Who and why: Los Angeles' neighborhood councils and the prevalence of socio -economic status, self -interest, and public interest in civic participation

This dissertation examines who has participated in the early stages of Los Angeles, neighborhood councils and why they have done so through the lense of an inter-disciplinary dialogue between political science and social ethics. Who participates in neighborhood councils determines whose interests are represented in public decisions. Why they participate affects whether the governing process is a competition among selfish interests or balances parochial interests with collective good.;I interviewed fifty neighborhood participants, asking about their backgrounds, experiences with neighborhood councils, and what they hoped to achieve through involvement. I conducted twenty-one interviews with people who had worked with neighborhood councils in some professional capacity. I employed guided, open-ended interviews and text analysis of recorded responses that was partially narrative and partially quantitative.;Characteristics of participants in Los Angeles' neighborhood councils were compared with predictors of participation in Verba, Schlozman and Brady's (1995) Civic Voluntarism Model. Because Verba, et al did not elaborate on motivations, I expanded their “engagement” dimension using categories of self-interest, solidarity, duty, and public-interest described in sociology, ethics, and political philosophy. I also compared my findings about who and why people participate in L.A. neighborhood councils with Berry, Portney, and Thomson's (1993) findings on similar dimensions from their study of neighborhood governance in U.S. cities. My project was not to predict who will participate, but to report the characteristics and motivations of those who do.;The hypothesis was upheld that those participating would be educated, have social advantages, and be active in their communities. The hypothesis that participation would stem solely from self-interest was falsified, finding instead that neighborhood participation, though often initially motivated by personal interest, was also motivated by solidarity, civic duty, and desire to improve the community.;My work does not prove conclusively who participates or what motivates involvement, but it does provide clues to the problems and promise of neighborhood councils. Recruitment to engage non-traditional participants must be expanded if the voices of L.A.'s diverse population are to be heard in local government, and training must be provided to help newcomers to public life gain skills for collaborative and effective participation.