ADICIÓN DE MEJORAS SEGÚN FEEDBACK

Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam are three key figures in the development of the SC concept. While there is general consensus that SC is concerned with relationships between actors (see for example: Babb, 2005; Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Dayton-Johnson, 2000; Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Grootaert, 1998; Putnam, 1993), discussions diverge regarding the nature and ownership of SC. Bourdieu (1986) and Grootaert (1998), for instance, describe it as a collective good, whereas Dayton- Johnson (2000) describes it as a form of capital inherent to the individual. In the current study, SC is understood as the potential that lies within relationships between people (Babb, 2005; Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Putnam, 1993). The value of an individual’s resources is augmented through interaction with others (Woolcock, 1998), and allow actors access to e.g. information, solidarity, and influence (Adler and Kwon, 2002). As suggested by Adler and Kwon (2002), SC is what transforms an actor into a member of a community. As Forrest and Kearns (2001:2141) suggest, “[S]ocial capital, then, is important not for its own sake, but for what one does with it, or can attain by it.” It follows that relationships between individuals constitute a web-like foundation required to develop SC, the benefits of which can be accrued only through interaction with other actors in it.

Several authors have argued that SC presents a fundamental element of SS, and a means by which to measure SS (Boström, 2012, 2012a; Colantonio and Dixon, 2007; Cuthill, 2010; Koning, 2001; McKenzie, 2004; Partridge, 2005), which itself was reviewed in the previous section. It features implicitly also in the work by Littig and Grießler (2005), who emphasise the importance of relationships in society. Koning (2001) cautions that SC and social sustainability have been used interchangeably in the past, and highlights the need to differentiate between them. Following on from the definition of SS provided in section 3.2, relationships between actors are understood as a key dimension of SS, whereas SC is understood as the potential within the relationships through which actors can contribute to SS.

44

The literature suggests that SC can result in positive economic and social effects. In particular, SC has been described as important for the sustainability, strength and success of communities (Cuthill, 2010; Grootaert, 1998; Putnam, 1993). Other authors have identified SC as important for tourism development in rural areas (Johannesson

et al., 2003; Jones, 2005; Moscardo, 2014; Nordin and Westlund, 2009), more so than

financial and physical capital (Moscardo, 2014). Pertaining to the subject of this thesis, Hall (2004) stressed the importance of SC among small rural tourism businesses for the development of competitive regions. He found that SC reduces the uncertainty related to new business creation for STBs, as it provides OMs access to knowledge, resources and information, which is echoed by Zhao et al. (2011). Similarly, Louks et al. (2010:184) argue that the costs of “doing business” are reduced in communities with higher levels of SC due to an increased sense of community. Additionally, SC has been argued to influence tourism business behaviour (Fuller and Tian, 2006), related to welcoming attitudes among residents toward tourists (Ooi et al., 2014), and as influencing the tourist experience (Bosworth and Farrell, 2011).

Regarding possible social effects, SC has been suggested as binding communities (Kwon and Adler, 2002) together, as presenting “the ‘glue’ that holds societies together” (Grootaert, 1998:iii). This notion is supported by Putnam (1995) and Woolcock and Narayan (2000), who suggest that generalised reciprocity, trust, and cooperation are manifestations of SC. Other studies have related SC to an increased sense of community, sense of empowerment, and community participation (Ooi et al., 2014). SC can also contribute to community resilience by mitigating against adverse effects of economic deprivation (Poortigna, 2012). This is also supported by Adler and Kwon (2002:25), who argue that SC facilitates the development of communities with shared interests, encourages a sense of obligation, common identities, and “commitment to the common good.” In the same vein, Kawachi and Berkman (2000:175) argue that SC is evident in an “absence of latent social conflict,” and the “presence of strong social bonds.” Together, these studies imply that SC can relate to positive economic and social outcomes in communities.

45

Typically, scholars distinguish between two different types of SC: bonding and bridging SC. Putnam (1993) describes bonding SC as existing in the ties within a group of people. The definition offered by Woolcock (2001) is more specific and refers to the more intimate relationships with friends and family, which resemble the strong ties described by Granovetter (1985, 2005). The definitions of bridging SC offered by Woolcock (2001) and Putnam (1993) show more similarities. Specifically, the authors relate this type of capital to the relationships that bridge between different groups of people and social classes, e.g. work-related acquaintances (Putnam, 1993; Woolcock, 2001), which is comparable to the weak ties described by Granovetter (1985, 2005). These works suggest that bonding SC relates to homogeneous and bridging SC to heterogeneous ties between actors.

There appear to be multiple levels of bonding and bridging SC. Ooi et al. (2014) define forms of SC based on the quality of relations. Like Woolcock (2001) and Granovetter (2005), Ooi et al. (2014) suggest that bonding SC is restricted to close friends and family, and bridging capital relates to ties with actors outside such close-knit networks. The approach offered by McGehee et al. (2009) is broader as they suggest that the nature of ties is defined by shared interests. Specifically, they argue that strong ties, i.e. bonding SC, refer to relations within a specific group of individuals with a common interest, and bridging ties, i.e. weak ties, to relations between groups with different interests. On the other hand, Shakya (2016) differentiates between the different types of SC based on their geographical scope. She describes bonding SC as relationships within a particular community of place, and conversely bridging SC to relations between communities of place. This implies that there are different scales of bonding and bridging SC, which reflects work from Adler and Kwon (2002), who argue that types of capital are defined by the level of analysis employed by the researcher. In the context at hand, bonding SC can exist in a community of place as well as in its ‘sub- communities’ of interest. Bridging SC, on the other hand, can serve as links between communities of place, and between sub-communities of interest.

46

The potential within relationships is related to the social norms that characterise them. In particular, the development of SC requires common social norms, including trust and reciprocity (Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Portes and Sensebrenner, 1993), which are pivotal for managing conflict (Kawachi and Berkman, 2000). SC indicates a ‘general’ trust in other actors (Grootaert, 1998; Putnam, 1995), which Fukuyama (1995) describes as the actors’ belief in the predictability of others actors’ behaviours. High levels of trust allow groups of individuals to accomplish more (Coleman, 1988), while generalised reciprocity encourages collective action (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Arguably, social interaction among actors in a community facilitates the diffusion of social norms and their enforcement. For instance, trusting relationships discourage behaviour that might harm other group members (Grootaert, 1998). Conversely, a lack of interaction implies a limited awareness of existing social norms, which may result in behaviour that is detrimental to the community.

Studies suggest that bonding and bridging SC relate to different economic and social effects. For instance, Sørensen (2007) finds that the strength of ties between tourism firms, i.e. bonding or bridging ties, are a key determinant of the type of information that flows between actors within social networks. More specifically, bridging SC has been observed as being conducive to STB development (Johannesson et al., 2003; Karlsson, 2005), vital for innovation in tourism development (Jones, 2005), pivotal for destination development (Haugland et al., 2011), and important for tourism development in rural areas (Johannesson et al., 2003; Jones, 2005; Moscardo, 2014; Nordin and Westlund, 2009). In contrast, bonding SC can help individuals get by in everyday life, reduce social conflict and contribute to social cohesion (Forrest and Kearns, 2001; Kawachi and Berkman, 2000). Additionally, while bonding SC has been argued to be conducive to business set-up and to provide access to social groups (Woolcock, 1998), bridging SC, i.e. weak ties, has been claimed to encourage the flow of information and interaction between groups (Granovetter, 1985). Importantly, while bonding SC may encourage cohesion within a group of individuals, bridging SC can facilitate cohesion between social groups (Poortinga, 2012). Similarly, bonding ties

47

have been argued to allow individuals to influence others and thereby encourage behaviour that benefits a particular group. Bridging ties, on the other hand, can bring people together, encouraging interaction between individuals from different groups in the community (Besser, 2009).

However, increasing levels of social bonding and bridging capital do not necessarily lead to greater social and economic benefits. Woolcock (1998) suggests that there is a balance to be met between bonding and bridging SC for it to be conducive to economic development, and highlights that “collectively they are resources to be optimized, not maximized” (Woolcock, 1998:158). Specifically, the author points out that too much or too little of one type of SC might hamper economic development. As a result, and contrasting with human and financial capital, rising levels of SC will not necessarily increase the value of SC. In the same vein, Putnam (2000) argues that it is the combination of social bonding and bridging capital that is conducive to community development. Indeed, bonding SC can prevent access to communities and social or professional groups, and too much of it might result in economic or non-economic claims from community members that inhibit economic development (Atterton, 2007; Woolcock, 1998). Likewise, Portes and Sensebrenner (1993) draw on the literature to argue that high levels of bonding SC can result in strong social obligations towards family members and may lead individuals to purposively distance themselves from their community to pursue particular economic or social goals. Likewise, the authors indicate that high social bonding capital can be restrictive to individual expression and social mobility. Furthermore, high levels of bonding SC in a community may increase the possibility of conflict between communities (Kearns and Forrest, 2000). These studies suggest that the socioeconomic effects that SC can have are related to the levels and combination of bonding and bridging SC.

Moreover, the effects of SC may relate to local social and economic circumstances. Portes (2000) questions whether the benefits linked to SC in the past might be related to other socioeconomic characteristics instead, and cautions that “[SC] risks becoming

48

synonymous with each and all things that are positive in social life” (Portes, 2000:3). Indeed, as Amin (2005), Das (2004) and Kearns and Forrest (2000) highlight, the stock and significance of SC within a community are likely to be subject to the economic well-being of actors involved, as well as to local contextual forces, such as economic and political circumstances. In particular, Das (2004) observes that if individuals only have few resources to share (e.g. knowledge or money), SC brings no, or limited, benefits to those involved. Amin (2005) argues that, rather than presenting SC as a solution to economic development, attention must be placed on the material circumstances of a community and potential alterations of them. Together, these works indicate that while actors may contribute to socioeconomic development in their LC through their relationships, the potential in their relationships pertains to the nature of their ties, as well as local social and economic circumstances.

Overall, the studies examined here suggest that STBs’ potential to contribute to SS relates to the nature of their relationship with the LC and local socioeconomic factors, and that types of SC are defined by the level of analysis employed by the researcher. The following section will review previous studies concerned with STBs’ ties and relationships, and the potential within them.