The Indicator/ Variable for Social Impact

For a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) study, the selection of indicators affects the

effectiveness of methods used to measure social impact (Esterhuizen & Liebenberg, 2001). Ross (1990) commented that it is important to have suitable indicators that are able to effectively serve and represent people with specific backgrounds in order to measure their response to development. Ross added that another important aspect of selecting indicators for a particular study is the availability of the type of data needed for analysing the indicators used in different environments.

In this study, ANT-K Theory suggests the use of „capital‟ as a reference that helps to select the type of suitable indicators for studying social impact. Cohen (1987) stated that capital refers to social and material resources that enable actors, social structures and social networks to make changes. Capital stocks exist in tangible and intangible forms. For example, tangible forms of capital stocks are things like money, market shares, bonds and properties while intangible forms could be values, norms, knowledge and attitudes. All are capital that facilitate the development of humankind (Maconachie & Sappey, 2011). It appears that the structure of capital, and its availability to actors, can indicate the contribution of actors to social change. The capital is like a driving force that motivates actors to take action and it gives power for actors to act. This shows that the identification of different types of capital stocks, and its representing value to actors, can show the possible indicators for studying social impact. The indicators also show what kind of data needs to be collected for an SIA study.

Cohen (1987) divided all the capital stocks for social change into two main categories: authoritative resources and allocative resources. The authoritative resources are capable of directing the reaction of human-type actors, while the allocative resources are capable of directing the reactions of non-human types of actors. An understanding of the distribution of these two categories of capital stocks, explains social orders in the lives of those who are affected by development, and it points to people and communities who are accountable for making potential social actions and social relations in responding to development. This information can be used to explain the predicted actual social impact people and communities face.

A summary of literature with regard to various types of „capital‟ and their relevant possible indicators for studying social change, is tabulated in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Indicators for Capital Stocks.

Actor Type of Capital Stock Indicator

1. Human - Individual

Human Capital  Education and training

background

 Living experience

 Working experience

 Intelligence level

Cultural Capital

(includes physical capital)

 Value or culture of schooling

 Age  Gender  Race  Employment arrangement  Income 2. Human - Collective groups

Social capital  Social trust

 Social institution trust

 Social norm

 Social networks

3. Non-human - Single element - A group of elements

Biophysical/ Ecological capital (includes both single and group elements)

 Natural resources

 Natural services

Artificial capital

(includes both single and group elements)

 Artificial products

 Artificial services

Source: Summary of discussion above.

As shown in Table 2.2, human and non-human actors are linked to different types of capital stocks. Human actors have human, cultural and social capital while non-human actors have biophysical capital stocks that consist of ecological capital and artificial capital such as electricity supply and air-conditioning supply. The form of connection between actors and their respective capital stocks gives individuals and collective groups the social power to affect the direction of changes through social actions and social relations.

2.5.4.1 Values for Human Capital, Cultural Capital and Social Capital

Generally, there are no clear rules for defining the types of capital. A review of literature shows that scholars used various types of capital to explain the response of humans to the

changing human environment. The common types of capital used by many economic scholars to discuss human life are human capital, cultural capital and social capital (Lin, 2007).

Baron defined human capital as “ the knowledge, skills and experiences of individuals and also their willingness to share these attributes with the organization to create value” (2011, p. 30). Human capital is an added value that affects the behaviour and ability of humans to make changes to their lives via actions and relations produced by them (Baron, 2011; OECD, 2001). Scholars like Blaug (1976) and Lin (2007) suggest that this kind of added value can be measured according to the education level, training attendance and working experience of a person. Other scholars like Azarnert (2010a, 2010b) also include life experiences and abilities of thinking as alternative ways to measure the human capital of a person. Though there are other ways to measure human capital besides what has been discussed above, all

measurements indicate innate capacities of a person that are mainly related to three characteristics of humans: knowledge, skills and attitudes. Taken together, the literature suggests that indicators for identifying and measuring human capital stock are education level, training, living experiences as a child and adult work experience.

The concept of cultural capital is quite similar to the concept of human capital; both concepts discuss the factors that affect an individual‟s actions. However, the cultural capital only concerns the symbolic violence posed by the dominant class in a society, which normally reflects the value or culture of education that determines the status of a person in a society (Lin, 2007). Maconachie and Sappey (2011) added that some scholars also relate the concept of cultural capital to the physical capital of humans. These scholars suggest that physical capital is a cultural product formed through the social and physical creation of individuals. This physical capital refers to the nature of the human body (shape, size and functions), which determines the functional capability and physical apperance of an individual, that affects the social position of that individual in a social structure. Past studies show that age, employment arrangement (full-time, part-time or casual), income, race and gender are common indicators that can show the physical type of capital stocks owned by a person (Lin, 2007; Maconachie & Sappey, 2011).

As for social capital, authors like Baron (2011), OECD (2001) and Onyx (2005) suggested that this capital can only be derived from a network established among human actors. The network could provide links to bridge human and non-human types of actors with other types of capital. This potentially brings advantages, benefits and opportunities to them (Nisbet, 2007). However, „social capital‟ cannot be seen as part of „human capital‟ as it cannot be

gained via formal or informal education or training lessons (Fukuyama, 1995). It is rather the collective resources of individuals that builds via meaningful interactions with others, though it generates support to individuals (Lin, 2007). Scott, Baggio and Cooper (2008) pointed out that social relationships are a way for individual actors to gain social support; the degree to which an actor connecting to others affects the perception and satisfaction of individuals and collective groups on certain issues or decisions (Brashears, 2009; Macarov, 1988).

Literature reviews show that social capital can be defined in four different forms: social trust, social institutional trust, social norms and social networks. Many scholars like Fukuyama (1995), Herreros (2004) and Lewandowski (2006) relate the discussion of social capital in terms of social trust and social institutional trust. Other scholars like Nisbet (2007) use social norms and social networks to explain the meaning of social capital in social change.

However, these four different forms of social capital only represent two different values of social capital. One holds the value of cognitive meaning (social trust, social institutional trust and social norms) while the other brings a value for the meaning of a structure (social

networks) (Jones, Clark, & Tripidaki, 2012).

Canan and Hennessy (1982) argue that social capital results when a collective group of human actors reach mutual interests or beliefs about a preferred way of life. Because of these

interests or beliefs, human actors share similar feelings about future life that influences the reaction of an individual or a collective group towards a changing environment (Cannone, 2009; Nisbet, 2007; Yuan & Fei, 2010). Human actors with similar interests or beliefs tend to act together in responding to an issue that concerns themselves and others. As a result of their action, it creates a social movement through various ways that exist in their relationships (Hahn et al., 2008). In addition, social capital creates a space for human actors from different levels in a hierarchical social structure, to communicate their interests. From the

communication process, they accumulate social power to influence and be accepted by others (Benn & Onyx, 2005).

Lin (2007) stated that “social capital is identified when and if it works; the potential causal explanation of social capital can be captured only by its effect; or whether it is an investment depends on the return for a specific individual in a specific action” (p. 28). This statement suggests that a rational cognitive or structural reason that explains the forming of a connection between human actions and social activities can show the possible way to identify social capital stocks; to explore the pattern of social trust, social institutional trust, social norms and social networks, and the meaning of these capital stocks to the lives of collective groups studied.

The discussion above suggests that the measurement of human, cultural and social types of capital stocks can reflect the socio-economic characteristics and lifestyles of human actors that affect the response of individuals and communities to development.

2.5.4.2 Values for Biophysical Capital

Scholars from environmental and ecological disciplines believe that there is a material type of biophysical capital related to the development of humans (Bryant, 2001). This biophysical capital is derived from non-human actors, such as nature (Castree, 2001). Biophysical capital explains the reaction of humans to others and the changing environment by connecting to the use and production of nature (Anderson, 2001; Bryant, 2001). Biophysical capital was not discussed by scholars from an economic discipline because they could not accept that nature was more than a product of social construction accumulated from other human, cultural and/or social types of capital stocks (Castree, 2001). Bryant (2001) addressed this

„biophysical‟ capital as „ecological‟ capital. Ecological capital can be identified in two forms: natural resources (e.g. biodiversity and natural heritage) and natural services (e.g. reservoir and rainforest) (Bryant, 2001). Ecological capital, known as biophysical capital in this thesis, is a media that connects nature to human life. It brings forth the value of endogenous

knowledge that affects the way individuals or communities communicate with others who are from different cultural backgrounds (Swagemakers & Wiskerke, 2011). The concept of biophysical capital also completes ANT-K Theory that suggests an equal role for human and non-human elements when studying their contribution to social change.

Other scholars relate biophysical capital to the artificial world. For example, Smith, Thompson and Ellwood (2002) discuss the health issue related to artificial infant feeding products, which is believed to be one of the key factors causing increasing hospitalisation rates of infants and children. Stevens (2009) discusses the importance of artificial landscapes and geographical, climatological and hydrological features such as beaches, lagoons and rivers to human life, which then affects the physical experience of people. Another common issue mentioned by scholars in this advanced information technology era is artificial

intelligence. This refers to artificial neural networks for managing knowledge assets

(Metaxiotis, Ergazakis, Samouilidis, & Psarras, 2003). Artificial neural networks are a kind of simulation connection between the brain and nervous system which helps humans make decisions that require consideration from various aspects or huge databases, that are greater than a human‟s limited capability (Kablan, 2009). These scholars‟ discussions show that artificial capital products or services are another reason for individuals and collective groups to have certain thoughts and actions that affect social change.