Building social capital: the role of local government.

1. Introduction

Social capital proponents, such as Robert Putnam (1993b), claim communities with larger stocks of horizontal social capital exhibit better development outcomes. If social capital promotes economic development and effective governance then a logical next question is, "Can social capital be increased in places where it is low?" Putnam's (1993a) study of Italy provides little evidence for the constructability of social capital. A major state intervention (in creating a system of regional government) did little to promote social capital formation in areas where it was weak. Durkheim would agree, social structure changes very slowly and development interventions are unlikely to yield much impact.

For many development practitioners, and a few theorists, higher hopes are pinned on the prospects for social capital building and its impact on development outcomes in the community. A few theorists insist on the possibility of building social capital where it is weak and point to the role of formal governmental institutions (Evans, 1996; Skocpol, 1996). They are joined by community development practitioners who attempt to show explicitly what role the state might play in social capital construction (Potapchuck et al., 1997).

This paper explores the constructability of social capital and specifically the role formal state supported institutions can play in structuring community level interventions to build social capital. For a fuller discussion of these issues see (Warner, 1999).

2. Can social capital be built?

Any study of the constructability of social capital, must give attention to the form (horizontal and hierarchical), the level (individual or community) and the investment costs. The form of social capital may be horizontal or hierarchical. Horizontal forms of social capital involve more lateral ties between individuals within community and help produce more egalitarian and robust democratic structures (Putnam, 1993a, 1993b). Hierarchical social capital produces patron client relations (and gangs) which can stifle development (Duncan, 1992; Putnam, 1993a; Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993).

Much work on social capital has focused at the individual or family level on how stocks of social capital contribute to individual educational or economic achievement (Coleman, 1988; Bourdieu, 1986). Putnam (1993a), made an important contribution to the social capital debate by exploring the nature of social capital at the community level. Community level social capital can not be measured merely as an aggregation of individual networks. Attention must be given to inter-organizational networks as well as a study of the nature of government itself. Community level social capital resides in groups and the networks among them (Woolcock, 1998). Strong community level social capital creates the civic infrastructure, which supports formal and informal processes of decision making and public involvement (Potapchuck et al., 1997).