University of Limerick Ollscoil Luimnigh 25 th September 2007Eileen Humphreys, HSyRC, Dept. Sociology, UL Social capital and community: Findings and conclusions

University of LimerickOllscoil Luimnigh

Social capital and community:Findings and conclusions of

neighbourhood-based studies

Limerick Citizen Advocacy Project

[email protected]

1


Structure

1. Social capital definitions & focus of the research

2. Contextual issues

3. Measurement of social capital

4. Selected findings – attitudes & networks

5. Conclusions

6. Implications


Research on social capital

• Study (2003 & 2004 fieldwork) ….1.Test / develop means of measurement

2.Types and variations in social capital

• Civic perspective … small areas / neighbourhoods“The stocks of social trust, norms and networks

which people can draw on to solve common problems” (Putnam, 1995)


Policy context & interest• Social capital in public policy …

Direct (NGOs & volunteering) .. – Indirect (conditions)

• Socio-economic / structural factors …• Planning …. neighbourhoods …• Institutional arrangements (decentralised structures …)

• Institutional ….. community development …. partnerships

• Local governance … “Cohesion” structures … county level


GINI Coefficient by GNP per capita EU15=100, 1998

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Country

GNP

per

cap

ita

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

GIN

I coe

ffici

ent

GNP per capita -EU15=100GINI coeff icient

Source: European Foundation for Improvementof Living & Working Conditions, 2003


Housing tenure in Ireland

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1961 1971 1981 1991 2002

years

%

owner-occupied

social housing

private renting

Source: CSO, Census of population


Social capital

• Values – Trust & reciprocity

• Networks– “strong” and “weak”

ties

• Outcomes / functions – social support– civic

• Bonding – close, homogeneous– “getting by”

• Bridging– horizontal,

heterogeneous– “getting ahead”

• Linking– vertical ties … – “change …”


Dimensions

Elements

Bonding

Strong, homogeneous

Bridging

Weak, horizontal,

heterogeneous

Linking

Weak, vertical, heterogeneous

Values Social trust

Reciprocity

Cohesion (2)

Inclusion

Trust community leaders

Trust in community organisations

Trust in institutions (7)

Community efficacy

Local governance (3)

Networks Know neighbours

Network density

Interaction

See enough of family & friends?

In vol orgs-passive

In vol orgs-active

Religious services

(Reasons for non-involvement)

Aware of SC linking organisations

Involved in SC linking organisations

Intermediate outcomes

Doing & accepting favours

Social support

Civic interest (news media)

Civic action (voting, action on n’hood problems)


Study neighbourhoods 2002 (CSO)Area Classification Social class Education CD & policy

Tipperary Town Disadvantaged – disimprovement

Overall mixed 31% low qualification; 10% 3rd level

Long history, organic

Moyross Very disadvantaged – improvement

Medium mobility

Lower socio-economic classes

44% low qualification, 4% 3rd level

Policy support 1990’s

King’s Island Extremely disadvantaged – much worse

Low mobility

Lower socio-economic classes

51% low qualification; 6% 3rd level

Policy support 1990’s

Thurles (part) Below average – disimprovement

Overall mixed 24% low qualification; 17% 3rd level

Limited & very recent support

Castletroy / Monaleen Affluent – disimprovement

High mobility

Higher socio-economic classes

6% low qualification; 52% 3rd level

No support

Inner City / Dock Above average – improvement

Mixed - immigrants 11% low qualification, 39% 3rd level

No support


Sense of belonging to community

0102030405060708090

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very Disadv)

King's Island(Extremely

Disadv)

Thurles(Average)

Castletroy /Monaleen(Affluent)

Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

% o

f pop

ulat

ion


Sense of pride in units of territory

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)

King'sIsland

(ExtremelyDisadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

Neighbourhood

City / town

Irish


Know and trust neighbours

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)

King'sIsland

(ExtremelyDisadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

Sc

ore

-2

(le

as

t) t

o +

2 (

mo

st)

Know

Trust


Attitudes towards community activists and organisations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very Disadv)


Disadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

Sc

ore

s -

2 (

mo

st

ne

ga

tiv

e)

to +

2 (

mo

st

po

sit

ive

)

community activists"out for themselves"

community orgs "dotheir best"


Institutional trust (7 institutions)

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross (VeryDisadv)


Disadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks (Above

Av)Neighbourhoods

Scor

e (-2

low

est)

to +

2 (h

ighe

st)


Local governance: Attitudes towards local government

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Neighbourhood

Sco

re: R

ange

-2 (m

ost n

egat

ive)

to +

2

(mos

t pos

itive

)

doesn’t care

doesn't keep informed

involves in decision-making


Involvement in voluntary or community organisations in the last 3 years

05

101520253035404550

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)

King'sIsland

(ExtremelyDisadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

% o

f pop

ulat

ion

Involvement invol orgs

Activeinvolvement


Knowledge of and involvement in linking social capital organisations

0102030405060708090

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)


Disadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

% o

f p

op

ula

tio

n

Yes, know groups

Yes, in groups


Factors preventing involvement in voluntary organisations

010203040506070

Tipp Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)


Disadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City &Docks

(Above Av)

Neighbourhood

% o

f pop

ulat

ion Time

Caring

Not interested

Don't like people

No point


Levels of social capital - Bonding, Bridging & Linking

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Tipp. Town(Disadv)

Moyross(Very

Disadv)


Disadv)

Thurles(Average)


Inner City /Dock (Above

Av)

Neighbourhood

Sco

re R

an

ge -

2 (

low

est)

to

+2 (

hig

hest)

Bonding

Bridging

Linking

SC


Dependent variables

Predictors

1. Social Capital

2. Bonding 3. Bridging 4. Linking

Context - Place

Neighbourhood

+Tipperary T. +King’s Isl -Moyross

+Tipperary T.

-King’s Isl.

+Tipp. T.

Composition

Individuals & households

+Age

+Education-Single parent / alone

-Renting

+Residence

+Age

-Single parent/alone

+Age

+Education

-Single parent / alone

-Renting

+Age

+Education


Contextual conditions

Facilities, services, quality, problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

-Problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

-Problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

+Services

+Safety


Dependent variables

Predictors

Values Networks Intermediate Outcomes (social & civic)

Context - Place

Neighbourhood

-Moyross* -City -City

Composition

Individuals & households

+Age

-Renting

+Education


+Age

-Renting

+Education


+Age

+Renting

+Education


Contextual conditions

Facilities, services, quality, problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

+Services

-Problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Quality

+Identity

+Services

+Problems

+Comm.Inf.

+Identity

+Services

+Problems**


Conclusions• Bridging & linking SC …

particularly weak• Policy-induced structures

may help but …– Well-connected get better

connected ..– Grass-roots … remain

unconnected .. Not embedded ..

• Attitudes of trust .. – Some very distant …

disadvantaged areas

• More affluent areas .. Lack structures

• More of the same won’t work…

• Focus on conditions– Facilities / services in

communities …– Quality .. Residents want to

stay…– Political opportunity

structure (decentralised)

• Where to target efforts• Where there is

potential… • Where it is likely to be

more difficult…


Implications• Evidence of ‘institutional

void’ in local governance– Dependency on small elite

group … overused and ..

• ‘Tinkering’ v. addressing issue .. weak democratic local structures…

• Delivering into local communities (LA / local agency competence)…– Planning function…– Housing …

• Long term strategy …

• How to achieve a wider range of participation?– Changing structures …

embed in wider social networks …

– What incentives for participation ..

• What changes for local communities and when?

• What issues?

– Structures + culture of participation

– Information & expertise

Documents

University of Limerick Ollscoil Luimnigh 25 th September 2007Eileen Humphreys, HSyRC, Dept. Sociology, UL Social capital and community: Findings and conclusions