Social Capital Literature

8/8/2019 Social Capital Literature

1/18

Social Networks, Trust and Social Capital in Value Chain Development

Zahra S Campbell-Avenell

Social regulation is the theory that all economic behavior is influenced by social institutions, which in

turn motivate the behavior of the actors in the market (Harriss-White 1998: 1- 36). Membership in social

networks can facilitate the creation of social capital, which can be conceptualized as the density,strength, and structure of social networks in which individuals are entrenched. The more tightly knit

social networks are, the greater the opportunity for social capital development, since networks can

monitor and reward cooperation, punish defectors and discourage free riders, all the while promoting

altruism and expectations of symmetrical reciprocity from members.

Social Capital

Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a

durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition -

or in other words, to membership in a group - which provides each of its members with the backing of

the collectively-owned capital, a 'credential' which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the

word (Bourdieu 1986: 51).

Social capital may be seen as a form of currency embedded in networks of social relationships from

which an individual can potentially or actually derive resources that can be translated to physical and

economic capital (Bourdieu 1986). Putnam defines social capital as social networks and the associated

norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness (2007: 137). The sources of social capital are entrenched

within the social structure in which individuals are located; thus social capital refers to the resource

available to actors as a function of their location in the structure of their social relations (Adler and

Kwon 2002: 18). Access to resources made available through social capital must be actively maintained,

since it is temporary and borrowed (Lin 1999: 468).

There are two kinds of social capital: structural and cognitive.Structural forms of social capital are thosecreated by established roles and social networks supplemented by rules, procedures and precedents

while cognitive forms of social capital are those which are formed on the basis of shared norms, values,

attitudes and beliefs (Krishna and Uphoff 1999: 7). As Astone et al note, social capital is inalienable;

that is, it cannot be exchanged with or transferred to another person (1999: 4). It is also important to

note that social capital is highly context-dependent and time-bound (Pantoja 2000: 16). Social capital

can be classified as bonding; i.e. exclusive, between members of a similar group, or bridging; i.e.

inclusive, between members of different groups (Putnam 2000).

Importance of Social Capital

Evidence suggests that social capital is directly proportional to improved health outcomes, greater

safety, higher education levels, longer, happier lives, and a better functioning democracy and economy(Putnam 2000). Additionally, it has been observed that mutually beneficial collective action, which is

defined as the the benefit flow that we associate with and expect to observe from the "asset" of social

capital is positively related to superior development outcomes (Krishna and Uphoff 1999). One of the

many positive consequences of social capital accrual is increased social solidarity and a reduction in the

size of vulnerable populations (Cava and Nanetti 2000: 46).


2/18

The possession of social capital has been demonstrated to have externalities for the entire community.

In an analysis of watersheds in Rajasthan, social capital enabled several communities to effectively

harness a common resource (Krishna and Uphoff 1999). Isham and Kahkonens (1999) case study on

water projects in Indonesia concluded that social capital increases the capacity of villagers to design and

maintain water supply systems in Central Java. Similarly, Reid and Salmen (2000) found that trust is the

key determinant for making agricultural extension successful in Mali. Pargal, Huq and Gilligans study on

solid waste removal in urban areas of Bangladesh, as well as Roses study of social capital in Russia also

demonstrate important organizational and economic benefits of social capital (cited in Grootaert and

van Bastelaer 2001).

Social capital can complement other forms of capital to stimulate economic growth (Grootaert 2001).

When measured amongst agricultural traders in Madagascar, research revealed that those who have

more social capital are better connected, have better price information and client reliability, and thus

enjoy greater sales and higher margins (Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2001, Fafchamps and Minten

1999). Research in India and Tanzania similarly demonstrated that social capital greatly advances the

ability of the poor to manage scarce resources and provides an enhanced buffer from economic

vulnerability (Grootaert 1998:11). Enhanced economic productivity can be achieved through

membership in social networks due to improved access to information, labor, credit, as well as contractenforcement provided by social control. Social networks, particularly those based on kinship or native-

place ties, can help promote small businesses due to trust and cohesion among members. Social capital

can also act as a buffer to predatory businesses, lower barriers to entry for newcomers, and increase the

survival and success rates of members (Peng 2004: 1068). In addition, social relationships are

advantageous because they help to define an individuals identity and behavioral norms that guide their

choices and actions (Barrett 2004: 3).

It is important to note, however, that social capital only refers to the ability to acquire resources and not

the actual acquisition of resources. This is particularly pertinent with regard to the poor, who despite

having strong bonds within social networks may still only have access to limited resources (Portes and

Landolt 2000: 532).

Dimensions of Social Capital

Multiple sources of social capital have been identified, and vary with the local context. Some are

described below:

(a) Family and kinship connections, which would include the single household, the extended

family, or the clan, based on strong ties of blood and affinity. An important factor is that family/kin

relationships are mainly created by birth, not by choice.

(b) (Wider) social networks or associational life,which would include networks of individuals,

groups and organizations that link individuals from different families or groups in common activitiesfor various purposes. This would be the form of social capital closer to the definition in terms of

networks of civic engagement or local associations. This form of social capital covers a full range

of formal and informal horizontal arrangements.

(c) Cross-sectional linkages or networks of networks,which would include the networks linking

together organizations from various sectors of society (i.e., NGOs, grassroots organizations,

government agencies, private firms) that allow to combine resources and different types of

knowledge to find solutions to complex problems. Through these networks, public-private cross-


3/18

sectoral linkages, and mutually supportive and complementary relations are established. This form

of capital provides the articulations between horizontal and vertical associations and organizations.

(d) PoliticalCapital, which would include the norms and networks shaping relations between civil

society and the state thereby allowing a society to mediate conflict by effectively responding to

multiple citizen demands. Political capital is related to informal institutional arrangements that may

result in clientelism, rent seeking and exclusion, or in effective representation, accountability and

participation. This is a form of social capital that lies in the realm of political society.

(e) Institutional and policy framework, which would include formal rules and norms (constitutions,

laws, regulation, policies) that regulate public life. This is what has generally been identified as

macro-level social capital. It has a sort of double nature, since it may induce the creation of other

forms of social capital, while it constitutes in itself a resource that facilitates coordinated actions.

(f) Social norms and values, which would include widely shared cultural beliefs and the effects such

beliefs have on the functioning of society at large. Norms and values support other forms of social

capital as well as representing the most general and most difficult form of social capital. (Pantoja

2000: 26 27).

Figure 1 below shows the scope of social capital, which includes participation in formal and informal

social networks, everyday interactions, as well as trust.

Figure 1: From Narayan and Cassidy (2001: 67).


4/18

Ethnicity and Social Capital

Social capital has been demonstrated to be significantly lower in ethnically fragmented societies, where

norms of reciprocity and trust are shared within, rather than across, social groups. Alesina and La

Ferrara (2000) find that engagement and participation in social groups is markedly lower in ethnically

diverse communities. Greif similarly notes that collectivist societies are characteristic of developing

countries, where the social structure is highly fragmented, with individuals interacting socially and

economically mainly with members of a particular ethnic, religious or familial group, and where contract

enforcement is primarily expected through informal institutions (cited in Pantoja 19). Social networks

in industrial districts in developing countries are usually shaped by religion, ethnicity, language, caste or

regional background (Nadvi 1998: 29). It can be particularly challenging to strengthen existing networks

in such divided societies where ascriptive forms of identification, such as ethnicity, represent a

fundamental social cleavage (Reilly and Phillpot 2002: 907).

Ethnicity provides a powerful kind of bonding social capital, strengthening high levels of in-group

solidarity and trust, but often excluding the possibility of creating important bridging social capital

across groups. Research conducted in Papua New Guinea, one of the most ethnically diverse places in

the world with over 852 languages (about a fifth of the worlds total) and over 1000 documented ethnicgroups, suggests that the more ethnolinguistic diversity there is in a particular area, the lower the

overall level of provincial development (Reilly and Phillpot 2002: 918). High levels of ethnic

fragmentation are also negatively correlated with indicators of social capital such as education quality

and radio usage (Reilly and Phillpot 2002: 920). This is consistent with Putnams findings, which revealed

that immigration and ethnic diversity reduce social cohesion and inhibit social capital formation, at least

in the short term (2007).

Migration networks, particularly from the rural to urban areas, offer an opportunity to use ethnically

based social capital. Such networks tend to exhibit circular and cumulative causation (Massey 1990: 4)

due to the information about job opportunities that is disseminated among potential migrants, as well

as the networks increased ability to support new rural-to-urban migrants (cited in Silvey and Elmhirst

2003: 868). In industrial districts, technology is often endogenized, or related directly to the social

fabric in which it is located, which implies that small businesses have business knowledge that is often

community-specific, accumulated over a long period of time, and that technical progress is an

incremental process (Nadvi 1998: 14). Often there is a dogma of ethnic skills and a preponderance of

ethnic specialization, e.g. Chinese tine minders and traders and Indian rubber tappers, to name a few

(Horowitz, cited in Bates 1985: 109 111).

Research in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) suggests that ethnicity is double edged in that it

provides incentive for urban migration and skill acquisition leading to employment; but it is also used for

political organization, sometimes to violent ends (Bates 1999). In many regions of Africa, educated

people have built and used urban ethnic associations for protests, many of which have escalated into

violence (Bates 1999). This does not necessarily imply that ethnic differences always lead to hostility;but that they have the potential to be exploited.


5/18

Developing Social Capital

Although there is no consensus in the literature as to whether or how social capital can be produced,

some research has concluded that social capital creation is possible, at least in the short term. Fukuyama

(2000) argues that social capital is frequently a byproduct of social factors that cannot be easily changed

such as religion, ethnicity or tradition. However, several theorists disagree, asserting that social capital

can be intentionally created, particularly with external intervention. There are two approaches to

fostering social capital: bottom up and top down. The first is more common, and relies on

strengthening local networks and building productive relationships with the market, government and

NGOs (Bebbington 1996). The top down approach has been successfully employed in areas of rural

Mexico, where state reformers scaled up regional organizations by offering them positive incentives and

shielding them from possible negative sanctions (Fox 1996: 1090).

Hobbs (2001) has accumulated a number of theorists ideas about social capital development which

merit further study. These include Falk and Kilpatrick (1999), who argue that the development of social

capital is the result of a series of high quality learning interactions that include a historical dimension,

as well as issues of trust, values and norms; Sabel (1994), who asserts that social capital is developed as

the outcome of actors agreeing to a series of negotiations, and Hechter (1997), who proposes a multi-stage process for social capital formation, based on mutually agreed rules and regulations.

Social capital is an enigma: it cannot be purchased or transferred, and is a temporary asset that must be

actively maintained. This paper identifies a few methods for creating and sustaining social networks,

including community preparation, building trust, forming social organizations, promoting education and

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), government intervention and harnessing existing

social networks.

Community Preparation

Warner (2001) notes that since building and maintaining social networks require investments,communities need to be informed about the benefits of building networks to increase social capital. She

asserts that If the object of network building is not endowed with social, economic or cultural capital

then the effort will not be considered worthwhile (Warner 2001: 188). Albee and Boyd (1997) similarly

observe that participation in social networks rarely happens spontaneously, and social preparation is

required to support engagement at the local level. Social preparation involves works which involves

collecting information, analyzing the situation, prioritizing actions the group wishes to pursue, joining

together into a group and working out the means to implement the actions (Albee and Boyd 1997: 3).

Community agents, animators and facilitators can be instrumental as social mobilizers and activists,

encouraging participation in local groups, as well as creating linkages across groups (Albee and Boyd

1997).

Through literature on social movements, it has been observed that the intensity of participationdepends both on the embeddedness in social networks and on the individual perceptions of

participation, that is, the evaluation of a number of cognitive parameters related to engagement (Passy

and Giugni 123). If individuals are convinced of the potential advantages of membership in a social

network, they are more likely to join the network.


6/18

Building Trust

Trust can be defined as trust as the subjective probability with which an actor assesses that another

actor or group of actors will perform a particular action, both before she or he can monitor such action

(or independently of his or her capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects

his or her own action (Adler 2001: 217). The intersection between trust and social capital is a relatively

obvious, but under-researched area. This may be because the relationship between trust and social

capital has been articulated by various theorists in different ways. Fukuyama (1995) and others equate

trust with social capital; some theorists such as Putnam (1993) see trust as a source of social capital;

others such as Coleman (1988) see trust as a form of social capital; yet others (Lin 1999) see it as a

collective asset (Adler and Kwon 2002: 26). Social capital can be defined as interpersonal trust

expressed through the relationships that exist among a societys members, its institutions and

organizations (Reid and Salmen 2000: 1). For the purpose of this paper, trust is treated as a valuable

source of social capital; one that grows with use over time.

Bjornstads study of trust in the context of a borehole and irrigation project in rural Malawi suggests that

the decision to trust others is a rational one, and people will only trust each other if they believe that

their chance of gaining is higher than their chance of losing (2008). Matj and Vitskov (2005) suggestthat social capital can be conceptualized in terms of mutually beneficial exchanges rooted in social

relations that permit individuals to meet their own goals. General shared norms alone, Bjornstad

asserts, are not enough to engender trust, which is based on individual assessments of trustworthiness

derived from previous interactions (2008: 11). Ostrom similarly finds that face-to-face interchange

greatly increases the probability of cooperation, for both one-time and repeated interactions (2003: 29).

Trust can be developed over time by creating familiarity through repeated interactions, calculation

based on common interests, norms that create predictability and trustworthiness (Adler 2001: 218).

Social capital thus can be built by establishing trust over a period of time through interactions with and

exposure to new groups, and participating in activities with them. Figure 2 below depicts how trust is

created and maintained:

Figure 2: The Dimensions and Components of Trust. From Adler (2001: 218).


7/18

Adler and Kwon acknowledge that trustthat is demonstrated today typically will be reciprocated and

amplified tomorrow (2002: 22). The success of any microfinance project depends on trust and solidarity

among group members, and between members and the MFI. Casson and Della Giusta (2004), in their

study of microfinance programs in Mexico, find that societies with dense social networks find it helpful

to have an external trust-broker to promote trust.

An important feature of trust to keep in mind is that it is extremely context-specific. Social capital is

often dependent on the proximity of groups to each other. Carpenter et al note the importance of the

interconnectedness of residents in specific geographical locales, where space both facilitates and

constrains the initiation and sustainability of such connections (2004: 855). Casson and Della Giusta

(2004) demonstrate the specificity of trust in different contexts, even within two similar regions of rural

Mexico. This is why development interventions aimed at building trust must incorporate the pre-existing

social relations, norms and practices of communities.

A case study on agricultural extension in Mali finds that trust is at the root of their success (Reid and

Salmen 2000). The study noted that there were three aspects of trust that were equally important: the

quality of farmer relationships; trust between extension workers and farmers; and the relationship

between extension workers and their national organizations. It also highlighted the significance of pre-existing social cohesion: the inclination of villagers to attend association meetings, congregate at places

of worship and to build and maintain public infrastructure was translated into the likelihood of success

for the agricultural extension project (Reid and Salmen 2000). The authors also emphasized the need for

development projects to be designed according to differing levels of pre-existing social capital within a

community.

Social Organizations

Cernea asserts that Creating organizations is equal to creating new social capital and the way to build

social capital is to "increase, diversify, multiply, and solidify the various forms of formal organization" of

communities (1993: 13, 2). Mondal (2000) examines how two large NGOs organized poor, landless

farmers in Bangladesh into village organizations, and reports that this resulted in reduced poverty rates,

improved trust and networking, greater skill level, enhanced gender equality and progress in human

rights. Huntoon (2001) suggests that governments can foster social capital development by providing

funding to voluntary and charitable associations. Onyx and Bullen (2000) propose citizen engagement to

develop social capital through outsourcing by the government.

Astone at al note that The inalienability of social capital implies that any programmatic efforts to

redress this situation must focus on either the development of equivalent ties for members of other

groups (e.g., mentoring programs) or limiting the use of family ties in hiring by employers (e.g.,

affirmative action programs) (1999: 4). The findings of Nelson et al (2003) detail how concord

organizations work with groups in conflict in the US, Northern Ireland, South Africa and Palestine. The

authors note that bonding social capital that connects people with a shared identity can alienateoutsiders, creating exclusive networks that reinforce the differences between the exclusive network

members and others (Nelson et al 2003: 10). One way to avoid this, the authors assert, is to balance

bonding social capital between individuals within a social group with bridging social capital with

outsiders. The methods used by various concord organizations for social network formation and bridging

social capital provide promising strategies that can be replicated elsewhere, particularly in ethnically

diverse communities. Among these are structured dialogue groups to facilitate conversation between


8/18

groups with opposing views; education and training activities for and about diverse groups; conflict

management and mediation; and community service and economic development.

Warner (1999) explores how social capital can be constructed to enhance involvement of excluded

groups. She asserts that in communities where forums for interaction no longer emerge as natural

extensions of work, school, or play, they can be intentionally created and designed to encourage

development of social capital to enhance community problem solving in specific arenas of concern

(Warner 1999: 379). Such spaces may be incidental, voluntary or quasi-official, but they must be

relatively participatory.

Education

Social capital can be transmitted through educational institutions, which provide social control in the

form of norms and rules (Fukuyama 2000). Governments can also indirectly promote social capital

creation by providing property rights and public safety to encourage an environment of trust.Education

can contribute to social capital formation in the following ways: by strengthening the human capital

needed for economic development, social harmony, and state accountability (Reilly and Phillpot 2000:

914). School education fosters the development of social capital by providing students with social skillssuch as participation and reciprocity; forums for community activity; and by providing students with the

knowledge of how to participate responsibly in their society (Reilly and Phillpot 2000: 914). In a market

development context, the notion of education can be expanded to include training and capacity building

of actors. Participation in group workshops and learning initiatives provide entre into new social

networks, and with regular interactions, can develop social capital.

Information and Communication Technologies

Flor (2004) argues that Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) can be instrumental in

creating social networks to foster social capital development. Using the case of Chinas Central

Agricultural Broadcasting and Television School (CABTS), which has over 900,000 annual enrolments, he

demonstrates that social capital can increase significantly through Intra and Internet connectivity. Heprovides the following reasons for why this is so:

1. Superimposing electronic networks on social networks allow individuals to cross easily

between these networks

2. Electronic networks provides doors between online community infrastructures

3. Access to the World Wide Web increases the potential social capital of a community through

the augmentation of its knowledge capital (Flor 2004: 4).

Government

Governments, particularly at the local level, can affect both the creation and mobilization of social

capital because, at least in theory, local governments are easily accessible to citizens, charged with

matters of high community concern, and capable of mobilizing large numbers of participants (Lowndes

and Wilson 2001: 636). They can do this by shaping the conditions in which social networks such as

voluntary associations can thrive (Lowndes and Wilson 2001: 631). Lowndes and Wilson propose that

there are four dimensions of institutional design within local governance that affect social capital:


9/18

"relationships with the voluntary sector; opportunities for public participation; the responsiveness of

decision-making; and arrangements for democratic leadership and social inclusion" (2001: 633)

Government institutions can foster community social capital development through decentralized

programs at the neighborhood level, in which autonomy is shared with citizens, rather than through

hierarchically structured programs (Warner 2001: 189). These programs can enhance individual

engagement with existing institutions, and involve the broader community through community-based

interventions such as community policing and neighborhood based social service systems (Warner

2001).

Fox (1996) found that social capital accumulation in rural Mexico was possible through coproduction by

state reformists and local societal actors or by the interaction of local societal groups and external allies,

including religious, political and developmental actors. He discovered that social capital may also be

produced from the bottom up through autonomous local social, civic or political initiatives but external

collaborators are still essential for their survival (Fox 1996: 1098).

In Kerala, India, a leftist movement in the North has created a number of civic communities through a

combination of state intervention and popular pressure. The social capital thus created has surpassedthat of historically social capital-rich South, and implemented statewide land reform in India, the most

consistent of its kind (Tornquist 1998, cited in Pantoja 2000: 21).

Building (and Diversifying) Social Networks

One novel method of building new networks is through network weaving (Ricchiuto). According to this

model, a network weaver builds and develops connections between and within individuals, groups

and other networks. Network weavers do the following:

1. They constantly learn about the assets and opportunities in the network. This includes the tangible

and intangible, shared and isolated, well-engaged and unengaged talents, resources, funds, space,expertise, and knowledge available within the network.

2. They constantly learn about the dreams of people in the network. These are the passions inspiring

what people are striving to create and pursue.

3. They constantly introduce and connect people with complementary dreams and assets (Ricchiuto).

Granovetter (2005) identifies the concept of weak ties that permits new information to flow to

individuals through weak rather than strong ties. Participation in exclusive social networks may be

disadvantageous for the sharing of information due to the strength of weak ties that is, the fact that

more new information is learned from non-members than members of the same network (Granovetter2005: 34). Close friends tend to move in the same circles and often possess the same information,

whereas acquaintances introduce new ideas and information that is then passed on to the primary

group (Granovetter 2005). Weak ties are much more likely than strong ones to play the role of

transmitting new and useful information across disconnected social networks. Therefore, non-members

can enjoy comparative advantage over members if they have ties with other networks because they can

exploit information by being able to access multiple networks what Burt terms structural holes

(1992). Burt defines structural holes as a relationship of nonredundancy between two contacts...As a


10/18

result of the hole between them, the two contacts provide network benefits that are in some degree

additive rather than overlapping (1992: 18) Individuals with ties or loose connections to multiple

networks have advantages over tightly-knit social networks, since the structural holes in networks are

where the weak ties pass information to other networks.

One of the key methods of strengthening existing networks is to invite more diverse participants into

the network. Granovetter has observed that the diversity of social networks enables increased access to

resources and information (2005: 34). Glanvilles research similarly concludes that Greater social

network diversity should also enhance access to a wider social world. Because social relations are more

common among socially similar peopleties between people who are socially different serve as valuable

bridges between otherwise disconnected, homogeneous social worlds (2004: 466). Diversity within

social networks is also important because ethnically fragmented societies are more prone to corruption

(Mauro 1995). Mauro argues that ethnolinguistic fractionalization may affect investment not only by

increasing corruption and political instability, but also via a direct channel...[by slowing] down the

diffusion of ideas and technological innovations (Mauro 1995: 698). Nee et al (1994) assert that when

social boundaries move away from a gatekeeper function protecting resources generated by the

ethnic group, and moves towards a bridging function fostering inter-group cooperation, the influence

of ethnicity is likely to decline. The more ethnically heterogeneous the urban population, the greater theopportunity for interethnic economic transactions, and the larger the size and span of firms in the mixed

economy (Nee et al 1994: 853).

Harnessing Social Networks to Build Social Capital

Social capital can also have a spatial, geographical component because of the ability to monitor and

enforce social obligations within a smaller area. Soubeyran and Weber (2002) argue that social capital

creation is fostered and sustained through repeated exchange and face-to-face interactions, which in

turn are facilitated by geographic proximity. Even if members of social networks share common values

and trust each other, this does not preclude competition between members: this combination of

cooperation and competition has been dubbed co-opetition (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, cited in

Soubeyran and Weber 2002: 67). Over a period of extensive interactions, local social networks

eventually move from an ascribed to an earned basis, where knowing and being known locally

enables success even if a person does not belong to a particular ethnic group (Nadvi 1998: 33).

Granovetter observes that social networks affect economic outcomes in three ways: by affecting the

flow and quality of information, by imposing reward and punishment, and by creating trust between

members of the network (2005: 33). Research in India and Tanzania has shown that social capital greatly

advances the ability of the poor to manage scarce resources and provides an enhanced buffer from

economic vulnerability (Grootaert 1998:11). Enhanced economic productivity can be achieved through

membership in social networks due to improved access to information, labor, credit, as well as contract

enforcement provided by social control. Social networks, particularly those based on kinship or native-

place ties, can also help promote small businesses due to trust and cohesion among members. It canalso act as a buffer to predatory businesses, lower barriers to entry for newcomers, and increase the

survival and success rates of members (Peng 2004: 1068). Since intense local competition may strain

social ties, social networks help mediate the boundaries of acceptable competition and encourage local

competition (Nadvi 1998: 33). In addition, social connections are advantageous because they help to

define an individuals identity and behavioral norms that guide their choices and actions (Barrett 2004:

3).


11/18

The Missing Link(s)

Minority groups are often lacking in social capital because the networks they are embedded in are

similarly disadvantaged. Pantoja notes that since social capital is a shared resource that can provide

access to other resources, under scarcity conditionsit can also become an integral part of the

structures of constraint created by gender, class, ethnicity[as well as] religion and caste (2000:2). For

precisely the same reasons that membership in a social network confers certain advantages, non-

membership can exclude outsiders despite their relative availability, proximity and skillfulness, while

members benefit at their expense (Turner 2007: 410, 412). Networks based on ethnic ties are self-

reinforcing, by discriminating against outsiders and restricting comparative advantages to members. As

Pieter van Dijk et al note, dominance is often perpetuated by limiting training to co-ethnics, by passing

information about business opportunities along ethnic networks, or by handing down market stalls or

other business sites to younger relatives (1997: 122).

Pantojas (2000) case study on social capital in coal mining regions in Orissa, India, demonstrates that

the same social capital that enables group members to work together can be used to exclude non-

members from the advantages of collective action. Although high levels of mutual trust exist, it is

correlated to gender, caste and class, resulting in closed groups with high entry costs to outsiders, andfew horizontal linkages across groups (Pantoja 2000). In Orissa, as in other areas, social networks are

used to exclude historically disadvantaged members of the community. Thus social capital development

may work to perpetuate existing power structures, and have implications for maintaining income

stratification between ethnic groups, which can cause frustration and exacerbate fragmentation along

ethnic lines.

In the literature, social capital is generally conceptualized in gender-blind terms, and pays scant

attention to gendered intra-household issues of power and hierarchy (Silvey and Elmhirst 2003). Social

networks may have particular expectations and demands of women, and membership may have distinct

advantages and disadvantages (Silvey and Elmhirst 2003: 867). Social capital that exists within a general

environment of gender inequity can in fact exacerbate gender subordination (Mayoux 2001). However,

Molinas (1998) observes that cooperation among social networks increases as womens participationand social capital increases. His research in Paraguay demonstrates that increasing women's effective

participation in local peasant organizations...enhances the prospects for the peasant communities...to

alleviate poverty (Molinas 1998: 421).

Research has shown that women are more likely to be interested in investing in household and

community welfare; they tend to be the main decision-makers in household water and waste

management; and that community undertakings such as cleaning of communal areas are considered to

be extensions of female domestic tasks (Carpenter et al 2004: 856 857). Since women usually have

access to fewer assets than men, they are more dependent on resources accessed through social

networks, which in turn suggests that they would tend to engage more in trust, reciprocity and

cooperative relationships than men

(Carpenter et al 2004: 857).

Womens membership in social networks is often assumed to contribute positively to their economic,

social and political empowerment; however men's social capital, as well as constraints at the

institutional level, may restrain women's ability to negotiate collective change, and may in fact reinforce

gender subordination (Mayoux 2001). Dolans (2001) research in Kenya demonstrated how connecting

women in Kenya to international markets for selling French beans resulted in their increased income,


12/18

but eventually led to the appropriation of this traditionally female role by men, leaving the women

without any income source at all.

Figure 3 below demonstrates a more ideal situation for the development of social capital:

From To

Ethnic loyalties Social Capital

Defining Elements

Figure 3: Adapted from Cava, Gloria La and Rafael Y. Nanetti (2000: 46).


13/18

How to Measure Social Capital

The difficulty of measuring social capital has been well-documented. There is no standardized measure

of social capital, because of the variety of ways in which it can be defined. Social capital can be

measured using a number of composite indicators related to the quantity and quality of social groups,

such as the Putnam index, or a product of factors including the number, basis and density of

membership in social groups, the frequency with which they meet and the extent of their participation

(Isham and Khknen 1999: 31, Grootaert 1998: 10). Social capital can also be measured by membership

in more formal institutions like registered self-help groups, cooperatives, microfinance groups, religious

institutions, trade groups and social clubs, etc.

The most frequently used measure of social capital is membership in groups (structural social capital),

followed by patterns of trust and the strength of shared norms and reciprocity (cognitive social capital) .

Astone et al suggest that The dimensions of social capital are the number of relationships a person has;

the strength of those relationships; and the nature and amount of resources available as a result of

those relationships (1999: 10). However, this measure excludes both those relationships which exist

outside groups, and those that people maintain with group members after they have formally left the

group (Pantoja 2000: 18). Onyx and Bullen (2000) developed an instrument to measure social capitalusing eight factors they identified as comprising social capital, including: local community participation;

proactivity in social context; feelings of safety and trust; neighborhood connections; family and friend

connections; tolerance of diversity; value of life; and work connections.

Gugerty and Kremer (2006) measure social capital among womens groups in Kenya by the

organizational structure of the groups, their mutual assistance activities, and the strength of external

ties. Pantojas study (2000) of coal mining areas in Orissa, India, measured social capital based on the

relationship between the mining company, the communities and their civil society organizations. Krishna

and Uphoff (1999) used membership in networks to measure structural social capital in villages of

Rajasthan, India. Grootaert and van Bastelaer (2001) suggest that the ideal approach to measuring social

capital would include all four quadrants of Figure 4, but in practice, most measures are not as all-encompassing. Krishna and Uphoff (1999) stress the importance of having a locally validated measure of

social capital, because what works in one area may not be applicable in another context.

Figure 4: From Grootaert and van Bastelaer (2001:20)


14/18

Evidently, there are a number of ways to measure social capital and its impact, and due to its context-

specific nature, there can be no singular best measure of social capital. Grootaert (2003: 44) proposes

that the focus should be placed on three broad types of proxy indicators that can help in creating a

measurement tool for social capital: membership in local associations and networks, indicators of trust

and adherence to norms, and an indicator of collective action:

y Membership in local associations and networks. Using membership in local associations as anindicator of structural social capital consists of counting the associations and their members and

measuring various aspects of membership (such as internal heterogeneity) and institutional

functioning (such as the extent of democratic decisionmaking). Which associations to include in

the indicators is culture specific: agrarian syndicates could be relevant in one country, rotating

credit and savings associations in another, parent-teacher associations in yet another. In the

case of networks, which are less formal, the key information is the scope of the network and the

internal diversity of membership. Indicators of membership in associations and networks proved

of key importance in the studies of watershed management in India, access to water systems in

Indonesia, solid waste collection in Bangladesh, primary schools in Kenya, access to services in

Russia, and civil conflict in Cambodia and Rwanda.

y Indicators of trust and adherence to norms.Measuring trust and adherence to norms (cognitivesocial capital) requires asking respondents about their expectations about and experiences with

behavior requiring trust. Key questions relate to the extent to which households received or

would receive assistance from members of their community or network in case of various

emergencies (loss of income, illness). Questions of this type were included in the data collection

instruments of several SCI studies. The measurement of trust was critical for the studies of

traders in Madagascar, agricultural extension in Mali, and the civil conflict in Cambodia and

Rwanda.

y An indicator of collective action. The provision of many services requires collective action by agroup of individuals. The extent to which this collective action occurs can be measured and is an

indicator of underlying social cohesion (at least to the extent that the cooperation is not

imposed by an external force, such as the government). Several SCI studies successfully used

such measures, including the studies on watershed management in India, water supply in

Indonesia, and solid waste removal in Bangladesh. As proxies, these three types of indicators

measure social capital from different vantage points. Membership in local associations and

networks is clearly an input indicator, since the associations and networks are the vehicles

through which social capital can be acquired. This indicator resembles perhaps most closely the

use of years of schooling as a proxy for human capital. Trust can be seen as an input or output

indicator or even as a direct measure of social capital, depending on ones conceptual approach.

Collective action is clearly an output indicator.

These three broad sets of indicators provide a useful scaffold for designing a measurement instrument,which can then be disaggregated by gender and ethnicity. Over the course of time, the results indicators

can be reviewed to determine improvements in social status across each sub-group.


15/18

References

Adler, Paul S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of

capitalism. Organization Science, 12 (2), pp. 215-234.

Adler, Paul S. and Seok-Woo Kwon (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy

of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 17-40

Albee, Alana and Graham Boyd (1997). Doing it Differently: Networks of Community Development

Agents. Caledonia Centre for Social Development, UK.

Alesina, Alberto, and Eliana La Ferrara (2000). Participation in Heterogeneous Communities. Quarterly

Journal ofEconomics, 115 (3): 847 - 904.

Astone, Nan Marie; Constance A. Nathanson, Robert Schoen and Young J. Kim (1999). Family

Demography, Social Theory and Investment in Social Capital. Working Paper 98-01. Population and

Development ReviewVolume 25 Issue 1, March 1999, pp. 1 31

Bates, Robert H. (1999). Ethnicity, Capital Formation, and Conflict. Social Capital Initiative Working

Paper 12, The World Bank, Washington DC, 1999.

Bjornstad, Sverre (2008). Rational trust in rural Malawi. Inter-Agency Standing Committee , 2008

Bordieu, Pierre (1986). The forms of capital. In John Richardson (ed). Handbook on Theory and

Research on the Sociology ofEducation. Westport: Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.

Burt, Ronald S (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Carpenter, Jeffrey P., Amrita G. Daniere and Lois M. Takahashi (2004). Social Capital and Trust in South-

east Asian Cities. Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4, 853874, April 2004

Casson, Mark and Marina Della Giusta (2004). The costly business of trust. Development Policy Review

Vol. 22 No. 3, pp 321-342

Cava, Gloria La and Rafael Y. Nanetti (2000). Albania: Filling the Vulnerability Gap. World Bank

Technical Paper No. 460, February 2000.

Cernea, Michael M. ( 1993). The Sociologist's Approach to Sustainable Development. Finance and

Development 30: 11-15.

Dolan, Catherine (2001). The 'good wife': Struggles over resources in the Kenyan horticultural sector.The Journal of Development Studies, 37 (3), 2001, pp. 39-70.

Fafchamps, Marcel and Minten, Bart (1999). Social Capital and the Firm: Evidence from Agricultural

Trade, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 17, The World Bank, Washington DC, September 1999.

Falk, Ian and Harrison, Lesley (1998). Indicators of Social Capital: Social Capital as the product of Local

Interactive Learning Processes. Launceston, Tasmania: Centre for Research and Learning in Regional

Australia.


16/18

Flor, Alexander G (2004). Social Capital and the Network Effect: Implications of Chinas eLearning and

Rural ICT Initiatives. Paper presented in the Regional Workshop on Building e-Community Centers for

Rural Development conducted by the ADB Institute in Bali, Indonesia, 8-14 December 2004

Fox, Jonathan (1996). How does civil society thicken? The political construction of social capital in rural

Mexico. World Development 24: 1089-1103.

Fukuyama, Francis (2000). Social Capital and Civil Society. IMF Working Paper WP/00/74.

Glanville, Jennifer L. (2004) Voluntary Associations and Social Network Structure: Why Organizational

Location and Type Are Important. Sociological Forum, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 465-491

Granovetter, Mark (2005). The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes. The Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 19 (1), pp. 33-50

Grootaert, Christiaan and van Bastelaer, Thierry (2001). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A

Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative. Social Capital Initiative

Working Paper 24, The World Bank, Washington DC, April 2001.

Grootaert, Christiaan and van Bastelaer, Thierry (2002). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A

Multi-Disciplinary Tool for Practitioners. Washington DC: The World Bank, 2002.

Grootaert, Christiaan (2003). Measuring Social Capital : An Integrated Questionnaire. Washington DC:

The World Bank.

Gugerty, Mary Kay, and Michael Kremer (2006). Outside Funding of Community Organizations:

Benefiting or Displacing the Poor?, National Bureau ofEconomic Research Working Paper #7896,

September 2000, Revised July 2006.

Harriss-White, Barbara (1998). Introduction: Visible hands. In: Harriss-White, Barbara., ed. Agriculturalmarkets from theory to practice: Field experience in developing countries. London: MacMillan Press Ltd.

1998.

Huntoon, Laura (2001). Government use of nonprofit organizations to build social capital. The Journal

of Socio-Economics 30: 157.

Hobbs, Graham (2001). What is Social Capital? A Brief Literature Review. Selected Studies of Civil

Society in Tanzania: Policy, Social Capital and Networks of the Vulnerable, edited and compiled by

Waheeda Shariff Samji and Alana Albee, UK-DFID, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, September 2001

Isham, Jonathan and Khknen, Satu (1999). What determines the Effectiveness of Commununity-

Based Water Projects? Evidence from Central Java, Indonesia on Demand Responsiveness, Service Rules,and Social Capital. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 14, The World Bank, Washington DC,

September 1999

Krishna, Anirudh and Norman Uphoff (1999). Mapping and Measuring Social Capital: A Conceptual and

Empirical Study of Collective Action for Conserving and Developing Watersheds in Rajasthan, India.

Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 13, The World Bank, Washington DC, June 1999.


17/18

Lin, Nan (1999). Social Networks and Status Attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25 (1999),

pp. 467-487

Lowndes, Vivien and David Wilson (2001). Social capital and local governance: Exploring the

institutional design variable. Political Studies 49: 629-647.

Mauro, Paolo (1995). Corruption and Growth. The Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, Vol. 110, August

1995.

Mayoux, Linda (2001). Tackling the down side: Social capital, women's empowerment and micro-

finance in Cameroon. Development and Change, 32 (3), 2001, pp. 435-464

Molinas, Jose R. (1998). The impact of inequality, gender, external assistance and social capital on local-

level cooperation. World Development 26: 413-431.

Mondal, Abdul Hye (2000). Social Capital Formation: The Role of NGO Rural Development Programs in

Bangladesh. Policy Sciences Vol. 33: 459-475.

Nadvi, Khalid (1998). Knowing Me, Knowing You: Social Networks in the Surgical Instrument Cluster of

Sialkot, Pakistan. Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex (Brighton), IDS Discussion

Paper No. 364.

Narayan, Deepa and Michael F. Cassidy (2001). A dimensional approach to measuring social capital:

development and validation of a social capital inventory. Current Sociology 49: 59-102.

Nee, Victor, Jimy M Sanders, and Scott Sernau (1994). Job Transitions in an Immigrant Metropolis:

Ethnic Boundaries and the Mixed Economy. American Sociological Review. Albany: Dec 1994. Vol. 59,

Iss. 6; pp. 849 872.

Nelson, Barbara J., Linda Kaboolian and Kathryn A. Carver (2003). The Concord Handbook: How to BuildSocial Capital Across Communities. Los Angeles: UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research.

Onyx, Jenny, and Paul Bullen (2000). Sources of social capital in Social capital and public policy in

Australia, edited by Ian Winter. Melbourne: National Library of Australia, pp. 105 135

Ostrom, Elinor (2003). "Toward a Behavioral Theory Linking Trust, Reciprocity, and Reputation". In Trust

and Reciprocity: Interdisciplinary Lessons from Experimental Research. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Pantoja, Enrique (2000). Exploring the Concept of Social Capital and its Relevance for Community-Based

Development: The Case of Coal Mining Areas in Orissa, India. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper 18,

The World Bank, Washington DC, March 2000.

Passy, Florence and Marco Giugni (2001). Social Networks and Individual Perceptions: Explaining

Differential Participation in Social Movements. Sociological Forum, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), pp. 123-

153

Pieter van Dijk, Meine and Rabellotti, Roberta (Eds.) (1997). Enterprise Clusters and Networks in

Developing Countries. Portland, OR: Frank Cass.


18/18

Portes, Alejandro (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual

Review of Sociology, Vol. 24 (1998), pp. 1-24

Portes, Alejandro and Patricia Landolt (2000). Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of Its Role in

Development. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32 (2), 2000, pp. 529-547

Putnam, Robert D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century: The

2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, 2007

Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York:

Simon & Schuster.

Reid, Catherine and Lawrence Salmen (2000) Understanding Social Capital. Agricultural Extension in

Mali: Trust and Social Cohesion. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 22, The World Bank,

Washington DC, June 2000.

Reilly, Benjamin and Robert Phillpot (2002). Making Democracy Work in Papua New Guinea: Social

Capital and Provincial Development in anE

thnically Fragmented Society. Asian Survey, Vol. 42, No. 6(Nov. - Dec., 2002), pp. 906-927

Ricchiuto, Jack (2009). Network Weaving. < http://www.networkweaver.blogspot.com/>

Silvey, Rachel and Rebecca Elmhirst (2003) Engendering Social Capital: Women Workers and Rural-

Urban Networks in Indonesia's Crisis. World Development 31: 865-879.

Soubeyran, Antoine, and Shlomo Weber (2002). District formation and local social capital: a (tacit) co-

opetition approach. Journal of Urban Economics 52: 65-92.

Turner, Sarah. Small-Scale Enterprise Livelihoods and Social Capital in Eastern Indonesia: Ethnic

Embeddedness and Exclusion. The Professional Geographer, 59 (4) 2007, pp. 407 420.

Matj, Petr and Anna Vitskov (2005). Trust and Mutually Beneficial Exchanges: two distinct

dimensions of social capital in post-communist societies. Institute of Sociology, Academy of Sciences of

the Czech Republic.

Warner, Mildred (1999). Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural Sociology 64:

373-393.

Warner, Mildred (2001). Building social capital: the role of local government. The Journal of Socio-

Economics 30: 187.

Warr, Deborah J (2006). Gender, Class, and the Art and Craft of Social Capital. Sociological Quarterly,

Aug 2006, Vol. 47 Issue 3, pp. 497-520.

Woolcock, Michael, and Deepa Narayan (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory,

research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15: 225-249.

Documents

Social Capital Literature