|
Article Excerpt
ABSTRACT
SOCIAL CAPITAL CAN BE BUILT THROUGH INVESTMENT IN EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION, THOUGH DIFFERENT FORMS OF
CAPITAL--BONDING AND BRIDGING CAPITAL--GENERATE CONFLICTING CLAIMS ON SUCH INVESTMENT. THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT ANY PUBLIC POLICY STRATEGY SEEKING TO BUILD SOCIAL CAPITAL MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE NEED TO BALANCE BONDING AND BRIDGING CAPITAL; LINK THE LONG-TERM INTERESTS OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, NATIONAL CITIZENS AND INSTITUTIONS; AND MAINTAIN A STRONG FOCUS UPON EQUALITY AS AN IMPORTANT OUTCOME. STATE LEVEL STRATEGIES, SUCH AS THE VICTORIAN 'COMMUNITY BUILDING INITIATIVE',ARE MAKING GOOD HEADWAY, BUT A NATIONAL APPROACH IS NEEDED. AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL SOCIAL CAPITAL POLICY IS MOST LIKELY TO REQUIRE A DEGREE OF REGULATION OF LOCAL INVESTMENT TO INSURE THE BALANCE BETWEEN BONDING AND BRIDGING CAPITAL IS MAINTAINED AND THE FOCUS UPON EQUALITY IS NOT LOST.
Keywords: social capital; bonding; bridging; investment; equality; policy
INTRODUCTION
Social capital is a valuable concept built upon, but not simply reiterating, many traditional theories of social and political integration. Its value lies in asserting not only the importance of social ties in their own right but also that such ties are resources that can be built up or depleted just like other forms of capital. On a positive note, despite the fact that social capital has attracted numerous definitions, (1) most appear now to be consolidating around a focus upon networks and norms of trust and reciprocity. For instance, the official Orgainsation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) definition recognises this focus and serves as a working definition for this paper. It defines social capital as: 'networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups' (2). Significantly, these networks serve to foster important social outcomes including employment, education, voluntary activity and confidence in government and institutions of governance.
However. despite increasing definitional clarity, measurements have continued to proliferate in numerous Australia surveys with items such as safety; proactivity and tolerance of diversity; citizenship and disposition; assistance and confidence in support; and many potential others being included. However, some headway towards consensus is being made. The most specific survey on social capital within Australia, the Australian Institute of Family Studies' 'Social Capital and Citizenship Project' focuses solidly upon networks and norms. The Institute avoids the 'rush to measurement' by premising their investigation upon a thorough review of the theoretical social capital literature. Their findings do much to map the social capital landscape of Australia and lay the groundwork for the development of a national social capital initiative (3).
Building social capital is a 'hot topic', and input as to how to go about doing so is eagerly sought by governments and agencies, despite the problems in social capital meaning and measurement. Local and state governments aimed at promoting community empowerment have actively engaged with the concept of social capital. The 'Community Building Initiative' and 'Community Support Fund' in Victoria, and the 'Community Renewal' program in Queensland are prime examples of this. They encourage the development of strong communities through the targeted investment of funds into collaborative local government efforts at improving education, employment, crime reduction, and so on, with commendable emphasis upon equality. However, sufficient emphasis upon long-term stakeholding by local community members within these strategies is questionable, given the powerful dislocating effects of increasingly competitive markets upon communities and individuals. In addition, there is no overarching strategy to coordinate and integrate state efforts nationally, despite investigations by federal bodies such as the Productivity Commission (4).
The need for any kind of national strategy to consolidate the role of government and long-term stakeholding in social capital building may be legitimately questioned. The importance of a role for government, in relation to theory, will be discussed in the first section of this paper. A review of the major theoretical contributions to social capital is undertaken to suggest the necessary characteristics for any potential social capital strategy. Following this, a brief non-comprehensive examination of social capital strategies and policy debates within Australia will be provided in order to demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in present policy strategy. Issues of fundamental importance to any alternative national social capital policy strategy will be discussed in the conclusion.
SOCIAL CAPITAL--THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Following Anhier's useful typology, social capital can be seen to have developed from three major disciplines: sociology, political science and economics (5). Some authors claim that social capital is an important synthesis of these disciplines, while others note that the separation between economics and sociology has always been 'artificial'; norms and markets are very much interrelated. Findings from each discipline cut across all the facets of social capital; networks, both closed and open; and norms such as the historical/cultural derivations and the rational motivations that accompany and underlie them. Networks and norms/rationality will each be discussed here in terms of their theoretical considerations.
NETWORKS
Networks can be both closed and open. Network theorists have examined the different types of social interactions, information flows and levels of advantage that adhere within these types. Arguably, Bourdieu gives the most critical perspective of social interaction centred upon networks (6). He notes that social networks are based upon shared habits and cultural understandings but also that such networks are almost by definition finite and contested by warrant of their exclusion of others; thus the analogy with capital. He states that:
The social world is accumulated history, and if it is not to be reduced to a discontinuous mechanical equilibrium between agents who are treated as interchangeable particles, one must reintroduce into it the notion of capital and with it, accumulation and all its effects (7).
Coleman (8), like Bourdieu, notes the importance of closed networks and of reputations in maintaining them. However, unlike Bourdieu, he emphasises the influence not of the individual capital holder within the network but of the trusted intermediaries that facilitate a network, creating specific networks of connections between individuals and institutions which settle down over time to become social structures. Thus, both Coleman and Bourdieu locate social capital within networks. However, they tend to focus on the advantages simply of being an insider versus an outsider in the networks.
Burt takes the analysis a step further (9). He, like Bourdieu and Coleman, attributes the advantages networks confer to the mechanism of closure in that closure allows control over access to information resources held by the network and facilitates effective sanctioning. However, he goes on to further suggest that brokerage across the 'holes' between closed network structures grants the greatest influence. Thus, it is not insiders in a network that hold advantage but the person who spans two or more networks and can mediate the interactions between them. This idea is captured in a similar fashion by Granovetter (10), who notes that strong networks have ties to ego and are essentially closed information networks; weak ties, on the other hand, move in circles different from ours and have access to different information. Close to Burt's perspective, Lin, Cook and Burt (11) write about people's use of positions, both theirs and others, in and between institutions and structures as 'resources'. However, neither author denies the importance of closure. Indeed, Burt emphasises that brokerage is predicated upon it: 'structural holes are the source of value added, but network closure can be essential to realising the value buried in the holes' (12).
However, Burt's 'organisational' focus precludes a stronger focus upon society as a whole, with two resultant drawbacks. Firstly, completely open networks, such as those that make up the loosest levels of civil and economic society, are not appropriately accounted for. Without closure there can be no barriers, no holes and no brokerage. Wherein lies the advantage to be gained? This will be discussed below. Secondly, the idea of 'zero-sum society', that capital levels are finite and...
|
