Social capital relies over networks. Putnam (1998) made a distinction between formal networks: associations formally constituted; and informal networks: family, neighbours, friends, including voluntary associations. This distinction is better explained in Table 1.
Finally, Woolcock (1998) suggests that there may be different kinds of social capital, and that collectively they are resources to be optimized, not maximised.
Informal networks Formal networks of social relations
_____________________________________________________________________
Family household Non-group based civic relations
Family beyond the household - good deeds
Friends/intimates - individual community or political action Neighbours Association/group based relations
- antenatal
- child care
- education
- sport/ leisure
- music/arts
- church
- charity
- voluntary
- self help
Work based
Institutional
___________________________________________________________________________
Table 1. Types of informal and formal network
Source: Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2000 in ‘Measuring social capital’ (Stone, 2001)
SOME CRITICS ABOUT SOCIAL CAPITAL
Woolcock (1998) mention as a problem the fact that sociologists begun referring to virtually every feature of social life as a form of capital. As a result several theoretical and empirical weaknesses emerge.
First, social capital specialists try to explain too much with too little. There are too many theories and dimensions about social capital, undermining the concept
Second, it is not sufficiently clear if social capital is the medium or the message. Some authors state that it is simply impossible to separate what it is from what it does.
Third, social capital can justify contradictory public-policy measures. This debate has particularly importance for economic development initiatives in poor societies, where there are so many obstacles to achieve a mutually beneficial between the state and society.
Fourth, most discussion of social capital proclaim it an unqualified “good”, something that should be maximised. Woolcock thinks that not necessarily. He states that long standing civic groups can affect macroeconomics by securing a disproportionate share of resources or inhibiting individual economic advancement by placing heavy personal obligations on members that prevent them from participating in broader social networks.
Baum (1999) first identified that the term social capital can easily become a cliché if it is used without the required theoretical approach. Second, some of the literature on social capital presents a romantic view and assumes that close knit communities are necessarily healthy. Finally states a threat related to the promotion of social capital in poor communities as a substitute for economic investment by those governments who wish to reduce government spending on welfare. However, he supports the nature of social capital from their critics, about its lack of precision and theoretical rigour. Baum states that it is normal since the complexity and subjectivity of the fundamental building blocks of social capital such as participation, trust, networks and cooperation
MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL
“Social capital has been measured in a number of innovative ways, though for a number of reasons obtaining a single “true” measure is probably not possible, or perhaps even desirable”(WBG, 2005).
Social capital comes about through changes in the relations among persons that facilitate action. Since this idea is clear, we can assume that the main problem in trying to measure social capital is that social capital is intangible since it exists in the relations among persons (Coleman, 1988).
Social capital is an ongoing process, thus measurements must cross time, not simply be a snapshot of a particular moment (Cox and Caldwell, 2000). As definitions of social capital vary greatly, it is difficult to propose a list of indicators (Grootaert, 1998).
Petro ((2001) suggest that the key to a workable definition of social capital lies in finding tangible measurements of trust. Trust generates a sort of efficiency which can be measured in two ways: first, by looking at norms of reciprocity sustained by socialization and sanction, and second, from the dense networks of civic engagement that result in “generalized trust”. Petro also mentions associational activity as another form of measuring social capital.
Some studies have been done trying to measure the levels of trust and civic norms by asking to individuals about the extent and characteristics of their associational activity, and their trust in various institutions and individuals, or by assessing the well-being of different immigrant communities, among other forms (WBG, 2005). To measure social capital, specialists basically took surveys and tried to assess them with indicators, but previously they define the factors to be measured (Winter, 2000).
Stolle and Rochon (1998) suggest four groups of indicators to measure social capital. The first set of indicators covers the theme of participation and engagement. The second cluster includes measures of generalized trust and reciprocity within the community. The third block includes trust toward public officials and institutions. And the last group represents a collection of attitudinal variables important to social capital: tolerance, approval of free riding and optimism.
HOW CAN WE CREATE SOCIAL CAPITAL?
To create social capital, first we have to determine the sources, some are: families, communities, firms, civil society, public sector, ethnic relations and gender (WBG, 2004).
Coleman (1988) refer that all kinds of relations and social structures facilitate some forms of social capital. However, certain kinds of social structure are especially important in the formation of social capital.
Closure of Social Networks; very often norms exist but in some structures they are not “obey”. Coleman said suggest that the reason is a lack of closure of the social structure. Figure 1 explains it. In an open structure, like in 1a, actor A having relations with actors B and C, can carry out actions that impose negative externalities on B or C or both. Since they have no relations with one another, but with others instead (D and E), then they cannot combine forces to sanction A in order to constrain the actions. Unless either B or C alone is sufficiently powerful to sanction A alone. A’s action can continue unabated. In a structure with closure, like 1b, B and C can combine to provide a collective sanction, or either can reward the other for sanctioning A.
D E
B C
A
(a)
B C
A
(b)
Figure. 1 Network without (a) and with (b) closure
Source. Social capital in the creation of human capital
Coleman remarks also the importance of this in the creation of trustworthiness of social structures, which allows the multiplication of expectations and obligations.
Appropriate Social Organization; once organizations are created for a specific purpose, can also aid others, constituting important social capital for the individual members, who have request them. Usually, persons are linked in more than one context. The property of a multiple relation is that it allows the resources of one relationship to be appropriated for use in others.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE ENVIRONMENT
For as long as people have managed natural resources, they have engaged in forms of collective action. Collaboration has been institutionalized through the creation of local associations. Some examples are: farming households have collaborated on water management, pastoralists have co-managed grasslands, fishing families have jointly managed aquatic resources, among other forms of collective action.
Although constructive resource management rules and norms have been embedded in many cultures and societies, it has been rare for the importance of such local groups and institutions to be recognized in recent agricultural and rural development. Development assistance has paid too little attention to how social capital affects environment outcomes (Pretty and Ward, 2001).
Pretty and Ward, state in their work how social capital embedded in participatory within rural communities has been central to equitable and sustainable solutions to local development problems. They also argue that whether group progress toward maturity is likely to be related to availability of social capital locally, but also to appropriate inputs form government and voluntary agencies.
Very often, strict regulations and economic incentives have been used to encourage farmers change in behaviour (Pretty et al, 2000). But are these regulations causing a real change in behaviours? Farmers commonly revert to old practices after incentives and regulations are not longer enforced. That is why Pretty and Ward (2001) inferred that social capital is necessary as a prerequisite for natural capital improvements. Pretty and Ward suggest that social capital is necessary for sustainable and equitable solutions to natural resource management, demands working individually and collectively with communities to increase their knowledge and skills, their leadership capacity, their motivation, and to help creating the conditions for the emergence of a new local associations with appropriate rules and norms for resource management.
Pretty and Ward (2001) refers to some empirical evidence that demonstrate the expansion in collective management programs. We will focus in two of them.
- Watershed and catchment management groups; governments and nongovernmental organizations have realized the necessity of local people in protecting catchments. Indeed, for sustainable solutions to emerge, farmers need to be motivated to improve their practices. This demands an investment in participatory processes. This realization led to an expansion in programs focused on micro-catchments, in which people know and trust each other. The results were extraordinary, with most programs reporting improvements. Most of them also report public benefits.
- Irrigation and water users groups. Although its importance, water is rarely used efficiently and effectively. Without regulation, water, like all public goods can be overuse and under invest. But with locally developed rules, groups are able to make more with the existing resources.
Finally, Pretty and Ward (2001) describes a model explaining how transformations in social capital occur.
Stage one: reactive-dependence; groups form to achieve a desired outcome. Usually appears as a crisis-reaction. Individuals look for external solutions and external facilitators as well. The tendency for agriculture is to focus on eco-efficiency by reducing costs and damage.
Stage two: realization-independence; individuals tends to look inwards more. Members want to invest time and efforts in the group, trust grow. Groups begin to create their own rules and norms and solutions as well. The tendency is to start incorporating regenerative technologies. However, they can eventually break down if members feel that they have achieved the original aim.
Stage three: awareness-interdependence; groups are engaged in shaping their own realities. Now they expect change and are dynamics. They need to stay linked to external agencies, and are strong enough to support threats. At this stage, agricultural systems are more likely to be redesigned, no longer adopting new technologies to fit the old systems, but innovating to develop entirely new systems.
To encourage the greater adoption of group-based programmers for environmental improvements, international agencies, governments, banks and NGOs must invest more in the creation of social and human capital. They also must ensure that the transition is made. Pretty and Ward (2001) state that one way to ensure the stability of social capital is for groups to work together by federating to influence district, regional or even national bodies. This can open up economies of scale to bring greater economic and ecological benefits.
Flora (1998) offered us a different view about social capital and environment. She states the difficulty of transforming social capital into entrepreneurial social infrastructure, making hard to operate it. That is why she uses the term entrepreneurial social infrastructure (ESI) as a particular format for developing organizational forms that encourage collective action to achieve tangible goals. Social capital is a prerequisite for ESI but not sufficient by itself.
Flora also states the difficulty to make a separation between collective action and social capital. She believes that is useful to distinguish the infrastructure which may facilitate community action from the action itself and prefers to keep collective action separate form social infrastructure. A community event or project can indicate and build social capital/ESI while at the same time be characterized as collective action, making it difficult to make such a separation.
CONCLUSIONS
We can infer that the more is used social capital the more regenerates, generating more levels of trust and confidence (Pretty and Ward, 2001).
Social capital requires confidence in the continuation of social and political relationships. Social capital also implies a willingness to do ones share in collective endeavours (Stolle and Rochon, 1998).
The development or erosion of social capital is not a uniform phenomenon; it can vary across the democracies (Hall, 1999).
Voluntary associations provide one of the best indicators of trends in social capital (Hall, 1999).
Social capital lowers the costs of working together and facilitates cooperation. Social capital implies a social organization that fits natural resource management and protection at local level (Pretty and Ward, 2001).
Finally, social capital is neither a static process, nor unchangeable. Furthermore, social capital is uneasy to measure since its intangible nature. It exists in the relations among persons (Coleman, 1988).
LIST OF REFERENCES
Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T., 2000 Social Capital: A Review and Critique, in Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. edited by Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, Oxford University Press, New York.
Baum, F., 1999, Social capital: Is it good for your health? Issues for a public health agenda, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Vol.53, No.4, pp. 195-197.
Bourdieu, P., nd, The Forms of Capital Greenwood Press.
Coleman, J., 1988, Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology. Vol.94, pp. 95-120.
Cox, E. 1995 A truly civil society. A.B.C., Sydney.
Cox, E., & Caldwell, P., 2000, Making policy social, in Social capital and public policy in Australia. edited by I. Winter, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia.
Flora, J., 1998, Social capital and communities of place, Rural Sociology. Vol.63, No.4, pp.481-508.
Grootaert, Ch., 1998, Social Capital: The Missing Link?, The World Bank Social Development Family Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. Vol.3, pp. 1-34.
Hall, P., 1999, Social Capital in Britain, British Journal of Political Science. Vol.29, pp. 417-461.
Maskell, P., 2000, Social Capital, Innovation and Competitiveness, in Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. edited by Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, Oxford University Press, New York.
Pretty, J., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L, Raven, H., Rayment, M., & van der Bijl, G. (2000). An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems Vol.65, No.2, pp. 113 -136.
Prettty, J. & Ward, H., 2001, Social Capital and the Environment, World Development. Vol.29, No.2, pp. 209-227.
Putnam, R., 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
Stone, W., 2001, Measuring social capital: towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life. Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Szreter, S., 2000, Social Capital, the Economy, and the Education in Historical Perspective, in Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. edited by Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, Oxford University Press, New York.
Petro, N., 2001, Creating Social Capital in Russia: The Novgorod Model, World Development. Vol.29, No.2, pp.229-244.
Stolle, D., & Rochon, T., 1998, Are all associations alike?, American Behavioural Scientist. Vol.42, No.1, pp. 47-67.
The World Bank Group 2004, ‘Sources of Social Capital’, Social Capital for Development, viewed 26 October 2005,
The World Bank Group 2005, ‘How is Social Capita measured?’, Social Capital for Development, viewed 28 October 2005,
Winter, I., 2000, Major themes and debates in the social capital literature: The Australian connection, in Social capital and public policy in Australia. edited by I. Winter, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Commonwealth of Australia.
Woolcock, N., 1998, Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework, Theory and Society. Vol.27, No.2, pp. 151-208.
Woolcock, M, & Narayan, D., 2000, Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy, The World Bank Research Observer. Vol.15, No.2, pp. 225-251.
