SOCIAL CAPITAL AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT edited by David Robinson 

INTRODUCTION

The Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) of Victoria University of Wellington has sponsored two workshops on aspects of social capital and published two volumes of the presented papers. These workshops followed a Third Sector Research Conference in July 1996 and an August 1996 visit to New Zealand by Professor Robert Putnam, who has published extensively in the area of relationships between social interaction, social capital and the role and effectiveness of government.

The first volume, Social Capital and Policy Development (Robinson 1997), contained papers presented at the IPS-sponsored workshop held in July 1997. Presenters at this first workshop attempted to clarify "the relationships between the current overlapping usage of the terms social cohesion and social capital as well as building an improved understanding of the complex linkages between social and economic policy" (Pomeroy 1998). The papers reflect a range of perspectives on social capital, what its impact might be on the community and what the public policy implications might be. A second workshop held in August 1998 concentrated on community case studies and practical understandings of social capital. These papers were published in a second IPS volume, Social Capital in Action (Robinson 1999).

While the two volumes can be read separately, they are complementary. Various government agency, academic and community perspectives are necessary in order to tease out and debate all the issues that are part of the development of a comprehensive understanding of social capital. A concentration on the first workshop material alone would give a more academic focus to the reader's understanding. An exclusive focus on the second volume would over-emphasise community perspectives. Taken together, however, the various papers reveal a wide range of viewpoints about social capital at the policy level and at the community level. They are less revealing on human capital(1) and on social cohesion.

Few authors attempted a definition of social capital. Some chose to apply the term social capital (undefined) to a particular sector or community or organisational perspective. Others utilised the concept of social capital (undefined) to make observations about perceived gaps or failures in policy approaches applying at the time. A few considered the concept of social capital as a potential policy tool and proposed ways whereby the concept could be developed.

By using descriptive summation, the editing of the two volumes keeps faith with each of the presenters but adds little more for the reader who might wish to advance their understanding beyond the particular perspective of the various authors. Readers with an interest in applying a concept of social capital to their own activity must therefore undertake considerable reflection for themselves.

WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL?

While most authors used the term "social capital", few attempted to define its meaning. In fact, the task for those presenting at the first workshop was not to define but to "clarify how the ideas associated with the term "social capital" could contribute to current policy development in New Zealand" (Robinson 1997). According to Robinson, Putnam uses the term social capital to refer to "networks of repeated social interaction which reinforce social norms, especially trust". Several authors attempted a definition of social capital building on Putnam. Thus, Crampton suggests that "Social capital may be defined as the social connections and the attendant norms and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. It is chiefly a characteristic of societies rather than individuals". According to Reid, "It exists within the social space between families, firms and governments, that is "civil society". There are three major elements: trust, networks and participation in deliberative governance".

Others chose not to attempt a definition and concentrated on how a concept of social capital could be utilised. For example, Riddell says, "The concept of social capital in public policy formation widens the debate on the vision and values of society and enables discussion to move beyond the economic fundamentalism which has held sway in recent years ... (it) brings recognition of the broader base of civic interaction which underlies and enables economic activity".

Presenters to the 1998 Workshop were given a working definition of social capital by the organisers. "The term `social capital' refers to the social networks that help society to function effectively, the voluntary associations (including community groups, sports and cultural clubs, and residents' associations) that provide linkages between people in the community and enable them to be more effective in business, politics and a wide range of social activities. Social capital refers to the `connectedness' between citizens. To develop social capital communities require high levels of trust, a range of voluntary associations, and opportunities to meet and discuss community concerns" (Robinson 1999a).

Trout and Barrett (in Robinson 1999a) demonstrated in their papers that there are flows of social capital within organisations and from communities to communities through the involvement of people. For me, this aspect raised questions about just what social capital is in relation to human capital. It seems to me that individual humans possess varying capacities for networking, skill transfer and trust, which are all aspects of flows as demonstrated by Trout and Barrett. Furthermore, groups are composed of individuals who interact and have social relationships, networks and skills. These activities involve some form of sharing and transfer of information and skills and sometimes resources. Competing notions of priorities and equity are also involved. Thus, it would seem to me that there is an area of overlap between human capital and social capital rather than a clear divide, with human capital being what an individual possesses, and social capital being the connections and interactions and flows between people and groups.

Among those who attempted a definition of social capital, there were similarities. The use of words such as networks, relationships, interactions, associations, trust, linkages and collaboration reoccurred in many papers. These words were applied to conduct occurring between people, between groups and at community/government level.

Most authors were content with somewhat "fuzzy" definition statements of social capital especially in the community case studies (Robinson 1999a). Both volumes would have been strengthened by the addition of papers that discussed the problems of defining social capital in relation to other terms. For many authors, definitions seemed somewhat irrelevant. This was particularly the case with the second volume, where people had largely got on with what they wanted or needed to do, irrespective of academic or policy theory.

THE UTILITY OF A CONCEPT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL FOR PUBLIC POLICY

Definitions and measurement tools are important elements in the policy process and two authors in particular raised practical aspects which would need consideration for the concept of social capital to achieve utility in the policy environment. Spellerberg reflected on how social capital could be measured and proposed a list of social and economic indicators which could be utilise (Robinson 1997:42-52). Barker asked more fundamental questions of interest to policy makers, such as, "What is the overarching objective of policy which drives our interest in social capital?" "What generally is the role of policy in social capital development and vice versa?" and "What are the mechanisms ... what are the feedbacks?".

Barker's suggestion involved taking an investment approach to the generation of wellbeing. He defined investment as an economist would think about the term: "... it is likely to involve costs, i.e. the opportunity cost of the time, money or effort invested in its development ... investment in social capital will only occur at the margin if the expected return to it exceeds the costs ...". Barker also noted that measurement techniques needed to be developed in a dynamic framework. In his opinion, further work was required to develop such a framework. He warned that the potential of social capital should not be oversold as "it is only instrumental, it is also only a factor against many playing a role in outcomes, and our understanding of its roles and its determinants is poor".

Those presenting at the second workshop appeared more definite in their articulation of the value of social capital. The focus on case studies seemed to encourage the expression of a degree of certainty as to what was needed at the local level in addressing particular issues. While each case presenter made observations which could potentially be generalised, the implications of doing so in the wider social and economic context were not explicitly addressed. Given that the difficulties of applying the concept of social capital in the policy environment were raised extensively at the first workshop, I think that the focus on the particular, without consideration of extension to the general, was a pity.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AS A RESOURCE ADVOCACY TOOL

A number of presenters, such as Riddell (Robinson 1997) and Puketapu (Robinson 1999a) openly advocated using the concept of social capital as an advocacy tool for increasing resource flows to particular sectors. This approach was encouraged in the instructions to presenters for the 1999 workshop: "presenters were asked to take account of

* The main roles and relationships involved in their project, including the development of new relationships, negotiations, levels of and reciprocity between individuals and organisations;

* The level of resources available at the beginning of their project period and any significant changes and whether resource levels had affected the degree of social cohesion in the community;

* The effect of public policy and any policy changes during the project period;

* Other aspects considered relevant to assessing an increase or decrease in social capital associated with the project" (Robinson 1999a:3-4).

Robinson, unsurprisingly, was able to comment on the workshop that "running through all of this was the unresolved question of whether social capital can exist in the community separate from, and independently of, government. There was general agreement that social capital exists in the community.... but in an increasingly complex society access to adequate public resources is necessary to ensure that this latent social capital can be put to productive use". He went on to observe that, "it is this very social capital that is often drawn on by communities to initiate a dialogue with local and central government in order to gain those very resources on which its continued use depends" (Robinson 1999b).

Puketapu and Barrett both identified the importance of a community or grouping focus rather than an individual approach, as inherent for Maori (Robinson 1999a). Puketapu questioned the efficacy of government involvement and policy design and urged that the full tax dollar provided by communities be returned to those communities, rather than his estimate of 10 cents in the dollar returned at present by way of grants, subsidies and contract agreements

While Barrett acknowledged the assistance of government resources in the administration of the Maori Women's Welfare League, at branch, regional and national level, it was the pressure created by a bureaucratic approach by government that attracted her criticism. She identified and outlined factors that should be built into a framework, or model, that might work for Maori and communities in general. In particular, Barrett noted that:

* "Programmes should have a clear direction and be based on compelling beliefs;

* A purpose relevant to communities that we can all believe in should be defined;

* We should agree on a set of principles;

* Move from dictatorship to democracy (change the government/community power relationships)".

Both Puketapu and Barrett implicitly questioned the role and size of government, the competing demands decision-makers face in allocating resources, and the effectiveness (or lack of effectiveness) of existing programmes versus desired programmes. These are important policy aspects that form part of the context for considering social capital. Explicit discussion of this context would have strengthened the second volume in particular.

Gilling took a different perspective in her paper. She documented negative aspects such as de-population, increased isolation and difficulties in obtaining services. This occurred in a community where events seemed to effect a decrease in social capital (Robinson 1999a). Cody outlined a network where social capital seemed to have increased in a community where the general view was that the community was not rich in social capital to begin with (ibid.). In these case examples, resources were understood to involve more than funding. Resources also included the intrinsic human capital built up in individuals, families, communities and cultural groupings over generations. Human capital and social capital were clearly intertwined. However, differentiating between human and social capital and how they might be measured and facilitated, were questions not directly considered at the second workshop.

The second workshop papers seemed to be saying that the distinction between human capital and social capital does not really matter as long as there was some of "it" and resources were available to make the amount larger. Unfortunately, those involved in advising or deciding on the allocation of resources are faced with a need to prioritise and choose, as there are seldom sufficient resources for all aspirations to be able to be met.

The papers in both volumes contain a range of understandings about resource allocation processes and authors demonstrated different experiences of the allocation process. An understanding of other realities and perspectives was not evident in many of the papers.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AS AN ADVOCACY TOOL FOR PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING 

Changes to the process of decision-making in Waitakere City Council provided an interesting case study of an attempt to increase participation and ownership of issues at the local level. Was this an increase in "social capital" and had it made a real difference in people's lives? Witten-Hannah considered the results were still inconclusive as, "Processes like the West Coast Plan will only reach their full potential if local people are well-resourced and empowered ... Social capital is vital to the success of collaborative processes and collaborative processes help to build, strengthen and bridge social capital" (Robinson 1999a:44-45).

Witten-Hannah also observed that in the Waitakere case the point at which a collaborative process interacts with the decision-making hierarchy is shifted out from the City Council, more than previously. However, the Council retained ultimate decision making. That decision-making shift seems to have increased the amount of social capital, but the benefits of that shift, compared to councils where that shift has not occurred, remained an implicit question mark for Witten-Hannah. Perhaps policy is partly a matter of faith rather than measurement alone!

COMPETING PHILOSOPHIES OR A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE?

In a review of the first volume of papers, Pomeroy noted that a number of authors considered that "there is a need to shift the policy emphasis from those policies which place an emphasis on individual's financial wellbeing (largely unspecified) to policies which enhance community wellbeing from economic, social and environmental perspectives" and that "the leadership for changing the policy focus would need to come from central government" (Pomeroy 1998). This would seem to be the opinion of the majority of authors and of the editor. The majority may not always be right, however, especially when there has been organised selection as is usually the case with a workshop programme.

Most presenters at both workshops would probably agree with the words of the Rt. Hon. David Lange, spoken at the 1984 opening of the Hui Taumata, and quoted by Douglas: "We are mutually interdependent. Pakeha New Zealand will not flourish if Maori do not flourish, and likewise Maori will not progress if the rest of society does not progress" (Robinson 1997:12). Pomeroy highlighted Barker's statement, "There is probably a general consensus that underlying policy fundamentals should be a concern to maximise the well being of individuals" (Robinson 1997:137). She considered this statement to be indicative of Treasury's failure to absorb the message that, "Effective economic policies are those which recognise that individuals are part of communities and community interests should be the key focus" (Pomeroy 1998).(2)

A close reading of Barker does reveal an acknowledgement of community and wellbeing, albeit expressed in the language of an economist. He is implicit rather than explicit in connecting an increase in the well-being of individuals with an increase in the wellbeing of groups and communities, and therefore may have been misinterpreted. The apparent difference in key focus is more than semantic however. Barker advocates an investment approach and seems to be working more at the level of maximising human capital so that this may create a flow-on effect for social capital and policy outcomes.

Most authors at both workshops preferred to focus at the community and group level and to use "non-economic" language. Some considered that the focus on individuals was an inadequate approach (Riddell in Robinson 1997, Pomeroy 1998, Cody 1999) and explicit resources should be provided at the group or community level. Further debate is obviously needed if a consensus such as Barrett advocates above (Robinson 1999a) is to emerge. It is therefore a pity that the IPS organisers restricted the second workshop programme to community-based presenters.

REFLECTIONS AND POSSIBILITIES

Human groupings, be they geographic, cultural, kin or issue-based, would seem to involve both human and social capital in their ways of organising. In our individual lives we "consume" varying degrees of community and/or government resources (health system interaction, education system participation, use of roads, etc). We also participate in social and community activity with other people, be they "family" or "non-family". We acquire knowledge and skills from other people and use these in our own activities and in activities with others. Many of us share these resources and attempt to transfer at least some of our knowledge and skills to children, paid-work colleagues, community group members, team mates, etc. We may be adept at these transfers or we may not. We may be able to be assisted to become more adept and resources may be available to a greater or lesser degree to enable or frustrate that.

In essence, some of the authors were utilising the concept of social capital as an advocacy tool, particularly where they considered there was relative disadvantage for a particular sector or grouping in relation to other sectors or groupings (Riddell in Robinson 1997; Puketapu, Barrett, Gilling and Cody in Robinson 1999a). Others, such as Spellerberg and Barker, were more concerned with the utility of the concept as a tool for advice and decision-making (Robinson 1997). The concepts of human capital and social capital may or may not work to provide relative advantage (or redress for disadvantage) in the public resource allocation process. That does not mean the concepts themselves are about resource allocation.

Since the 1997 and 1998 workshops were held, the Foresight process has occurred and a number of presenters and workshop attendees were involved in that process (3). Human capital and social capital were raised in social sector discussions as part of the Foresight consultations, with social, economic, environment and technology eventually achieving equal prominence in the outcome. The IPS workshops may-well have contributed to a raised awareness of the social capital aspects and their importance in taking an investment approach to public research fund allocations. There has also been a change in government in late 1999.

It may be timely to consider a third IPS workshop. If a third workshop were to be held, it should include a range of participants who actively engage with each other to produce something more than the descriptive summation of individual views found in the Robinson volumes. Small group discussion and panel interaction may encourage development of ideas and their application beyond that achieved to date. I suggest that participants be actively encouraged to read the two volumes of papers prior to such a workshop to minimise re-traversing ground already covered by others.

If such a workshop were to be organised, the implications of the growing body of Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal reports, including the Waipereira decision, in relation to the concepts of human capital, social capital and social cohesion would seem to be a high priority for inclusion in the programme.

Whether the range of notions of social capital as contained in these volumes have actually influenced resource allocations, or contributed to a greater awareness of "social" in policy, is not known. The concept of "capital" in the economic sense has been debated for some 150 years and is therefore more developed. Our understanding of the meaning of "human" and "social" has also evolved with use over time. The concept of social capital may well need time to evolve through debate and application, too.

Despite the advocacy of some of the authors, policy advice and decision-making involves consideration of a range of views, issues and considerations. What may appear simple is often quite complex. Perhaps the IPS contribution is to remind us of the importance of human intangibles in those considerations and the need to ensure a consciousness of "social glue" in deliberations.

If you are interested in the subject, the papers in both volumes are well worth including in your considerations. In the best traditions of academia and workshops, more questions were raised than answered. Perhaps that was the main purpose!

(1) The concept of "human capital" was not defined or discussed extensively by the authors in either volume. My understanding is based on usage whereby human capital is "the stock of skills, knowledge, experience and capabilities which an individual possesses and utilises in living". Human capital and social capital are terms which are in relatively regular usage in a range of social policy contexts but, as with social capital, there are various definitions and usages.

(2) Pomeroy noted that Barker presented a paper as an individual. He was employed by The Treasury for some years.

(3) Foresight was a major consultation extending over some two years in which an wide range of stakeholders and interested citizens were involved. The Ministry of Research, Science and Technology guided the consultation process and developed scenarios about NZ life in 10 years time. Numerous sector consultations were encouraged and major "mid-sight" and "end-sight" conferences held to draw material together. The process provided a context for the allocation of public funds for research investment and a degree of consensus as to what the high-level goals for research investment should be, and what the secondary-level aims and investment portfolio outlines for implementation should encourage. Many thousands of people were involved - academics, business, industry, public servants, scientists of all descriptions, a wide range of research users, etc. Over $300m per annum is involved and allocations are currently in transition between the pre-Foresight and the post-Foresight priorities.

REFERENCES

Pomeroy, Ann (1998) "Social Capital and Policy Development" (Review), Public Sector, 22(1):27-8.

Robinson, David (ed.) (1997) Social Capital and Policy Development, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington.

Robinson, David (ed.) (1999a) Social Capital in Action, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington.

Robinson, David (1999b) "Social Capital in Action" ips policy newsletter, no. 5 7/may, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.

Raewyn Good Principal Research Liaison Advisor Ministry of Social Policy