Civic Crowdfunding: a proposal by Alessio Barollo

by Alessio Barollo, architect Daniela Castrataro, twintangibles

The report has been kindly translated by web-translations.com

Introduction................................................................................................................................ 5 1. Origins and Principles of Crowd-funding................................................................................6 1.1 Origins........................................................................................................................6 1.2 Principles....................................................................................................................8 2. Civic crowd-funding platforms, how they work and their trends.............................................9 2.1 How they work........................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Civic crowd-funding models....................................................................................... 9 2.3 Trends........................................................................................................................10 2.4 Platforms....................................................................................................................11 3. Examples of contemporary crowd-funding.............................................................................12 4. Thesis.....................................................................................................................................17 4.1 Conditions.................................................................................................................17 4.2 How it works..............................................................................................................19 4.3 Model........................................................................................................................ 20 5. SWOT Analysis...................................................................................................................... 22 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 23 References................................................................................................................................ 24

(

;

)

Introduction

In this short paper, we aim at presenting both a new type of the wider phenomenon that is crowd-funding,

known

“civic

crowd-funding”,

and

proposal

for

feasible

active

citizenry.

The first aim of this paper is to put forward a feasible use of civic crowd-funding within the national territory [Italy], rather than offering a fruitless analysis of this phenomenon. However, in order to put forward a proposal with solid and factual foundations, we included a rather detailed analysis of this phenomenon. We started from the origins and principles of contemporary civic crowd-funding, and later described the world’s major existing platforms, how they work, the models they follow and the upcoming trends. We only presented a few platforms, both because this phenomenon is new and because of the limited scope of this paper. After a brief overview of projects that used civic crowd-funding, we put forward our proposal, stating the basis and way of operating of a certain model of civic crowd-funding which in our opinion could be reproduced in our country. This way, a process which both addresses the scarcity of capital in local administrations and brings citizens closer to institutions would be created, thus increasing people’s respect for public assets and implementing a model of active citizenry and collective innovation. If this model were put into practice systematically, it could place Italy at the forefront in this sector as regards the possible future developments of civic crowd-funding, making it a model for other countries, especially in Europe. We hope to offer a useful and inspirational read for many to put into practice our theories. Alessio Barollo Daniela Castrataro

origins e

[

]

[

During April 1968, the Computer Graphics in Architecture

making us aware of our ability to partake in the betterment

and Design conference took place at the University of

and renewal of society. The potential of web 2.0 is finally

Yale. Here a group of experts came together in order to

turning into powerful offline collaborations. Applied to urban

assess the changes the use of computers would bring to

planning, this means that citizens can be directly involved

the job of architects. Among the participants were Steven

in the formation of processes, services or real public

Coons, Bruce Graham, Carl Steinitz, David Evans, Nicolas

infrastructures in a coordinated and collaborative way,

Negroponte from MIT, Charles Moore from the University of

whilst being fully aware of having the right tools to do it.

Yale, Louis Kahn, Eric Teicholz from Harvard and Warren

Italy currently has the right infrastructure to be able

McCulloch. After an initial uncertainty, the majority of the

to develop such methods. Civic crowd-sourcing could

participants agreed that computers could become a useful

develop in our national territory into crowd-funding, namely

tool for projects. Not many know this, not even among the

financial crowd-sourcing, which would address the issue

experts, but in those days civic crowd-funding relative to

of scarce public funding. Crowd-funding has existed for

urban planning was being born at Yale, even though it

a few years and has been developing greatly, becoming

acquired this name many years and many megabytes later.

more and more complex and elaborate. Crowd-funding

A new urban development model was born from the minutes

is part of a phenomenon which takes online communities

of the conference: this model also put the environment

offline, turning them into stronger forms of cooperation

and the people at the heart of a project, rather than just

and participation: one of its natural developments

the designer and the physical system he works with.

is the phenomenon known as civic crowd-funding.

Negroponte states that â&#x20AC;&#x153;thanks to new processes, it wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be the architect and his personal and cultural experiences who imposes the project upon the users. Rather, it will be the users themselves, aided by new technologies and machines that turn into a collective mind, who lead the project. This way the project goes definitively from being a product to being a process. People are no longer seen only as end users but rather as sources of ideas. The combination of ideas, innovation and creativity, together with new technologies, results in a horizontal process. Both organisations and groups of private citizens have attempted to involve public administrations in oftneglected collective projects, creating an active planning which is based on the above horizontal structure. We live in a time in which information technologies and social networking have been moulding our minds,

In line with civic crowd-sourcing, civic crowd-funding

of the pedestal which was to support the statue itself.

is defined as the collective financing of public works

The situation stalled until the media tycoon Joseph Pulitzer

and projects, which is not included in the budget of the

raised the publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s awareness through his newspaper: he

relevant governmental bodies or local administrations.

encouraged the citizens to donate in order for the public

It is carried out by citizens, organisations and private

work to be carried out. A hundred thousand dollars was

businesses, which sometimes co-fund the works together

raised in 5 months, collated from 120,000 micro-donations,

with the local authorities themselves. This new model of

thus allowing for the statue to be placed in New York Bay.

distributed microcredit is not really a new practice. Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

There was also another result, which is as important:

go back to the USA, this time to New York: in 1884 the

the

French were about to send the Statue of Liberty to the

attached to this symbol because they had actively

United States, however the American Committee had

contributed to its realisation, actively cooperating with

not allocated all the necessary funds to the construction

the public administration which was managing its use.

local

community

started

feel

particularly

principles g

We can ascribe the origins of modern civic crowd-funding (not

Local communities can encourage collaborations and

contemporary, as it naturally did not make use of the web 2.0)

innovation, bringing online communities offline. If a small

to this short anecdote, as it presents some of its core aspects:

business or a local project is looking for funds, it is unlikely they will find them in the global market. Why should

funds;

someone from Buenos Aires finance a bakery near Rome?

an emotional bond

This is even more obvious if we talk about civic crowd-

with the territory, the local community and the public

funding: there are a lot more opportunities and it is more

good, which comes from projects of a civic nature;

sensible to collect funds for a footbridge in the Rotterdam

a strengthening of bonds in the community

city centre within the local community rather than calling on

and a higher sense of belonging towards public places

the online global community. We are talking about relational

on the citizens’ part, with a consequent heightened

rather than social capital, and small but strong relations that

sense of respect and willingness to preserve them.

form tightly bound communities rather than large networks.

{

}

{

}

scarcity }

public

Online communities gain a new life going offline: online Nowadays, we can find all these elements together with

cooperation allows for the creation and development of

an ever increasing distrust and loss of connection on the

strong relations that can go up a level if they transfer to an

citizens’ part towards local administrations. The example

offline environment. These dynamics are only possible within

of active citizenry found in the case of the Statue of

limited geographical boundaries. As previously mentioned,

Liberty has evolved into civic crowd-funding. This is in all

local communities seem to be a suitable environment

respects a form of active government, through which the

in which civic crowd-funding can flourish, as this aims at

citizens decide where and how to invest money to improve

financing local works and projects. It is important to keep this

communities and neighbourhoods. This happens through

in mind for civic crowd-funding initiatives to be successful:

project proposals, voting and petition mechanisms, and

the key point seems to be both to facilitate digital cooperation

naturally relies on the funding itself. Furthermore, thanks to

and to build offline relationships. According to Chance

the web 2.0 and to the social nature of contemporary civic

Burnett of Crowdfunder (see references) the real power

crowd-funding, we also have another essential element:

of the crowd does not lie with people randomly connecting

transparency. People have (or at least could have, and

on the web. The future of this technology seems to be

certainly demand) access to all the information on how the

pointing towards local online environments that promote

money is utilised. Moreover, the way crowd-funding works

strong interactions both online and offline. This is the future

allows citizens to have a tangible return for the offer they

of crowd-funding, and civic crowd-funding is the future.

made to help carry out the public work thanks to reward systems (or interest, in the case of civic social lending, as we will see later). These rewards are naturally on top of the reward of a better community, which is intangible and less immediate but factual nonetheless. The internet tends to make us forget about the importance of our location. We can communicate, interact and work online with anyone, but this does not mean that we have a real relationship. 08

models

Civic

crowd-funding

platforms

work

according

The main civic crowd-funding models followed by the

the same basic dynamics as traditional platforms.

platforms examined in this short overview follow traditional

However, some models are favoured over others.

crowd-funding models: “reward based”, “donation based”

We will analyse briefly a few innovative solutions

and “crowd-lending”. We haven’t found any equity based

characteristic of crowd-funding in the following paragraph.

platforms intended solely for projects of a civic nature.

All the platforms that were analysed in the scope of this

paper adopt the “all or nothing” model: the project must

This model is based on emotional attachment and

receive all the necessary funds for its completion, or else

ideas, as no tangible reward is given in exchange for

the investors’ pledged donations will not be collected.

donations. Therefore, the success of the crowd-funding

We can also further classify the platforms into two sub-

campaign is based almost exclusively on the community’s

models, according to who can initiate the campaigns:

or individual’s emotional attachment to the project. Whether the project’s supporters see the campaign for

•

The project can only be put forward by local

the first time during the fund-raising phase or took part in

governments and public bodies, and at times by

conceiving the project itself, they have to have or establish

private businesses, non-profit organisations and

a bond with the idea behind the project. Spacehive

public sector building contractors. Citizens can put

follows this model. Other examples of donation based

forward petitions in some cases. This is the case

campaigns are political or charity fundraising campaigns.

for the two major civic crowd-funding platforms in North America, Neighbor.ly and Citizinvestor. •

The project, despite being in the public interest,

This model takes its name from the rewards given in

can be put forward even by a single private citizen.

exchange of a donation. This is a way of enlarging the

An example is the British platform Spacehive.

community related to the project by giving a further reason to donate. However, offering a reward does not preclude

Like in traditional crowd-funding platforms, the projects

aiming at gaining people’s emotional attachment, which

are selected by the platform and published online. This

should remain the essential element of the campaign.

way the fundraising process, which can vary in duration, is

Examples of reward based platforms are the American

initiated. Let us take a look at its models and how they differ.

Neighbor.ly and Citizinvestor. Some “do-it-yourself” (DIY) crowd-funding campaigns belong to this group as well: these projects do not resort to any particular platform, rather they set up the campaign on ad-hoc websites.

trends ´

In this model, the citizens lend money to local government, which plan to carry out a specific project through a crowdlending platform. The loan can vary in duration and citizens can opt for reducing or not earning any interest at all, in order to support the community further. An example of this is the German platform LeihDeinerStadtGeld. ¾

Data from civic crowd-funding platforms and projects are still

of match-funding seems to prevail on civic crowd-funding

too scarce to be able to report significant trends. However,

platforms: the institution or organisation allocates part of

we analysed the Spacehive platform,

the budget for the project, whilst private

which is the most substantial and active

investors contribute in order to complete

platform to date as regards the

the fundraising. Four out of eight projects

number of projects. Eight projects

were put forward by private citizens, as this

were completed successfully on this

British platform allows for this arrangement.

platform1, totalling nearly £900,000.

However, excluding a few isolated cases

First of all we have to consider the

of projects led by a private citizen and

type of investors and the distribution of

financed by private individuals2 (these

donations. There seems to be a strong

projects did not reach the total of £1,500),

prevalence of big investors, such as

Spacehive projects are mostly supported

institutions, organisations or private

by local organisations and/or institutions.

businesses, rather than individuals. As shown in the below pie chart, over 60% of donations come from institutions or organisations. However, only 21 out of 315 investors for 8 projects are organisations or private businesses. This can be explained with the amount of the average investment: according to the data analysed, an investor donates on average £2,842, a rather high sum for a private individual to invest. This is of particular interest as currently a form

Individui Individuals Istitutions/Organisations Ente/Organizzazione

platforms Ă&#x161;

Ă&#x203A;

Ă˛

Ă&#x153;

Ă?

Ăł

Ă´

Ă&#x17E;

Ăľ

Ă&#x;

Ăś

Ăˇ

ĂĄ

Ă¸

Ăš

Ă˘

Ăş

Ăť

ĂŁ

Ă¤

Ăź

Ă˝

Ă˘

Ăž

ĂĽ

Ă˘

Ă¤

Ăž

Ă¤

Ăž

ĂŚ

Ăş

Ă§

Ăż

Ă¨

ĂŠ

Ăł

Ă´

ĂŞ

Ăľ

ĂŤ

Ăś

ĂŹ

ĂŁ

Ăˇ

ĂŠ

Ă¸

Ăš

Ă˘

Ăş

Ăť

ĂŁ

ĂŽ

ĂŻ

ĂĄ

Ă°

ĂŤ

Ă§

ĂŚ

Ăą

Ăź

Neybor.ly is a civic crowd-funding platform based in Kansas

public bodies, private businesses. Projects may vary in nature,

City, USA. It only accepts projects from local administrations

as long as they hold planning permission. Projects go ahead

and public bodies. At the moment citizens are unable to put

only if they receive 100% of the target funds. This platform

forward projects directly, however a system that receives

is donation-based: no reward is given out for donations.

citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; projects is scheduled for the near future. This is a reward based platform: citizens donate in exchange for a reward. However, they can opt for not being rewarded,

Ăł

Ă˝

Ă´

Ăž

Ăś

Ăł

Ăž

Ăş

Ă´

Ăť

Ăż

Ăł

Ă´

Ăš

Ăś

Ăł

Ă´

Ăż

Ăł

Ăť

Ăš

Ăľ

Ăł

Ăť

Ăş

Ăł

thus contributing further to the campaign. In some cases,

This German platform is one of the very first civic crowd-

projects hold funds before the campaign starts. Because

lending platforms. Its mission is to support local authorities

Neighbor.lyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission is also to show the full picture about

in directly financing local projects through public loans.

a projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s finances, campaigns sometimes show the total

Through this platform, citizens are able to lend their

value of a project, not only the amount necessary to reach it.

savings to their local administration or public body in order to finance a specific project. The loan can vary in

Ă´

Ăż

Ăł

Ă¸

Ăš

Ă˝

Ăž

Ăş

Ă´

Ăż

Ăł

Ă¸

Ăš

Ăş

Ă¸

Citizinvestor is an American platform for public projects

duration and citizens can opt for reducing or not being paid any interest, in order to support the community further.

which allows citizens to finance projects that have been published by local government. These projects will already

Ăš

Ă¸

Ăž

Ăż

Ă´

Ăż

Ăľ

have been assessed and approved, and they only need

Some civic crowd-funding projects do not resort

financing. Projects range from the building of a new park

to any platforms, rather they rely on what is

to the setting up of first aid kits for cyclists on cycle lanes.

known

do-it-yourself

(DIY)

crowd-funding.

Normally these projects have been sitting on the waiting lists of local governmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; budget plans. Citizinvestor also offers citizens the chance to put forward a petition for projects they would like to see implemented and which are not included in budget plans. Also in this case, projects are carried out only if they received 100% of the necessary funding. According to its website, offers made on the Citizinvestor platform are tax-deductible, as they have a strictly public purpose, and as such are classified as donations.

Ăł

Ăś

Ă´

Ăł

Ă˝

Ăž

Ăş

Ăł

Ăś

Ă´

Ăł

Ăş

Ă¸

This is a British platform which defines itself as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first funding platform for neighbourhood improvement projectsâ&#x20AC;?, such as building a new playground in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own neighbourhood. Anyone can put forward a project: citizens, professionals, 11

examples

& "

(

)

(

;

This project is part of a plan which aims at linking two parts

In order to encourage the citizens to donate, every citizen

of this city which are currently separated by a congested

who donates is offered the opportunity to write a message,

main road. The footbridge links the two parts of the town,

a quote or their name and signature on the wooden boards.

which have been reappropriated by its citizens, who are

Having oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name written on a plate (â&#x201A;Ź25), on a section of

now able to move more freely and with little environmental

the bridge (â&#x201A;Ź125) or on the bridge structure itself (â&#x201A;Ź1,250)

impact. This is a perfect example of reward based

is one of the rewards. The project proceeds by stages:

crowd-funding for a project which benefits the whole

when a certain amount is reached, a section of the bridge

community. So it is not surprising that a strong community

is built. Further parts of the bridge are completed with each

aspect featured in the media campaign, whose slogan

subsequent crowd-funding stage. If donations carry on at

went â&#x20AC;&#x153;the more you donate, the longer the bridgeâ&#x20AC;?. The

the current rate, the footbridge will be completed in 2014.

minimum donation is â&#x201A;Ź25 and the maximum is â&#x201A;Ź1,250.

[

]

Franklin Park is one of the green lungs of Boston. The

campaign was put forward on the platform Razoo (www.

non-profit organisation FPC decided in 2011 to involve the

razoo.com). It is possible to donate between $10 and

citizens in the management of public green areas, ranging

$2500. It is possible to help purchase tops for children in

from tidiness and safety through to outdoors activities. In

summer camps, or pay for rangers to patrol, or even hire

order for these activities to exist, a reward-based fundraising

local bands to provide evening entertainment in the park.

}

{

}

This is another interesting project, which was hosted

interesting for the number and variety of its supporters.

on Spacehive. In this case, almost £37,000 was raised

This project received only 10% of its funding through small

in order to finance the creation of a wi-fi hotspot in the

investors, the rest was contributed by big organisations

centre of Mansfield (UK). This project is especially

which were not necessarily linked to local government.

The Madama Palace museum in Turin (Italy) put forward an

museum chose to raise the money through crowd-funding,

interesting cultural project in the first few months of 2013:

involving the community in this cultural project. Rewards

they intended to bring back to Turin the china that once

were offered in exchange for donations: they ranged from a

belonged to the Taparelli d’Azeglio family. The whole 43-

mention on the website (with a €2 donation) to free access

piece set was found recently after a long and careful search,

to the museum for a year (with a €100 donation). The

and it was on sale for £66,000, which needed to be raised

sum was reached (and exceeded) a few days before the

by 31st March 2013. Because of the scarcity of funds, the

deadline and the china set will shortly return to the museum.

15 123

The town of Oestrich-Winkel decided to resort to loans from

are used in case of emergencies) with a wireless network,

citizens in order to finance investment in the town’s Freiwillige

within the scope of a nation-wide project. The project

Feuerwehr (lit. “Volunteer Fire Brigade”), which had been

was successfully financed by €83,200. An overview of

included in the town’s budget plan. These investments

the conditions on offer is reported below as an example.

will allow replacement of analog radio frequencies (which

Annual Interest Rate Duration Type of loan Available from Financed on Commencement of loan repayments Maturity date Commencement of interest payments Payment of interest Minimum investment Maximum investment

up to 0,76% 6 years Instalment loans 26/09/12 17/10/12 17/12/12 17/12/18 16/12/13 Every year, in arrears €100, it increases in multiples of 50 Equal to the amount of loan remaining

thesis Þ

After our analysis of civic crowd-funding and its various forms and applications, we will now consider whether the necessary conditions for the growth of crowd-funding exist in Italy, and if so, which conditions are necessary to make it grow. Finally we will put forward a model of civic crowd-funding that is well suited to our territory on the basis on the analysis we carried out so far. å

Civic crowd-funding seems to be a solution to the lack of

talent to circulate freely, and more recently by unlocking

funds in local governments, much like crowd-funding in

capital through crowd-funding. However, all of this does not

a wider sense presents itself as a solution to the lack of

happen across the board. There is still a strong feeling of

capital on the market. Financial problems in the budget

lack of empowerment and trust in our ability to improve the

of towns, provinces and regions are widespread and

community we live in. This problem should be addressed

rooted in many places, both small and large. This situation

with more digitisation, a better availability of infrastructures

results in the citizens feeling increasingly distant from

and a more extensive use of the web, which could be

their administrations, more distrustful and less respectful

applied in different aspects of everyday life. Paradoxically,

of public assets: this comes mainly from the feeling of

the web presents itself as the new and strongest means of

distance towards assets that are not identified as one’s

association. What once used to be a meeting in a town hall

own, but rather owned by the state. On the contrary, citizens

room or a walk in the neighbourhood has now become an

are often socially bound to their own community: even in

online forum. It looks as though it is necessary to go via the

the smallest of villages, organisations for the promotion

web to be able to share, cooperate and feel empowered,

of the local area, local clubs, local football teams, local

transferring these activities offline later. If communities

government meetings, bars and schools are shared places

are educated on the web and how to use it, crowd-funding

in which the community comes together to try and improve

will find fertile ground from which to start off and develop.

the environment they live in. This precondition is related to the strong bond between citizens and their birthplace, and it offers the initial foundations for the development of crowd-funding. However there are many problems which are linked to crowd-funding in a wider sense and which hinder the development of collective funding of a civic nature. These obstacles include scarcity of information, lack of IT literacy and lack of structures that would facilitate a suitable and thorough spread of the web. Moreover, the web has enabled us to carry out many things we were not aware of being able to do before, by allowing ideas and 17 123

Money ï

Passion and interest in the topic Being happy and partecipate

enter

Asking for opinions or specific knowledge Trustworthy project Altruism Indicators of reputation, progress, tax levels, score Usefulmess of project for the contributors Having a good time Immediate feedback Recommendation of other users belonging to the same social class

Another precondition for the development of civic crowdfunding seems to be the participation of public administration

and that these people might want to finance a project.

or other institutions in the role of promoters, validators and

However, for bigger projects the “extended” community

co-investors of projects. We saw in the models above how

might not be able to contribute the whole amount by itself.

institutions are often the ones who put forward the projects. Moreover, the construction of public works requires the approval of local government in any case,

citizens on public matters (for example

which needs to assess the projects’

the towns that follow the Agenda 213

feasibility.

It is important that local

plan) could be a fertile ground

organisations and private businesses are

for shared funding projects. This is

also involved. Civic crowd-funding often

due to certain conditions found in these

requires a very high budget, which means

environments, such as the development

that often match-funding is necessary.

Towns with many well rooted associations which involve

of a strong bond between citizens and

Crowd-funding in a general sense is based on a potentially

their territory, the citizens’ active involvement in discussing

global audience, however local crowd-funding looks for

and giving their feedback, their willingness to cooperate

funds in a geographically small area, which implies a

directly or indirectly with the local administration on choices

small community in terms of numbers. On one hand it is

aimed at the local community. Based on our previous

true that the web could put people who live far away, but

observations, we can now put forward a model of civic

who are still bound to their original community, in touch,

crowd-funding that we deem suitable to our national territory.

how it works Ăź

Ă˝

Ăž

Ăż

On the basis of our analysis and observations, we think

Public administrations would be able to communicate

that the best model for crowd-funding to be implemented in

directly with the citizens, inform them on common choices

Italy is through a platform which integrates crowd-sourcing,

in a clear and transparent way, reaching a large section of

crowd-validation and crowd-funding. The tool we propose

the population thanks to the internet and social networks.

is important for the social and economic development

Local associations could use online platforms as a place

of the community. Through this tool, it would be possible

to make themselves known, grow, interact with citizens

to integrate the decisions made by the administrators

and put forward projects for the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sustainable

with the suggestions made by all the interested parties.

development. Citizens could use these platforms to give

It would also become possible to increase the feedback

feedback directly to the local administrators, and also to

within local communities and give credit to their creativity.

put forward ideas and proposals for shared projects and to find interested parties that pursue their same objectives.

19 123

Let us take a look at how this tool works: 1. Citizens or organisations put forward their proposals

have an important social aspect. A first stage which is

for projects to be carried out in their community. Local

both efficient and not too costly can demonstrate that the

government can put forward projects as well: in this

method is clear and

case the platform is used to finance the project and

transparent, that the

to understand the citizensâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; priorities, thus involving the

invested money is being

citizens and implementing a form of active citizenry.

employed according to

2. Projects are checked by public administrations to

the project plan and that

ascertain they are feasible. This is very important as

the rewards are being

there is the risk that projects which are not needed

given out. All of this

urgently or which go against natural, historical or

should help the project

artistic elements in the community are put forward

to progress as planned,

and approved, in the event of total freedom for

thanks to the fact that the

the citizens4. A scientific and cultural structure

projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas are being

which assesses the proposals made by citizens and

practically implemented.

organisations must necessarily exist. This structure has to actively communicate with the parties involved according to the principles of â&#x20AC;&#x153;crowdâ&#x20AC;? methods.

(

)

(

3. After the projects are first sifted through, there will be

A reward based crowd-funding model is the one that

a stage in which online methods are brought offline (at

suits best the dynamics of civic crowd-funding. The

least until IT literacy has reached a suitable level among

administrationsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; lack of the necessary funds to carry out

the community). Projects are published on the platform

some projects would not allow for any financial rewards to

where they remain available for a certain period of time

be offered to citizens (therefore equity based crowd-funding

in order to be voted on by citizens. At the same time,

is to be excluded). On the other hand, the building of a

the relevant organisations and groups will contribute

public structure would allow for a variety of rewards linked

to inform the population through traditional means.

to the structure itself to be offered. These rewards would

4. Projects with the most votes go through to the

range from seeing oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s name on a wooden board on a

financing stage: this is the crowd-funding stage.

bridge, to obtaining an annual subscription to a museum or

5. If will

projects

reach

initiated

the by

target the

budget,

they

theatre. The model known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;pre-selling modelâ&#x20AC;? could be

administration.

suitable for the chronic lack of funding mentioned earlier, which is one of the major obstacles for urban crowd-

These are often large scale projects both on a physical

funding. This could also help dissipate initial scepticism

and a financial level. For this reason, it could be useful to

and lack of understanding around the ideology of crowd-

divide the projects in stages, so that the project is carried

funding: the individual makes a donation not merely for

out in three or four phases, like in the case of the Rotterdam

an individual benefit, but rather to share the benefit with

footbridge mentioned above. This would both decrease the

others for the collective well-being. However, considering

size of the initial investment, and involve later on citizens

rewards for individual supporters could be of help in a

who were not involved in the initial campaign, which would

period of transition like the one we are living at the moment.

Another solution for the scarcity of public funding could

improving the feedback from all the interested parties.

be to apply a crowd-lending system. A loan from citizens

This proposal should be regulated by the relevant authorities

to public administrations is facilitated on the model on

in order to be implemented, as it is already the case with

the German platform LeihDeinerStadtGeld. This way,

equity-based crowd-funding. The cases analysed earlier

public administrations would ask for loans directly from

are on the town or neighbourhood scale, however this

citizens rather than from banks, and citizens would be

model could be scaled up in the context of Italy. Projects on

encouraged to invest in the future of the place where they

different scales could be put forward, involving increasingly

live. The advantages are obvious: local government would

large communities. This factor is not to be underestimated,

receive a closed-end loan at a low interest rate. Citizens

as the idea behind the project and the relevant community

are rewarded with a better community and with a small

constitute the strength of this method. On the basis of

interest rate, which is still better than what many banks

this, we propose to employ a national platform which is

offer on traditional bank accounts. Moreover, trusting

divided into sub-levels for regions, provinces and towns.

that citizens understand that the primary benefit they will

The platform model so far described would lead to a

receive is a better community and public services modelled

global gathering and sharing of ideas, with a subsequent

on the community’s real needs, the option of not offering

push to publicly debate choices relevant for citizens,

interest on loans could be considered. This process must

who would become more informed about the public

be based on the utmost transparency in order to work:

administration’s choices and would find it easier to form

citizens should have access to projects’ proposals and

project’s groups. Finally, this platform could become the first

to the reasons why a local government deems a project

element of a larger sharing network, and hopefully a real

infeasible; they should have forums on the platforms, thus

network of towns, provinces and regions can be created.

21 123

SWOT analysis 5

;

•

Aimed at public administrations, wich must have a

•

User-friendly structure

•

Internationally recognised method

•

High involvement of social players

•

Repeatability of projects

•

High rate of process democratization

•

Difficulty in raising funds

•

Creation of businesses

•

Entails a good level of IT literacy among the

leadership role •

Suitable for pubblic administrations that want to invest in development and innovation

citizens involved

•

More dialogue between P.A. and citizens

•

Weak leadership of pubblic adminastrations

•

Decrease in digital divide

•

Possible lack of interest among citizens

•

Increase in speed in broadband services

•

Absence of sufficient network services

•

“Digitisation” of processes

•

Public administration’s difficulty in dealing with

•

Opportunity for economic development

•

Initation of high speed dialogue with international communities due to new infrastructures

•

Increases inclusion

•

Encourages citizens’ IT literacy

complex and innovative organisations

conclusion A

Development is generated through innovative processes

We have analysed this proposal in order to put across

which derive from the interaction of four core strengths:

that it is already possible to put it into practice, with

ideas, institutions, population and human capital (expressed

current means: there is nothing we have to wait for but

through education and research). As demonstrated in

support from the responsible parties. It is an opportunity

this short paper, civic crowd-funding is able to create

to take part directly and actively to the betterment of the

an interaction among these four components and to

society we live in, going beyond delegating, which takes

point them towards common objectives, by facilitating

us away from what should concern us the most: our local

processes and adding two essential elements created

community. Now more than ever, there is harm in not trying.

by the web 2.0: relationships of trust and transparency.

IDEAS

COOPE RATION

HUMAN CAPITAL

CIVIC CROWD OPEN SOURCE

POPULA TION

EDUCA TION

INSTITU TIONS

23 123

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chancebarnett/2013/03/20/crowdfundings-future-local-online-ecosystems/ http://rodrigodavies.com/blog/2013/02/19/civic-crowdfunding-from-the-statue-of-liberty-to-now/ x http://www.aia.org/press/releases/AIAB097681 http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab097668.pdf http://www.launcht.com/blog/2012/11/27/state-of-crowdfunding-in-the-government http://blog.civiccommons.org/2011/11/crowdsourcing-civic-infrastructure http://www.archdaily.com/233194/can-you-crowdsource-a-city http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/10/121024-Crowdfunding.asp http://vodblogsite.org http://spacehive.com http://citizinvestor.com http://neighbor.ly http://www.luckyant.com https://www.leihdeinerstadtgeld.de http://www.citysourced.com/about (http://www.citysourced.com/zenfunder) http://giveaminute.info http://changeby.us http://www.newurbanmechanics.org