Better Together: Restoring the American Community: Summary & Key Insights

To understand civic renewal, we first needed to rethink what we meant by community. Social capital, as we define it, is the network of relationships that allow people to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. It is not merely about friendliness or sentiment; it is about trust that enables cooperation. We distinguish between ‘bonding’ social capital—ties that bring together people who are alike in crucial respects—and ‘bridging’ social capital—ties that connect people across diverse social cleavages. Healthy communities balance the two, nurturing solidarity while reaching outward to difference.

The renewal of social capital must happen in an era of unprecedented individualism, mobility, and technological change. Traditional institutions such as unions, churches, and civic clubs have weakened, but new forms are emerging. We propose that the key is intentional community-building—structures and practices that invite participation, cultivate trust, and yield tangible benefits. Renewal does not mean returning to a nostalgic past; it means inventing modern equivalents that serve a pluralistic society.

Our framework asks three questions: Where and how does civic regeneration begin? What personal and institutional resources sustain it? And how do these local successes inform national renewal? Again and again, we found that action starts small—when a few people recognize shared problems and decide that together they can change them. Over time, as networks deepen and trust grows, collective capacity expands. Institutions—foundations, governments, corporations—can then amplify these efforts when they respect local wisdom and help scale what works. This iterative process, from grassroots to structure and back again, is the fabric of community restoration.

Our journey began in Portland, Oregon, a city widely recognized for its democratic spirit and participatory culture. In the 1970s, citizens there struggled to find a way to influence urban planning and governance. Out of that struggle emerged neighborhood associations—grassroots entities officially recognized by the city, empowered to deliberate on zoning, budgeting, and community development. These associations, supported but not controlled by city government, became laboratories of civic engagement.

In Portland, citizens turned planning meetings into community-building events. Decision-making became not just about traffic lights and sidewalks but about identity—what it meant to live together in a city that valued conversation. Over time, the neighborhood associations nurtured local leaders and created networks of mutual trust among residents, nonprofits, and city officials. Participation bred a sense of agency, and agency strengthened trust. Even when disagreements arose, the process itself built legitimacy.

The lesson from Portland is that civic engagement thrives when citizens have real power and clear channels for voice. Engagement is learned through doing, and institutional structures can either enable or stifle that learning. By embedding participation in everyday governance, Portland demonstrated how democracy can be made tangible, continuous, and local.