Social Capital and Natural Resource Management An important role for social capital? TRISTAN CLARIDGE B. University of Queensland A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Natural Resource Studies, School of Natural and Rural Systems Management, University of Queensland July 2004 Declaration Declaration The work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, original and my own work, except as acknowledged in the text, and the material has not been submitted, either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university. ……………………………………… Tristan Claridge Page 1 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere appreciation to a number of people who helped me in the development and completion of this thesis. Particularly I would like to emphasize the importance of the support and guidance given by my supervisor, Ken Keith.
I would also like to thank Geoff Woolcock, David Ip and Geoff Lawrence for their time and assistance. Finally I would like to thank CL Claridge, Megan Claridge and the rest of my family for their patience and loving support. Page 2 Abstract The appeal of social capital stems from its intriguing integration of sociology and economics that some authors have heralded as a very important conceptual innovation or inter and trans disciplinary theoretical integration. Although the term social capital is relatively new, the concept is not as it encompasses a variety of other concepts.
Broadly, definitions of social capital include reference to social networks and the productive benefits stemming from them. There has been an unprecedented acceptance and application of the concept in recent years with authors from a variety of disciplines applying it to numerous applications. The authors commonly cited as the source of the contemporary debate are Pieere Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. Of these, Putnam is commonly cited for popularizing social capital.
The speed of the terms application following Putnam’s early work has weakened the theoretical rigor of the concept, leading many authors to question the validity of the concept. As identified by Wendy Stone, the supply of tools for empirical measurement outstrips demand. What is clear from the literature is that social capital is in a relatively early stage of theorization and much work is required to obtain validity of both conceptualization and operationalization. The major focus of this thesis is to develop a more rigorous conceptualization of social capital.
To do this, an extensive review of literature on social capital was undertaken including work from disciplines including sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology. This review provided the basis for the new conceptualization of social capital that incorporated current social capital theory and identified gaps and deficiencies. One of the major deficiencies of current social capital theory is that it does not sufficiently take into account the complexity of social capital, particularly in terms of level and structure. The conceptualization designed for the purposes of this study incorporates the relationships between determinants, structural elements and manifestations and considers the complexity in terms of externalities, chance, level, feedback loops and specific context.
Social capital involves a complex interaction of space and time and as such, highlights the importance of an event as a major determinant. This has significant consequences for a range of circumstances in relation to building efforts and in minimizing loss. The conceptualization also highlights the importance Page 3 of building and measuring attempts focusing on different aspects of social capital. Social capital is highly context specific and involves a dynamic relationship between its structural elements that fluctuate widely on spatial and temporal scales.
The importance of specific context is further highlighted by the fact that the structure and consequences of social capital are not highly correlated; similar structures can have very different manifestations. These findings contribute considerably to the current theoretical understanding of social capital however there is still considerable work required to make social capital a usable and appropriate concept. Page 4 Table of Contents DECLARATION. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
5 LIST OF FIGURES. 7 LIST OF TABLES.0 LITERATURE REVIEW – SOCIAL CAPITAL.1 EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL .2 CONTEMPORARY AUTHORS ON SOCIAL CAPITAL.3 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL .4 IS SOCIAL CAPITAL REALLY ‘CAPITAL’? .5 SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY .1 Dimensions of Social Capital.2 Levels at Which Social Capital is Located.3 Types of Social Capital .4 Determinants of Social Capital .5 Benefits and Importance of Social Capital .6 Disadvantages / Downsides of Social Capital .1 Problems with Conceptualization of Social Capital.2 Social Capital Conceptualization Approaches .1 Measurement of Social Capital .2 Building Social Capital.8 GENDER ISSUES IN SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY .9 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .10 SOCIAL CAPITAL LITERATURE REVIEW SUMMARY .1 PRELIMINARY MEASUREMENT FRAMEWORK FOR APPLICATION TO NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .2 CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL. 73 Page 6 List of Figures Figure 1. Adaptive research objectives showing change over time from A through to C.
Change of objectives. Citations with social capital, human capital and social networks in Econ Lit. Contemporary authors on social capital. The dimensions of social capital defined by Narayan and Cassidy (2001).
Four dimensions of social capital defined by Michael Woolcock (1998). Illustration of the interaction of levels at. Conceptualization of social capital developed by Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002). Conceptual Framework: Levels and Types of Social Capital.
Putnam’s indicators of social capital for the United States. Levels at which social capital operates within natural resource management. Current attempts to conceptualize social capital do not sufficiently account for the complexity between the determinants and consequences or outcomes of social capital. The links between determinants, structural elements and consequences or manifestations are currently not well understood and generally grossly oversimplified.
Conceptualization of social capital simplifying the complexity of the social world into a diagram outlining relationships between determinants, structure (or elements) and consequences. Norms of networks are likely to depreciate over time without reinforcement while norms of membership and belonging are likely to increase over time. Location of social capital at the individual level within the framework of micro level social capital interactions. 70 Page 7 List of Tables Table 1.
Contemporary authors level of study of social capital. Definitions of social capital (Source: Adler and Kwon 2002). Four views of social capital (Source: Woolcock and Narayan 2000). Indicators of social capital (Source: Grootaert 2001).
List of databases searched for social capital and results. Core dimensions of social capital and their characteristics. Types of Informal and Formal Networks .0 Introduction There has been considerable and increasing interest in social capital theory in recent years, evidenced by its application to various disciplines and numerous subject areas. This interest stems from the appeal of the concept as it integrates sociology and economics, and combines a number of ideas including civic tradition, civicness, civic involvement and social cohesion.
Existing studies have suggested that social capital has considerable benefits for a range of economic and sociological outcomes. These purported benefits, and the concept behind social capital, are not new but rooted in the work of early economic and sociologic thinkers. The contemporary authors, who are responsible for bringing the social capital debate to its current popularity, include Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. Many authors have since contributed to the rudimentary conceptualization of the complex theory.
There is no set and commonly agreed upon definition of social capital and the particular definition adopted by a study will depend on the discipline and level of investigation. There is still debate over the appropriateness of the term ‘capital’ and this has led to a general weakening of the conceptualization. These definitional and ideological problems have resulted in considerable diversity in theory, particularly in discussion of dimensions, levels, types, determinants, benefits, and downsides. The result is a number of conceptualization approaches, each attempting to simplify the complex social world while maintaining validity.
The result to date has largely been poor operationalization of the concept that lacks rigor and strong theoretical links to a thorough conceptualization of social capital. Of particular interest to this study is the interaction of social capital and natural resource management. Few authors have previously made this connection with the most closely related work being on environmental management and development. This thesis involved an adaptive research approach which facilitated the process of aim/objective clarification to ensure appropriate scope and application of social capital theory (refer to figure 1 and 2).
Originally, the aim was to identify effective mechanisms to minimize social capital losses caused by change of institutional structure. The focus was on the measurement of social capital in natural resource management. Literature on social capital was investigated, particularly the measurement of social capital. Conclusions from the social capital literature review (chapter 2) revealed that social capital is inherently abstract in nature Page 9 and does not lend itself to meaningful or rigorous quantitative or qualitative measurement and at present there is a tenuous link to the theoretical understanding of the concept.
What was immediately clear was that rigorous measurement of social capital would involve detailed context specific conceptualization to enable the formulation of appropriate indices. This, combined with the extensive data collection requirements, meant that measurement was deemed beyond the scope of the study. For this reason the original objectives (A1-A3 in figure 2) could not be met making the aim impossible to achieve. Subsequently, a new aim and corresponding objectives were developed in line with literature review findings at that time.
Social Capital Measurement in Natural Resource Management Aim: To identify effective mechanisms to minimize social capital losses caused by change of institutional structure. To identify what mechanisms to minimize social capital losses were put in place by the LCMC prior to disbandment. To evaluate how effective the mechanisms used were in minimizing social capital losses. To identify mechanisms that would have been more appropriate in this situation for application in other similar circumstances.
Application of Social Capital to Natural Resource Management Aim: A comprehensive understanding of social capital and how it relates to natural resource management in Australia. To provide a synthesis of current social capital theory in terms of conceptualization and operationalization B2. To identify an appropriate preliminary framework for the measurement of social capital within natural resource management B3. To gain a greater understanding of how social capital theory relates to natural resource management outcomes in Australia B4.
To assess the likely factors that result in change in social capital and how these changes impact the management of natural resources in group settings C. Conceptualization of Social Capital Aim: A more rigorous conceptualization of social capital. To provide a synthesis of current social capital theory in terms of conceptualization and operationalization B2. To identify an appropriate preliminary framework for the measurement of social capital within natural resource management C1.
To attempt a more appropriate conceptualization of social capital Figure 1. Adaptive research objectives showing change over time from A through to C. Page 10 Since measurement was not possible, the new aim and objectives identified at B in figure 1, revolved around the application of social capital theory to natural resource management outcomes. At this stage, the conceptualization problems associated with social capital were not clear.
Objective B1 was to provide a synthesis of current social capital theory in terms of conceptualization and operationalization. It was anticipated that this would provide a suitable platform for the application of the theory to natural resource management. To achieve this objective a substantial literature review was conducted including over 400 references from a variety of disciplines including sociology, economics, political science, and anthropology (refer to chapter 2). The major finding was that the current conceptualization of social capital was very poor and did not account for a range of factors that have considerable impact on both the structural elements and the consequences or manifestations of social capital.
A further finding was that past social capital studies have been grossly compromised by the lack of conceptualization.