Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Constructing citizenship in the shadow state

Dan Trudeau
Department of Geography, Macalester College, 1600 Grand Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55105, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This article addresses the contributions of local community-based nonprot organizations to the
Received 1 April 2010 construction of citizenship through three different examples of stateorganization interaction in
Received in revised form 28 September 2011 MinneapolisSt. Paul to integrate migrants into American society. These examples stand for broader
Available online 28 October 2011
questions about how shadow state relationships affect the shape and scale of citizenship relations to
which organizations contribute. The article focuses empirically on how organizations enact state rules
Keywords: and resources in providing services to migrants. The conclusions are directed toward theorizing the kinds
Shadow state
of shadow state relationships that contribute to nationally inclusive visions of citizenship as well as alter-
Citizenship
Scale
native, subnational visions of citizenship.
Immigrants and refugees 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Neoliberalism

1. Introduction
The shift from government to governance over the last two dec-
ades of welfare state restructuring has raised important questions
about the role that local communities play in social regulation
and integration in Western nation-states. The rhetoric of welfare
state restructuring in the United States, among other contexts, g-
ures a heightened role for local community (Staeheli et al., 1997;
Amin, 2005; Herbert, 2005; Sassen, 2006; Sites et al., 2007; Bristow
et al., 2008; MacLeavy, 2009; Wallace, 2009). Furthermore, the
incorporation of local community organizations in the delivery of
public services suggests an opportunity for local communities to
shape processes of social regulation and integration (Fraser et al.,
2003; Sites, 2003; DeFilippis et al., 2006, 2010; Fuller et al., 2008;
Ilcan, 2009; Milbourne, 2010). Indeed, the increased amount of
responsibility community organizations have taken to ensure the
welfare and governance of their respective localities has led to a
possibility for local context that is, the localized settings in which
patterns of social interaction and social group formation are real-
ized (Agnew, 1996, p. 133) to become integral to the construc-
tion of citizenship. The reality of welfare state restructuring,
however, is less clear. Over a decade of scholarship argues that both
the local state and the shadow state apparatus of nongovernmental
organizations working under state contract ultimately act as sites of
state-articulated social regulation and control (Kirby, 1997; Jones,
1998; Amin, 2005; Herbert, 2005; Hanlon et al., 2007; Chouinard
and Crooks, 2008), which implement neoliberal agendas (Mitchell,
E-mail address: trudeau@macalester.edu
2001; Veronis, 2006; Varsanyi, 2008; Perkins, 2009). More recently
though, scholars have begun to demonstrate how local community
organizations are able to inect such agendas with other priorities
or subtly resist them (Morgen, 2001; Elwood and Leitner, 2003;
Fyfe, 2005; Elwood, 2006; Leitner et al., 2007; Trudeau, 2008a;
Warshawsky, 2010).
This article seeks to bring clarity to this situation by examining
how nonprot social service organizations in the US both engage
the localized settings of migrants incorporation into the polity
and negotiate distinct relationships with state institutions as part
of their attempt to inuence how migrants act and are seen as
citizens. I draw on case study research of three nonprot commu-
nity-based organizations in MinneapolisSt. Paul that attempt to
incorporate migrants into society through service provision,
which I approach as an effort to integrate them into relations of
citizenship.
The research reported in this article draws on over a decade of
research in critical geography that examines the social construc-
tion of citizenship in order to understand processes of societal
inclusion and exclusion. The particular contribution of this article
is focused on the power relationships between institutions of
the state and civil society and how they affect the ways migrants
are brought into relationships of citizenship. Accordingly, this arti-
cle engages the shadow state concept, which brings attention to
the political economic relationships between state institutions
and nongovernmental organizations that work together to operate
state-funded social welfare programs that affect societal inclusion
and exclusion (Fyfe and Milligan, 2003a; Wolch, 2006). The sha-
dow state concept refers to the transfer of responsibility for provid-
ing integrative functions, such as social welfare services that bring
people into specic relations of citizenship, from state institutions

0016-7185/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.001
 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
to local nonprots in ways that have expanded inuence of state
regulatory powers in everyday life (Wolch, 1990). Scholarship on
the construction of citizenship in the shadow state has predomi-
nately examined how state inuence on service programming
and the material constraints on nonprots has led citizenship to-
wards a neoliberal model (See Mitchell, 2001; Lake and Newman,
2002; Fyfe and Milligan, 2003a; Veronis, 2006). Yet, recent work
on the shadow state shows there are multiple types of shadow
state relationships (Trudeau, 2008b; Perkins, 2009; Warshawsky,
2010), which may allow for relations of citizenship to deviate from
neoliberal models and a national mooring. This article builds on
this recent work by examining how differences in shadow state
relationships relate to the construction of citizenship. Furthermore,
I pay particular attention to how organizations attempt to affect
the construction of citizenship by tracing the ways they engage lo-
cale-specic discourses about migrant belonging. In other words,
this article seeks to show how the localized, city-specic processes
of social structuration matter in the construction of citizenship in
the shadow state.
I argue that the state provides rules and resources that inu-
ence, but do not wholly determine the meaning and territorial
polity into which organizations bring migrants into relations of
citizenship. Organizations that hold formal relationships with
the state apply neoliberal ideas of societal membership in order
to socialize migrants as members of an American or national
level polity. At the same time, I nd organizations able to nego-
tiate state inuence can also engage discourses of migrant
belonging at the local level to inect an American ideal in
certain ways.
Citizenship refers to the socially constructed terms of member-
ship in a polity and scholars have conceptualized two distinct
aspects of it (Kofman, 1995; Staeheli and Thompson, 1997; Sassen,
2006; Cloke et al., 2007). On the one hand, the formal aspects of cit-
izenship describe the legal technology that states employ to dene
and enforce the rights and responsibilities of its political subjects.
On the other hand, substantive aspects of citizenship refer to the
ability of individuals and social groups to act and be seen as full
members of society. As Staeheli (1999, p. 64) explains, substantive
aspects of citizenship are shaped by the material and ideological
conditions in a society that enable people to function with some
degree of autonomy, to formulate political ideas, and to act on
those ideas. I focus on the substantive aspects of citizenship in
this article and mean to refer to these when using the term citi-
zenship. Moreover, geographers have illustrated that cities are
important sites where the substantive aspects of citizenship take
shape and meaning in peoples everyday life (Purcell, 2003;
Staeheli, 2003; Secor, 2003). And other scholars have raised ques-
tions about the possibility of subnational citizenship taking root in
city regions (Sassen, 2006; Irazbal, 2008). In order to understand
the import of local context to the construction of citizenship, I thus
examine how organizations situated in the shadow state inuence
the ways migrants engage locale-specic contexts of migrant
reception to form identities and negotiate societal belonging in
particular territorial polities.
This article contributes to discussions about the role of local
community organizations in the shadow state through a case study
examination of the ways in which local migrant-serving organiza-
tions deploy particular notions of citizenship. I contextualize this
examination by further elaborating on the concepts of citizen-
ship, local context, and shadow state in the second and third administer rights in attempt to establish formal and substantive
parts of this article. I describe the methodological aspects and geo-
graphical contingencies of the case studies in the fourth part and
then present case studies of three organizations in the penultimate
part. I reect on the implications of the case studies for shadow
state literature in the nal part.
443
2. Social and geographical dimensions of citizenship
Citizenship is a contested concept, in part, because different tra-
ditions of political thought in a society attach distinct meanings to
citizenship. For instance, in the US, civic republican and liberal
schools of thought offer divergent models of citizenship varying
in expectations about the rights and responsibilities of citizens
(Shar, 1998). The liberal view of citizenship sees that self-suf-
cient individuals capable of independent decisions are the corner-
stones of a functioning democracy. According to the liberal
approach, the rights of citizens are dened in legal terms and thus
pertain to the collection of civil and political rights that are consti-
tutionally guaranteed by the state as protections from the state
(Shar, 1998). Thus, in this view, citizenship is treated as a form
of legal status a codication of rights that individuals inviolably
hold (Sandel, 1996; Staeheli and Thompson, 1997). In contrast to
an emphasis on rights, civic republicanism emphasizes individuals
responsibility to participate in determining the common good in
their polity. Hence, self-government is a form of freedom, in this
view (Dagger, 2002). And in order to sustain and reproduce free-
dom, civic virtue and a moral obligation to ones community are
crucial to the republican model of citizenship (Sandel, 1996).
Throughout the 20th century, state action has steered citizenship
toward a liberal model (Sandel, 1996; Schuck, 2002). This process
has been further inuenced by efforts within public and private
sectors to construct a neoliberal form of citizenship, which pre-
sents individualism, economic self-sufciency, and competitive-
ness as characteristics that are integral for belonging in the
national polity (Peck, 2001a; Mitchell, 2003; Ong, 2003; Varsanyi,
2008).
Critiques of the liberal model point out that citizenship is more
than a legal status conferred on individuals. Marshalls (1950) anal-
ysis of the evolution of citizenship in the UK shows that in order to
formally participate in voting or enjoy property protection laws,
one has to rst be seen as a full member of society worthy of claim-
ing such rights. Feminist critiques of the liberal model in particular
show that states extend or revoke citizenship rights from entire
categories of people (Young, 1990; Shklar, 1991; Dietz, 1992).
These critiques, moreover, have shown that differences based on
relations of race, gender, sexuality, age, and disability affect the
ability of individuals and social groups to claim full membership
in a polity (Staeheli and Cope, 1994; Fraser and Gordon, 1998;
Joseph, 1999; Naber, 2000). Radical critiques further emphasize
the role of community membership, belonging, and assimilation
into the dominant society in structuring the rights afforded to
groups (Castles and Davidson, 2000; Staeheli and Clarke, 2003;
Ehrkamp and Leitner, 2003, 2006). These critiques reinforce an
understanding of citizenship as a set of discourses and practices
in which individuals and institutions of state and civil society par-
ticipate in an attempt to establish, afrm, and contest boundaries
designating who can legitimately claim belonging and member-
ship in a polity and how such membership should be performed.
This understanding acknowledges the importance of substantive
citizenship; however, it does not detract from the relevance of
the formal aspects of citizenship.
The formal and substantive aspects of citizenship transect
scales of state and society, which Marston and Mitchell (2004) de-
scribe through the notion of citizenship formation. States codify
denitions of belonging, police the boundaries of citizenship, and
relations of citizenship that are hegemonic throughout imagined
communities and associated territory. At the same time, the dis-
courses and practices of belonging are enacted, inected, and re-
sisted in localized settings through everyday life. The ongoing
construction of terms of membership in a polity is hence the result
444 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
of institutional strategies and the tactics of everyday life, which are
geographically and historically situated (Staeheli, 2003; Secor,
2004). The notion of citizenship formation emphasizes that the
boundaries or shape of citizenship and the territorialized polity
in which people claim belonging and rights are never completely
stabilized.
Taking stock of nearly two decades of welfare state restructuring
offers insight into several particular aspects of citizenship formation
in the US. Neoliberal citizenship has been reinforced through recent
policy changes, such as the suite of 1996 welfare reform legislation,
which couple substantive citizenship in US society with labor mar-
ket participation and making an economic contribution to society
(Schram, 2000; Katz, 2001; Peck, 2001b; Varsanyi, 2008). Indeed,
as Ong (2003, p. 12) explains, belonging in America is increasingly
dened as the civic duty of the individual to reduce his or her bur-
den on society, and instead to build up his or her own human capi-
tal. Working alongside these policy changes are administrative
strategies of state restructuring that aim to reinvent government
(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992) through social service privatization
and devolution of government program administration to the local
level. A reassertion of national belonging in the construction of so-
cial citizenship also persists despite processes of localization
through devolution (Brubaker, 2001; Mitchell, 2003; Kofman,
2005), which have ostensibly created new possibilities for the align-
ment of social citizenship with membership in subnational and
transnational communities (Baubock, 1994; Staeheli, 1999; Sassen,
2002, 2006). There is thus a renewed emphasis in the US on con-
structing a national identity through a re-inscription of neoliberal
values, such as independence and self-reliance, which Shklar
(1991) notes are particular to American notions of citizenship.
At the same time, however, it is important to acknowledge that
the scale at which citizenship is constructed is necessarily elastic
and able to expand and contract according to the particularities
of state formation across time and space. Indeed, a central argu-
ment of the recent literature on geographic scale is that it is not
xed. Thus, mapping citizenship onto territory of the nation-state
is an institutional project of meaning-making, which can be con-
tested (Marston and Mitchell, 2004; Secor, 2004). One way to take
this argument seriously is to examine how the struggle to claim
rights and benets of citizenship also entails an attempt to dene
the institution of citizenship as operating at a particular scale. Con-
necting this idea to literature on migrant belonging, the scholarly
discussion of segmented assimilation shows that migrants follow
divergent integration paths (Zhou, 1997; Portes and Fernandez-
Kelly, 2008; Zhou et al., 2008) and this has much to do with the
context of reception in the locales into which migrants settle. Thus,
the local context of migrants reception is critical to citizenship for-
mation. This is to say that migrants settle into locales where exist-
ing patterns of social interaction, processes of social group
formation, and narratives of assimilation affect how they make
claims of societal belonging and come to be seen (or not) as mem-
bers of a polity (Staeheli and Nagel, 2006). And as Koopmans
(2004) shows, within a single nation-state there can be local vari-
ation in migrants claims to belonging, which correspond to the lo-
cal contexts of reception into which migrants enter. In order to
investigate the construction of citizenship as an open-ended pro-
cess, I thus examine how the local context of reception matters
in the activities of nonprot organizations attempting to integrate
migrants into society. In particular, I follow how organizations en-
gage and construct local discourses of migrant belonging in ways
that support and challenge the construction of citizenship as mem-
bership in a national polity. Since the activities of organizations are
affected by the arrangements of power between state institutions
and nonprots, it is important to situate the construction of
citizenship in the shadow state.
3. Citizenship in the shadow state
Understanding the rise of the shadow state in the US provides
important insight into understanding the localization processes
through which organizations engage citizenship formation. This
article examines these processes as they take shape in the relation-
ships between state institutions and local nonprot organizations
that work together to deliver social services to refugees and immi-
grants in MinneapolisSt. Paul. Many charitable and community
organizations in America have organized without state support in
an attempt to affect the standing of individuals and particular
groups as vested members of society (Saidel, 2002; Bloemraad,
2006). However, as the nonprot sector has taken on some of the
states integrative functions over the past four decades of state
restructuring, service-providing organizations have been furnished
with new rules and responsibilities as well as material resources
that affect the construction of citizenship (Brown, 1997; Mitchell,
2001; Lake and Newman, 2002; Fyfe and Milligan, 2003a). Indeed,
in taking responsibility for welfare service provision from the state,
nonprots can further inuence citizenship by working to address
issues of societal belonging and providing individuals with state-
sponsored social welfare services, which can affect perceptions of
social groups (both from within and without) status in the polity
(Bloemraad, 2005). This is not to suggest that state institutions
have transferred all citizenship making functions to nonprots. In-
deed, the state still participates in these activities. However, the
service ofoading has meant that nonprots are given resources
that enable them to participate in integration functions of the state
and are tasked with some rules that set limits on how they are to
engage in such activities. For instance, as service provision is off-
loaded to nonprots through purchase-of-service contracts, nonp-
rots are subject to stipulations that affect to whom state-funded
services can be provided, for how long, and under what conditions.
Furthermore, many of the nonprots that provide state-funded so-
cial services are organizations with a limited geographical reach
that represent groups and interests in specic localities (Twombly,
2001; Salamon, 2002). Consequently, the sharing of integrative
state functions with organizations operating on a local level creates
the possibility for subnational or localized forms of citizenship to
take root. The shadow state concept provides a framework for
examining such a possibility.
In its most basic form, the shadow state refers to the existence
of a constellation of nongovernmental organizations, drawn from
different divisions of the voluntary sector, that are tasked with pro-
viding state-funded social welfare programs that remain under
state control. This concept extends from Clark and Dears (1984)
understanding of the state apparatus as a set of institutions
through which state power is exercised in order to reproduce par-
ticular social and economic formations. Furthermore, the shadow
state is an object of concern because the service provision through
nonprot organizations insulates the administration of services
from traditional democratic control while at the same time it in-
serts state interests into the agendas of participating organizations,
which may in turn limit their political activism. The shadow state
emerged in the US during the post-WWII expansion of the welfare
state. Beginning in the 1960s, this period of expansion saw an in-
crease in state spending on social entitlement programs and an in-
crease in dependence on voluntary organizations to implement the
programs. During this time, the state became especially dependent
in the area of service delivery, as the practice of contracting with
nonprots to provide state-funded services grew common.
The development of the shadow state in the US deepened
despite periods of state retrenchment during the 1980s, in part,
because the move towards community-based service provision
during the 1990s intensied the participation of nonprots in
 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
service delivery (Smith, 2002). Politically, the transfer of service
delivery to nonprots was supported on the left because it osten-
sibly created a welfare system more responsive to local preferences
and situations (Kodras, 1997; Salamon, 1999), and it was sup-
ported on the right too because it offers a promising route to a lea-
ner state apparatus and fosters individual initiative and self-
sufciency (Wolch, 1990). At the same time, devolution of welfare
service provision from the federal-level to state- and local-level
institutions has introduced multiple sets of rules and resources
affecting service provision and has thus created a geographically
differentiated landscape of service provision in which nonprots
currently operate (Cordes et al., 2000). Following the work of other
scholars, I use the shadow state concept to examine how such ser-
vice provision ofoading generates opportunities and constraints
that affect the shape and scale of citizenship to which nonprots
contribute.
Service contracting presents nonprots with rules, require-
ments, and restrictions that constrain the provision of state-funded
social welfare services (Wolch, 1999; Fink and Widom, 2001;
Austin, 2003). Such conditions are often in place to track service
outcomes, which serve as a way for the state to monitor an organi-
zations performance (Smith, 2002). Lastly, some restrictions limit
to whom services can be provided and the conditions under which
a person can receive services (Alexander et al., 1999). For instance,
since the adoption of 1996 welfare reform legislation, state-funded
social services emphasize welfare-to-work goals both by limiting
public assistance to ve years and requiring service-recipients to
join paid employment, however insecure or low-paying it may be
(Cope, 2001; Peck, 2001b).
The transfer of service provision to nonprots has resulted in
uneven accessibility to services and an outright reduction in access
to some individuals, which has implications for citizenship (Turner,
2001). Indeed, nonprots have become spaces in which particular
denitions of citizenship are enacted (Johnsen et al., 2005; Milligan
and Fyfe, 2005; Cloke et al., 2007). Scholars have demonstrated
that the rise of the shadow state has generated gaps in the spatial
coverage of social services as well as variegated access of citizens
to service providers and thus to citizenship (Fyfe and Milligan,
2003b). This has prompted Lake and Newman (2002) to identify
the emergence of differential citizenship in the shadow state.
And Mitchell (2001) argues that shadow state organizations imple-
ment state-sponsored workfare agendas and thereby construct a
notion of neoliberal citizenship in which standing as a full member
of society is contingent upon labor market participation. These
constraints in turn shape organizations construction of citizen-
ship. However, shadow state relationships are not fully determin-
ing of nonprot operations.
Formal relationships with the state can bring new material re-
sources to organizations. Increased government funding has
encouraged widespread expansion of the nonprot sector (Wol-
pert, 1997; Twombly, 2001). In this context, some nonprots have
heightened their ability to promote well-being and citizenship by
taking on service provision roles. For instance, Browns (1997) re-
search on AIDS organizations shows that by taking on care-giving
and advocacy roles, new spaces have been created in which people
make claims on the state and in which they assert their member-
ship in the polity. Furthermore, purchase-of-service contracts have
given some nonprots the organizational capacity to address is-
sues of social standing for particular groups that are beyond the
scope of state-funded service delivery (Trudeau, 2008a). This re-
search suggests that there is scope to maneuver around the exclu-
sionary features of funding restrictions.
In order to make sense of the generative and constraining rela-
tionships noted in the literature, it is helpful to recognize a contin-
uum of shadow state relationships (Trudeau, 2008b). A variety of
power arrangements can form between state institutions and
445
nonprot organizations. Hierarchical arrangements can lead nonp-
rots to implement the states neoliberal citizenship agenda. How-
ever, exible and reciprocal arrangements can also form through
which nonprots can advance alternative visions for citizenship.
It thus stands to reason that different constructions of citizenship
may be produced under different congurations of shadow state
relationships. This article, in turn, asks: what scope is there for lo-
cal nonprot organizations in the shadow state to engage local dis-
courses of migrant belonging and inect citizenship with
alternative visions to the states neoliberal agenda?
4. Methods
I examine this question using case study research of three mi-
grant-serving nonprot organizations located in MinneapolisSt.
Paul. The organizations have distinct relationships with state insti-
tutions and each can be placed at a different point along a
continuum of shadow state relationships. These differences are
summarized in Table 1 and discussed in detail in the next section.
The organizations share some similarities though: they have non-
prot missions, they provide social services, they are actively en-
gaged in helping refugees and immigrants in MinneapolisSt. Paul
adjust to life in the US, and their service delivery activities are
intentionally adapted to the local circumstances these communities
face concerning belonging and integration.
The case study research draws on eldwork I conducted in
2004. This research follows Yins (2003) multiple case study ap-
proach to examine how organizations inuence the shape and
scale of citizenship under different congurations of state
nonprot relationships. Case studies analyze processes and I use
this method to describe how each organization attempts to affect
migrants citizenship by using a variety of data sources that pro-
vide insight into an organizations discourses and practices rele-
vant to socializing migrants as members of society. I volunteered
in each organization for three months. I helped provide services
to migrants in two of the organizations and I helped a third im-
prove its databank for referring migrants to other organizations
for services it was unable to provide.1 This role enabled me to
observe organizations everyday activities concerning migrants
well-being and societal standing. My presence in each of the organi-
zations allowed me to conduct 12 in-depth interviews, with different
staff members distributed across the organizations as described in
1
I performed a number of different tasks as a volunteer, which varied by
organization. In one organization, Refugee Social Service (RSS), I performed two roles.
My principal role was a teachers aide for a workplace English class offered to
refugees who had experienced difculty nding or retaining paid employment, in
part, because of a lack of prociency with English. In this role, I was present in the
classroom, interacting with the participants, and supported the teacher in completing
paperwork tracking participant progress and demonstrating compliance with Min-
nesota Family Investment Program requirements, which is Minnesotas welfare-to-
work program. My second role at RSS assisted refugees and other native-born
welfare-to-work program participants with nding work, preparing employment
applications, and composing resumes. In a second organization, Hmong Mutual
Assistance (HMA), I assisted with refugee resettlement program planning the
organization was engaging in preparation for helping approximately 5000 new
Hmong refugees resettle into MinneapolisSt. Paul. In this role, I worked along side
staff program managers to plan for changes to existing program services at HMA and
coordinate with other organizations in order to meet the expected needs of this
refugee population. In the third organization, The Citizenship School (CS), I engaged in
the organizations curriculum, which involved meeting with other migrants and
volunteers to discuss a civic issue of concern to one or more of the migrant
participants, and then meeting one-on-one with migrant participants. The discussion
followed articulation of the concern, who is affected by the issue, and identifying
what steps could be taken to engage the issue and affect change. During my time at
CS, I observed the discussion to cover variety of issues, including legalizing gambling,
USs foreign relations with Cambodia, and legal access to drivers licenses. The one-
on-one meetings were focused solely on helping prepare the participants for the US
citizenship exam. These meetings culminated in me being present for two partici-
pants exams.
446 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
Table 1
Comparison of organization attributes and practices. Source: Organizations 2003 Annual Report and authors assessment.
Refugee Social Services
(RSS)
Year started 1963
Service focus Refugee resettlement
Service population Multiple refugee
populations
Number of employees (FTE) 12
2003 Operating budget (thousands of US $) 1332
Proportion of budget from government sources (%) 90
Relationship with state Constraint
Engagement with local context of migrant reception Supports national
citizenship
Number of individuals who participated in in-depth 4 5
interviews
Table 1, including interviews with each organizations executive
director. I also consulted organization literature, such as grant appli-
cations, annual reports, and newsletters. My status as a researcher
was disclosed to everybody with whom I interacted at each organi-
zation. I use pseudonyms for the organizations in order to keep re-
search participants identities condential.
I examine organizations that work with migrants in order to
sharpen the focus on the constructed nature of citizenship in the
shadow state. Refugees and immigrants represent a category of peo-
ple in the US for whom societal membership is always in question
(Castles and Davidson, 2000). Such groups need to be seen as people
who have a stake in society and who share a common identity and
purpose before they will be accepted as deserving full membership.
Organizations that work with migrants (at least in Minnesota) are
thus placed in a position where they are expected to provide cultur-
ally competent services as a way to address issues of belonging. The
state-level government has encouraged organizations to make pro-
grammatic adjustments so that services are responsive to clients
language prociencies and cultural preferences and understanding.
The appeal to multiculturalism is thus evident in nonprots service
programming for the foreign-born. At the same time, the states
inuence on the operations of nonprots is also apparent.
Immigrants and refugees represent distinct categories of mi-
grants, which are treated differently in the US welfare state. Immi-
grants are considered voluntary migrants whereas refugees are
seen as forced migrants and admitted entry based on a humanitar-
ian response of the state. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 severely restricts
the provisioning of social services to immigrants. However, refu-
gees remain eligible to receive services during the rst ve years.
Nonprots that provide services to immigrants and refugees thus
negotiate a complex terrain of state-articulated agendas for the
integration of the foreign-born. And as such, they present a useful
case through which to understand how organizations construct cit-
izenship in the shadow state.
In general, the state agenda regarding the integration of refu-
gees promotes neoliberal forms of citizenship. Chief among state
priorities is to ensure refugees achieve economic self-sufciency,
which in practical terms means that organizations must help refu-
gees nd jobs, understand norms of the American workplace, and
learn enough English to be productive workers. Refugees are ex-
pected to become nancially independent within the rst three
months of arrival after which they become eligible for no more
than ve years of state-run welfare-to-work programs, which are
also focused on fostering service-recipients self-sufciency. Orga-
nizations must also track to whom services are provided, which en-
tails the exclusion of immigrant aliens.
MinneapolisSt. Paul provides a setting that puts into sharp re-
lief the process of citizenship formation in the shadow state. The
Hmong Mutual Assistance The Citizenship School (CS)
(HMA)
1991 1996
Hmong self-sufciency Foster active citizenship
Hmong refugees Multiple immigrant and refugee
populations
35 1.5
2099 70
75 0
Limited accommodation Avoidance
Inects national citizenship Constitutes local citizenship
3
metropolitan area features a high concentration of nonprot orga-
nizations, many of which provide social services in partnership
with the local state apparatus (Salamon et al., 1986; Elwood,
2002; Martin, 2004). Furthermore, mainstream organizations and
organizations formed by and for immigrant and refugee communi-
ties (a.k.a. ethnospecic organizations) have come to play a
signicant part in providing social services to a variety of recently
arrived migrant groups. The foreign-born population in the
MinneapolisSt. Paul metropolitan area increased by about 50% be-
tween 1990 and 2000 (US Census, 2002a). And Minnesota has set
state records for immigration since 2000 (Minnesota State Demo-
graphic Center, 2006). MinneapolisSt. Paul is a destination for
Mexican immigrants and Somali and Hmong refugees (Martin
and Holloway, 2005). These are the largest groups of migrants in
the area and constituted 14%, 11%, and 8%, respectively, of the
metropolitan areas foreign-born population in 2000 (US Census,
2002b). Refugees constitute a signicantly large proportion of mi-
grants in Minnesota; in fact, 11.8% of all refugees that came to the
US in 2005 resettled in the state. The rapid rise of the foreign-born
population has prompted public discussion about their societal
integration.
The case studies each describe an organization located at a par-
ticular position along the continuum of shadow state relationships.
However, the case studies do not account for all manner of varia-
tion along the continuum. Furthermore, contingent features of
the local political economy in MinneapolisSt. Paul, namely the
states interest in partnering with an organization that can demon-
strate cultural competency in providing social services, inuence
the insights produced by this approach. Nonetheless, the case stud-
ies begin to describe some of the necessary relations of the shadow
state and how variations in shadow state relationships affect the
construction of citizenship. Accordingly, this article offers insight
into processes that are geographically widespread within the US
and elsewhere (Wolch, 2006).
5. Constructing citizenship
This section describes the way each organization attempts to
integrate migrants into society through service provision and
interprets this signicance of these efforts for citizenship forma-
tion. As part of the description, I examine how organizations en-
gage the local context of reception in their respective efforts to
affect migrants status as members of society. I use the case studies
to develop the thesis that nonprots engaged in formal relation-
ships with the state contribute to the formation of American citi-
zenship a neoliberal approach to societal belonging in a polity
imagined at the national scale. I present cases in a manner that
moves along a continuum of shadow state relations from state
dominance to nonprot contestation.
 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
5.1. Were becoming an arm of the government. Privileging self-
sufciency in the shadow state
The mission of Refugee Social Services (RSS) is to promote refu-
gees self-sufciency and to assist refugees in accessing services and
integrating into their communities. RSS is a mainstream organiza-
tion operated by native-born and naturalized citizens. The organi-
zation also employs refugees who are well integrated into US
society as service providers, which forms part of its efforts to dem-
onstrate cultural competency. RSS incorporated as a nonprot in
the 1960s and is a local refugee resettlement agency that is part
of a nationally organized Judeo-Christian voluntary agency that
works with the US State Department. RSS receives 90% of its fund-
ing from federal and state institutions and operates a refugee reset-
tlement program and two welfare-to-work programs through
which refugees receive services. RSS thus reects the typical
characterization of shadow state relationships that posit state dom-
inance over nonprots. The case of RSS illustrates how an organiza-
tion that operates state-funded social service programs shapes
refugees into nancially independent persons who are capable of
being seen as American citizens.
RSS promotes refugees self-sufciency in two ways. Services in
its resettlement program assist refugees during their rst ninety
days in the US and assists them with nding housing, visiting
public health ofces, learning about and managing money, and
enrolling family members in language classes or school. The wel-
fare-to-work programs are available to refugees within their rst
ve years in the US and provide assistance with nding jobs, pre-
paring for job interviews, and for developing skills that increase
refugees employability. As part of one of these programs, RSS
provides English language and soft-skills instruction to hard-to-
employ refugees. This approach is singularly geared towards
developing a functional ability to communicate in the workplace,
the goal of which is to make the service-recipients more employ-
able. In all, these programs are intended to move refugees into
employment so that they may become economically independent
and thereby adopt one of the virtues of American citizenship. As
the director explains, when you go to work every day, you feel
integrated, you mix into the general population.
Staff members with whom I interacted share concern that the
states employment-focused agenda for service provision constrains
the scope of operations at RSS. The director articulates this senti-
ment well in reecting on RSSs relationship with state institutions:
People used to get out and help people. . .Now we have to make
sure theyre eligible, make sure we do the paperwork and the
documentation, all of those kinds of things, and if theres time
left over, we get to help people. Were becoming an arm of
the government. . .There are too many rules and regulations. If
they were just guiding us, it wouldnt be so bad, but its
mandated.
As she highlights, constraints arise from requirements to docu-
ment service outcomes and demonstrate accountability to the obli-
gations of service contracts that RSS holds with the federal and
state institutions. This experience in RSS is consistent with other
research on the shadow state that suggests state institutions exert
direct and indirect inuence on organizations, which unnecessarily
constrain their operations (Austin, 2003; Christensen and Ebrahim,
2006) and steer them into a role of deploying neoliberal workfare
policy (Mitchell, 2001; Lake and Newman, 2002).
As a result of real and perceived restrictions, RSS narrowly
focuses its programs on helping refugees nd employment in
MinneapolisSt. Paul. In this effort, RSS addresses the context of
reception by working with local employers to create positions
refugees can enter and to affect the perception of migrants as
447
productive workers. For instance, as a part of its effort to move ref-
ugees into jobs, RSS engages potential employers in Minneapolis
St. Paul to educate them about refugees cultural traditions and
consider ways in which companies can accommodate refugees
and still maintain high levels of productivity. The director of RSS
notes that the organization
teach[es] employers about how to interact with other people.
[For example] Muslims need time to pray. How does that t
in with your daily work routine? How can you accommodate
that, yet still keep your production lines going? How can you
hire a Somali with all the clothing that she wears, [when it pre-
sents] safety issues? We work through those things. Its a dia-
logue, convincing people that theres a middle ground. That
can be challenging with employers, especially when the econ-
omy is poor and theyre laying-off people and they have 100
people applying for that one job.
In addition to the effort to affect employers imagination of ref-
ugees as workers, RSS also helps migrants present themselves as
reliable workers. For instance, the language instruction migrants
receive at RSS is actually labeled functional work English and a
considerable part of the instruction focuses on American workplace
norms concerning punctuality, taking breaks, and absenteeism. The
language instruction course also culminates with participants
applying for work. As part of this process RSS attempts to make mi-
grants legible as workers. Indeed, as a volunteer, I worked with
middle-aged Somali women who had never held paid employment
to create a narrative of themselves as workers nonetheless with
particular skills and ethics. RSS also encourages use of these narra-
tives in applying to jobs. In these ways, RSS attends to the local con-
text of migrant reception through attempts to broaden the
opportunities for employment, which have implications for
citizenship.
Through its concerted focus on integrating refugees into society
through relations of work, RSS deploys a particular approach to cit-
izenship. This approach follows a liberal tradition of citizenship in
the US that presents the citizen as a free-thinking individual who is
economically self-sufcient and thus does not present a nancial
burden on the polity. Indeed, RSS socializes its refugee clients so
they may become and be seen as economically self-sufcient. But
RSS also emphasizes that refugees should be able to make choices
independent of welfare agencies. As a volunteer, I observed in RSS
programs a deliberate effort to enable refugees choice in terms of
where to work and what type of job skills to build and practice.
Sharing this observation with a welfare-to-work program manager
prompted her reection that organizations should empower, not
pre-determine refugees choices. Inasmuch as government funding
has directed RSS to help refugees through employment, the organi-
zation intends to create space for refugees to make their own deci-
sions about how they will integrate, and therefore become
independent members of society. Accordingly, RSS shapes refugees
to be self-sufcient persons able to take up the mantle of American
citizenship. The case of RSS illustrates the construction of citizen-
ship under conditions where state agendas dominate nonprot
conduct. The next case describes how organizations can negotiate
constraints of formal relationships with the state to inect Ameri-
can citizenship in noteworthy ways.
5.2. We want to be seen as American and that means being seen as
successful. Inecting national citizenship
Hmong Mutual Assistance (HMA) is a migrant-operated ethno-
specic organization with a mission to improve the social standing,
economic welfare, and active participation of Hmong people in
MinneapolisSt. Paul communities. The Hmong are an ethnic
448 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
group from Laos that have come to the US as refugees. As many as
60,000 Hmong are estimated to live in MinneapolisSt. Paul, which
makes this metropolitan area one of the largest concentrations of
Hmong in the country (Ronningen, 2004). Similar to RSS, HMA
draws on state funding to socialize Hmong migrants as self-suf-
cient individuals. Yet, HMA has been able to negotiate state inu-
ence and shape agendas that guide the ways it is able to use
state funding. Furthermore, HMA draws on neighborhood regener-
ation activities in an attempt to shift historically negative public
perceptions of Hmong towards the idea that they are deserving
of American citizenship.
HMA was started by individuals who believed that Hmong ref-
ugees would ultimately not return to Laos and therefore needed
support integrating into American society. HMA incorporated as
a nonprot in the 1990s and accepted social service contracts from
the federal and state governments aimed at helping Hmong refu-
gees nd lasting employment. But the organization was not singu-
larly focused on employment. Rather, HMA supports its mission by
operating two sets of programs and sustaining a public relations
campaign. One set of services promotes economic self-sufciency
through education, employment, and welfare-to-work programs.
A second set encourages people to think of ways in which they
can be both Hmong and American through appreciation of Hmong
language, folk music and dance, especially among the second-
generation.
HMAs emphasis on continuing Hmong identity intersects with
the social service programs in a noteworthy way. HMA provides
culturally appropriate services, which means both employing
co-ethnic caseworkers who speak Hmong and adapting service
programs to be consistent with and respectful of Hmong cultural
practices and beliefs. The goal of this, in the words of HMAs assis-
tant director, is to be Hmong and American. To this end, he ex-
plains that HMA endeavors to
. . .support Hmong to be equal. We give culturally appropriate
services [because] we [Hmong] need to choose the path that
respects our heritage and identity in a way that allows us to
be progressive and. . .be successful.
This approach is possible because HMA has been quite adept at
negotiating the regulations that come with state contracts for so-
cial service delivery. As the executive director describes,
Usually government contracts set up regulations that you have
to follow. Sometimes theyre very complicated. What we get is
really more exible. Even though there are some restrictions,
we can run the program how we want as long as it ts with
the guidelines. We just need to make sure it meets their criteria
and we can operate it any way we want, we may have to work
with certain populations, but we never really had problems
with that.
The degree of freedom that the director describes is a result of
county and state governments and charitable foundations interest
in multiculturalism, which is demonstrated by these institutions
decision to provide funding for culturally appropriate social ser-
vices. Such interest has been generated, in part, because HMA
and other ethnospecic organizations successfully advocated for
the creation and maintenance of this category of funding. Never-
theless, the exibility of this type of funding offers latitude for
HMA and other ethnospecic organizations to negotiate con-
straints that can come with state regulation. At the same time,
HMAs service programs remain focused on self-sufciency and
on enabling Hmong people to make their own decisions about
how they integrate into American society. This use of multicultur-
alism parallels Mitchells (2004, p. 643) argument that multicultur-
alism increasingly emphasizes the choice of individual
immigrants or minorities to assimilate to the values of liberalism
and hence attain civic competence. HMA also engages in media
campaigns in MinneapolisSt. Paul to deploy an idea of Hmong ref-
ugees as contributing to the economic welfare of American society.
It is important to note that in the two decades after Hmong peo-
ples arrival in MinneapolisSt. Paul in 1975, mass media have rep-
resented Hmong people as contributing to enduring social
problems, such as crime and indigence, particularly in the central
cities (Jett, 1995). Perceptions that Hmong families are dependent
on welfare have persisted in the contemporary era despite research
showing declines in welfare dependency since the mid 1980s
(Ramsey County, 1993). These perceptions constitute a signicant
discourse about national belonging. Informed by such perceptions,
people have pressured local and state governments to limit and
constrain the amount of welfare support given to Hmong. HMA
engages in public relations that attempt to change the negative ste-
reotypes of Hmong people. An assistant director of HMA explained
the substance of the message that HMA tries to deploy to the pub-
lic: We want to be seen as Americans and that means being seen
as successful.
One of the ways in which HMA attempts to promote this image
is by participating in the renewal of the neighborhood in which it is
located. This inner-city neighborhood has been in decline for sev-
eral decades. It is also one of the neighborhoods in which many
Hmong settled during the arrival of refugees in the 1970s and
1980s and hosts a public housing complex where many Hmong
families have lived. While not unique, the neighborhoods decline
has nonetheless become symbolically associated with the Hmong.2
In order to contribute to the neighborhoods regeneration, HMA
nanced and constructed a new multi-million dollar community
center in the neighborhood to serve as its base of operations. The
director explained that the purpose of the building is to serve as
a true community center, a place where social capital can be devel-
oped, and a positive force for revitalization in a neighborhood that
has been in transition. A letter written to the public by the direc-
tor offers further insight into the intended meaning of the commu-
nity center:
The Center is. . .an achievement for [HMA]. It is a positive addi-
tion to [the city]. It is a major sign that the Hmong community
is building deeper roots in this community. We want to go dee-
per as community members, make the area stronger, and con-
tribute back to the greater community that has been very
generous with us.
HMAs leadership offers the new building as a powerful symbol
of the Hmong communitys positive contribution and commitment
to participate in American society. The community center is an
example of a localized economic development strategy that con-
tributes to neighborhood regeneration. But, as the director indi-
cates in his letter, the project is more than this. On one level, it is
a subtle protest against the historical stigmatization of Hmong
people in MinneapolisSt. Paul. More prominently though, the
organizations framing of the community center promotes a deni-
tion of national belonging in which membership is tied to eco-
nomic independence and societal contribution. Thus construction
of the center is also meant to signal that the Hmong community
claims inclusion in the national polity because the center demon-
strates that the community is becoming self-sufcient and, more-
over, its members are choosing to contribute to societal well-being.
These virtues may be practiced locally, but as the already cited
quotation from the assistant director indicates, they are seen as
2
The neighborhood had also been in economic decline before the arrival of Hmong
refugees, yet this did not prevent negative associations between the presence of
Hmong people and the esthetic and economic degeneration of the neighborhoods
landscape.
 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
consistent with principles of national citizenship. Interestingly,
this attempt to frame Hmong standing in American society goes
beyond Ongs (2003) characterization of citizenship as the civic
duty of a person to not be a burden on society. Indeed, this framing
underscores the civic virtue of making an economic contribution to
the polity and HMA further deploys it as proof positive of Hmong
peoples worthiness to be seen as members of American society.
This demonstrates the capacity to inect the states neoliberal
agenda with a complementary neocommunitarian twist to citizen-
ship (Fyfe, 2005). Most important to this articles purpose is that
HMA draws on Hmong peoples commitment to and investment
in a particular place in order to positively affect public perceptions
of the status of Hmong people as belonging to national polity. In
contrast to the preceding two cases, the next discussion explores
citizenship formation in an organization that eschews a formal
relationship with the state and attempts to inspire an alternative
understanding and practice of citizenship.
5.3. Constructing active citizenship and the limitations of the local
The Citizenship School (CS) is a radical departure from the pre-
vious two cases. Its mission, programs, and relationship to the state
set it apart from the status quo of migrant-serving organizations in
MinneapolisSt. Paul. It also works with both immigrants and refu-
gees whereas the previous two organizations serve refugees. CS fo-
cuses its operations on neighborhood-based community building
and especially on developing the civic character of the neighbor-
hood in which it is based. To achieve this, it socializes both migrants
and the native-born to be active citizens. Active citizenship fol-
lows the civic republican approach to citizenship in which a person
achieves standing as a member of the polity through participation
in democratic governance, particularly at the local level (Kearns,
1995). One of the critiques of this approach is that its terms of sub-
stantive membership hinge upon what people do as active citizens
and not who they are as residents, which differentiate membership
according to other power relations that affect a persons ability to
actively participate (Lepofsky and Fraser, 2003). To pursue its view
of citizenship, CS has purposefully distanced itself from direct state
inuence and in the process generated a new space in the shadow
state. CS is thus an exceptional case that illustrates how an organi-
zation can negotiate state inuence in order to deploy a localized
approach to citizenship that also emphasizes civic republican val-
ues. However, CS encounters a variety of difculties that show
the tenuousness of its approach.
In practice, CS attempts to help migrants in two distinct ways.
First, it helps migrants prepare for and take their US citizenship
exam. CS originated in 1996 as a direct response to IIRIRA. Commu-
nity activists concerned about immigrants social welfare initiated
CS. The organization continues today by mobilizing volunteers to
help immigrants acquire legal membership and become eligible
for its rights and responsibilities. Second, CS also attempts to affect
migrants standing through encouraging participation in neighbor-
hood governance by coordinating interpretation services at neigh-
borhood council meetings and arranging meetings with elected
ofcials, for instance. Through these activities, CS constructs citi-
zenship as a social practice of civic virtue and commitment to ac-
tive participation in local community affairs, regardless of ones
legal status or eligibility to vote. The message of such a conceptu-
alization of citizenship is directed to volunteer and migrant partic-
ipants alike. Hence, in the everyday activities of CS, there is a great
deal of focus on substantive membership. CSs unconventional
operations are enabled by an equally unconventional institutional
form.
CS does not have a formal relationship with the state nor does it
have 501(c)3 tax-exempt status. These are deliberate decisions
that animate CSs strategy to buffer itself from the direct inuence
449
of the state. As part of this strategy, CS receives materials and rev-
enue from two nonprots with tax-exempt status that in turn re-
ceive funding from the state and charitable foundations.
Consequently, CS operates on a shoestring budget and relies en-
tirely on volunteers and two staff members who are paid by local
higher education institutions. Moreover, CS has negotiated a fragile
set of shadow state relationships that allow it to avoid the poten-
tially constraining inuence of working directly under state con-
tracts. CSs approach is decidedly distinct from the state
nonprot relationships demonstrated by RSS and HMA. Yet, as I
have explained elsewhere, CS nevertheless operates in the shadow
of the state (Trudeau, 2008b). The tenuousness of this approach has
created some nancial instability for CS, but as one of the founders
explains, it reects the principles of the organization: For two
years we didnt have any funding, and we wanted it that way.
We didnt want to be in any of the boxes that funding agencies
make. . .As more people came to the school, we needed to grow.
So we pursued grants from foundations that respect what were
trying to do. There were complications to convince them to fund
us. . . but we have won their support.
CS uses this support to promote a vision of citizenship that is
highly contingent on engagement in neighborhood civic life. In-
deed, the organization focuses extensively on integrating migrants
into relations of citizenship that are highly localized by encouraging
their participation in spaces and institutions of local governance.
CSs distinct approach to a locally based citizenship is enabled
by its ability to avoid constraining shadow state relationships. At
the same time, as a volunteer I noted that few migrants partici-
pated in activities aligned with CSs approach to citizenship. How-
ever, I observed activities focused on preparing for the citizenship
exam were well attended. In fact, many migrants come from other
neighborhoods and municipalities to take advantage of this ser-
vice. Through conversations with other volunteers, I learned that
there are several reasons why there is a noticeable drop in partic-
ipatory citizenship activities. Some do not engage in activities re-
lated to local community governance because they do not feel
they have a stake in the affairs of the neighborhood in which CS
is located. Others prioritize legal citizenship and favor exam prep-
aration over participation in active citizenship in the neighbor-
hood. Because of these reasons, CS struggles with fostering
among many of its participants the shared interests, values, and
commitment to a place that are necessary for locally-based active
citizenship to thrive (Kearns, 1995). Thus, while CS attempts to
construct a localized form of citizenship, the lack of material re-
sources and migrants demonstrated disinterest in a locally based
active citizenship reveal limitations in the organizations approach.
6. Constructing American citizenship in the shadow state
Observing extensive governmental and societal restructuring in
recent years, geographers are investigating ways in which the
institution of citizenship may be changing along with the emer-
gence of new spaces in which the relations of citizenship are pro-
duced. State privatization, devolution and the rise of shadow state
relationships in western welfare states have led local nonprot
organizations to emerge as spaces in which the meaning and prac-
tice of citizenship is recongured. A spate of research within geog-
raphy has revealed that the structures and practices of citizenship
are being rescaled to institutions both above and below the nation-
state (for reviews, see Desforges et al., 2005; Kurtz and Hankins,
2005). However, this research is less specic about the ways in
which shadow state relationships affect the construction of citizen-
ship. Indeed, understanding the shape and scale of citizenship rela-
tions that are produced in situations where there is continued
inuence of the state despite the transfer of state functions to local
450 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
communities is an important contribution to the geographies of
citizenship.
Furthermore, this article begins to demonstrate different ways
shadow state relationships affect how local communities in the US
participate in the construction of citizenship. The case studies sug-
gest that relational interaction between nonprot organization
and state support the construction of a neoliberal form of American
citizenship. More important, though, is the theoretical generaliza-
tion that citizenship is decidedly constructed in variegated ways in
the context of the shadow state. Formal relationships with the
state privilege the construction of neoliberal approaches to citi-
zenship in a polity imagined at the national scale. The rst two
cases demonstrate that state institutions continue to affect how
local community organizations integrate individuals into relations
of citizenship and attempt to affect group standing in the polity. In
these cases, the state maintains some control of its integrative
functions despite ofoading responsibility for providing those
functions. As such, a formal relationship with the state exerts po-
tent inuence on the material and ideological conditions under
which local community organizations operate and encourages
the construction of nationally inclusive views of citizenship. A
variety of power arrangements between state and nonprot orga-
nizations dene contemporary shadow state relationships. The
case of HMA shows local-level nonprot community organizations
can negotiate shadow state relationships to enable greater exibil-
ity in the organizations operations. In such a situation, HMA is
able to draw on efforts to support neighborhood regeneration to
shape a view of citizenship that is subtly distinct from what is pre-
scribed by the state. While this view complements neoliberal cit-
izenship, it is nonetheless clear there are different views of
citizenship and state funding helps to support nationally inclusive
liberal views, but is not fully determining of the ways in which
they are enacted.
This article also suggests that organizations can create space in
the shadow state in order to connect engagement with local dis-
courses of migrant belonging to membership in communities
imagined at subnational scales. Through its avoidance of state reg-
ulation, CS is able to support a community-building agenda in
which it deploys a view of active citizenship that shifts the sub-
stantive terms of membership to the local level. While the extent
of CSs inuence on citizenship is arguably limited, this case nev-
ertheless helps to make the theoretical point that nonprot orga-
nizations can generate new understandings of citizenship in the
context of the shadow state. However, the scope of organizations
generative capacity is contingent on an ability to negotiate state
inuence. Moreover, all three cases highlight different strategies
to intervene in the construction of citizenship, different roles of
the local contexts of reception within those strategies, and the
implications of interventions shaped in the context of the shadow
state.
Most importantly, this article contributes to the literature on
citizenship in the shadow state by beginning to describe the
multiple ways nonprot organizations work with state institu-
tions and local communities to construct national citizenship. It
also shows limits to this process by describing strategies to affect
the construction of citizenship at a subnational scale. While this
article provides a more nuanced picture of how state institutions
and nonprot organizations in one locality interact to affect the
shape and scale of citizenship in the US, there is certainly more
to be learned about citizenship in the shadow state beyond
the state-nonprot relationships considered herein. Thus an
important lesson to take from this article is there are variegated
sets of shadow state relationships, in addition to differential
forms of citizenship (Lake and Newman, 2002), which set limits,
but do not determine the shape and scale of citizenship
formation.
Acknowledgments
This material is based upon work supported by the National Sci-
ence Foundation under Grant Number 0327178. I am grateful to
my interview respondents who generously shared their time and
thoughts with me. I thank the three anonymous reviewers, Lynn
Staeheli, John OLoughlin, Katrinka Somdahl-Sands, and Michael
Samers for their constructive comments and efforts to improve this
paper. I am indebted to all of individuals who enabled and enriched
this research, but I am responsible for any errors and shortcomings.
References
Agnew, J., 1996. Mapping politics: how context counts in electoral geography.
Political Geography 15 (2), 129146.
Alexander, J., Nank, R., Stivers, C., 1999. Implications of welfare reform: do nonprot
survival strategies threaten civil society? Nonprot and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly 28 (4), 452475.
Amin, A., 2005. Local community on trial. Economy and Society 34 (4), 612633.
Austin, M., 2003. The changing relationship between nonprot organizations and
public social service agencies in the era of welfare reform. Nonprot and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly 32 (1), 97114.
Baubock, R., 1994. Transnational Citizenship. Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Bloemraad, I., 2005. The limits of de Tocqueville: how government facilitates
organizational capacity in newcomer communities. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies 31 (5), 565887.
Bloemraad, I., 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in
the United States and Canada. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Bristow, G., Entwistle, T., Hines, F., Martin, S., 2008. New spaces for inclusion?
Lessons from the Three-Thirds partnerships in Wales. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research 32 (4), 903921.
Brown, M., 1997. Replacing Citizenship: AIDS Activism and Radical Democracy.
Guilford Press, New York.
Brubaker, W., 2001. The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on
immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic
and Racial Studies 24 (4), 531548.
Castles, S., Davidson, A., 2000. Citizenship and Migration. Routledge, London.
Chouinard, V., Crooks, V., 2008. Negotiating neoliberal environments in British
Columbia and Ontario, Canada: restructuring of state voluntary sector
relations and disability organizations struggles to survive. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy 26 (1), 173190.
Christensen, R., Ebrahim, A., 2006. How does accountability affect mission? The case
of a nonprot serving immigrants and refugees. Nonprot Management &
Leadership 17 (2), 195209.
Clark, G., Dear, M., 1984. State Apparatus: Structures and Language of Legitimacy.
Allen Unwin, Boston.
Cloke, P., Johnsen, S., May, J., 2007. Ethical citizenship? Volunteers and the ethics of
providing services for homeless people. Geoforum 38 (6), 10891101.
Cope, M., 2001. Between welfare and work: the roles of social service organizations
in the social regulation of labor markets of the poor. Urban Geography 22 (5),
391406.
Cordes, J., Henig, J., Twombly, E., 2000. Nonprot human service providers in an era
of privatization: organizational adaptation to change in three policy arenas. In:
Jackson-Elmoore, C., Hula, R. (Eds.), Nonprots in Urban America. Quorum
Books, Westport, pp. 4164.
Dagger, R., 2002. Republican citizenship. In: Isin, E., Turner, B. (Eds.), The Handbook
of Citizenship Studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 145158.
DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., Shragge, E., 2006. Neither romance nor regulation: re-
evaluating community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30
(3), 673689.
DeFilippis, J., Fisher, R., Shragge, E., 2010. Contesting Community: The Limits and
Potential of Local Organizing. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.
Dietz, M., 1992. Context is all: feminism and theories of citizenship. In: Mouffe, C.
(Ed.), Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community.
Verso, London, pp. 6388.
Desforges, L., Jones, R., Woods, M., 2005. New geographies of citizenship. Citizenship
Studies 9 (5), 439451.
Ehrkamp, P., Leitner, H., 2003. Beyond national citizenship: Turkish immigrants and
the (re)construction of citizenship in Germany. Urban Geography 24 (2), 127
146.
Ehrkamp, P., Leitner, H., 2006. Rethinking immigration and citizenship: new spaces
of migrant transnationalism and belonging. Environment and Planning A 38 (9),
15911597.
Elwood, S., 2002. Neighborhood revitalization through collaboration: assessing the
implications of neoliberal urban policy at the grassroots. GeoJournal 58 (23),
121130.
Elwood, S., 2006. Beyond cooptation or resistance: urban spatial politics,
community organizations, and GIS-based spatial narratives. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 96 (2), 323341.
Elwood, S., Leitner, H., 2003. GIS and spatial knowledge production for
neighborhood revitalization: negotiating state priorities and neighborhood
visions. Journal of Urban Affairs 25 (2), 139157.
 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
Fink, B., Widom, R., 2001. Social Service Organizations and Welfare Reform.
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, New York.
Fraser, J., Lepofsky, J., Kick, E., Williams, J., 2003. The construction of the local and
the limits of contemporary community building in the United States. Urban
Affairs Review 38 (3), 417445.
Fraser, N., Gordon, L., 1998. Contract versus charity: why is there no social
citizenship in the United States. In: Shar, G. (Ed.), The Citizenship Debates.
University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 113127.
Fuller, C., Kershaw, P., Pulkingham, J., 2008. Constructing active citizenship: single
mothers, welfare, and the logics of voluntarism. Citizenship Studies 12 (2), 157
176.
Fyfe, N., 2005. Making space for neo-communitarianism? The third sector, state
and civil society in the UK. Antipode 37 (3), 536557.
Fyfe, N., Milligan, C., 2003a. Out of the shadows: exploring contemporary
geographies of voluntarism. Progress in Human Geography 27 (4), 397413.
Fyfe, N., Milligan, C., 2003b. Space, citizenship, and voluntarism: critical reections
on the voluntary welfare sector in Glasgow. Environment and Planning A 35
(11), 20692086.
Hanlon, N., Rosenberg, M., Clasby, R., 2007. Ofoading social care responsibilities:
recent experiences of local voluntary organisations in a remote urban centre in
British Columbia, Canada. Health & Social Care in the Community 15 (4), 343
351.
Herbert, S., 2005. The trapdoor of community. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 95 (4), 850865.
Ilcan, S., 2009. Privatizing responsibility: public sector reform under neoliberal
government. Canadian Review of Sociology 46 (3), 207234.
Irazbal, C. (Ed.), 2008. Ordinary Places, Extraordinary Events: Citizenship,
Democracy, and Public Space in Latin America. Routledge, New York.
Jett, A., 1995. The Hmong as news: a case study of how a local press portrays a
socially marginalized group. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.
Johnsen, S., Cloke, P., May, J., 2005. Day centres for homeless people: spaces of care
or fear? Social & Cultural Geography 6 (6), 787811.
Jones, M., 1998. Restructuring the local state: economic governance or social
regulation? Political Geography 17 (8), 959988.
Joseph, S., 1999. Against the grain of the nation the Arab. In: Suleiman, M. (Ed.),
Arabs in America: Building a New Future. Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
pp. 257271.
Katz, M., 2001. The Price of Citizenship: Redening the American Welfare State.
Metropolitan Books, New York.
Kearns, A., 1995. Active citizenship and local governance: political and geographical
dimensions. Political Geography 14 (2), 155176.
Kirby, A., 1997. Restating whats obviously not obvious: more on why we need to
think longer and harder about the state apparatus. Political Geography 16 (1),
3336.
Kodras, J., 1997. Restructuring the state: devolution, privatization, and the
geographic redistribution of power and capacity of governance. In: Staeheli,
L., Kodras, J., Flint, C. (Eds.), State Devolution in America: Implications for a
Diverse Society. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 7996.
Kofman, E., 1995. Citizenship for some but not for others: spaces of citizenship in
contemporary Europe. Political Geography 14 (2), 121138.
Kofman, E., 2005. Citizenship, migration, and the reassertion of national identity.
Citizenship Studies 9 (5), 453467.
Koopmans, R., 2004. Migrant mobilisation and political opportunities: variation
among German cities and a comparison with the United Kingdom and the
Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 (3), 449470.
Kurtz, H., Hankins, K., 2005. Geographies of citizenship. Space and Polity 9 (1), 18.
Lake, B., Newman, K., 2002. Differential citizenship in the shadow state. GeoJournal
58 (23), 109120.
Leitner, H., Peck, J., Sheppard, E. (Eds.), 2007. Contesting Neoliberalism: Urban
Frontiers. Guilford Press, New York.
Lepofsky, J., Fraser, J., 2003. Building community citizens: claiming the right to
place-making in the city. Urban Studies 40 (1), 127142.
MacLeavy, J., 2009. (Re)Analysing community empowerment: rationalities and
technologies of government in Bristols new deal for communities. Urban
Studies 46 (4), 849875.
Marston, S., Mitchell, K., 2004. Citizens and the state: citizenship formations in
space and time. In: Barnett, N., Low, M. (Eds.), Spaces of Democracy. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 93112.
Marshall, T., 1950. Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Martin, D., 2004. Nonprot foundations and grassroots organizing: reshaping urban
governance. The Professional Geographer 56 (3), 394405.
Martin, D., Holloway, S., 2005. Organizing diversity: scales of demographic change
and neighborhood organizing in St. Paul, MN. Environment and Planning A 37
(6), 10911112.
Milbourne, P., 2010. Putting health and welfare in place. Policy & Politics 38 (1),
158171.
Milligan, C., Fyfe, N., 2005. Preserving space for volunteers: exploring the links
between voluntary welfare organizations, volunteering and citizenship. Urban
Studies 42 (3), 417433.
Minnesota State Demographic Center, 2006. Record number of immigrants arrived
in Minnesota in 2005. <http://www.demography.state.mn.us/
resource.html?Id=18677> (last accessed 29.03.11).
Mitchell, K., 2001. Transnationalism, neo-liberalism, and the rise of the shadow
state. Economy and Society 30 (2), 165189.
451
Mitchell, K., 2003. Educating the national citizen in neoliberal times: from the
multicultural self to the strategic cosmopolitan. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 28 (4), 387403.
Mitchell, K., 2004. Geographies of identity: multiculturalism unplugged. Progress in
Human Geography 28 (5), 641651.
Morgen, S., 2001. The agency of welfare workers: negotiating devolution,
privatization, and the meaning of self-sufciency. American Anthropologist
103 (3), 747761.
Naber, N., 2000. Ambiguous insiders: an investigation of Arab American invisibility.
Ethnic and Racial Studies 23 (1), 3761.
Ong, A., 2003. Buddha is Hiding. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Osborne, D., Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial
Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector. AddisonWesley Publishing Company,
Reading, MA.
Peck, J., 2001a. Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in
Human Geography 25 (3), 445455.
Peck, J., 2001b. Workfare States. Guilford Press, New York.
Perkins, H., 2009. Out from the (green) shadow? Neoliberal hegemony through the
market logic of shared urban environmental governance. Political Geography 28
(7), 395405.
Portes, A., Fernandez-Kelly, P., 2008. No margin for error: educational and
occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants.
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 620, 1236.
Purcell, M., 2003. Citizenship and the right to the global city: reimagining the
capitalist world order. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27
(3), 564590.
Ramsey County, 1993. Home/Away from Home: Ramsey County Community
Human Services Southeast Asian Task Force Report and Recommendations.
Ramsey County Community Human Services, St. Paul.
Ronningen, B., 2004. Estimates of selected immigrant populations in Minnesota:
2004. Minnesota State Demographic Center, St. Paul. <http://
www.demography.state.mn.us/PopNotes/EvaluatingEstimates.pdf> (last
accessed 29.03.11).
Saidel, J., 2002. Nonprot organizations, political engagement, and public policy. In:
Reid, E., Montilla, M. (Eds.), Exploring Organizations and Advocacy: Strategies
and Finance (6). Urban Institute, Washington, DC, pp. 118.
Sandel, M., 1996. Democracys Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy.
Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.
Salamon, L., 1999. The non-prot sector at the cross-roads: the case of America.
Voluntas 10 (1), 523.
Salamon, L., 2002. The resilient sector. In: Salamon, L. (Ed.), The State of Nonprot
America. The Brookings Institution, Washington, pp. 364.
Salamon, L., Musselwhite, J., De Vita, C., 1986. Partners in public service:
government and the nonprot sector in the welfare state. In: Philanthropy,
Voluntary Action, and the Public Good. Independent Sector, Inc., Washington,
DC, pp. 4258.
Sassen, S., 2002. Towards post-national and denationalized citizenship. In: Isin, E.,
Turner, B. (Eds.), The Handbook of Citizenship Studies. Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, pp. 277292.
Sassen, S., 2006. Territory, authority, rights. From medieval to global assemblages.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Schram, S., 2000. After Welfare: the Culture of Postindustrial Social Policy. New
York University Press, New York.
Schuck, P., 2002. Liberal citizenship. In: Isin, E., Turner, B. (Eds.), The Handbook of
Citizenship Studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 131144.
Secor, A., 2003. Citizenship in the city: identity, community and rights among
women migrants to Istanbul. Urban Geography 24 (2), 147168.
Secor, A., 2004. There is an Istanbul that belongs to me: citizenship, space, and
identity in the city. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94 (2),
352368.
Shar, G., 1998. The evolving tradition of citizenship. In: Shar, G. (Ed.), The
Citizenship Debates. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 130.
Shklar, J., 1991. American Citizenship: the Quest for Inclusion. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sites, W., 2003. Remaking New York: Primitive Globalization and the Politics of
Urban Community. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Sites, W., Chaskin, W., Parks, V., 2007. Reframing community practice for the 21st
century: multiple traditions, multiple challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs 29
(5), 519541.
Smith, S., 2002. Social services. In: Salamon, L. (Ed.), The State of Nonprot America.
The Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 149186.
Staeheli, L., 1999. Globalization and the scales of citizenship. Geography Research
Forum 19 (1), 6077.
Staeheli, L., 2003. Introduction: cities and citizenship. Urban Geography 24 (2), 97
102.
Staeheli, L., Clarke, S., 2003. The new politics of citizenship: structuring
participation by household, work, and identity. Urban Geography 24 (2), 103
126.
Staeheli, L., Cope, M., 1994. Empowering womens citizenship. Political Geography
13 (5), 443460.
Staeheli, L., Nagel, C., 2006. Topographies of home and citizenship: Arab-American
activists in the United States. Environment and Planning A 38, 15991614.
Staeheli, L., Thompson, A., 1997. Citizenship, community, and struggles of public
space. Professional Geographer 49 (1), 2838.
Staeheli, L., Kodras, J., Flint, C. (Eds.), 1997. State Devolution in America:
Implications for a Diverse Society. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
452 D. Trudeau / Geoforum 43 (2012) 442452
Turner, B., 2001. The erosion of citizenship. British Journal of Sociology 52 (2), 189
209.
Trudeau, D., 2008a. Junior partner or empowered community? The role of nonprot
social service providers amidst state restructuring. Urban Studies 45 (13),
28052827.
Trudeau, D., 2008b. Towards a relational view of the shadow state. Political
Geography 27 (6), 669690.
Twombly, E., 2001. Human Service Non-prots in Metropolitan Areas During
Devolution and Welfare Reform. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.
US Bureau of the Census, 2002a. 2000 Census of Population: Summary File 3 Table P
23. United States Department of Commerce, Washington.
US Bureau of the Census, 2002b. 2000 Census of Population: Summary File 3
Table PCT 19. United States Department of Commerce, Washington.
Varsanyi, M., 2008. Rescaling the alien, rescaling personhood; neoliberalism,
immigration and the state. Annals of the Association of American Geographers
98 (4), 877896.
Veronis, L., 2006. The Canadian Hispanic Day Parade, or how Latin American
immigrants practise (sub)urban citizenship. Environment and Planning A 38
(9), 16531671.
Wallace, A., 2009. Governance at a distance? The return to the local in UK social
policy. In: Rummery, K., Greener, I., Holden, C. (Eds.), Social Policy Review 21:
Analysis and Debate in Social Policy. Policy Press, Bristol, pp. 245267.
Warshawsky, D., 2010. New power relations served here: the growth of food
banking in Chicago. Geoforum 41 (5), 763775.
Wolch, J., 1990. The Shadow State: Government and Voluntary Sector in Transition.
The Foundation Center, New York.
Wolch, J., 1999. Decentering Americas nonprot sector: reections on Salamons
crises. Voluntas 10 (1), 2535.
Wolch, J., 2006. Beyond the shadow state? In: Milligan, C., Conradson, D. (Eds.),
Landscapes of Voluntarism: New Spaces of Health, Welfare, and Governance.
Policy Press, London, pp. iv.
Wolpert, J., 1997. How federal cutbacks affect the charitable sector. In: Staeheli, L.,
Kodras, J., Flint, C. (Eds.), State Devolution in America: Implications for a Diverse
Society. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 97117.
Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third edition. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Young, I., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Zhou, M., 1997. Segmented assimilation: issues, controversies, and recent research
on the new second generation. International Migration Review 31 (4), 825858.
Zhou, M., Lee, J., Vallejo, J., Tafoya-Estrada, R., Xiong, Y., 2008. Success attained,
deterred, and denied: divergent pathways to social mobility in Los Angeless
new second generation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 620, 3761.