Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.3 Social Capital
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
“Only the rare agent has the luxury of aligning her interests with a single principal. Conflict of interest is hardly about shirking or opportunism with guile; it is about wrenching choices among the legitimate interests of multiple principals by agents who cannot extricate themselves from acting for so many, [these] agents are increasingly buffeted by the conflicting interests of the principals they serve” (Shapiro, 2005)
The agent must then balance goals of both the community principal and the funding institution principal that are not necessarily in alignment. In such cases, conflicting goals make successfully negotiating from their position a delicate proposition, one requiring knowledge of social and cultural environments from principals on either side of the table.
Studies of agency relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous communities are often interested in determining structural conditions that exist for the agent to meet the needs of their principal, but they seem to less often examine the linkages of
communication that are vital to aligning intentions. Some work has been done to investigate the importance of signaling processes in indigenous political policy and regulation in the United States (Worsham & Gatrell, 2005). This work did suggest that communication links are vital in understanding principal-agent relations, though the question was approached from interactions among bureaucracies. When the question is brought into agency relationships at the meso level of the community and micro level of the individual, communication methods remain vital, though it seems that they are also less-well studied.
2.3 Social Capital
A common thread exists within the literature on action and participatory research, social and solidarity economy, needs based development, assets based development, and recent work on agency theory. In each of these fields, the social capital is increasingly being
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
viewed as important to the understanding of community development. Although theoretical bases of social capital is less well studied in economics, there is growing evidence of the importance that social capital is important to providing economic returns through networks of social relationships, trust and norms of reciprocity, and institutions that encourage people to be active members of community networks (Pargal, Huq, &
Gilligan, 1999). While the intangible and multifaceted nature of social capital being has resulted in the concept being criticized for being defined overly broadly (Aldrich &
Meyer, 2014), distilled to its most basic concept, social capital can be seen as allowing returns to result from networks and social relationships.
Social capital can be held both at group and individual levels. It can be transferred between groups and individuals, and can diffuse within groups. For example, the social capital held by respected community members can be transferred to outsiders, and the
“possession” of social capital by researchers can then help engender trust in the greater community. An exchange of social capital does not necessarily occur on a strictly one-to-one basis; as an intangible asset, social capital can grow through interaction and exchange in a way that tangible capital, such as money or infrastructure, cannot.
Within each of the fields above, sub-factors of trust and reciprocity in working definitions of social capital. This is perhaps unsurprising as reciprocity has been shown to be
important in social interactions across human societies, as well as in non-human primates and canids (Brosnan, 2006; Kurzban, 2013). The likely biological basis of this behavior suggests that an evolutionary advantage is conferred on species that display reciprocity;
this long term evolutionary perspective may be of particular importance in light of the dangers to both indigenous societies facing the disappearance of their culture and to humans as a species facing the perils of global climate change.
The concept of reciprocity being important for development and providing returns is not
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
extends beyond relations between people. In many indigenous philosophical systems, the social connections and relationships of reciprocity are an important element of
environmental ethics found in indigenous traditional knowledge that are extended to include humans and the natural world. For example, hunting practices of the Ojibwa, Cree, and Inuit groups in North America do not dichotomize between human and nonhuman persons in the environment, instead viewing the two groups as equals operating in a respectful and reciprocal way (Kapashesit & Klippenstein, 1991; Reo &
Whyte, 2012). A similar ethic of reciprocity is also found in the Quechua peoples of the Andes, as can be seen in the “Potato Park” agrobiodiversity project. Based on indigenous traditions and philosophies, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity is being maintained through reciprocal relations between human beings and their social and natural environments ( Oudenhoven, 2010). Ritual practices found in North America and the Andes in which offerings are made to deities (tobacco in in North America, wine and food in the Andes) reinforce the importance of reciprocal interactions and respect with the environment and create a symbolic lesson for guiding relationships at the
interpersonal level as well.
Reciprocity – or at least cooperation - between animals that is assumed in many
traditional indigenous belief systems has also been witnessed by scientists with a Western background. For example, Pierrotti et al. describe how their research was informed by the indigenous idea that marine mammal and birds foraged together out of a cooperative relationship, with gulls serving as aerial spotters who could locate widely distributed fish and squid, while dolphins, sea lions, and whales would come to feed, and force the prey to the surface, whereby both mammals and birds would benefit (Pierotti & Wildcat, 2000).
Sharing of physical resources as a basic relationship of reciprocity is found at the group or community level for many indigenous peoples. Ojibwa hunters, for example, are expected to provide meat to people who cannot hunt and to the people who taught them how to hunt (Reo & Whyte, 2012). Sharing meat is also found at the group level in
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Taiwan, with Truku hunters and trappers sharing meat with their village members. While there may be no formal rules governing the sharing, it was nonetheless expected to be reciprocated, thus reinforcing bonds of friendship and kinship (Simon, 2013). Sharing of agricultural products is also seen with the Andean Quechua, who set aside a portion of the highest quality agricultural products for maintaining social relations (Agrumendo and Wall, 2010). There exists an ongoing benefit in these types of sharing relationships whereby greater trust that resource sharing today will result in reciprocal sharing in the future. Community members gain resilience in that they have access to resources in times of need, and mutual assistance strengthens community bonds that in turn leads to higher trust. This reciprocal sharing of resources sometimes extends to neighboring communities as well.
Accruing social capital does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes, although using a value laden term such as “negative social capital” has been seen by some authors as problematic (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002). “Too much” social capital such as in cases of excessive trust based on ethnic, regional, or religious homogeneity risks price bubbles in economics and aggressive exclusionary action in politics (Portes, 2014).
Although in some cases, such as with crime syndicates, social networks can create
problematic negative externalities, the social capital is perhaps better seen as “damaging”
or “harmful” rather than simply “negative”; the social capital still exists in a form that can be transferred and mobilized to create a “positive” outcome. This can be seen in examples such as mafia organizations providing earthquake relief in Japan (Matanle, 2011) or illegal provision of day to day services such as electricity and television in places such as poor Indian neighborhoods.4
At a governance level, the family networks that operate in some Canadian aboriginal governments can also be seen in this context. These communities may have strong social
‧
capital within certain groups that are often based on family and kindship bonds, yet benefits that come from information and access to resources can be funneled away from outgroup members. This situation can be seen in terms of the problems of excess or un-transferred bonding social capital that is not extended to the greater community.
As reciprocity influences the level of cooperation within groups, social bonds within the group are strengthened and the ability of groups to work cooperatively also increases.
The growth of informal networks that come from cooperation have been identified as drivers of problem-solving (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014), and groups or communities with stronger interpersonal networks are able use social norms to prevent elite capture and strengthen of cooperation (Tai, 2007). This cooperation can be applied at a higher level, such as with interactions with neighboring or outside society or the greater state. An analysis of three cases of water resource management in British Columbia, Canada showed that negotiations for aligning conservation initiatives were more successful5 in situations with a mutually respectful attitude and reciprocal sharing of information between indigenous and non-indigenous groups (Von der Porten & De Loë, 2013).
Social justice towards a disempowered community may be realized in part through reciprocity operating between the researchers and targets in action research. This mutual and collaborative work as academics undertake the cyclical processes of action research that incorporate local needs and wants to allow adaptation, growth, and resiliency can help decolonize knowledge gathering, while feelings of long term mutual interests are promoted that allow the application of outside resources with less risk of capture or non-cooperation. Justice between the community and the greater society is also increased as researchers act as mediators negotiating for resources from the state or through
marketing. The mobilization of human and financial capital that helps balance resource
5 Although in general the literature on First Nations relations with the Canadian state indicates that this respect and sharing is the exception rather that the rule, indicating the difficulties in engendering such positive relationships.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
asymmetries is is facilitated through the exchange of social capital between community leaders and researchers that occurs through collaboration.
However, cooperation and the ability of a community to distribute resources equitably can be reduced in situations where outside resources are injected too quickly or without consideration, thus slowing or even stopping collective action from occurring (Tai, 2007).
In these cases, social capital can be diminished, as can be seen with lower participation in local networks, lower levels of trust, and a reduced chance of participation in reciprocal behaviors. The question of how to create cooperation for a development initiative while avoiding the issues of capture and gaining local support was one faced in the early stages of the Lokah Project.
As has been mentioned above, social capital as a concept has been criticized for being an overly broad term that is problematic for study. To address this issue, theorists have sought to understand the sub factors that make up social capital. Some of these interpretations are discussed below.
Some authors break down forms of social capital into two main types: structural and cognitive (for example, Adler & Kwon, 2002; Grootaert & Van Blastelaer 2002). When referring to the sharing of information, decision making, social networks and other social structures such as rules and procedures is known as structural social capital. This type of social capital is in some ways more amenable to observation through groups
memberships, for example, while cognitive social capital such as the shared norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs is related more closely to internal states and therefore more intangible in nature. These two types of social capital can complement each other and overlap, though it is not always the case that they do.
‧
Another way to delineate between different types of social capital is in terms of bonding and bridging. Some earlier interpretations view bonding social capital as focusing on the internal connections and structures between people in the same groups, while bridging social capital encompasses the relations and connections that tie one actor to others (Adler & Kwon, 2002), while other interpretations of bonding social capital refine these concepts further, to approach bonding social capital as describing close emotional connections within a highly similar group, for example between family and friends (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014). Bridging social capital then describes social connections involving connections that although being looser, span larger and more diverse
organizational groups (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Some scholars add a third dimension of linking social capital to further separate elements of bridging social capital to include connections between regular people and those in power.6
Both bonding and bridging capital are related to increased community capacity. Bonding social capital is connected to higher levels of assistance and immediate aid given by family and kin groups in times of disaster, whiles bridging social capital that through connections with social organizations and people who are outside close kin groups gives increased access to outside resources and support for long term (Aldrich & Meyer, 2014).
These bridging connections are seen as vital by authors such as Woolcock and Narayan who view the conditions that enable access to formal institutions and expertise as essential for community development, so long as bonding social capital is maintained (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000).
A further way to compartmentalize different types of social capital types is to look at structural, relational, and cognitive components. Structural social capital includes
network ties and network features, relational social capital includes trust and relationship types, and cognitive social capital includes shared language, identities, beliefs, and norms
6 Not all authors completely share this third delineation. For example, some authors use “communal” vs
“linking” social capital rather than bonding and bridging, or bonding, bridging, and linking. (Adler, 2002 p19)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Ansari, Munir, & Gregg, 2012). Again, these subtypes of social capital are mutually interacting, with social capital of one type having interactive effects on the others.
The different types of social capital are not mutually exclusive; instead, they can be complimentary and mutually reinforcing. For example, as community members and outsiders work together and develop personal links during projects, thus increasing bridging social capital, the psychological distance between the two decreases as well. In this way, the two individuals begin to develop their own bonds of trust and reciprocity, creating a level of bonding social capital that operates across the two separate groups. A psychological interpretation could be that the ingroup-outgroup distance is reduced. From a principal-agent context, an increase or exchange of social capital could result in
improved ability to align interests and decrease informational asymmetry.