The theory of social capital can be viewed from two different levels: group or collective action and individual level. Briefly, authors who write from the perspective of the group level dwell on (i) how certain group develops and more or less maintains social capital as a collective asset, and (ii) how such collective assets enhances members of the group life chances (Lin, 2001:22). Social capital, according to Bourdieu (1986), is made up of social obligations or connections. He defines social capital as the aggregation of potential resources which are linked to a possession of a durable network of institutionalized relationship of mutual acquaintances and recognition (Bourdieu, 1986:248). Thus, Bourdieu sees social capital as the production of the group’s members and that it is a collective asset shared by the members of a defined group, with clear boundaries, obligation of exchange, and mutual recognition.
From the individual perspective, Lin (2001) proposes that an individual can gain access and use two types of resources –personal and social resource. Personal resources are resources possessed by an individual (e.g. ownership of a material which included symbolic goods such as certificate). Conversely, social resources are resources accessed through individual’s social connections. These resources, according to Lin (2001), can be ‘borrowed’ for the intention of making a gain (e.g. a Knapsack sprayer borrowed from a friend to spray pesticides on the farm).
24
Flap (1999) views social capital as mobilized social resources of individuals. He defines social capital based on (i) the number of persons within the social network of individuals and who are ready to assist when the need arises, (ii) the strength of the relationship indicating readiness to help, and (iii) the resources of the personal network members. According to Flap (1999), social capital is resources provided by the network members (alters) who have a strong relationship with ego. Thus, in a social network design, an ‘ego’ is the focal object of the relationship while the ‘alter’ is the object to which the focal object is linked. The focal objects are often sampled from a larger population (Flap, 1999). In this study, an ‘ego’ is the individual (sampled respondent) and the ‘alters’ are the people s/he is connected with (network members). These terminologies will be used throughout the study. The work of Putnam (1995) on participation in voluntary organisation in democratic societies such as United State puts both group and individual level into one context. The association and participation promote and enhance collective norms and trust, which are central to the production and maintenance of collective wellbeing. The concept of social capital can therefore be placed into three components: (i) moral obligation and norms, (ii) social values (with trust as a principal value), and (iii) social network, especially voluntary association (Putnam, 1995). Thus, trust is a principal component of social capital. Following Putnam (1995), trust is incorporated in the model used in the empirical estimation (section 4.5.2). The study narrowly defines trust as ‘trust of familiars’, sometimes called particularized or personalized trust, or social trust of familiars. The source of this trust are within established relationships and social networks (Stone, 2001).
The theory of social capital, from the individual level, can therefore be agreed to focus on the resources embedded in one’s network. Moreover, it focuses on how access to and use of such resources benefits the individual’s actions. The valued good in a society is termed as a resource and the actions taken by individuals for the purpose of gaining access to the valued good is the central theme of the theory. According to Bourdieu (1986), the volume of one’s social capital largely depends on the network size (i.e. number of ties an individual has in his/her personal network). Lin (2001) adds that effective utilization of social capital also depends on the heterogeneity of the network members. Thus, farmers can therefore network with people with different socio-economic status such as community members, family members, and government officials, among others. This leads to two concepts of individual social capital-bonding and bridging-as identified by Granovetter (1973). Bonding social capital is the construction of intra
25
group ties. Social networks are homogenous and can be very informal (e.g. family and friends) or formal (e.g. work, union members). Networks of such nature exhibit distinctive forms of internal trust and is driven by values and voluntary efforts with strong ties (Granovetter, 1985). The cooperative spirit from bonding not only provides social safety nets to individuals or group but also protects themselves from external invasion (Fukuyama, 1995). During hard times when the state fails to provide basic services, family relations and kinship come in to help each other.
Bridging Social Capital is the construction of social network with those unlike the farmers (heterogeneous group). It is impersonal and horizontal, and characterised by general trust and volunteering action (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000:230). Gittell & Vidal (1998) define it as weak social ties that enable people get ahead and gain opportunities. With bridging, different groups with diverse interest are able to share and exchange information, ideas and innovation. In Fukuyama's (1995) language, this expands social capital by increasing the ‘radius of trust’. When farmers network with experts in the field of climate change, exchange of information is likely to take place (e.g. a farmer who establishes a network with agro-chemical sale personnel). Farmers in most cases also network with people of authority, or power differential and social status (vertical relationship) and this type of network has been termed linking social capital. Szreter and Woolcock (2004:655) define linking as “norms of respect and networks of trusting relationships between people who are interacting across explicit, formal or institutionalized power or authority gradients in society”. Linking social capital is created when a farmer, for instance, establishes a network with University professor. This study used occupation prestige of the network members of the farmers to establish linking social capital (see section 4.5.2).
The theory of social capital, however, is not without limitation or criticisms. One main criticism which is levelled against social capital is the multiplicity of its definition. To this, it further criticised that it is impossible to measure (Haynes, 2009). Multiplicity of the definition of social capital poses a problem to comparable conceptualization and measurement. This has a potential of generating misleading results and prediction, especially in the case of quantitative research. As raised in section 2.3, the definition of social capital is context specific and this determines the mode of measurement. This study simply defines social capital as individual asset and this makes it easy to apply name and position generator (see section 4.5.2) to capture the relevant resources embedded in the relationships.
26
The theoretical integrity of social capital theory has also been challenged. For example, Haynes
(2009) argues that social capital cannot be considered as a theory. He explains that the concept
does not seem to have to generally accepted elements that constitute a theory which is to provide clarification for specific events. Theory, according to Babbie (2007), is systematic set of interrelated statements intended to explain some aspect of social life. In a general sense, a theory is any more or less formalized conceptualization of the relationship between variables. It is tentative explanations of phenomena observe and representative of the most logical explanation based on currently available evidence. Theory becomes stronger as more supporting evidence is gathered and provides a context for predictions. In his book: Social capital: a theory of social structure and action, see Lin (2001), provided scientific studies and proofed several hypotheses within social capital theory. The study therefore assumes social capital to be a theory of high integrity.
Moreover, the concept of social capital has been criticised to be a misleading metaphor, not a capital as known in classical economic theory. According to Arrow (1999), the term ‘capital’ has three distinct elements: (i) time extension, (ii) the intended sacrifice for deferred benefit, and (iii) alienability. In his argument, Arrow (1999) concluded that social capital should be abandoned as it does not reflect any of the elements. However, Adler and Kwon (2000:93-95), enumerated instances where social capital depicts many of the features of other forms of capital (i.e. physical, human or financial capital): (i) people can invest in social capital with an expectation of future returns which is not certain, (ii) social capital is appropriable and to some degree “convertible”, and (iii) social capital requires maintenance to remain productive. Social capital, I strongly believe, is an asset and a capital within the social system. As shown in section 2.3 and 2.4 communities and individual that possess social capital asset have a comparative advantage (i.e. in terms of information acquisition and changes to farming practices) over those that do not possess.
In sum, Lin (2001:19) gives four explanations as to why embedded resources in social relation augment the outcome of action. For one, the flow of information is facilitated. Second, social ties may exert influence on the decision of an agent. Third, social ties, and their acknowledged relationship to the individual, may be conceived as social credentials that reflects accessibility to resource. Finally, social network are expected to reinforce identity and recognition. This study
27
therefore investigates key elements of social capital –bonding, bridging and linking – and how they influence the capacity of farmers to cope and adapt to the changing climate.