Journal On Social Capital

INTRODUCTION
The objective of this journal work is to provide the meaning behind the concept of “Social capital.” Logically the concept of social capital is currently receiving a lot of attention from development agencies and research institutions. Part of the attention has been on its definition.
This journal work will tries to put forward some of the definitions, provided by various thinkers, social scientists and researchers.
The journal will also covers the general frame work of social capital in terms of:-

- Types of social capital
- Measurement of social capital
- Social capital and civil society
- Social capital and third world
- Creation of social capital
- Benefits of social capital
- The bad side of social
- Intervention or dimensions to strengthen social capital.
- Conclusion based on knowledge learned and my own views and comments.
















RANGE OF DEFINITIONS ON SOCIAL CAPITAL
The term social capital was first used in the 1980s by Bourdien and Coleman. While the themes above are consistently mentioned throught the literature on social capital there are many definitions of social capital.

Bourdien and Wacquant, 1992, definition:-
Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of processing a durable net-work of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.

Wendy stone and Jody Hughes July 2000 state social capital as:-
Simply as networks of social relations characterized by norms of trust and reciprocity. The essence of social capital is quality social relations. Thus social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action, which may lead to a broad range of outcomes of varying social scale.

World Bank (2000) what is social capital?:-
The institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions.

Narayan (1997) voices of the poor-poverty and social capital in Tanzania:-
Social capital are rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social relations, social structures and society institutional arrangements which enables members to achieve their individual and community objective.

NB:- Many definitions define what social capital is and what it does. In fact, there seems to be broader agreement in the literature about what social capital does, than what it is in general it is widely agreed that social capital facilitates mutually beneficial collective action.

TYPES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Robert D. Putman, an American, Harvard political scientist, in this pioneering study, speaks of two main components of the concept:
- (i) Bounding social capital and
- (ii) Bridging social capital
Bounding refers to the value assigned to social networks between homogeneous groups of people. and – Bridging refers to that of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups. Typical examples are that criminal gangs create bounding social capital, while choirs and bowling clubs create bridging social capital. For Tanzania situation one can site bonding social capital example being cooperatives e.g Agricultural marketing cooperatives, and an example for bridging social capital can be money bending institutions e.g PRIDE, SEDA etc. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host other benefits for societies governments, individuals, and communities Putnam noted that joining an organization cuts in half an individual’s chance of dying within the next year.
The distinction is useful in highlighting how social capital may not always be beneficial for society as a whole (Through it is always an asset for those individuals and groups involved). Horizontal networks of individual Citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that operate at cross purposes to societal interests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society.

MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

There is no widely held consensus on how to measure social capital, which is on of its weakness. One can usually initiatively sense the level/amount of social capital present in a given relationship (Regardless of type or scale), but quantitatively.
Measuring has proven somewhat complicated. This has resulted in different metrics for different functions. In measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of society’s membership of its groups. Groups with higher membership (such as political parties) contribute more to the amount of capital than groups with lower membership, although many groups with low membership (such as communities) still add up to be significant. The level of cohesion of a group also affects its social capital. However again, there is no true quantitative way of determining the level of cohesiveness. It is entirely subjective. How a group relates to the rest of society also affects social capital; but in different manner. Strong internal ties can in some cases weaken the group is geared towards crime; distrust, intolerance, violence or hatred forwards others. The ku klux klan and the Mafia are examples of these kinds of organizations.




CIVIL SOCIETY AND SOCIAL CAPITAL:
A number of authors give definitions of civil society that refers to voluntary associations and organizations is closely related to the definition of the “third sector”, which consists of “Private organizations that are formed and sustained by groups of people acting voluntarily and without seeking personal profit to provide benefits, for authors as Walzer, Alessandri, Newton and others, it is through civil society, or more accurately, the “third sector” that individuals are able to establish and maintain relational networks. These voluntary associations also connect people with each other, build trust and reciprocity through informal, loosely structured associations; and consolidate society through altruism without obligation. It is this range of activities, services and associations produced by civil society that constitutes the sources of social capital.
If civil society, then is taken to be synonymous with third sector then the question it seems is not how important is social capital to the production of social capital? Not only have the authors above documented how civil society produces sources of social capital, but in Lyons work “Third sector” social capital does not appear in any guise under either the factors, that enable or those that stimulate the growth of the third sector, and onyx describes how social capital depends on an already functioning community. However, a truer definitions of civil society is different though not wholly distinct from the third sector. Lyons goes some way to addressing this by introducing a somewhat Marxist interpretation of civil society where civil society is “the space for free association, where people could meet and form groups to peruse their enthusiasm, express their values and assist others”. This is a “vibrant space, full of argument and disputation about matters of greatest importance to its citizens”. The idea that creating social capital (i.ee creating networks) will strengthen civil society underlies current Australian social policy aimed at bridging deepening social divisions. The goal is to reintegrate those marginalized from the rewards of the economic system; into the community. However, according to onyx (2000) while the explicit aim of this policy is inclusion, its effects are exclusionary.
The resurgence of interest in “Social capital” as a remedy for the cause of today’s social problems draws directly on the assumption that these problems lie in the weakening of civil society. However this ignores the social capital leads to exclusion rather than to a stronger civil society. In international development, Ben fine and John Harris have been heavily critical of the inappropriate adoption of social capital as a supposed panacea in promoting civil society organizations, or as agents of development. An abundance of social capital is seen as being almost a necessary condition for modern liberal democracy. A low level of social capital leads to an excessively riding an unresponsive political system and high level corruption, in the political system and in the region as a whole.
Formal public institutions requires social capital in order to function properly, and while it is possible to have too much social capital (resulting in rapid changes and excessive regulation), it is decidedly worse to have too little.
A number of intellectuals in developing capital, particularly when connected to certain ideas about civil society, is deeply implicated in contemporary modes of donor and NGO driven imperialism and that it functions, primary, to blame the poor for their conditions.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THIRD WORLD
Many authors suggest that third world communities lack the social capital networks and associations found in Western developed communities; but taken an underestimation of social capital build in traditional societies.

CREATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Putnam (1993) argues that social capital in Italy is legacy of long periods of historical development, and therefore it cannot be added to in the short-run. Falk and Kilpatrick (1999) argue that the accumulation of social capital is the outcome of the process of learning interactions. Learning interactions require a learning event (an actual occasion) and occur in a contextual dimension (the broad, social-cultural and political frame work). A precondition to building social capital is the existence of a sufficient quantity and quality of learning interactions. For example Falk and Kilpatrick suggest that quality learning interactions includes an historical context, external interactions, reciprocity, trust shared norms and values. The planning and implementation of community projects may be one such learning interaction.
Uphaff (1999), distinguishes between structural and cognitive social capital. Structural social capital involves various forms of social organizations, including roles, rules, precedents, and procedures as well as a variety of networks that contribute to co-operation. Cognitive social capital includes norms, values, attitudes and beliefs. Structural and cognitive social capital are complimentary structures help to translate norms and beliefs into well co-coordinated behavior.
Other authors (sable, 1994) argues that social capital builds up as a result of all actors committing themselves to on-going negotiations based on shared understanding of common goals. Hecher (1987) suggest a multistage process for building group solidarity.
Having joined together members must devise rules and procedures, which get institutionalized over time.
BENEFITS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:-
Provided by Narayan and Pritchett (1997) there are five concrete beneficial outcomes of social capital:-

(i) Improvement of society’s ability to monitor the performance of government.
(ii) Facilitate the diffusion of innovations by increasing inter-linkages among individuals.
(iii) Reduce information imperfections, and mechanisms, thereby increasing transactions in output, credit land and labor markets.
(iv) Increase informal insurance (or informal safety nets) between households, thereby allowing households to pursue higher returns, but more risky activities and production technique.

THE BAD SIDE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL:

It is also important to remember that social capital is not always a good thing. As groups gather together to create “bonding” social capital, it is possible for their beliefs to become more radical than if they just stayed to themselves. Without “bridging” social capital, “bounding” social capital can become isolated and disenfranchised from the rest of society. There are groups or social capital invested towards negative ends, for example gangs groups.

INTERVENTION TO IMPROVE OR TO STRENGTHEN SOCIAL CAPITAL
Oakley etal (1991) proposes the following six interactions:-
(i) Animation:- Assisting local people stimulate their owns critical awareness to examine and explain issues in their own words and realize what they can do to bring about change.
(ii) Structuring:- Development of international cohesion and solidarity among people, and some form of structured organization.

Facilitation:- A service role which assist people to undertake specific actions; these actions includes acquiring of particular technical and managerial skills, gaining access to available resources or translating their own ideas into feasible projects.
Intermediary:- To serve as a go-between in relation to other external services. To establish contacts with existing services and introduce people to the procedures and mechanisms for dealing with these services.
Linkage:- Helping the groups to develop links between people in similar contexts and facing similar problems.
Withdrawal:- A progressive redundancy of external interventions.

RATIONALE OR JUSTFICATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL (GROUPS).

Participating in a group is costly for members in terms of time and labor, and resources. Mankner’s (1997) literature review of self-help groups finds, assessment of genuine local need for these groups in a common policy mistake.
Kabubila’s (1994) evaluation for GTZ village programme in two districts of Tanga region (Tanzania), state that many group approach would help them. some people argue that external agents should not create groups. One option is for the external agents to support only groups with a certain history. In practice, it may be difficult to support groups without at least indirectly creating them. however, a mere announcement that a donor will provide support to groups meeting certain criteria leads to the creation of these groups. The difference between support and creation (animated mobilization) may be that support programmes reach the well informed and connected i.e (the non-poor) whereas mobilization may be capable or reaching the marginalized and vulnerable. One motivation for village group formation in Tanzania today is the access this provides to donor support. Research in Tanzania has found that the very poorest and marginalized women are under-represented in women’s organizations. it can also be urged that the use of participatory methods does not guarantee the insulation of the vulnerable groups. Hume (2000) argues that the best practice will be; open and public meetings, regular electitions, financial training for leaders, the inclusion of women does not necessarily stop elites capture of local organizations or the creation of new elites. He argues that stockholder analysis is one way of exploring such issues. Social capital is both affected by and affects social power structures. The ability to create or destroy social capital will depend on how power structures and traditional worms of associations are engaged by filled staff of external agencies. Social and power structures also emerge externally. Groups created as implementers of community development may be perceived mainly as part of some external development agency’s system or project. And they are concerned with mining social capital using existing stocks of social capital to achieve other aims and in the process depleting the initial capital. In general, these is no one model for social capital formation or the creation or strengthening of local groups. Abee and Boyd (1997) argue that there is no single answer or model to promoting participation. But there are only frame works and guiding principles.

CONCLUSION

Social capital (Groups) can be significant tools in improving the well-being of the marginalized majority of communities, the authorities should encourage the formation of these groups from being internally or externally hijacked and exploited, by few elites who pretend be good wishers of these social capital (groups) while in reality they are carrying individualistic agenda. To ensure sustainability of social capital groups, the government and other big organizations.
Should empower, these groups through training and education to their members and leaders; on organizational, planning control and monitoring evaluation skills. Most of the social capital (groups), for example the cooperatives societies in Tanzania could not sustain and do any better to its members, because both, of the members and leaders of these cooperatives lacked preparnessed interms of training and education; more worse the formation was not demand-driven, rather, as suggestive economic development tool formulated by the government policy makers and imposed to the people. In a way some the social, groups were politically initiated to meet political motives. All these kind of social capital groups end-up in benefiting individuals and leave the majority still on the same poverty line.
The government should also institute very strict control and monitoring the formation of social capital (groups) to be able to scan those one which leads to negative impact to the vast majority of the society.

REFERENCE:

Internet (Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

ADVOCACY Expert series, community mobilization manual, developed by pact Tanzania; first edition, October 2005.