Social Capital Concept, Benefits, Threats to It and Probable Solutions - Term Paper Example

Social Capital Concept, Benefits, Threats to it and Probable Solutions Name: University: Course Title: Instructor: Date: Social Capital Concept, Benefits, Threats to it and Probable Solutions Abstract This paper interrogates the concept of social capital. The emerging theme out of various literatures reviewed indicate that the concept is tied to trust, social norms & obligations and social networks of citizens’ activity in voluntary associations. Deeper inside, the paper explores the benefits associated with social capital concept. The finding ties with that of Putnam of its ability to organise people to participate in civic activities thus, being able to spur development. Individuals in social networks have wider safety nets that help them during calamities and to navigate the social world. On the other hand the paper examined the threat to social capital in the context of urbanised environment and the principal threat was seclusion arising from poor urban design that does not provide facilities that encourage building of networks and engagement in voluntary organisations. The other threat is associated with individualisation and self actualisation where people see no need to participate in mainstream communal activities yet they are able to cater for themselves. The solution that the paper advances is to create an urban environment that encourages interaction, participation so that people can build trust and networks to enhance the societal organisation. Table of Contents Abstract 1 Table of Contents 2 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 The concept of Social Capital 1 3.0 Benefits of Social Capital 3 4.0 Why Social Capital is Under Threat 5 4.1 Urban Design/ Development Control 6 4.2 Individualisation, Self Actualisation and Seclusion 7 5.0 Strategies that can be developed to Enhance Social Capital in an Urban Area: A Case of Nairobi 7 6.0 Conclusion 9 References 10 1.0 Introduction Human beings are social animals who need social networks or ties to survive. Social capital is an important factor that empowers an individual to navigate this world as he or she is able to access information and reduce vulnerability among others. However, with the development dynamics this is changing. The failures in spatial planning and economic developments have brought new dynamics that challenges the concept of social capital in our cities Ostrom (n.d, 172) observes that social capital can be used to complement human, natural and physical capital so as to attain beneficial or harmful ends. The term is conceptualised as networks or ties or social structure built and defined by trust and norms among others (Siisiainen, 2000, p. 3). The aim of this paper is to interrogate the concept of social capital, its benefits, why it under threat and how the threats can be mitigated. All these are done in reference to urbanised environment as envisioned in the theme of cities and innovation. Moreover, the social capital in this context will be seen as critical links that an individual is able to build so that he or she can navigate urbanised world smoothly. The paper is framed in relation to vulnerability, isolation and seclusion as driven by urban design factors, technological factors and economic dynamics. 2.0 The concept of Social Capital Various literatures points out how different people have conceptualised the term social capital. Ostrom (n.d, 176) sees it as “shared knowledge, understanding, norms, rules and expectations about patterns of interactions that group of individuals bring to a recurrent activity”. He notes that people engaged in joint venture accomplishes much per unit time. This statement is correlated with network building or relationship building, and then they form the basic requirements of the later. On the other hand, World Bank (1998 cited in Ramzi, 2012, p.450) sees it as “institutions, relationships, views and values that rule in act and interactions among people and have contribution in economic and social development”. This can also be viewed as a form of institution building outside the formal frameworks. The basis of social capital as being enshrined in structure of relationship is affirmed by Ponthieux (2004). Coleman (1988, p.188 cited in Ponthieux 2004, p.5) presents another interesting paradigm by stating that the concept can’t be defined, but can be seen when individuals act with social structures. Siisiainen (2000) reviews two important works of Robert Putnam and that of Pierre Bourdieu. Putnam (1993, p. 6-7 cited in Siisiainen, 2000, p. 2) understands the concept in terms of social allegiance and alignments. The basis of his inference is derived from the studies done in Italy whereby he looked at the preconditions for building prosperous society. The observation made by him was that civic society is the basis for a prosperous society as seen in Northen Italy which was successful as compared to the southern one. He postulates that engagement by citizens in public activity leads to mutual cooperation, vital social networks, equal political relations and citizen participation. Siisiainen (2000, p. 3) posits that social capital is like moral resources that is manifested through trust, social norms & obligations and social networks of citizens’ activity in voluntary associations. Siisiainen (2000, p. 3) sees trust from a generalised perspective. citing Newton (1999, p.8), he notes that “Individual actors do something for the general good not because they know other interactors but because they trust that their own action will be "rewarded" via the positive development of communal relations”. The fruit of this concept to the society is based on the fact that it is crucial in areas where people find themselves in unfamiliar relationships. In addition, this affirms the need for societies to have values of regulating the interaction of two unfamiliar bodies. The basis of trust is built on voluntary association (Siisiainen, 2000, p. 4). Voluntary association signifies the network people and individuals are able to build in their societies. The voluntary association contribute to increased potential cost to defectors in individual transactions, strengthens norms of reciprocity and enhances communication and information flow (Siisiainen, 2000, p. 4 & 5). The next important factor Siisiainen (2000, p. 7) is voluntary association and social integration. In this perspective he postulates that Putnam understood it in terms of welfare state. Bordieu (1986 cited in Siisiainen, 2000, p. 10) presents two perspectives on social capital. The first is tied to social capital as “group membership and social networks”. In this observation he notes that the degree of social capital owned by an individual relies on the size of networks and connections that one is able to build and that the quality is determined by intra-relationship and not the overall quality (Bordieu 1986 cited in Siisiainen, 2000, p. 10). The beauty of this is that it contributes to the social position in various organisations like voluntary association’s trade unions, secret societies and political parties among others. Thus social capital is a collective effort understood from individual’s action. The second is based on mutual cognition and recognition (Bordieu 1980, 1986 & 1998a cited in Siisiainen, 2000, p. 11). The said term creates symbolic character which translates to symbolic capital. It is the symbolic capital that builds the differences among groups. 3.0 Benefits of Social Capital The benefits of social capital are tied to the belief of seeing it as a resource to an individual or society at large. Coleman (1988, p.111 cited in Ponthieux 2004, p.4) notes that “The function identified by the concept ‘social capital’ is the value of those aspects of social structure to actors, as resources that can be used by the actors to realize their interests”. The benefits derived from social capital can be understood from two perspectives. The first is the large context in terms of beneficial outcomes to the societies. These include the role of social capital in reducing social ills. The second is the benefit an individual derives from a certain web of network such as social security and information (Siisiainen, 2000). The benefits derived from the social capital are tied to the public trust among the individuals of a community and existence of social networks (Ramzi, 2012, p.448). The benefits outlined above are tied to economic and social developments. The first benefit that can be talked about is in relation to networking and information flow. One critical important factor for one to adequately survive in urban environment is information. For instance the flow of information can enable individual to gain information about employment opportunities. Field (2007 cited in Ramzi, 2012, p.451) observes that individuals with stronger networks of social relations not only stand a chance of getting the job, but also be amongst the most active group in labour market. The other perspective that presents a benefit to individuals is tied to the observation made by Putnam in looking at why Northern Italy was developed while the Southern wasn’t at that time. The answer lied to civic society. In a nutshell social allows people to participate in public affairs and thus holding people accountable for their actions (Putnam, p. 2, 3 & 4). Beugelsdijk and Van Schaik (2005 cited in Ramzi, 2012, p.452) notes that there is high positive relationship between social capital and regional development. Closely connected to the above is what Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000, p.2) terms as social capital as an asset where it is a critical ingredient of society or community organisation. To create a vivid picture in abstraction, they not that imagine a family who is affected by catastrophic situation. If it is a well organised community, they will help the affected in rebuilding their livelihoods. On the other hand is that community has no proper ties, they are likely to neglect that family (Uphoff and Wijayaratna, 2000, p.6). This is what social capital presents. It allows for concerted effort at societal level. This is a critical ingredient of securing individuals in a society from vulnerabilities and external threats (Uphoff and Wijayaratna, 2000, p.8). 4.0 Why Social Capital is Under Threat The observation made about the social capital which relates to voluntary association, networks, norms, reciprocity, trust and shared values is best contrasted with seclusion in urban environments. Thus, the section aim is to answer how various dynamics in urban environment causes seclusion that makes one not to build social capital and thus threat. It is observed that with improved livelihood and route towards self actualisation people are becoming secluded in the guise that they can afford whatever they want. However, this is not the case. Human beings are social animals who can’t claim to leave in seclusion. Urbanisation and built environment has bought new dynamics into human societies. The design factors do not make that sense for public to work together or what Coleman (1988a, p.98 cited in Fussell et al., nd, p.98) said facilitating certain actions of actors; whether persons or corporate actors--within the structure. The threat to social capital can be best contextualised from the framework of urban development, seclusion and deprivations. In framing this argument, the belief is that there are certain factors done deliberately or unknowingly which makes people to not have platforms for interaction and so cannot build social networks which results into social capital. Seclusion in this context is acting on individual need rather than the public good. These include conurbations and sprawls, private transport, exclusive residential estates and lack of or inadequate social amenities, high rise residential houses (Sinha and Lipton 1999, p.8). The next important threat to social capital is based on the concept of dominance and segregation developed by Burgess in 1925 in his concentric model of Chicago city (Townshen and Walker, 2002, p.26). The threat to social capital in urban environment is linked to apathy that has cropped into the public domain as result associated with urban design factors. 4.1 Urban Design/ Development Control The first reason that creates a threat to social capital is the development of Euclidian or the rigid zones as outline in zonal plans. In most urban centres you will find land uses are demarcated by bringing compatible land uses together while secluding the incompatible ones. The bone of contention in this paper is in the situation where residential estates or districts are deliberately created to exclusively accommodate particular group of people (Seitles, 1996). This creates apathy as other feels they are secluded. Apart from this, most neighbourhoods have inadequate social amenities that can offer that platform that encourages people to build networks and trusts. These include recreational areas, social halls, walk paths and parks. The seclusion point is best exemplified by Burges (1925) study conducted in Chicago to explain how the biological term of dominance and segregation creates a particular land use in area. In his findings he observed that people in urban areas tend to be attracted to areas where people whom they with common characteristics leave. As this continues, they will dominate that region and segregate others (Townshen and Walker, 2002, p.26 &27). This is why it is common to map out areas inhibited by certain groups like Hispanic Americans. The essence then would be to have integrated development from a social perspective which empowers people across the board social networks so that one segment does not see the other with suspicious eyes. 4.2 Individualisation, Self Actualisation and Seclusion In most urban areas people tend to think of their welfare first. In the effort to cater for their needs people will go great lengths to look for wealth and not spare time for social interaction that enables them to build that required social capital. Individualisation is also seen in the perspective that people want to own almost everything and be self sustaining without the fear of contacting a friend or neighbours (Ray, 2005, p.2). This has seen people invest in personal entertainment gadgets like televisions, personal computers, home theatres and cable televisions. This gives them some sense of false security where after coming from their daily activities they sit locked in utilising these gadgets and not sparing time for building social networks. 5.0 Strategies that can be developed to Enhance Social Capital in an Urban Area: A Case of Nairobi The urban area to be examined in this section is Nairobi which is the capital city of Kenya. The reason for choosing this city is based on the fact 60% of Kenya’s population reside in rural areas. However, this is one of the rapidly urbanising developing countries. This implies that more people are moving into the primate city which Nairobi at a higher rate (Oxfam GB, 2009, p.14 and 15). The connection that one builds out of this scenario is that those moving into this city have no that social capital that empowers them to build networks that can allow them to integrate and adopt city life so that they can find decent jobs, decent living areas and proper incomes. In addition, the three million people residing in this city leave in informal settlements where opportunities are limited, people are more vulnerable to external shocks and if the city administrators can create platforms that can enhance their social capital then this is a sure way of reducing the divide and vulnerabilities faced by these people (Sen, 1999). The hallmark of the arguments presented here are based on the vulnerability concept whereby those who move into the cities as result of urban bright lights yet they are not well equipped to survive in monetised and service oriented urban economy end up being poor as compared to when they were in rural areas (Sen 1999). It is observed that become are increasingly becoming individualised as a result of numerous factors like development in transport, enhanced personal entertainment gadgets, economic empowerment and neighbourhood design. This is pushing the level of seclusion high meaning reduced social capital in our societies. In order to enhance the social capital stock in urban areas, there are numerous policies that can be deliberately be implemented so as to enable people to improve their social networks. These strategies can be in terms of urban design and development in relation to height of buildings, fencing, social centres, transportation systems and neighbourhood design among others. The basis for these propositions is to enhance interaction among groups or individuals so that they can expand their social networks and thus, be able to be informed and integrated among others. Once their networks are expanded they can enjoy the fruits associated with social capital as already outlined. To enhance building of networks and trust it should be prudent for city managers to design cities that are all inclusive. This means reducing barriers that seclude others and increase their vulnerability. The first point would be to build social facilities like schools, health centres, recreational centres that are inclusive and encourages people to interact. Others would include recreational parks and social halls. Another approach would be to reduce the height of buildings so as to reduce the seclusion associated with the. The next is address urban sprawl which makes other stay far from the others by creating restricted boundaries. This would be solved by limiting services accorded to these zones. 6.0 Conclusion The ultimate aim of the paper was to interrogate the concept of social capital, its benefits, threats and solution to the same using a case example of a city. The paper found out that the term social capital is associated with networks and trust individuals build in the society. The chief benefit of the same is tied to level of societal organisation thus, enhancing participation on civic activities and hence, development. The threat to social capital in the context of cities is in relation to seclusion whereby as a result of urban design factors and technological factors people are becoming individualised and secluded. The solution to said threat would be to avail facilities that enhance interaction like recreational parks, having integrated residential districts and capping the heights of residential houses so that people do not leave in seclusion. References Fussell, H., Harrisson-Rexrode, J., Kennan, W. R. & Hazleton, V. The relationship between social capital, transactional costs, and organisational outcomes: A case study. Retrieved on 31 October, 2012 from: http://kdpaine.blogs.com/files/fussell-tangible-benefits-of- social-capital.pdf. Ostrom, E. nd. Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept? Centre for the study of Institutions, population, and Environmental Change, Worksop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Indiana University, pp. 142-214. Oxfam GB. 2009. Urban Poverty and vulnerability in Kenya. Retrieved 31 October, 2012 from: http://www.irinnews.org/pdf/Urban_Poverty_and_Vulnerability_in_Kenya.pdf. Ponthieux, S. 2004. The concept of social capital: a critical review. 10th CAN Conference, Paris 21-23 January 2004. Putnam, R. D. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. Retrieved on 31 October, 2012 from: http://www.philia.ca/files/pdf/prosperouscommunity.pdf. Ramzi, M. J. 2012. A review of the effect of social capital on human development in Iran. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 448-459. Ray, C. 2005. Individualisation and the third age. Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series No. 3. Seitles, M. 1996. The reputation of residential racial segregation in America: historical discrimination, modern forms of exclusion, and inclusionary remedies. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law. Retrieved on 31 October, 2012 from: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol141/seit.htm. Sen,A. 1981. Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Clarendon Press : Oxford. Siisiainen, M. 2000. Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam. Paper presented at ISTR Fourth International Conference “The Third Sector: For what and for whom?” Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland, July 5-8, 2000. Sinha,S. and Lipton,M. 1999. Damaging Fluctuations, Risk and Poverty: A Review. Background Paper for the World Development Report 2000/2001, Poverty Research Unit, University of Sussex. Townshend, I. and Walker, J. R. 2002. The structure of income residential segregation in Canadian Metropolitan areas. Canadian Journal of Regional Science Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 25-52. Uphoff, N. and Wijayaratna, C. M. 2000. Demonstrated benefits from social capital: the productivity of farmer organisations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development Vol. 28, No. 11, pp. 1-42. Retrieved on 31 October, 2012 from: http://www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/Papers/Uphoff_GALOYASK.pdf. Read More