Principios doctrinales

In discussing social capital, the OECD (2001) identified the political approach—which arose from research and development projects implemented by the World Bank, particularly those associated with policy implementation. The OECD paper acknowledges that the

research and implementation of social capital policy conducted by the World Bank is a significant contribution to forming atheoretical approach to social capital. The research of the World Bank from 1993 and Woolcock (1998) underpins the political approach. Woolcock and Narayan (2000) trace the evolution of social capital research as it pertains to economic development, and identify four views: communitarian, networks, institutional, and synergy. These are defined as:

communitarian view: Equates social capital with local-level organizations, namely associations, clubs and civic groups, and relates to numbers and density of groups in a given society (p. 7).

networks view: ‘The importance of both vertical and horizontal association between people, and relation within and among other organizational entities as community groups and firms’ (p. 10) based on Granovetter (1973) and Gittell and Vidal (1998).

institutional view: Places the emphasis on social capital as consisting of mediating variables, based on ‘the capacity of social groups to act in their collective interest [which] depends crucially on the quality of the formal institutions under which they reside’ (p. 15).

synergy view: Integrates work from the network and the institutional approaches, based on research published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS) (1996) which defined ‘synergy’ as ‘dynamic professional alliances and relationships between and within state bureaucracies and civil society’ (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000, p. 17).

Woolcock and Narayan consider findings from research at both community and institutional level useful in clarifying policy for poverty reduction programs. After surveying the four views, the paper suggests that a synergy view is best placed to articulate a coherent multi- disciplinary research agenda. The synergy view of social capital is drawn from six studies (Sudarsky, 1998, based on the World Values Survey; Onyx & Bullen, 1997; Narayan, 1999; National Commission on Civic Renewal (NCCR); Barry and Manno, (NICE) 1998, 2001; Varshney, 1999). The synergy view emphasises the incorporation of different levels and dimensions. Woolcock and Narayan (2000) note that while the synergy view recognises the positive and negative outcomes that social capital can generate, it has the greatest empirical support because it lends itself to the most comprehensive and coherent policy prescriptions (2000, p. 1).

The three core approaches, and the political approach (OECD, 2001) illustrated by the synergy view, underpin this study, and contribute to variables and dimensions of social capital which are applied in the research, and described in Chapter 3,Methodology.

Elements

A number of references to the term elements in social capital literature acknowledge elements as a key component of the concept. However, elements appear to be study specific facets of the concept rather than a uniform set of principles (Coleman 1988; Woolcock, 1998; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000; Stone 2001).

Althusser (1968) discussed the term elements ‘as a history of ideas’ in relation to conceptual ideas in Marx’s early works, based on a comparison with writers such as Hengel and Feuerbach. In discussing philosophical and theoretical backgrounds, the construct placed on the meaning of elements as applied to conceptual ideas, may also be applied to ways of approaching the conceptual notion of social capital. Based on the ways of reading Marx’s early works, Althusser (1968) held that assumptions about elements can be made depending on a free association of ideas or comparison of terms, so while such readings can provide theoretical results they are only ‘a precondition for real understanding of texts’ (p. 55). Althusser outlines that basis concepts are drawn on three theoretical presuppositions: analytical, that is, ‘ it holds that any theoretical system and any constituted thought is reducible to its element: a precondition that enables one to think any element of this system on its own, and to compare it with another similar element from another system’ (p. 56); teleological, a system whereby ‘ a secret tribunal of history which judges the ideas submitted to it, or rather which permits the dissolution of (different) systems into their elements institutes these elements as elements in order to proceed to the measurement according to its own norms’ (p. 57); finally, the history of ideas as its own element, ‘maintains that nothing happens which is not a product of the history of ideas itself and that the world of ideology is its own principle of intelligibility’ (Althusser, 1968, p. 56).

Within this thesis, social capital elements are basic components arising from the literature, as a history of ideas throughout the twentieth century. Rather than selecting set writings or a single approach, a combination of significant theoretical, conceptual ideas are explored in the literature as elements. Literature containing elements of social capital indicates changes of emphasis and signals the direction of interdisciplinary investigations (Pope, 2000). Table 1 following lists twentieth century theorists and practitioners who have contributed to defining and exploring particular indicators of social capital elements, and lists their field of interest, and discipline.

While literature from each of the authors in Table 1 following contain elements other than are listed, the table notes the particular emphasis and new contribution from each author to the development of the concept.

While there are other elements of social capital than those listed within the theoretical frame of each of the cited researchers in Table 1, the table pertains to list important contributions to a facet of social capital each has made based on the concept of social capital as a history of ‘ideas’.

Table 1 Elements of social capital

Year Researcher Discipline Field of interest Theoretical contribution to the (indicators of) elements

1916 Halifan Education Education Shared values

1977 Loury Education Ethnic differences Relationship building 1983 Bourdieu Sociology Class structure

Historicity Inclusivity/Exclusivity Historicity 1988 Coleman Sociology Education Schools, family community Relationship building Trust Shared values 1993 Putnam Political science

Social science

Political policy Voluntary participation Reciprocity

Trust

1995 Cox Sociology Social relationship Relationship building 1995 Fukuyama Socio-economics Economic

Political Sociology Trust Reciprocity 2000 Falk & Kilpatrick Sociology Education Learning Rural/regional communities Futuricity Historicity Vision 1998 Woolcock Sociology Social science Political policy,

Community and poverty alleviation

Networks

The researchers listed in the Table 1 contribute to the definition of elements following. In alphabetical order the elements are:

futuricity, meaning ‘social capital outcome resulting in building the future’ (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000)

historicity, meaning developing identity resources through including history, past actions, relating the past in order to build the present/future (Bourdieu, 1986; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000)

inclusivity,that is—inclusion/exclusion based on Bourdieu’s concept of a social relationship allowing individuals to claim access to resources held by their associates (Loury, 1977; Bourdieu, 1977, 1986)

networks,seen as the existence of social relations (Granovetter, 1973)

participation in voluntary associations (Putnam, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 2000)

reciprocity, ‘reciprocal action or relation—a mutual exchange of commercial or other privileges’ (Fukuyama, 1995, p. 10)

relationship building (Loury, 1977; Coleman, 1988, 1990; Cox, 1995; Cox & Calwell, 2000)

shared values: good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among individuals and families who make up a social unit (Halifan, 1916; Coleman, 1988, 1990)

trust, that is,‘an individual, group, or organization can be relied upon to act in a consistent, fair, rational and expected manner’ (Kreuters et al., 1998, p. 8)

vision: an idea, a shared vision(Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000).

By compiling elements of social capital emerging from literature and research over the twentieth century, they become indicators of the concept applied over time. While literature and research in the social science disciplines emphasise differing foci on the various elements of social capital, literature supports there being two core elements: trust and networks, though also debating the position of trust as a core element. There is agreement however, that trust underpins social capital and its absence negates relationship (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1995; Putnam, 1993a, 1995; Cox, 1995, 1997, 1998; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000). Networks, ‘are the mechanism through which trust is developed and legitimacy established’ (Flora et al., 1996, p. 6). Literature contributing to the position of trust and networks as elements of social capital follows.

Trust

Trust is an element of social capital (Coleman, 1988, 1990; Fukuyama, 1995) functioning within families and communities (Coleman, 1988; Costa & Kahn, 2003; Falk & Guenther, 2000; Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000) and contributing to the functions of economic development (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993a, 1993b; Knack & Keefer; 1997; Fukuyama, 1995, 1998). Brehm and Rahn (1997) find that community involvement increases trust. Trust, in turn, is

associated world-wide with more efficient judiciaries, less corruption and higher-quality government bureaucracies (Putnam, 1993b; La Porta et al., cited in Costa & Kahn, 2003). Empirical works on social capital in Africa have focused on the role of social networks, norms and trust in facilitating cooperation and coordination amongst traders and producers

(Widner & Putnam, 1993b; Lyon, 2000; Widner & Mundt, 1998; as cited in Robins, 2001; Guegerty, 1999). Studies focusing on Putnam’s claims of diminishing levels of social capital are associated with trust above all other elements underpinning social capital (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Widner & Mundt, 1998).

Trust is noted not only as an element of, but as a proxy for social capital. Putnam (2001), who earlier held trust as a core element, has come to agree with the view of Woolcock (1998), that social trust ‘is not part of the definition of social capital but it is certainly a close consequence and therefore could easily be thought of as a proxy’ (Putnam, 2001, p. 5). Trust is argued to be an outcome of social capital (Woolcock, 1998) and also as generating social capital, that is a source of social capital (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000). The position of trust as both a source and outcome of social capital is also held by Cox (1995), who notes that trust accrues with use.