100 Resilient Cities: From a Philanthropic Project to a Global Movement

• In Event: NGOs, Community Networks, and Policy Advocacy

Abstract

Classical research considers philanthropic foundations as providers of tangible and intangible resources to existing social movements. Previous studies have demonstrated that philanthropic foundations shape the development of social movements through the building of new “organizational fields” (Bartley 2007). Following this line of thought, the present study reflects on the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in urban governance and its 100 Resilient Cities program launched in 2013. We consider the evolution of this philanthropic project into a global social movement. With a view to the most recent research on philanthropy and environmental governance (Betsill et al. 2021), urban resilience and urban governance (Fuentenebro and Acuto 2021) our study demonstrates how philanthropic programs evolve beyond donors’ leadership. We suggest that the Resilient Cities Network as a global social movement increases the legitimacy of the novel urban resilience approach suggested by the Rockefeller Foundation since it reduces the influence of one powerful donor and facilitates exchange and cooperation among cities. Originally, Rockefeller’s 100 Resilient Cities Program (2013 - 2019) intended to help cities around the world to become more resilient to the many physical, social, and economic challenges. Therefore, participation of the cities aimed at the development of new approaches to urban resilience. Rockefeller offered a novel framework of resilience thinking and developing proactive strategies that relied not only on reaction to natural hazards but involved also the social dimension of urban resilience. Our study explores in particular the emergence and further development of the Resilient Cities Network after the official funding ended more or less suddenly. This network consists of former member cities and Chief Resilience Officers from the program. Empirically, our study relies mainly on semi-structured interviews with CRO from different cities. The majority of respondents agreed that the program made the following contributions: (1) Agenda-setting for new approaches to building urban resilience; (2) Development of knowledge and support networks among different stakeholders; (3) Resource provision and material support. Moreover, the interviewees highlighted the emergence of the Resilient Cities Network as one of the most important outcomes of the program. Project participants repeatedly emphasized the pivotal role of networks for experts on urban planning and development. They suggested that a crucial role of Rockefeller was related to bringing “brilliant” like-minded people together and to facilitate the exchange between cities with similar issues and interests. Notwithstanding these merits, our analysis shows that the development of the Resilient Cities Network was a rather unintended outcome of this global philanthropic effort. Although the program aimed at sharing best practices between cities, the creation of a permanent “alumnae network” was neither proclaimed as a goal of the program nor particularly strongly promoted. Nowadays, the Resilient Cities Network can be seen as a nucleus of a new global social movement that yields lasting effects on urban governance. Our study adds telling aspects to our understanding of the role of global philanthropy in relation to social movements and urban governance. The future structure and development of the Global Resilient Cities Network is open, of course. Our research, however, suggests that the Network as a global social movement can increase the wider acceptance of new urban resilience thinking. The network will very likely navigate new forms of urban governance. Thereby, the Resilient Cities Network both strengthens the voices of local decision-makers and experts, and facilitates exchange and cooperation among cities. The interviews strongly support the idea, that the diversification of funding sources had a crucial impact on the development of the Network. Simultaneously however, criticism is also expressed that this global movement for urban resilience needs deeper roots in the cities and a stronger involvement of city representatives.

Authors

• Galina Selivanova, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn

• Pascal Goeke, Private University of Education, Diocese Linz