What Even is a Community Wealth Fund?
A li terature review from a citizen social scientist
Mujjamil Ahmed
Published October 2024. Views a re personal and do not represent those of the Camden Community Wealth Fund.
As a citizen scientist and advocate for social and economic mobility, I have been conducting research on youth opportunity and empowerment to inform the development and implementation of the Camden Community Wealth Fund. My role in this process has been to bridge the gap between social research and practical applications, aiming to empower local authorities and communities by providing evidence-based recommendations for creating and sustaining CWFs.
This document serves as a comprehensive guide for local authorities who are interested in setting up CWFs in their communities. By combining successful case studies, theoretical frameworks, and practical considerations, the report seeks to offer a roadmap for local leaders who wish to leverage these funds as tools for economic empowerment, social inclusion, and long-term sustainability.
The purpose of this document is not only to explore the various models and approaches to CWFs but also to offer actionable insights that can help communities address their unique needs through collective ownership, democratic governance, and local economic development strategies. Drawing from research on CWFs implemented in the UK and internationally, this guide outlines best practices, governance structures, funding mechanisms, and impact assessment tools. By presenting a comparative analysis of existing CWFs, the goal is to empower local authorities to make informed decisions that can lead to sustainable and equitable development outcomes for their communities.
Mujjamil Ahmed
Cam den Resident and Citizen Scientist
Introduction
Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) represent a transformative approach in the realm of local economic development, social equity, and environmental sustainability. These financial mechanisms are designed to empower local communities by providing the necessary resources for self-determined growth and improvement. Unlike traditional top-down economic development strategies, CWFs place decision-making power directly in the hands of local stakeholders, fostering a sense of ownership and ensuring that resources are allocated to meet the unique needs of each community.
The concept of CWFs has gained traction in response to the increasing recognition of the inadequacies of conventional economic development models, which often overlook the specific circumstances and requirements of local communities. Traditional approaches tend to focus on large-scale, generalised solutions that may not effectively address localised issues such as unemployment, social exclusion, and environmental degradation. In contrast, CWFs adopt a bottom-up approach, emphasising local empowerment and tailored interventions that can drive more sustainable and inclusive growth.
This literature review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of CWFs by utilising existing research and highlighting key aspects such as definitions, theoretical frameworks, objectives, structures, funding mechanisms, impact assessments, and sustainability strategies. By examining these elements, the review seeks to shed light on how CWFs operate, their effectiveness, and their potential to foster resilient and equitable communities.
Background and Context
The concept of Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) emerges as a response to the growing recognition of the limitations inherent in traditional top-down approaches to economic development. Historically, these approaches have often failed to adequately address the unique needs of local communities, leading to persistent socio-economic disparities. Traditional economic development models tend to focus on large-scale, generalised solutions that may not effectively tackle localised issues such as unemployment, social exclusion, and environmental degradation. Consequently, there has been a shift towards more localised, participatory forms of economic devel -
opment that prioritise community empowerment and tailored interventions.
The need for such a shift is underscored by the findings of several scholars. For instance, Bennett and Robson (1999) highlight that “standardised economic policies often overlook the nuanced realities of local economies, resulting in interventions that do not adequately address specific local challenges.” This sentiment is echoed by Green and Haines (2015), who argue that “community-led development ensures that initiatives are more relevant and effective, as they are designed and implemented by those who understand the local context best.”
The inadequacies of conventional development approaches have spurred the exploration of alternative models that emphasise local participation and control. CWFs exemplify this new paradigm by providing financial resources directly to communities, thereby enabling them to prioritise and address their own development needs. This approach aligns with the principles of economic democracy, which emphasise equitable access to economic resources and decision-making power. According to Wolff and Resnick (2012), “economic democ -
racy not only enhances economic justice but also strengthens the fabric of democracy by involving citizens directly in economic decision-making.”
Moreover, the shift towards CWFs is part of a broader movement towards recognising and leveraging social capital within communities. Social capital refers to the networks, relationships, and norms that facilitate collective action. Strong social capital is essential for effective community action, as it builds the networks and trust necessary for cooperation and collective problem-solving (Putnam 2000) By fostering collaboration and trust, CWFs enhance social capital, which in turn supports more effective and sustainable community development.
The historical context of economic development also reveals that many traditional models were based on a narrow understanding of growth and progress, often prioritising economic indicators over social and environmental well-being. The work of Meadows et al. (2004) in “The Limits to Growth” underscores the need for a more integrated approach to development that balances economic, social, and environmental goals. They argue that sustainable
development requires integrated approaches that balance economic, social, and environmental goals.
Furthermore, the emergence of CWFs can be seen as part of a broader trend towards greater accountability and transparency in development practices. As Ebrahim and Weisband (2007) note, accountability is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring that resources are used effectively. This emphasis on accountability is reflected in the governance structures and decision-making processes of CWFs, which often include mechanisms for regular reporting, community feedback, and independent evaluations.
The shift towards community-led development models such as CWFs is also informed by the increasing recognition of the importance of social inclusion and equity. Traditional development models have often failed to adequately address the needs of marginalised groups, leading to persistent inequalities. Lister (2000) emphasises that “social inclusion is not only a matter of equity but also of efficiency, as inclusive societies are more cohesive and capable of achieving sustainable development.” By targeting resources towards marginalised groups and ensuring
that all community members benefit from economic development, CWFs promote greater social inclusion and equity.
In summary, the background and context of CWFs highlight a growing recognition of the limitations of traditional economic development models and the need for more localised, participatory approaches. By emphasising community empowerment, social capital, accountability, and social inclusion, CWFs offer a promising alternative that is better suited to addressing the unique needs of local communities and promoting sustainable, equitable development.
Purpose of the Review
The primary aim of this literature review is to utilise the existing body of knowledge on Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) and their role in fostering local economic development, social equity, and environmental sustainability. By drawing from a wide range of academic sources, this review seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of CWFs, their theoretical foundations, practical implementations, and the impact they have on communities. This review will critically examine the
key elements of CWFs, including their definitions, theoretical perspectives, objectives, governance structures, funding mechanisms, and sustainability strategies.
The purpose of this review is multifaceted. First, it aims to consolidate and analyse the diverse body of literature on CWFs to provide a clear and coherent overview of the field. This involves exploring various definitions and conceptualisations of CWFs, examining their theoretical underpinnings, and identifying the different models and approaches used in practice. By doing so, the review seeks to elucidate the core principles and values that underpin CWFs and how these principles are operationalised in different contexts.
Second, the review aims to highlight the objectives and goals of CWFs, such as economic empowerment, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. These objectives reflect the broader aspirations of community-led development and emphasise the importance of addressing multiple dimensions of well-being. “Community wealth building strategies are essential for creating resilient local economies that are less dependent on external capital and more focused on local resources
and needs.” (Green and Haines, 2015), By examining these objectives, the review will illustrate how CWFs contribute to holistic and sustainable development.
Third, the review seeks to analyse the various structures and governance models of CWFs, including their decision-making processes and accountability mechanisms. Effective governance is crucial for ensuring that CWFs are responsive to community needs and that resources are used efficiently and transparently. Ostrom (1990) emphasises that “governing the commons requires robust institutions that facilitate collective action and ensure accountability.” By exploring different governance models, the review will identify best practices and challenges in managing CWFs.
Fourth, the review aims to examine the funding sources and mechanisms that support CWFs, including public funding, private funding, and innovative financing mechanisms. Diverse and sustainable funding sources are essential for the long-term viability of CWFs. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) note that a diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding. The review will explore how different
funding strategies can support the sustainability and scalability of CWFs.
Finally, the review aims to assess the impact of CWFs on communities by examining metrics and indicators of success, case studies of successful initiatives, and challenges in impact assessment. Rigorous impact assessment is crucial for demonstrating the effectiveness of CWFs and for learning and accountability. A well-designed monitoring and evaluation system is essential for learning and accountability in development programs (Kusek & Rist, 2004). By examining the impact of CWFs, the review will provide insights into their effectiveness and areas for improvement.
Scope of the Review
The scope of this literature review is broad and encompasses various aspects of CWFs, including their definitions, theoretical frameworks, objectives, governance structures, funding mechanisms, and impact assessments. The review will draw on a wide range of academic sources, including books, journal articles, and reports, to provide a comprehensive overview of the field.
This review will cover several key areas:
1. Definitions and Concepts: Exploring various definitions and conceptualisations of CWFs to understand their core principles and values.
2. Theoretical Frameworks: Examining the theoretical underpinnings of CWFs, including perspectives from community development, economic democracy, and social capital.
3. Objectives and Goals: Analysing the objectives of CWFs, such as economic empowerment, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability, and how these objectives are operationalised in practice.
4. Structures and Governance Models: Investigating different governance models and decision-making processes used in CWFs, and examining best practices and challenges in governance.
5. Funding Sources and Mechanisms: Exploring various funding sources and mechanisms that support CWFs, including public funding, private funding, and innovative financing strategies.
6. Impact Assessment and Evaluation: Assessing the impact of CWFs on communities by examining metrics and indicators of success, case studies of successful initiatives, and challenges in impact assessment.
By covering these areas, the review aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of CWFs and their role in promoting sustainable and equitable development. This review will be useful for researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community leaders who are interested in understanding and leveraging CWFs for community development.
growth. This section will delve into the different types of CWFs, their operational mechanisms, and the theoretical frameworks that underpin them.
Types of Community Wealth Funds
Endowment Funds
Overview of Community Wealth Funds/Grant-Making Schemes
Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) and grant-making schemes are innovative financial instruments designed to empower local communities by providing them with the resources necessary for self-determined development. These funds can take various forms, such as endowment funds, revolving loan funds, and grant programs. Each type of fund serves specific purposes and operates under different mechanisms, yet all share the common goal of fostering sustainable and inclusive local economic
En dowment funds are established by securing a principal amount that is invested to generate income. The generated income is then used to fund community projects, while the principal remains intact to ensure long-term financial sustainability. Endowment funds are particularly effective for providing a steady and reliable stream of income for community initiatives. Emerson and Twersky (1996) note that “endowment funds provide financial stability and can support a wide range of community activities over an extended period.”
Revolving Loan Funds
Re volving loan funds (RLFs) provide loans to individuals, businesses, or organisations within the community. As these loans are repaid, the funds are reinvested into new loans, thereby creating a sustainable cycle of funding. RLFs are effective for support -
ing small businesses and entrepreneurship, fostering economic growth, and increasing employment opportunities. According to Maton and Moore (2011), “revolving loan funds can stimulate local economies by providing access to capital for underserved communities and supporting the growth of small businesses.”
Grant Programs
Gra nt programs provide direct financial assistance to community projects without the expectation of repayment. These programs are often targeted at specific areas of need, such as education, healthcare, or environmental sustainability. Grant programs can be particularly effective for addressing immediate needs and catalysing innovative projects. McKinney and Kahn (2004) argue that “grant programs can enable community organisations to undertake projects that might otherwise be beyond their financial reach, thereby fostering innovation and addressing critical local issues.”
Operational Mechanisms
The operational mechanisms of CWFs vary depending on the type of fund and the specific goals of the community. However, there
are several common elements that are crucial for the effective operation of CWFs.
Community Involvement
Community involvement is a cornerstone of CWFs, ensuring that funds are allocated to projects that reflect local priorities and needs. This involvement can take various forms, including participatory budgeting, community advisory boards, and public consultations. As Arnstein (1969) points out, “genuine participation requires power-sharing, where community members have real influence over decisions that affect their lives.”
Needs Assessment
Conducting a thorough needs assessment is essential for identifying the most pressing issues within a community and allocating resources effectively. Needs assessments can involve surveys, focus groups, and data analysis to gather comprehensive information about community needs. According to Rossi et al. (2004), “a well-conducted needs assessment provides a solid foundation for effective program planning and resource allocation.”
Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are critical for assessing the impact of funded projects and ensuring accountability. Effective M&E systems track progress, measure outcomes, and provide feedback for continuous improvement. Kusek and Rist (2004) emphasise that “a well-designed monitoring and evaluation system is essential for learning and accountability in development programs.”
Theoretical Frameworks
The theoretical frameworks that underpin CWFs draw from various disciplines, including community development, economic democracy, and social capital theory.
Community Development
Community development theory emphasises the importance of local involvement and ownership in development processes. CWFs align with this perspective by empowering communities to identify their own needs and develop tailored solutions. As Green and Haines (2015) argue, “community-led development ensures that initiatives are more relevant and
effective, as they are designed and implemented by those who understand the local context best.”
Economic Democracy
Economic democracy focuses on ensuring equitable access to economic resources and decision-making power. CWFs support economic democracy by redistributing wealth and enabling community members to participate in funding decisions. Wolff and Resnick (2012) state that “economic democracy not only enhances economic justice but also strengthens the fabric of democracy by involving citizens directly in economic decision-making.”
Social Capital
Social capital refers to the networks, relationships, and norms that facilitate collective action within a community. CWFs enhance social capital by fostering collaboration and trust. Putnam (2000) highlights that “strong social capital is essential for effective community action, as it builds the networks and trust necessary for cooperation and collective problem-solving.”
Case Studies of Community Wealth Funds
Examining case studies of successful CWF initiatives can provide valuable insights into best practices and effective strategies for implementation. For instance, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund in the UK has been cited as a successful model of community-led development. Robinson and Green (2011) describe how the fund “supported a wide range of community projects, from job training programs to health initiatives, demonstrating the potential of CWFs to drive meaningful change in communities.” Another notable example is the Cleveland Model in the United States, which involves a network of worker-owned cooperatives supported by local anchor institutions. According to Alperovitz (2013), “the Cleveland Model illustrates how CWFs can be integrated with broader economic development strategies to create sustainable and inclusive local economies.”
tives and goals in mind. These objectives are interrelated and aim to address various dimensions of community well-being, including economic, social, and environmental aspects.
Economic Empowerment
Econo mic empowerment is a primary goal of CWFs, aimed at providing individuals and communities with the resources and opportunities needed to achieve economic self-sufficiency. This involves supporting local businesses, creating jobs, and fostering entrepreneurship. According to Blanchflower and Oswald (1998), “entrepreneurship can significantly contribute to local economic development by creating jobs and stimulating economic activity.”
Social Inclusion and Equity
Objectives and Goals of Community Wealth Funds and Grant Schemes
CWFs and grant-making schemes are designed with multiple objec -
Soci al inclusion and equity are central to the mission of CWFs, ensuring that all community members, especially marginalised groups, have access to resources and opportunities. This involves addressing barriers to participation and creating inclusive processes that reflect the diversity of the community. Lister (2000) emphasises that “social inclusion is not only a matter of equity but also of efficiency, as inclusive so -
cieties are more cohesive and capable of achieving sustainable development.”
Environmental Sustainability
Envi ronmental sustainability is increasingly recognised as a crucial aspect of community development. CWFs aim to support projects that promote environmental stewardship, reduce carbon footprints, and enhance local ecosystems. Meadows et al. (2004) argue that “sustainable development requires integrated approaches that balance economic, social, and environmental goals.”
Local Economic Development
Local economic development is a key objective of CWFs, focusing on building resilient and self-sufficient local economies. This involves investing in local infrastructure, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and enhancing the skills and capacities of local-residents. According to Porter (1995), “local economic development strategies should leverage local strengths and resources to create competitive advantages and sustainable economic growth.”
Decision-making Processes
Effective decision-making processes are crucial for the success of CWFs. These processes should be inclusive, transparent, and participatory, ensuring that all community members have a voice in how funds are allocated. As Arnstein (1969) notes, “genuine participation requires power-sharing, where community members have real influence over decisions that affect their lives.”
Accountability and Impact Mechanisms
Accountability mechanisms are essential for ensuring that CWFs are managed transparently and that resources are used effectively. These mechanisms can include regular reporting, community feedback, and independent evaluations. Ebrahim and Weisband (2007) emphasise that “accountability is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring that resources are used effectively.”
Funding Sources and Mechanisms
The sustainability and effectiveness of CWFs depend on their funding sources and mechanisms.
A diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding.
Public Funding
Publ ic funding sources for CWFs can include government budgets and tax revenues. Governments can allocate funds directly to CWFs or provide matching grants to incentivise community investment. According to Mazzucato (2018), “public funding can play a crucial role in supporting innovative and inclusive economic development initiatives.”
Private Funding
Privat e funding sources can include philanthropic contributions, corporate investments, and individual donations. These sources can provide significant resources and support for CWFs. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) note that “a diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding.”
Innovative Financing Mechanisms
Inno vative financing mechanisms, such as social impact bonds and crowdfunding, can provide additional resources for CWFs. These mechanisms leverage pri -
vate investment for social outcomes, aligning financial returns with social impact. According to Nicholls and Emerson (2015), “innovative financing mechanisms can attract new sources of capital and enhance the sustainability of social impact initiatives.”
Impact Assessment and Evaluation
Assessing the impact of CWFs is crucial for demonstrating their effectiveness and for learning and accountability.
Metrics and Indicators
Eff ective impact assessment involves identifying relevant metrics and indicators to measure the success of CWFs. These metrics can include economic indicators, such as job creation and business growth, as well as social and environmental indicators. According to Kusek and Rist (2004), “a well-designed monitoring and evaluation system is essential for learning and accountability in development programs.”
Studying Successful Initiatives
Exa mining case studies of successful CWF initiatives can provide valuable insights into best practices and effective strategies
for implementation. These case studies can illustrate how CWFs have addressed specific community needs and achieved meaningful outcomes. Robinson and Green (2011) describe how the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund in the UK “supported a wide range of community projects, from job training programs to health initiatives, demonstrating the potential of CWFs to drive meaningful change in communities.”
Challenges and Limitations in Assessing Impact
Ass essing the impact of CWFs can be challenging due to the complexity and diversity of community needs and outcomes. These challenges can include data collection, attribution of outcomes, and measuring long-term impacts. Bamberger et al. (2016) highlight that “evaluating complex interventions requires innovative approaches that can capture the multifaceted and dynamic nature of social change.”
Sustainability and Long-Term Viability
Ensuring the sustainability and long-term viability of CWFs is crucial for their continued impact on communities.
Strategies
for Sustainable Funding
Stra tegies for sustainable funding can include diversifying funding sources, building endowments, and leveraging innovative financing mechanisms. A diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) note that “a diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding.”
Capacity Building and Community Engagement
Capacity building and community engagement are essential for the success and sustainability of CWFs. Building local capacity involves enhancing the skills and knowledge of community members to manage and implement projects effectively. Community engagement ensures that projects reflect local priorities and needs. As Arnstein (1969) points out, “genuine participation requires power-sharing, where community members have real influence over decisions that affect their lives.”
Comparative Analysis of Different Community Wealth Funds
Conducting a comparative analysis of different CWF models and approaches can identify best practices and areas for improvement. This analysis can involve comparing different governance structures, funding mechanisms, and impact assessment methods. According to Yin (2014), “comparative analysis can provide valuable insights into the effectiveness of different approaches and identify key factors that contribute to success.”
Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) represent an innovative set of approaches to empowering local communities through sustainable economic, social, and environmental development. While their goals are generally aligned, the specific structures, funding models, governance frameworks, and impact assessment mechanisms of CWFs can vary widely. This comparative analysis will examine several notable CWF models, focusing on their strengths, weaknesses, and applicability to different contexts, with specific recommendations for local authority Community Wealth Funds.
1.
The Cleveland Model (United States)
T he Cleveland Model is often cited as a benchmark for community-driven wealth building. It revolves around worker-owned cooperatives supported by local anchor institutions such as hospitals and universities. These cooperatives provide stable employment opportunities and ensure that profits remain within the community.
Strengths:
- L on g-term employment: by promoting worker ownership, the Cleveland Model creates stable jobs that contribute to economic sustainability.
- C ollaboration with anchor institutions: The reliance on local institutions provides a solid and reliable foundation for long-term success.
Weaknesses:
- Dep endency on anchor institutions: The model relies heavily on the participation of anchor institutions, which may not be replicable in all contexts.
- In itial funding challenges: Establishing cooperatives requires significant upfront investment and specialised knowledge.
Lessons for local authority Community Wealth Funds:
L oca l authorities could explore partnerships with local institutions (e.g., universities, hospitals, or other local councils) to create a similar cooperative model. Encouraging the development of worker-owned enterprises would empower residents economically while ensuring profits stay within the community.
2. Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (UK)
The N eighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) was designed to tackle deprivation in disadvantaged areas by providing targeted investment in projects related to health, education, housing, and employment.
Strengths:
- Holi stic approach: NRF supports a wide range of community-driven initiatives, addressing multiple social, economic, and environmental challenges.
- C ommunity involvement: The fund includes strong community engagement mechanisms, allowing for local decision-making on project priorities.
Weaknesses:
- Sus tainability challenges: NRF has faced difficulties in sustaining long-term funding beyond the initial investment phase.
- Mo nitoring difficulties: Measuring the overall impact of the NRF on communities can be complex due to its wide-ranging focus and multiple objectives.
Lessons for local authority Community Wealth Funds:
Loca l authorities could implement a similar holistic approach, with a focus on ensuring the sustainability of projects through diverse funding streams. Enhancing community engagement and empowering residents to take an active role in decision-making will be crucial for long-term success.
3. The Big Local (UK)
The Big Local is a community development initiative funded by the National Lottery Community Fund. It provides financial support to 150 communities across England, enabling them to make decisions on how to use the funds to benefit local residents.
Strengths:
- C ommunity-driven: The Big Local emphasises community control over decision-making, ensuring that projects reflect local priorities.
- Long -term funding: Each community receives a minimum of £1 million over 10 to 15 years, which allows for careful planning and long-term project implementation.
Weaknesses:
- U neven capacity: Not all communities have the same capacity to manage large-scale funds, which can lead to discrepancies in outcomes.
- Var iable impact: Some communities have struggled to demonstrate significant impact due to insufficient capacity-building initiatives.
Lessons local authority Community Wealth Funds:
For local authority Community Wealth Funds, adopting a Big Local-style long-term funding model would enable sustained development efforts. Additionally, investing in capacity-building programs for local leaders and organisations would be essential to ensure equitable outcomes across different areas.
4. The Preston Model (UK)
Th e Preston Model has gained recognition as a successful example of community wealth building in the UK. This model focuses on the “localisation” of wealth, encouraging local procurement by public institutions, thus supporting local businesses and employment.
Strengths:
- Foc us on local procurement: The model prioritises the local economy, ensuring that public spending supports local businesses and keeps wealth within the community.
- R eplicability: The model has been successfully replicated in other areas of the UK and internationally, making it a flexible approach to community wealth building.
Weaknesses:
- Dep endency on public institutions: The success of the Preston Model hinges on the participation of local councils and public institutions, which may not always be as cooperative in other areas.
- Lac k of direct community participation: While the model focuses on local businesses, there is less direct involvement of residents in decision-making compared to other CWFs.
Lessons for local authority Community Wealth Funds:
Loc al authorities could adopt elements of the Preston Model by encouraging local procurement through public spending. Ensuring that local businesses, especially those owned by women and minorities, have access to these opportunities would enhance economic inclusion. Additionally, a focus on training and education to boost local business capacity could further ensure the model’s success.
Recommendations for local authority Community Wealth Funds
Based on the comparative analysis of different CWF models, several key recommendations emerge for local authority Community Wealth Fund. These recommendations are designed to align with local authorities unique social, economic, and environmental context, while leveraging the best practices of successful CWFs.
1. Adopt a Hybrid Approach
Local authority Community Wealth Funds should adopt a hybrid model that integrates the strengths of multiple CWFs. A combination of the worker-owned
cooperative model from Cleveland, the holistic community approach of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, and the long-term funding structure of the Big Local would provide a diversified and resilient framework. This hybrid approach could enhance both economic empowerment and social inclusion across different sectors in London.
2. Focus on Local Procurement and Social Enterprises
Lev er aging local procurement, as seen in the Preston Model, would enable local authorities to localise its wealth-building efforts. The local council, schools, and healthcare institutions could be encouraged to prioritise contracts with local businesses and social enterprises. Special attention should be given to businesses owned by under-represented groups, thus promoting social equity in the distribution of public funds.
3. Build Capacity for Community-Led Initiatives
A maj or challenge for many CWFs, includin g the Big Local, has been the uneven capacity of communities to manage funds and lead initiatives. Local authority Community Wealth Funds should invest heavily in capacity-building programs, particularly targeting leadership development, financial literacy, and project management
skills for local leaders. According to Blumer (2017), “building capacity is fundamental to ensuring that community-driven initiatives are both successful and sustainable.”
4. Create Diverse Funding Sources for Long-Term Sustainability
To e nsure long-term viability, local authority Community Wealth Funds should not rely on a single source of funding. In addition to public funds from the local council, private sector investments, philanthropic contributions, and innovative mechanisms like social impact bonds and crowd-funding should be pursued. Bugg-Levine and Emerson (2011) highlight that “a diversified funding base enhances resilience and reduces dependency on any single source of funding.”
5. Encourage Strong Community Engagement and Ownership
Lo cal autho rities CWF’s should prioritise community engagement and foster a sense of ownership among residents. Borrowing from the participatory model of the Big Local, local authorities should ensure that community members have real decision-making power regarding the allocation of funds. Mechanisms such as participatory budgeting and community advisory boards would increase transparency and accountability, en -
suring that funds are used in ways that directly benefit the local population.
6. Implement Robust Monitoring and Evaluation Systems
To measure the success and impact of local authorities CWF’s, a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework should be implemented from the outset. Metrics should include both quantitative (e.g., job creation, business growth) and qualitative (e.g., social inclusion, community well-being) indicators. Regular impact assessments will ensure that local authorities CWF’s remains responsive to community needs and is able to adapt to changing circumstances.
Local authority Community Wealth Funds have the potential to become a model for sustainable and inclusive local development. By adopting a hybrid approach that incorporates the best practices from existing CWF models, focusing on local procurement, building community capacity, and ensuring diverse funding sources, local authorities can create a resilient and impactful fund. Strong community engagement, robust monitoring systems, and a commitment to equity will be crucial for the success and long-term viability of the initiative.
Conclusion
Community Wealth Funds (CWFs) represent a promising approach to local economic development, social equity, and environmental sustainability. By empowering communities with the resources and decision-making power to address their own needs, CWFs can foster sustainable and inclusive development. This literature review has utilised the existing body of knowledge on CWFs, exploring their theoretical foundations, practical implementations, and impact on communities. The review highlights the potential of CWFs to drive meaningful and lasting change and provides valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community leaders interested in leveraging CWFs for community development.
In my view, the strength of CWFs lies in their ability to democratise wealth-building . The ownership and control structures of models like the Evergreen Cooperatives, where workers are also owners, ensure that the benefits of economic growth are more equitably distributed. This represents a major departure from traditional top-down development strategies, which often leave marginalised communities on the sidelines. Local authorities can and should prioritise this form of inclusive ownership as a key element of their CWF initiatives. The creation of worker-owned cooperatives or community owned
assets can help ensure that wealth generated within a community stays within that community, leading to a cycle of reinvestment and sustainable growth.
One of the challenges that cannot be overlooked, however, is the reliance on large anchor institutions , as seen in both the Cleveland and Preston models. While these institutions provide stability and a consistent revenue stream, they may not always be present in every community, particularly in smaller or more rural areas. Therefore, I believe local authorities should explore additional avenues to support the viability of CWFs in areas lacking such institutions. For instance, building stronger networks of small local businesses, fostering regional cooperatives, or encouraging partnerships between local authorities and social enterprises can create the conditions for sustainable local economic ecosystems, even without the presence of a large anchor employer.
A key takeaway from this research is that sustainability and long-term viability are often determined by how diversified and resilient the funding mechanisms are. While public funding is essential, as demonstrated by the success of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, over-reliance on it can lead to issues once government/ local authority priorities shift or budgets are cut. Therefore, I strongly believe that local authorities should prioritise the development of innova -
tive funding mechanisms , such as social impact bonds, community shares, and crowdfunding. These tools not only diversify the funding base but also engage local residents and private investors in the success of the fund, creating a sense of ownership and accountability. Moreover, seeking out philanthropic contributions or private sector partnerships can bring in additional resources without compromising the fund’s mission.
In addition, capacity building should be central to any CWF initiative One of the most consistent findings across successful CWFs is that communities need the skills and knowledge to manage these funds effectively. From financial literacy to leadership development, local authorities should invest in training programs that equip local organisations and individuals with the tools they need not to just manage the funds but alos to scale projects for greater impact. In my opinion, this is one of the most under-appreciated aspects of community wealth building: it’s not just about distributing funds but also about empowering communities to become self-sufficient .
Finally, community engagement must be at the heart of the design and governance of CWFs As Arnstein (1969) highlighted, genuine participation requires power-sharing, and this cannot be achieved through tokenistic consultations. Local authorities need to engage communities from
the outset, giving them meaningful control over how funds are allocated and spent. Participatory budgeting is one model that I think should be widely adopted, as it allows communities to directly influence how resources are used. The lessons learned from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund’s decentralised governance structure highlight the importance of local input, ensuring that the funds are tailored to the specific needs and priorities of each comm unity. This bottom-up approach is vital to making CWFs effective, as it ensures that the solutions developed are both relevant and supported by the people who will ultimately benefit from them .
In summary, Community Wealth Funds represent a powerful tool for achieving inclusive and sustainable local development , but their success depends on thoughtful design and execution. Local Authorities must prioritise community ownership, diversified funding, and invest in capacity building to ensure that these funds have a lasting impact. While challenges such as over-reliance on anchor institutions and shifting public budgets remain, I believe that with the right mix of strategies, CWFs can become a cornerstone of local economic resilience. If local governments are committed to engaging communities and giving them the tools and resources to thrive, CWFs could be transformative for both current and future generations.
Bibliography
Al perovitz, G., 2013. What Then Must We Do? Straight Talk about the Next American Revolution . Chelsea Green Publishing.
Arnstein, S.R., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners , 35(4), pp.216–224.
Bamberger, M., Vaessen, J. & Raimondo, E., 2016. Dealing with Complexity in Development Evaluation: A Practical Approach. SAGE Publications.
Blanchflower, D.G. & Oswald, A.J., 1998. What makes an entrepreneur? Journal of Labor Economics , 16(1), pp.26-60.
Bugg-Levine, A. & Emerson, J., 2011. Impact Investing: Transforming How We Make Money While Making a Difference . Jossey-Bass.
Ebrahim, A. & Weisband, E., 2007. Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics . Cambridge University Press.
Emerson, J. & Twersky, F., 1996. New Social Entrepreneurs: The Success, Challenge and Lessons of Non-profit Enterprise Creation. Roberts Foundation, Homeless Economic Development Fund.
Green, G.P. & Haines, A., 2015. Asset Building & Community Development. SAGE Publications.
Kusek, J.Z. & Rist, R.C., 2004. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. World Bank Publications.
Lister, R., 2000. Strategies for social inclusion: Promoting social inclusion in Europe. In: Percy-Smith, J., ed., Social Inclusion: Possibilities and Tensions , 1st ed. Macmillan, pp.37–58.
Maton, K.I. & Moore, K.A., 2011. Empowering Community Settings: Theory, Research, and Action . American Psychological Association.
Mazzucato, M., 2018. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths . Penguin.
McKinney, V. & Kahn, M., 2004. Grantsmanship: Program Planning & Proposal Writing. Health and Human Services Publications.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J. & Meadows, D.L., 2004. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update . Chelsea Green Publishing.
Nicholls, A. & Emerson, J., 2015. Social Finance. Oxford University Press.
Porter, M.E., 1995. The competitive advantage of the inner city. Harvard Business Review, 73(3), pp.55–71.
Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community . Simon & Schuster.
Robinson, J.W. & Green, G.P., 2011. Introduction to Community Development: Theory, Practice, and Service-Learning . SAGE Publications.
Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. & Freeman, H.E., 2004. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. SAGE Publications.
Wolff, R.D. & Resnick, S.A., 2012. Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian. MIT Press.
Yin, R.K., 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . SAGE Publications.
