Please rotate your device to landscape mode to view the charts.

Relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state during the COVID-19 pandemic: complementary, supplementary, or adversarial?

Journal: Public Management Review

Date: 2024

Author: Jack Rendall, Maeve Curtin, Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale

Abstract:
This research explores ways public service ecosystems developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, focus groups, and mobile ethnographic methods with 30 participants from the public sector and three mutual aid groups across Scotland. We show how relationships between mutual aid groups and the state–whether complementary, supplementary, or adversarial–shifted over the course of the pandemic. Our findings add nuance to understandings that presuppose mutual aid as antagonistic, highlighting ways that mutual aid groups may be brought into existing public service ecosystems.

Link: Google Scholar

Background and Context

Mutual Aid Response

Over 4,000 local solidarity networks describing themselves as 'mutual aid groups' emerged organically across the UK during the early COVID-19 pandemic.

Research Approach

The study examined relationships between three different mutual aid groups and the state across Scotland using interviews and digital ethnographic methods with 30 participants.

Research Timeline

Data collection took place from mid-June to mid-September 2020, covering experiences from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.

Three Types of Relationships Between Mutual Aid Groups and the State

Supplementary Mutual aid fills gaps where state services are absent Complementary Mutual aid collaborates with state in service delivery Adversarial Mutual aid challenges state policies and service approaches
  • Supplementary relationships emerged when mutual aid filled gaps left by insufficient public services.
  • Complementary relationships developed when mutual aid groups collaborated with public services to address community needs.
  • Adversarial relationships formed when mutual aid groups challenged or criticized public sector approaches to crisis response.

Four Distinct Stages of Pandemic Response Identified

Stage 1 Initial Response March 2020 Stage 2 Service Development April-June 2020 Stage 3 Easing Restrictions July-Sept 2020 Stage 4 Return to Restrictions Nov-Dec 2020 Evolution Through Four Stages Relationships shifted as pandemic conditions changed and state responses developed
  • Stage 1 (March 2020) saw rapid mutual aid response while public services were still organizing.
  • Stage 2 (April-June) involved adjustment as public sector developed their own response systems.
  • Stage 3 (July-September) showed changing dynamics as restrictions eased and some services scaled back.
  • Stage 4 (November-December) brought renewed activity as restrictions returned and needs increased again.

Three Distinct Types of Mutual Aid Groups Across Different Settings

The Green Isles (Rural) Small island community 2,053 Facebook members Information sharing Delivery of essentials The Dockyards (Peri-Urban) Consortium of organizations 400+ volunteers Food box service Telephone support The Bustle (Urban) Large city network 3,000 Facebook members Working groups structure Multiple service types
  • The rural Green Isles group organized around a Facebook page with 2,053 members primarily sharing information.
  • The peri-urban Dockyards functioned as a consortium of existing organizations with over 400 volunteers.
  • The urban Bustle created structured working groups covering different service areas and managed 3,000 members.
  • Each group's structure and activities were influenced by their local context and existing community networks.

Evolution of Relationship Types Over the Four Pandemic Stages

Adversarial Complementary Supplementary Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 The Bustle The Dockyards The Green Isles
  • All three mutual aid groups began with supplementary relationships in Stage 1 when state response was minimal.
  • The Dockyards and Bustle groups shifted to adversarial relationships in Stage 2 as state services developed.
  • The Green Isles evolved to a complementary relationship in Stage 2, then returned to supplementary in Stages 3-4.
  • By Stage 4, the Bustle had developed complementary relationships while the Dockyards returned to supplementary relationships.
  • Relationship types were not static but fluid, responding to changing pandemic needs and public sector engagement.

Key Implications for Future Public Service Crisis Response

Future Crisis Response Recognize Mutual Aid As legitimate response partners Support Not Control Resource without bureaucracy Flexible, Dynamic Models Adapt as relationships evolve Leveraging Local Knowledge Community-based intelligence
  • Recognizing mutual aid groups as legitimate response partners can enhance community crisis resilience.
  • Supporting mutual aid without excessive control allows for responsiveness to local community needs.
  • Flexible, dynamic relationship models help public services adapt as community needs evolve.
  • Leveraging local knowledge through mutual aid provides valuable community-based intelligence for service delivery.

Contribution and Implications

  • Mutual aid groups can be effective partners in crisis response, not just antagonistic alternatives to state services.
  • Relationships between mutual aid and the state are dynamic and context-dependent, evolving as crises unfold.
  • Public service ecosystems should develop strategies to better engage with mutual aid during future crises.
  • The rapid response capabilities of mutual aid groups complement the more structured approach of state services.
  • Local context significantly influences how mutual aid groups operate and relate to formal service providers.

Data Sources

  • All visualizations are based on qualitative findings from interviews, focus groups, and ethnographic observations reported in the article.
  • The relationship categories (supplementary, complementary, adversarial) are based on Young's (2000) framework referenced in the article.
  • The four stages of pandemic response were identified through the researchers' analysis of data collected from June-September 2020.
  • The characteristics of the three mutual aid groups (Green Isles, Dockyards, Bustle) were derived from case descriptions in the article.
  • The relationship journeys visualization is based on Figure 2 in the article showing how relationships shifted over time.