reference Williams2008). The resultant argument has been that the current policy approach, which nurtures engagement in community-based groups and neglects one-to-one aid (DETR, 1999; DSS, 1999; Countryside Agency, 2001; Social Exclusion Unit, 1998 and 2000; Home Office, 1999 and 2003; HM Treasury and Home Office, 2002), means that the participatory culture of affluent populations is being not only privileged but also imposed on to deprived populations (Williams, Reference Williams2005 and Reference Williams2008).

Instead of depicting formal and informal community self-help as unified discrete realms, a finer-grained understanding of the multifarious kinds of community self-help is here developed. This draws on Glucksmann's (Reference Glucksmann1995, Reference Glucksmann2000 and Reference Glucksmann2005) concept of the ‘total social organisation of labour’ (TSOL), which reveals how labour in any society is divided up between, and allocated to, different structures, institutions and activities, and views ‘the economy as a “multiplex” combination of modes, rather than as a dualism’ (Glucksmann, Reference Glucksmann2005: 8). So far, and in the realm of community self-help, Taylor (Reference Taylor2004) has applied this approach and as Figure 1 shows, has replaced the simplistic formal/informal dichotomy with a variety of different types of labour practice along a formal/informal spectrum cross-cut by whether the activity is paid or not.

Figure 1.

Framework of the total social organisation of labour.

Source: Taylor (2004: Figure 2).

In this article, this transcendence of the informal/formal dichotomy is further extended. Figure 2 portrays a continuum of forms of economic activity along a formal-to-informal spectrum on the x-axis divided by a further continuum on the vertical y-axis ranging from wholly non-monetised through gift exchange and in-kind labour contributions to wholly monetised exchanges. The result is a series of ten labour practices with fuzzy boundaries that, moving from left to right, shift from more formal to more informal practices and, moving from the bottom to the top, from wholly non-monetised to wholly monetised practices. The hatched boundaries dividing each zone signify that these are not discrete and that they blur into one another. Each practice, therefore, is part of a borderless continuum, rather than separate realms, which seamlessly overlap and merge into each other.

Figure 2.

Typology of kinds of community self-help in the total social organisation of labour.

Source: extension of Taylor (2004: Figure 2).

The shaded practices in Figure 2 are the different kinds of community self-help, and display how ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ community self-help are neither discrete spheres nor unified wholes. Instead, a range of different kinds of formal-oriented (group-based) engagement are shown to exist, ranging from holding a formal paid job in the Voluntary and Community Sector (labelled 2 in Figure 2) through unpaid engagement in community-based groups (labelled 7) to ‘below-the-radar’ participation in community-based groups (labelled 8). Informal-oriented community self-help, meanwhile, is again revealed to be multifarious in character, ranging from wholly unpaid one-to-one endeavour for kin, friends, neighbours and acquaintances (labelled 9) through aid provided to others but with unsolicited gifts given or in-kind labour provided, to one-to-one not-for-profit favours for friends, neighbours and acquaintances with monetary payments involved (labelled 4). The remaining non-shaded zones involve labour practices that are not community self-help but are nevertheless alternative forms of delivering goods and services in contemporary society and form the remaining activities in the ‘total social organisation of labour’. These include formal paid employment in the public and private sectors (labelled 1), formal unpaid employment in the public and private sectors (labelled 6), informal employment (labelled 3), paid household work by household members (labelled 5) and unpaid domestic work (labelled 10).

Given this finer-grained depiction of community self-help in particular, and labour practices in general, using this ‘total social organisation of labour’ conceptual framework, attention now turns to employing it to provide a finer-grained understanding of the socio-spatial variations in the nature of community self-help in English localities so as to map the different cultures of community self-help in different populations and areas.

Evaluating community self-help in English localities

To advance understanding of the socio-spatial variations in the nature of community self-help, evidence is here analysed collected between 1998 and 2002 during 861 face-to-face interviews in deprived and affluent urban and rural English communities. Using data from the UK government's Index of Multiple Deprivation (ODPM, 2000), maximum variation sampling was used to select localities amongst the highest and lowest ranked in terms of multiple deprivation in both urban and rural English localities (see Table 1), whilst households were selected for interview in each locality using a spatially stratified sampling technique (Kitchin and Tate, Reference Kitchin and Tate2001).

Table 1

Localities studied

The evidence on the extent and nature of engagement in community self-help was gathered as part of a wider survey on household work practices using a relatively structured face-to-face interview schedule. This firstly gathered background information on their age, gender, employment status, work history and gross household income. The interviewer then asked about the type of labour the household last used to complete forty-four common domestic tasksFootnote ¹ and whether they had conducted any of these tasks for other households. This explored which of the ten labour practices outlined in Figure 2 had been used to undertake these forty-four tasks along with their motives for using each of them and engaging in such a practice. To ensure that the survey covered all types of community self-help, furthermore, a series of open-ended questions with prompts were used to elicit any other engagement in each form of community self-help over the past twelve months.

This resulted in the collection of comparative survey data on the prevalence and character of the different kinds of community self-help in Figure 2 as well as the participatory cultures in different populations. Below, the results are reported. Firstly, however, a brief caveat is required. These data do not provide a representative sample of England. However, this was not the point of the survey. It was to analyse the socio-spatial variations in the nature of community self-help and it is precisely this comparative evidence that is analysed below.

Socio-spatial variations in community self-help

This English Localities Survey reinforces previous national government surveys which find that unpaid community self-help is higher in affluent than deprived populations and that affluent populations and areas have a more formally orientated participatory culture, whilst deprived populations and areas are more orientated towards informal one-to-one aid (Merrill, Reference Merrill2006; Milligan, Reference Milligan2007; Williams, Reference Williams2003a, Reference Williams2003b, Reference Williams2005 and Reference Williams2008). Some 72 per cent of the respondents living in affluent areas had engaged in unpaid one-to-one aid in the past year compared with just 53 per cent in deprived areas, and 42 per cent had participated in community-based groups in the affluent areas but just 18 per cent in the deprived areas. This indicates not only the higher level of participation in both formal and informal community self-help in affluent areas, but also the existence of a more informal participatory culture in deprived localities and how formal engagement is a relatively foreign form of engagement for most people living in such areas.

The value of this survey, however, is that it investigates a wider array of forms of community self-help and how they vary socio-spatially. Starting with the spatial variations, Table 2 shows that in deprived localities, although participation in unpaid engagement in community-based groups and one-to-one aid is higher in more affluent localities (in both the rural and urban areas), reinforcing previous national government surveys, those in deprived communities engage to a greater extent in below-the-radar forms of participation in community-based groups (e.g., caring for groups of children without registering to do so) and in favours for kin, friends, neighbours and acquaintances that are reimbursed with gifts, in-kind labour or money. People living in affluent localities therefore do not have higher participation rates in all forms of community self-help. Their participation rates are greater in unpaid and legitimate forms of community self-help. People living in deprived localities, meanwhile, have higher participation rates in reimbursed (in terms of gifts, in-kind labour or money) and ‘below-the-radar’ forms of engagement. Until now, this has gone largely unnoticed because the concentration has been near enough solely on unpaid and legitimate forms of community self-help in the literature.

Table 2

Participation rates in different types of community self-help: by locality type

Notes: Statistical significance: * = 0.05 (5% probability), ** = 0.01 (1%) and *** = 0.001 (0.1%).

Source: author's English Localities Survey.

Turning to how participation in community self-help varies according to household gross income, Table 3 reveals that those living in households in the highest income quartile engage in greater amounts of both unpaid and legitimate kinds of community self-help, whilst those living in the lowest income quartile of households tend to engage to a greater extent in both reimbursed forms of community self-help and beneath-the-radar kinds of activity in community-based groups.

Table 3

Participation rates in community self-help: by household income

Notes: Statistical significance: * = 0.05 (5% probability), ** = 0.01 (1%) and *** = 0.001 (0.1%).

Source: author's English Localities Survey.

Deprived communities also more heavily rely on community self-help in their overall coping practices. Table 4 examines the labour practices last used to conduct forty-four common domestic service tasks in different localities. It reveals how households in deprived communities rely more heavily both on formal unpaid community self-help in groups, below-the-radar unpaid community self-help in groups and one-to-one unpaid aid, as well as reimbursed favours, to get tasks completed than households in affluent areas. The implication is that even if participation in community self-help is higher in affluent areas, people in deprived communities rely more on such activity for material support in getting everyday domestic services completed than those living in affluent areas.

Table 4

Use of community self-help in household coping practices: by locality type

Notes: p < 0.05 (5% probability) in all cases leading us to reject H_o within a 99.5 per cent confidence interval that there are no spatial variations in the sources of labour used.

Source: author's English Localities Survey.

It is similarly the case, as Table 5 reveals, that households in the higher-income quartiles rely more on monetised exchange than those in lower-income quartiles. They are also more likely to draw upon formal employment and paid informal labour, whilst lower-income households depend more on self-provisioning, unpaid one-to-one aid, below-the-radar group activity and reimbursed favours to get tasks completed.

Table 5

Use of community self-help in household coping practices: by household income

Notes: p < 0.05 (5% probability) in all cases leading us to reject H_o within a 99.5 per cent confidence interval that there are no variations in the sources of labour used by household income.

Source: author's English Localities Survey.

Socio-spatial variations exist not just in the different work cultures adopted but also in terms of the nature of each labour practice. Across populations, each and every labour practice varies both in terms of its prevalence as well as the work relations and motives involved. To begin to understand this, the five different kinds of community self-help are now evaluated in turn.