Social capital as a multi-dimensional concept

While social capital has a rich history (see Hanifan 1916; Jacobs 1961), it has recently been revitalised by the work of figures such as James Coleman

(1988; 1990) and Robert Putnam et al. (1993). I begin by outlining and defining social capital as relevant to sustainability in the local arena, before focusing on the five aspects of social capital, that were outlined above, and that emerged during the research.

Selman (2001, 14) equates social capital to "a glue which holds communities together through mutual interdependence." Woolcock (1998, 155) describes

social capital as "encompassing the norms and networks facilitating collective action for mutual benefit" and Armstrong (1999, 28) sees "social capital [as] a way of understanding community that focuses on the networks of relations amongst citizens." A more complex definition is suggested by

Falk and Kilpatrick (2000, 103-4):

[social capital is] the product of social interactions with the potential to contribute to the social, civic or economic well-being of a community of common purpose. The interactions draw on knowledge and identity resources that simultaneously use and build stores of social capital. The nature of the social capital depends on various qualitative dimensions of the interactions in which it is produced, such as the quality of the internal-external interaction, the historicity, futurity, reciprocity, trust and the shared values and norms.

These definitions illuminate the central aspects of social capital: citizens, communities and formal institutions, norms and networks, and beneficial

Chnpter 5 Social Capital

framework defining the manner in which resources, both tangible and intangible, are used and distributed, based on the key ideas of trust and red procity.

Sustainability too can be viewed as concerned with the distribution of resources and as such, can theoretically and practically be linked to social

capital in a direct manner. They exist in a mutually beneficial relationship. If the overarching discourse in which sustainability and social capital are located is loosely labelled as one concerning the distribution of resources, then two questions are raised. Those of the sustainability camp propose the question: "how should the resources of the Earth be distributed?" The answer

is therefore concerned with ethical issues of intra- and inter-generational equity, environmental protection, and quality of life. Advocates of social capital phrase the question: "how are the resources of the Earth distributed?" and then explore the question by investigating the interactions among groups and individuals. In the local context, I propose and proceed on the basis that the relationship between sustainability and social capital is such that high levels of social capital enable the operationalisation of sustainability principles; indeed they are a prerequisite.

Social capital is multi-dimensional. In this respect, Putnam et al. (1993) emphasise horizontal networks within and between communities, Coleman (1988, 1990) focuses on vertical networks between civil and state domains, and North (1990) and Olson (1982) explore social capital at the institutional level. These levels are referred to as micro, meso, and macro respectively. Social capital has also been classified as structural, encompassing social structures and networks that facilitate information sharing, and as cognitive, referring to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes and beliefs (Grooeart and van Bastelaer 2001; Uphoff 2000). Bonding social capital ties, characterised by

strong connections within communities, and bridging social capital ties among communities, are other relevant dimensions of social capital. For example, bonding social capital helps struggling communities to 'get by', where bridging social capital aid communities to 'get ahead' (Woolcock and Narayan 2000). A model of social capital is presented in Figure 5.1.

Trust is integral to social capital. Fukuyama (1995,16) defines social capital

as:

A set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them.

Here, emphasis is placed on the nature and use of trust, formed as the result of relations among groups and individuals:

If members of the group come to expect that others will behave reliably and honestly, then they will come to trust one another. Trust is like a lubricant that makes the running of any group or organization more efficient.

Fukuyama (1995) suggests that where social capital has diminished, it is a case of 'moral miniaturization', typified by a smaller 'radius of trust'; that is, a reduction in the number of groups and number of people with whom trust is shared. Low levels of trust result in "fewer common values shared by societies and more competition among groups" (Fukuyama 1995, 49).

Therefore, trust is a by-product of cooperative social norms, and an agent of facilitation in achieving common goals. In this way, it is the content and context of networks that influence the nature and extent of social capital.

Chapter 5 Social Capital

-Figure 5.1: Dimensions of social capital (Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2001)

institutions of the state structural local institutions, networks macro micro governance cognitive

trust, local norms, and values

High levels of social capital are not necessarily desirable. As a multi­ dimensional concept, different combinations of social capital produce different outcomes, in different contexts, as Woolcock observes (1998, 158):

social capital has both 'benefits' and 'costs,' . . . groups can possess 'too much' or 'too little' of it in terms of the amount required for efficient economic exchange, and that the sources of social capital required to sustain this exchange at one point in time may shift as transactions become more or less complex.

Therefore social capital needs to be 'optimised', not 'maximised'. To recognise which dimension must be optimised is contextual, as Woolcock

(1998, 159) again points out:

[there are] different types, levels, or dimensions of social capital, different performance outcomes associated with different combinations of these dimensions, and different sets of conditions that support or weaken favourable combinations.

5. 1 . 1 _Summary

It is important to appreciate the complex nature of social capital, and acknowledge the fact that the discourse of social capital is , developing (Falk and Kilpatrick 2000). Thus, proceeding with the view that social capital is a multi�dimensional concept, with different combinations of social capital leading to different development outcomes, the following sections enlarge upon those dimensions that emerged as significant during the research. Most prominent is the importance of community. The idea of community is central to the practical formation and implications of social capital. In this respect, I examine how community members conceptualise their local communities in relation to precinct areas, and evaluate the influence that these ideas of community have on the ability of precinct communities to accumulate and utilise stocks of social capital.