|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investigating Social Capital:
Comparative Perspective
on Civil Society,
Participation and
Governance Social capital is generally understood to mean the social structures and networks necessary for sustaining collective action which enables meaningful engagement of civil society with elected governments resulting in positive outcomes and is also seen to be an important factor contributing to the higher achievements and progress of western societies as compared to the rest of the world. The relevance and role of social capital in tackling the problems of economic development, poverty and democratic governance in developing countries is just beginning to be understood and studied. The authors have put together an excellent collection of studies from cultures and societies as diverse as Scandinavia, Netherlands and Italy, all of which have high rates of formal associational participation and high social capital on the one hand, and India with low formal associational participation and low social capital on the other. These are studies which look at comparative perspectives on civil society, participation and governance with reference to social capital through "a set of empirical and conceptual analyses of the contexts, causes and consequences of social capital" through a wide range of methods used to assess social capital: from organisational cluster analysis and contextualised approaches to stream of benefits assessments and attitudinal surveys. The studies analyse the general relationship between social capital and democracy, questioning established western notions of association and civil societies and also whether these can be applied universally across different polities and cultures. Social trust, an essential element of social capital is discussed in relation to the overall institutional environment, the role of local government being perceived as critical for the growth and fair and impartial functioning of institutions, especially those concerned with the maintenance of justice and order. Its role is central to the development of generalised forms of trust and social capital; and whether social trust and capital accumulated in one area, domain or context can be transferred to other areas, domains or contexts. The studies also suggest that dense or overlapping membership can exist without creating "bridging social capital and that passive members also have a role to play in modern society. Connectedness and access to local politicians affirms a reciprocal relationship between local governance and the broader, more civic forms of social capital. As communication technologies change and human mobility increases, the imperative to understand both the potential and pitfalls of emerging new information technologies such as the Internet is stressed, as these are bound to affect the forms of civic engagement. The new civic engagement is likely to be "short-term, intense, issue specific and result oriented". Negative aspects of associational forms also need to be understood especially by forces that generate internal solidarity. The 1984 riots, the Godhra carnage and frequent bloody clashes in many parts of the country are examples of negative social capital. The India studies by Sudha Pai and Varshney also confirms that the social capital existing "within", but not "between" segments of rural society inhibits the creation of broad-based social capital that has the capacity to ensure responsive government. For countries that, like India, are battling caste lines, poverty, burgeoning population, large-scale illiteracy, dysfunctional governance and communal divide, it is important to understand the role of social capital in dealing with such problems. Also, understanding the context in which trust, an essential element of social capital, can grow, would be of tremendous help in building synergies between the State and civil societies, which in turn would facilitate economic and social growth like it happened in the case of Taiwan and South Korea. Bo Rothstein sums up beautifully: "Generalised trust runs from trust in the universalism of government institutions to trust in ‘most people’ if they are generally known to bribe, threaten, or in other ways, corrupt the impartiality of government institutions in order to extract special favours." Government institutions would have to become more efficient, impartial and fair. A must read for all those concerned with governance. |
