Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by Asuncion M. Sebastian On August 31, 2012 For Development Administration (DVS531P) Ph. D. in Development Studies
Submitted
to
Dr.
Rizal
G.
Buendia
Word
count:
7,599
Outline
I.
Introduction
II.
Discussion
A.
Social
Capital
1.
Definition
2.
How
social
capital
is
created
3.
How
social
capital
is
destroyed
B.
Variables
Associated
with
Social
Capital
C.
Social
Capital
and
Development
1.
Economic
Development
2.
Political
Development
D.
Social
Capital
in
Development
Administration
III.
Conclusion
Bibliography
I.
Introduction
This essay examines the literature on social capital, albeit all materials are written in the Western context. No material has been written yet on social capital in the Philippine context, thus, the hypotheses and propositions of the various authors are tested in using local cases and scenarios. The authors do not agree on the intention of social capital, its level of applicability, the process of its creation, and the possible influence of and to development administration hence, the essay starts with the different understanding and definition of social capital. This paper attempts to answer the following questions: What is social capital? Is it any different from personal leadership or power of network? How is social capital created and destroyed? Does development administration play a role in its creation and destruction? What variables are associated with social capital? Are they applicable in the Philippine context? What is the role of social capital in development, specifically in achieving economic and political development goals and civic engagement? The aim of this essay is to demystify the concept of social capital and to discuss its role in the light of its economic and political functions, mainly at the community or meso level, and its implications on development administration in the Philippines. Finally, what is the importance of understanding social capital in the light of development administration?
II.
Discussion
Social capital provides conceptual and policy device that go beyond that orthodox economic theories (Woolcock, 1998). Contrary to the classic economics
principles, not all people make economic decisions based on rational choice or utility-maximizing reasons or on market forces of supply and demand; some, if not many, decide on the grounds of non-economic factors, including relationships or social capital. Social capital has both economic and political functionsin efficient functioning of modern economies and an essential condition for stable liberal democracy (Fukuyama, 2001). Social capital has been recognized as a vital ingredient in economic development and, as shown in a number of studies, has been essential to growth of physical investment, appropriate technology, and getting prices right of indigenous grassroots associations. The success of cooperatives to manage common pool resources, for example, has also been attributed mainly to the stocks of social capital (Putnam, 1993, p.5). However, Fukuyama (2001, p.7) asserted awareness of social capital is often critical for understanding development, although it is difficult to generate through public policy. This paper therefore aims to discuss the role of social capital in the light of its economic and political functions. Because of the various cleavages used in analyzing social capital, it would be more useful to examine the concept at the smaller scale than at the macro or country level.
A.
Social
Capital
1.
Definition
Putnam defined social capital as the features of social organization such as networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefits (The Prosperous Community Social Life and Public Life, 1993, pp.1-2), which he later revised to those features that enabled participants to pursue shared objectives (The Strange Disapperance of Civic America, 2001, p.1). Social capital may be witnessed in what people are willing to do for each other, their care of the less fortunate members, and the preservation and guardianship of common assets, among others (Sen, 2002, p.5). Members also
Page 2 of 24
participate
because
they
like
to,
not
because
their
participation
strengthens
social
fabric
(Putnam,
The
Prosperous
Community
Social
Life
and
Public
Life,
1993,
p.4).
Dense
social
ties
facilitate
gossip
and
other
valuable
ways
of
cultivating
reputationan
essential
foundation
for
trust,
according
to
Putnam
(1993,
p.4).
While
Putnam
and
Sen
looked
at
social
capital
in
a
group
or
organizational
context,
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.7)
had
a
more
individualistic
take:
social
capital
is
an
instantiated
norm
that
promotes
cooperation
between
two
or
more
individuals.
Hence,
Gleasar,
Laibson,
and
Sacerdote
(2000
in
Gomez
&
Santor,
2001),
proposed
that
social
capital
may
be
at
work
at
several
levels:
country,
community,
and
individual.
Woolcock
(1998)
likewise
defined
social
capital
at
two
levels,
referring
to
it
as
the
nature
and
extent
of
a
communitys
personal
and
institutional
relationshipswhich
make
social
capital
relevant
to
the
discussion
of
institutions
and
behavior.
At
the
individual
level,
social
capital
is
believed
to
lead
to
better
levels
of
economic
performance
for
each
person.
It
may
be
in
the
form
of
charisma,
status,
or
access
to
networks
that
enables
a
person
to
gain
benefits
from
interactions
with
others.
The
return
on
social
capital,
on
the
other
hand,
may
be
in
terms
of
material
support,
knowledge
and
information,
and/or
psychological
aid
such
as
encouragement
(Gomez
&
Santor,
2001).
Social
capital
at
individual
level
as
defined
by
the
authors
does
not
make
much
difference
from
the
field
of
psychologys
personal
powerwhich
may
stem
from
ones
position,
expertise,
persuasion
and
selling
skills,
and
charisma,
among
othersthat
one
may
use
to
make
others
work
to
help
achieve
ones
goal.
It
is
no
different
either
from
leadership
of
all
brands,
which
is
commonly
defined
as
ones
ability
to
influence
others
to
act
toward
a
certain
goal.
Finally,
if
the
outcome
of
personal
social
capital
is
gauged
in
terms
of
material
and
psychological
support,
and
information,
then
social
capital
can
just
be
another
term
for
friendship
or
other
kinds
of
personal
relationship
that
do
not
warrant
academic
discussions
in
sociology,
economics,
or
political
science.
However,
Social Capital in Development Page 3 of 24
there
is
more
to
social
capital
than
what
has
been
defined
at
individual
level,
that
which
enables
group
or
community
actions
that
would
not
have
been
possible
in
its
absence.
Another
contention
about
social
capital
taken
at
a
smaller
scale
than
community
is
its
working
at
the
family
context.
If
Fukuyama
(2001)
were
correct
that
the
basic
radius
of
trust
is
ones
nuclear
family,
and
that
social
capital
facilitates
achievement
of
common
goal,
then
why
is
it
a
popular
notion
that
one
should
not
do
business
with
family?
A
more
fundamental
question
would
be,
why
is
there
an
increasing
number
of
family
breakdowns
if
it
were
indeed
the
seat
or
center
of
social
capital?
Does
it
follow
then
that
social
capital
is
also
decreasing
in
stock?
Perhaps,
social
capital
is
more
applicable
and
appropriate
in
group
or
community
context
and
using
it
in
personal
and
family
levels
is
either
stretching
the
concept
a
bit
too
much
or
chartering
a
more
complex
network
of
relationships
beyond
the
scope
of
development
studies.
2.
Social
capital
is
a
public
good,
created
as
a
by-product
of
social
relationships,
and
as
such,
tends
to
be
under
produced
if
left
to
the
market
(Kawachi,
Kennedy,
Lochner,
&
Prothrow-Stith,
1997,
p.
1495).
However,
Fukuyama
(2001)
contended
that
since
cooperation
is
necessary
to
virtually
all
individuals
as
a
means
of
achieving
their
selfish
ends,
they
would
produce
social
capital
as
a
private
good
(pp.7-8).
Putnam
(1993,
p.4)
also
explained
social
capital
is
the
product
of
successful
collaboration
in
one
endeavor
that
builds
connections
and
trust,
which
in
turn
would
eventually
facilitate
future
collaboration
in
other,
not
necessarily
related
tasks.
In
short,
social
capital
is
the
result
of
deliberate,
conscious
actions
of
the
members
of
the
group.
Fukuyama
(2001)
opposed
this
view,
arguing
that
social
capital
is
a
by-product
of
religion,
tradition,
shared
historical
experience,
and
other
types
of
cultural
norms.
It
is,
more
often
than
not,
created
by
hierarchical
sources
of
authority
such
as
the
religion
and
culture
(p.16;
Sen,
2002).
For
Social Capital in Development Page 4 of 24
Fukuyama,
there
are
three
main
sources
of
social
capital,
which
are
external
to
the
community:
the
state,
religion,
and
globalization
(2001,
p.18-19).
Citing
Verba
et.
al.,
Putnam
(1993,
p.8),
however,
acknowledged
that
the
church
is
a
uniquely
powerful
resourcean
arena
in
which
tomake
connections.
Both
accounts
may
be
truewhile
social
capital
can
be
built
among
equals
within
a
community
either
deliberately
or
organically
(that
is,
as
a
consequence
of
a
continuous
or
natural
development),
it
can
also
be
established
by
external
forces.
In
the
literature
of
social
capital
in
microfinance,
Ito
(2003)
distinguished
the
social
capital
that
lies
in
the
relationship
among
the
micro
borrowers/micro
entrepreneurs
organized
into
groups
or
centers,
or
the
horizontal
social
capital,
from
that
which
lies
in
the
relationship
between
the
MFI
workers
and
the
micro
entrepreneurs,
or
the
vertical
social
capital.
The
idea
of
vertical
social
capital
can
hence
be
applied
in
other
situations
such
as
the
church
and
the
followers,
the
governor
and
the
governed.
Fukuyama,
however,
did
not
explain
why
more
often
than
not
social
capital
is
created
in
hierarchical
sources
of
authority.
It
would
thus
help
if
the
creation
of
social
capital
would
be
examined
in
the
light
of
institutionalism.
According
to
Sen
(2002,
p.7),
behavior
depends
not
only
ones
values
and
dispositionsthus
the
organic
creation
of
social
capitalbut
also
on
the
absence
or
presence
of
institutions
and
on
the
incentives
they
generate.
On
one
hand,
institutions
can
easily
create
the
venue
or
opportunities
for
social
interaction,
as
pointed
out
by
Putnam,
such
as
the
weekly
church
gathering
or
the
regular
basketball
competition
organized
by
the
barangay
council.
Moreover,
they
can
setup
incentives
to
attract
people
to
work
together
or
disincentive
to
do
so;
they
can
oblige
people
to
do
certain
things
(which
the
church
will
always
deny
to
be
doing)
like
paying
tax
or
tithe,
or
do
otherwise.
Sen
explained
that
authoritarian
rule,
for
example,
could
repress
peoples
inclination
to
participate
and
create
instead
either
a
culture
of
fear
or
a
culture
of
indifference
(p.4-5).
On
the
other
hand,
people
tend
to
be
trusting
of
priests,
pastors,
leaders,
gurus,
or
anyone
in
the
position
who
appears
larger
than
life.
But
while
Fukuyama
suggested
the
influence
of
authority
in
the
creation
of
social
capital,
he
(2001,
p.7)
also
argued
Social Capital in Development Page 5 of 24
that it (social capital) is difficult to generate through public policywith the preceding explanation and the last section on the implication of social capital on development administration, maybe not. Another institution that is influential in the creation of social capital is the non- profit or the non-government organizations (NGOs). Although Cameron (2000) recognized the role of NGOs in the growth of grassroots institutions, Putnam (2001, p.3) argued that most prominent nonprofits are bureaucracies, not associations, so the growth of the civil society sector is not tantamount to a growth in social connectedness. Fukuyama (2001, p. 12) added, There is no guarantee that NGOs actually represent real public interest(because of) the entrenched interest group. However, how different are the NGOs from other institutions like the church or the state? Like NGOs, they do not necessarily represent real public interest; however, regardless of their motives, these institutions, NGOs included, can create venues, incentives, and/or compelling orders to make people connect and collaborate over and over again until social capital is established. 3. How social capital is destroyed While there are factors that determine or help build social capital, there are also factors that can destroy it. The growing gap between the rich and the poor, for one, has led to declining levels of social cohesion and trust, or disinvestment in social capital. Ironically, while inequality causes the break down of social capital, there is also seemingly inherent inequality in social capital (Putnam, 1993, p.7). If indeed social capital is a public good, as argued by Kawachi et. al. (1997) and Putnam (1993), similar to the air each individual breathe or the highway one passes through, how could there be inequality in social capital? How can inequality be possibly created within the ideal system of trust and reciprocity? Inequality may exist in relation with other communities, particularly if social capital has become exclusive rather than bridging (Woolcock, 1998). Putnam (1993, p.8) cited the power of the church in pushing for the political engagement
Page 6 of 24
of
the
blacks,
serving
as
job
banks
for
the
congregation,
and
working
as
informal
credit
bureau
at
times.
However,
the
very
same
power
can
be
used
for
block
voting,
which
is
against
the
spirit
of
democracy;
and
in
religious
discrimination
in
employment
application,
among
others.
Such
practices
promote
distrust,
if
not
total
animosity,
with
the
outsiders.
The
author
also
cited
the
power
of
education
in
building
social
capital
(p.8).
However,
in
situations
where
education
is
not
democratized,
is
the
social
capital
gap
not
further
widened
by
the
socio- economic
gap?
Hence,
people
in
this
situation
are
caught
in
the
vicious
cycle.
On
the
other
hand,
inequality
can
also
exist
within
the
community
or
within
the
system
itself.
Inner
circle,
council
of
elders,
or
the
less
formal
cliques,
are
but
indications
of
exclusive
source
of
power
or
benefits
enjoyed
by
the
smaller
group
of
members
within
the
community.
As
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.14)
furthered,
politics
or
power
position
within
a
group
determines
ones
capacity
of
collective
action.
In
short,
inequality
may
be
embedded
in
the
very
systems
that
create
social
capitalthat
is,
if
the
established
norms
are
discriminatory
(Putnam,
1993,
p.11).
Aside
from
inequality,
Woolcock
(1998,
p.182)
also
argued
the
following
conditions
cause
social
capital
in
a
community
to
be
low:
Endemic
poverty
that
cannot
be
resolved
by
social
safety
nets
and
employment,
similar
to
the
argument
of
Kawachi
et.
al.
(1997)
Weak,
unjust,
flaunted,
or
indiscriminately
enforced
laws
Polities
that
are
not
freely
and
fairly
elected,
or
when
voters
have
few
serious
electoral
choices
Dominant
and
subordinate
groups
having
little
shared
stake
in
common
outcomes
If
one
examines
the
abovementioned
conditions
carefully,
these
are
simply
various
forms
of
inequality
that
go
against
the
innate
human
sense
of
what
is
fair
and
just.
Social Capital in Development Page 7 of 24
War, famine, rampant inflation, disease, or chronic underemployment Minorities being covertly or overtly discriminated against
B.
Several
authors
associated
social
capital
with
various
social
conditions
although
the
direction
of
the
causal
relationship
and
the
intervening
mechanisms
are
yet
to
be
established
empirically.
Putnam
(2001)
hypothesized
variables
are
closely
associated
with
social
capital,
some
of
them
are
the
following:
Education
and
economic
affluence.
Lower-income
segments
tend
to
be
less
engaged
in
community
and
less
trusting
than
those
who
are
better
off
(p.8).
What
Putnam
did
not
mention
is
the
possible
reason
why
the
lower-income
segments
tend
to
be
less
engaged.
For
one,
they
need
to
spend
more
time
making
both
ends
meet
than
those
who
are
affluent.
Two,
they
do
not
have
the
luxury
of
having
helps
in
the
domestic
front
(in
fact,
they
could
be
the
one
doing
the
domestic
chores
for
the
higher-income
class).
Finally,
they
are
likely
not
to
have
the
confidence
to
socializeespecially
among
low-income
Filipinos,
it
is
common
to
hear
the
term
lang
attached
to
their
occupation
(e.g.
driver
lang,
namamasukan
lang),
which
is
more
like
an
expression
of
shame
than
humility.
The
less
trusting
trait
could
be
justified
by
some
evidence
that
suggests
that
poverty
is
linked
to
the
depletion
of
social
capital
(Kawachi,
Kennedy,
Lochner,
&
Prothrow-Stith,
1997,
pp.1491-1492).
The
causal
link
is
this poverty
reduces
opportunity
cost
of
engaging
in
conflict
thus
grabbing
resources,
for
example,
is
quicker
and
more
profitable
for
the
poor
than
the
steady
process
of
wealth
accumulation
(Ray,
2007,
p.17).
It
is
therefore
unusual
to
see
informal
settlers
and
jail
mates
robbing
one
another
even
of
the
littlest
things
such
as
spoonful
of
food,
firewood,
and
safety
pins.
When
this
happens,
the
culture
of
distrust
is
created.
Age
and
generation.
Second
to
education,
age
is
a
strong
determinant
of
social
capital.
Older
people
are
consistently
more
engaged
and
trusting
than
Social Capital in Development Page 8 of 24
younger
people,
although
they
do
not
become
more
engaged
and
trusting
as
they
age.
This
phenomenon
is
explained
by
period
or
generation
effects,
that
is,
when
people
are
affected
by
an
event
in
an
era
or
all
people
born
at
the
same
time
undergo
common
experience.
If
one
grew
up
in
a
period
of
high
level
of
civic
engagement,
one
is
likely
to
be
more
trusting
and
engaged
(pp.13-14).
Perhaps,
the
Martial
Law
babies
or
the
members
of
the
EDSA
People
Power
generation
are
more
inclined
to
engage
in
civic
matters.
However,
as
far
as
policy
or
development
administration
is
concerned,
how
can
this
insight
be
used
in
promoting
social
capital?
While
one
cannot
plan
for
it,
as
in
the
death
of
Secretary
Robredo,
one
can
capitalize
on
the
event
to
rally
people
into
doing
something
good
and
noble.
Robredos
brand
of
tsinelas
leadership
is
now
incorporated
in
the
curriculum
of
value
formation
in
public
elementary
and
high
school.
In
short,
the
approach
can
only
be
opportunistic
rather
than
deliberate.
Mobility
and
suburbanization.
They
tend
to
disrupt
root
systems
and
it
takes
time
for
an
individual
to
put
down
new
roots.
Residents
of
small
towns
and
rural
areas
are
slightly
more
trusting
and
engaged
in
civic
matters
than
those
who
live
in
metropolitan
areas.
There
is
no
correlation
though
between
increase
in
population
and
losses
in
social
capital
(p.6).
Again,
what
Putnam
did
not
mention
is
the
correlation
of
mobility
and
economic
affluence.
Migration
of
rural
population
to
urban
areas
is
driven
by
the
peoples
search
for
economic
opportunities,
which,
in
turn,
contributes
to
the
increasing
concern
of
informal
settlement.
In
this
case,
which
contributes
to
the
weakening
of
social
capital,
poverty
or
migration/
uprooting?
The
argument
does
not
discount,
however,
the
natural
tendency
of
the
rural
folks
to
be
more
trusting.
In
the
rural
areas,
people
are
more
welcoming
to
strangers,
letting
them
into
their
homes,
entertaining
them,
some
even
offering
foodsomething
that
could
hardly
be
witnessed
in
the
city,
if
at
all.
Social Capital in Development Page 9 of 24
Employment. In general, regardless of gender, workaholics or those who work for long hours would cut down on their sleep, eating time, and leisure but not on organizational activities (pp.7-8).
As they say, if you want to get something done, assign it to the busiest person, as they are the most productive, the most effective in time management, and the most committed to work. Again, with the lack of explanation of intervening mechanism, one may hypothesize that workaholics have certain kind of personality that makes them drawn to civic engagementbe it high level of confidence, drive, sheer enjoyment of others company, or appreciation of value of network. However, the hypothesis is flawed in this: if it was true, then all people with social capital would be of the same personality and of the same employment status. State intervention. By crowding out private initiatives, state intervention has undermined civil society. Demolition of informal settlements is one way of destroying social capital (p.11). This item has probably the shortest discussion but it has the most concrete impact on development policy or administration. Demolition is often equated to political will of the incumbent but the government heads do not realize that it is not the only expression of political will. On the other hand, Putnams wording is very neoliberalnot all state interventions lead to the undermining of the civil society or the private sector, just as not all civil society undertakings are successful. There are market failures, government failures, as well as development failures. Electronic revolution. Television, for example, takes time outside of home and encourages couch potato, passive behavior. While newspaper reading is associated with high social capital, TV viewing is associated with low social capital (pp.18-20).
Page 10 of 24
In
the
absence
of
causal
explanation,
one
could
hypothesize
that
TV
viewing
is
simply
a
proxy
indicator
of
something
elseperhaps
a
natural
inclination
to
be
anti-social/a
loner/a
homebody.
In
an
unpublished
study
using
focus
group
discussion
as
research
method,
the
group
of
microfinance
borrowers
who
showed
significant
poverty
movement
(meaning,
they
have
become
remarkably
less
poor
over
time)
spent
no
more
than
30
minutes
on
TV
in
a
day
while
the
other
groups
that
did
not
do
as
well
watched
TV
from
2
hours
a
day
to
practically
the
whole
day.
The
more
successful
group
also
exhibited
high
level
of
discipline
in
handling
household
finances
and
in
their
conduct
of
business,
relative
to
the
other
groups.
In
this
case,
electronic
revolution
is
not
necessarily
the
culprit
of
low
or
decreasing
social
capital;
it
could
simply
be
the
natural
inclination
of
the
members
to
passive
behavior
and/or
their
lack
of
discipline.
Recently,
a
new
hypothesis
came
out
arguing
that
human
beings
have
the
natural
desire
of
human
to
be
distractedthis
could
be
another
reason,
and
not
electronic
revolution
per
se.
On
the
other
hand,
electronic
revolution
has
been
lauded
for
connecting
people
for
social
cause:
the
yellow
boat
project
for
the
benefits
of
students
of
Mababoy
Elementary
School
in
Masbate
and
the
Hop-E
bamboo
school
project
for
the
indigenous
children
in
Rizal
are
just
a
couple
of
projects
launched
in
the
internet
and
has
sourced
considerable
funding
since.
Donors
are
well-meaning
strangers
both
locally
and
abroad
who
trust
the
idea
and
the
goodness
of
the
proponents
without
necessarily
an
expectation
of
reciprocity,
without
established
relationships,
or
an
experience
of
successful
collaboration
in
the
past
that
warrants
trust
in
the
present.
As
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.13)
stated:
changing
technology
changes
forms
of
association.
Does
it
also
change
the
center
of
social
capital
from
norms
and
trust-based
relationships
to
trust
in
abstract
ideas?
Does
this
mean
that
electronic
revolution
has
changed
the
meaning
of
social
capital?
Perhaps,
it
is
not
social
capital
that
is
at
work
but
merely
the
human
spirit
that
yearns
to
help
another.
If
it
were
social
capital,
will
the
same
people
donate
resources
continuously?
Will
be
beneficiary-students
return
the
favor
Social Capital in Development Page 11 of 24
sometime
in
the
future?
Where
does
the
possibility
of
reciprocity
lie?
As
Putnam
(The
Prosperous
Community
Social
Life
and
Public
Life,
1993,
p.3)
argued,
the
key
in
social
capital
formation
is
organized
reciprocity
and
civic
solidarity.
Ultimately,
the
cited
projects
are
still
based
on
the
benefactor- beneficiary
contract,
devoid
of
social
capital.
What
the
electronic
revolution
must
have
changed
is
not
the
nature
of
social
capital
but
the
means
of
distributing
financial
capital.
In
addition
to
the
variables
identified
by
Putnam
to
be
associated
with
social
capital,
Sen
(2002)
highlighted
the
influence
of
culture
on
the
societys
general
inclination
for
civic
and
political
participation.
Similarly,
culture
could
influence
a
societys
operation
of
social
solidarity
and
mutual
support
(p.4-5).
An
observation
in
the
field
is
that
a
community
so
isolated
from
society
and
therefore
deprived
of
various
services
would
find
a
way
of
meeting
their
own
needs
and
eventually
become
self-sustaining.
The
system
of
"paluwagan"
grows
naturally
among
people
who
need
short-term
financing
but
do
not
have
collateral
or
access
to
credit,
or
do
not
meet
the
requirements
of
formal
institutions.
On
a
larger
scale,
some
communities
have
even
developed
their
own
financial
and
economic
system
such
that
financial
institutions
and
NGOs
find
it
difficult
to
penetrate
such
a
marketthe
social
capital
of
self-sustaining
communities
more
often
than
not
becomes
exclusive.
Is
this
good
or
bad?
While
their
exclusivity
can
protect
them
from
the
exploitation
of
the
outside
agents,
who
probably
see
them
as
yet
another
market
to
sell
products
to,
it
can
also
deprive
them
of
things
that
can
improve
their
living
such
as
ideas,
innovation,
and
information.
Ultimately,
any
society
that
is
unable
to
adapt
to
environmental
changes
because
they
refuse
to
learn
new
things
will
most
likely
become
extinct.
However,
the
question
is,
is
it
really
culture
that
pushed
the
community
into
building
exclusive
social
capital
or
is
it
their
isolation
that
created
the
conditions
for
such?
Or
was
there
any
external
force
that
led
people
not
to
trust
any
outsider?
In
the
case
of
the
Philippines,
does
its
long
history
of
being
under
colonial
rule
lead
to
the
destruction
of
social
capital
within
the
country
as
a
result
of
distrust
of
foreign
invasion?
And
in
the
absence
of
strong
national
Social Capital in Development Page 12 of 24
identity, has this feeling of distrust eventually led to exclusive social capital across regions and thus to parochialism? At the national level, this issue can be easily or has already been addressed by the open-trade, open-economy policies (and given the stereotype of Filipinos having colonial mentality, maybe this is not a serious problem). At the regional level though, considering the archipelagic feature of the country as well as position of imperial Manila (a phrase that connotes inequality), coming up with public policy that will foster the creation of social capital and unity will be a challenge. No literature has also mentioned the role of expectation in the formation of social capital. A possible hypothesis is that the simpler the expectation from a relation of reciprocity is, the easier trust, and hence social capital, is built. For example, the expectation of one-time loan repayment alone between a debtor and creditor is more manageable than the expectation of the exercise of honesty and material and non-material support every single day between employer and employee. As the scope and scale of social capital increase, so is the challenge of building it. Finally, there is also no discussion in the literature that the flipside of trust is riskrisk of non-meeting of expectation or non-performance of the other members of the group. Ones capacity to absorb or manage the risk will likely determine ones openness to trusting others. A better-off person will most likely lend Php5,000 to a friend, without perhaps expecting any repayment from him/her and charging interest; however, a daily-wager may not readily lend even his/her closest friend this amount equivalent to 70 percent of his/her monthly take-home pay for practical reasons. The level of relationships or social capital in these examples may be the same but the proportion of the risks involved alters the impact of social capital in the sharing of resources.
C.
At
the
macro
or
country
level,
social
capital
has
both
economic
and
political
functionsin
efficient
functioning
of
modern
economies
and
an
essential
Social Capital in Development Page 13 of 24
condition
for
stable
liberal
democracy
(Fukuyama,
2001).
Another
way
of
putting
it
is
that
social
capital
is
the
missing
link
in
developmenta
substitute
to
state
intervention
with
social
intermediation
in
order
to
overcome
market
imperfections
(Ito,
2003,
p.322).
Social
capital
is
important
in
the
development
of
advanced
Western
economies.
Studies
of
highly
efficient,
highly
flexible
industrial
districts
emphasize
network
of
collaboration
among
workers
and
small
entrepreneurs.
Even
the
new
growth
theory
pays
more
attention
to
social
structure
than
conventional
neoclassical
models
do.
Likewise,
studies
of
the
rapidly
growing
economies
of
East
Asia
also
almost
always
emphasize
the
importance
of
dense
social
networks,
so
that
these
economies
are
sometimes
said
to
represent
network
capitalism.
These
networks,
often
based
on
extended
family
or
on
close-knit
ethnic
communities,
foster
trust,
lower
transaction
costs,
speed
information
and
innovation
(Putnam,
1993,
p.5).
What
is
it
in
social
capital
that
contributes
to
economic
and
political
development,
and
civil
society
empowerment
and
how?
This
paper
argues
that
social
capital
is
necessary
in
facilitating
economic
and
political
development,
and
strengthening
civil
empowerment
but
not
all
mechanisms
that
build
social
capital
lead
to
these
results.
In
addition
to
organized
reciprocity
and
civic
solidarity
as
key
elements
of
social
capital
(Putnam,
1993),
this
paper
argues
that
having
a
common
goal
is
necessary
in
its
formation;
social
capital
formation
is
not
an
end
in
itself
and
social
gathering
for
the
sake
of
social
gathering
will
not
lead
to
economic
and
political
development,
and
civil
empowerment.
This
argument
is
contrary
to
Putnams
(The
Prosperous
Community
Social
Life
and
Public
Life,
1993,
p.4-5)
point
that
members
participate
in
activities
because
they
like
to,
not
because
of
some
altruistic
goal
such
as
strengthening
the
social
fabric.
Likewise,
this
argument
contradicts
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.16)
in
saying
that
norms
are
transmitted
through
a
process
of
socialization
that
involves
much
more
habit
than
reason.
If
Putnam
and
Fukuyamas
arguments
were
correct,
then
perhaps
the
Philippines
probably
has
the
highest
stock
of
social
capital
in
Social Capital in Development Page 14 of 24
the
world,
what
with
its
basketball
tournaments
held
in
each
of
its
more
than
42,000
barangays
and
the
number
of
fiestas
held
at
the
barangay
and
town
levels
(it
is
estimated
that
at
least
one
fiesta
per
day
is
celebrated
in
the
country).
Add
to
these
regular
community
gatherings
the
traditional
beauty
pageants
and
singing
contests.
Have
these
occasions
led
to
the
nations
economic
and
political
development,
and
civil
empowerment?
Not
necessarily
because,
as
this
paper
argues,
these
occasions
are
devoid
of
meaningful
goals.
The
counter
argument
then
is
this:
can
social
capital
formation
be
manipulated
by
gathering
people
to
work
to
meet
certain
meaningful
goals?
It
has
been
discussed
earlier
that
institutions
can
create
venues
or
opportunities
and
design
incentives
or
disincentives
to
make
people
come
togetherjust
as
the
barangays
organize
tournaments
and
fiestasand
the
last
element
that
is
added
to
this
structure
to
achieve
development
is
the
common
goal.
1.
As
discussed
by
Putnam
(1993,
p.3),
the
causal
relationship
of
social
capital
and
economic
development
is
this:
communities
become
rich
because
they
were
civic,
not
that
they
were
civic
because
they
were
rich.
The
social
capital
embodied
in
norms
and
networks
of
civic
engagement
seems
to
be
a
pre- condition
for
economic
as
well
as
for
effective
government
(p.3).
As
proposed
as
well
by
the
new
growth
theory,
people,
together
with
knowledge,
entrepreneurship,
and
innovation,
comprise
the
determinants
of
economic
growth,
contrary
to
the
classical
economic
theory
that
highlights
the
factors
of
production,
namely,
land,
labor,
and
capital,
as
the
source
of
development
(Acs,
2002).
Social
capital
leads
to
economic
development
because
it
promotes
efficient
systems
and
operations.
According
to
Putnam
(1993,
pp.3-4),
a
society
that
relies
on
generalized
reciprocity
is
more
efficient
than
a
distrustful
society
and
facilitates
coordination
and
communication.
At
the
country
level,
the
author
cited
the
case
of
China
whose
economic
growth
depended
less
on
formal
institutions
than
on
personal
connections.
This
Social Capital in Development Page 15 of 24
Economic Development
generalization
is
consistent
with
the
findings
of
several
studies
on
Chinese
corporations,
particularly
of
Chinese
family
corporations.
These
businesses
still
thrive
on
verbal,
trust-based
contracts
rather
than
on
legal
instruments
that
pass
through
bureaucratic
process.
Thus,
their
business
deals
are
carried
out
faster
than
in
a
normal
corporate
setting.
The
same
business
principle
operates
at
the
community
level.
Prices
at
the
level
of
microenterprise,
for
example,
are
based
on
suki
(customer
loyalty)
relations
between
the
buyer
and
microentrepreneur.
The
best
products
are
also
saved
for
the
suki
and
not
for
the
highest
bidder
or
for
the
volume
buyer
(although
the
volume
buyer
could
also
be
the
suki).
The
reason
is
that
the
suki
system
works
on
the
basis
of
mutual
trust
and
reciprocity
that
the
buyer
will
always
source
from
the
entrepreneur
and
that
the
seller
will
always
give
the
buyer
the
best
products
and/or
the
best
deal.
For
this
reason,
too,
it
is
not
unusual
for
the
seller
to
dissuade
the
buyer
from
purchasing
products
if
they
are
of
low
quality
even
if
the
buyer
has
no
way
of
telling
(e.g.
overage
balut)
and
even
if
the
seller
is
bound
to
gain,
if
only
for
the
short
run.
Thus,
the
suki
system
stabilizes
economic
relationships
and
encourages
growth
in
the
long
run.
The
trust
system
at
the
community
level
is
also
apparent
in
the
sari-sari
store
operations.
Hardly
does
any
sari-sari
exist
without
a
long
list
of
buyers
payables
or
credits.
The
seller
trusts
that
the
buyer
will
pay
his/her
dues
when
money
comes
while
the
buyer
trusts
that
the
sari-sari
store
will
help
his/her
family
tide
over.
Indeed,
sari-sari
stores
play
a
key
role
in
the
economic
life
of
the
low-income
communitiesa
market
deemed
too
small
or
too
unprofitable
by
the
big
supermarkets.
Despite
the
stories
of
stores
closing
down
because
capital
being
eaten
up
by
bad
debts,
still,
their
estimated
number
increased
by
over
14
percent
from
700,000
in
mid
2000s
to
800,000
in
2010.
Unsurprisingly,
in
Metro
Manila,
sari-sari
stores
are
the
third
most
popular
source
of
credit,
next
to
family
and
friends
and
loan
sharks
or
5/6
(Sebastian,
2011).
Finally,
the
operations
of
microfinance
institutions
(MFIs)
are
largely
based
on
social
capital.
Literature
cited
how
the
MFIs
using
group-based
financial
scheme
Social Capital in Development Page 16 of 24
have
tapped
social
capital
in
using
information
that
the
group
members
have
about
each
other
in
managing
their
risks.
Hence,
the
MFIs
are
encouraged
to
employ
similar
institutional
mechanisms
to
use
pre-existing
social
capital
or
help
create
it
(Ito,
2003,
p.323).
Serageldin
and
Grootaert
(2000,
p.47
in
Ito,
2003)
argued
that
MFIs
provide
an
informal
framework
for
sharing
information,
coordinating
activities,
and
making
collective
decisions,
something
that
makes
microfinance
program
work
because
members
have
better
information
about
one
another
than
banks
do.
This
information
often
includes
the
traits
and
financial
habits
of
the
members
(do
they
have
good
credit
standing
among
sari- sari
stores
in
the
neighborhood?),
their
social
relations
in
the
community,
and
their
family
conditions
(e.g.
unemployed
or
gambling
spouse),
among
others.
Microfinance
borrowers
also
do
not
get
tired
of
group
guarantees
(at
least
in
the
particular
case
of
the
interviewed
MFI
officer)
because
outside
of
the
MFI,
when
they
need
food
or
money
during
hard
times,
they
turn
to
the
very
same
group
members
for
helpthe
spirit
of
reciprocity
and
trust
at
work.
At
the
firm
level,
lack
of
trust
will
be
costly,
as
it
will
compel
setting
up
of
control
systems
to
ensure
that
the
employees,
managers,
suppliers,
and
other
stakeholders
will
deliver.
Control
system
raises
transaction
costs
(imagine
investment
in
time
monitoring
system,
surveillance
cameras,
and
security
measures)
and
prolongs
operating
/
waiting
time
(imagine
audit
processes,
check
points,
and
protocol
for
signatures
and
approval).
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.10)
also
explained
the
role
of
social
capital
in
generating
useful
information,
that
is,
gossiping
does
more
efficient
job
than
the
formal
coordination
techniques.
He
added
that
in
effective
management,
workers
who
are
much
closer
to
the
sources
of
local
knowledge
are
thus
authorized
to
make
decisions
on
their
ownwhich
is
also
one
of
the
reasons
behind
devolution.
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.15)
also
mentioned
the
impact
of
social
capital
on
the
market
valuation
of
a
company.
Why
does
it
matter
in
the
context
of
profit-maximizing
capitalists?
Beyond
effective
management
cited
in
the
previous
example,
social
capital
adds
to
overall
economic
stability
of
the
society.
The
folding
up
of
pre- need
companies
in
which
many
people
from
different
socio-economic
classes
Social Capital in Development Page 17 of 24
invested
their
hard-earned
money
(some,
their
retirement
money
even)
for
the
future
education
of
their
children
and
the
closing
down
of
several
banks
created
so
much
distrust
in
the
financial
institutions
among
the
people.
The
resultthe
affluent
ones
bring
their
money
out
of
the
country
while
the
low-income
groups
save
in
their
own
homes.
The
country
as
a
whole
loses
because
the
money
that
is
supposed
to
fuel
the
economy
is
kept
somewhere
else.
Social
capital,
however,
can
have
negative
effects,
too.
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.9)
noted
that
social
capital
may
have
either
positive
externality,
that
which
leads
to
collective
growth
and
development,
or
negatively
externalityan
example
of
which
is
the
culture
that
makes
one
feel
entitled
to
steal
for
the
benefit
of
ones
family.
Other
examples
of
negative
externality
are
nepotism
and
inbreeding,
especially
in
the
case
of
anti-migrant,
exclusionary
tendencies
(Sen,
2002,
p.5).
These
externalities
do
not
necessarily
cause
major
economic
problems
in
themselvesonly
that
they
create
inequalities
in
the
system
that
widen
the
gap
among
members
and
eventually
result
in
inefficiencies.
2.
In
the
political
arena,
social
capital
may
lead
to
collective
action.
Putnam
(1993,
p.9)
argues
we
have
too
easily
accepted
a
conception
of
democracy
in
which
public
policy
is
not
the
outcome
of
a
collective
deliberation
about
the
public
interest,
but
rather
a
residue
of
campaign
strategy
and
thus
proposed
that
those
who
lack
connections
at
the
top,
we
must
nourish
grassroots
organization.
Following
this
argument,
it
means
that
weak
state
leads
to
strong
civil
society,
that
is,
founded
on
social
capital.
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.
11) supporting
Putnams
point
that
dense
civil
society
which
social
capital
produces
is
a
necessary
condition
for
modern
liberal
democracyasserted
civil
society
serves
to
balance
the
power
of
the
state
and
to
protect
individuals
from
the
state
power(but)
in
the
absence
of
civil
society
the
state
often
needs
to
step
in
to
organize
individuals
who
are
incapable
of
organizing
themselves.
The
logic
of
this
argument
serves
as
the
counterfactual
of
the
previous
point
raised
by
Putnam,
that
is,
weak
civil
society
requires
strong
state.
However,
in
reality,
why
Social Capital in Development Page 18 of 24
Political Development
would
the
state
organize
the
individuals
to
balance
its
power?
Perhaps,
only
a
highly
evolved
state
would
recognize
that
empowered
citizens
can
do
a
lot
more
than
a
disenfranchised
ones.
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.11)
emphasized
that
low
levels
of
social
capital
lead
to
a
number
of
political
dysfunctionadministrative
centralization
has
led
to
an
excessive
rigid
and
unresponsive
political
system.
This
argument
is
similar
to
economic/market/firm
level
dysfunctions
in
that
low
social
capitallow
level
of
trust
that
the
other
party
will
performance
or
do
its
shareleads
the
government
to
set
up
controls
that
may
lead
to
red
tape,
which
in
turn
may
lead
to
areas
of
inefficiency.
Whenever
there
is
inefficiency,
there
is
room
for
graft
and
corruptionso
there
goes
the
domino
effect
of
breakdown
of
social
capital.
Social
capital
is
more
critical
in
the
proper
functioning
of
public
institutions
(Fukuyama,
2001,
p.12)
than
it
is
in
the
private
sector
because
the
former,
by
social
contract,
is
supposed
to
protect
the
economically
and
politically
challenged
and
thus
serves
wider
membership
in
social
capitals
circle
of
trust.
The
public
institutions
are
supposed
to
uphold
public
interest;
however,
with
higher
expectations
comes
the
higher
risk
of
breaking
the
trust.
However,
truth
be
told,
even
in
the
political
arena
social
capital
can
also
have
negative
effects.
Fukuyama
(2001,
p.12)
cited
that
ones
civic
engagement
can
be
anothers
rent- seek;
public
resources
can
be
used
to
favor
causes
of
certain
interest
groups;
and
there
is
no
guarantee
that
NGOs
represent
real
public
interest.
When
these
happen,
social
capital
breaks
down
further.
How
then
can
this
vicious
cycle
of
social
capital
breakdown
be
reversed?
The
existing
literature
offers
no
solution.
Following,
however,
the
process
of
how
social
capital
is
created,
the
reversal
process
can
start
either
within
the
community
or
by
external
force,
namely
the
state,
religion,
and
globalization
(Fukuyama,
2001).
According
to
Fukuyama
(2001
p.19),
globalization
is
a
bearer
not
only
of
capital
but
also
of
ideas
and
culture.
On
the
contrary,
Sen
(2002,
p.2)
argued
local
cultures
are
in
danger
of
destruction
as
a
result
of
globalization.
Since
there
are
a
lot
of
losers
in
globalization,
it
would
be
difficult
to
argue
for
its
neutrality.
Social Capital in Development Page 19 of 24
However, the question in general should have been, is extra-community social capital good or bad? Is changing culture not part of its natural evolution and not necessarily its destruction? Culture is not static in the first place; in fact, interaction with extra-community factors offers opportunity of correcting what could be a repressive culture into something more just and fair to all members of the society. Thus, the direction of change of culture also matters. The rising culture of commercialism, for example, that destroys both nature and human relationships is also not good by any standard. Anthropologically speaking though, there is no good or bad, primitive or modern culture. Perhaps, the more appropriate question would be what works and what works better for the people. On the other hand, Sen argued (2002, p.18) the prohibition of cultural influences is not consistent with a commitment to democracy and liberty and suggested that there be participatory decision-making on the kind of society people want to live in. How exactly do we operationalize this suggestion? Can people really decide on the kind of culture that they want? Is culture not an aggregation of the spontaneous actions and reactions of individuals making up the society? In short, can society really choose the impact of globalization on its members?
D.
What
is
the
implication
of
the
foregoing
discussions
on
development
administration?
The
understanding
of
social
capital
and
what
it
can
do
or
make
people
do
can
lead
to
various,
concrete
development
programs
that
range
from
preservation
of
culture
to
community
development.
This
paper
works
on
Sens
(2002,
p.7)
proposition
that
behavior
depends
not
only
on
personal
values
and
predispositions
but
also
on
the
absence
or
presence
of
institutions
and
the
incentives
they
generate
so
that
public
policy
and
administration,
building
on
the
communitys
stock
of
social
capital,
can
in
fact
effect
change
that
will
lead
to
economic
and
political
development,
and
civic
empowerment.
Social Capital in Development Page 20 of 24
However,
one
has
to
start
in
earning
or
even
gaining
back
the
trust
of
the
people.
As
Cameron
(2000)
put
it
succinctly,
why
should
poor
people
accept
growing
uncertainty
and
insecurity
when
the
resources
they
need
to
sustain
themselves
are
being
appropriated
by
institutions
acting
in
the
interest
of
people
with
far
higher
certainty
of
living
comfortable
lives?
The
poor
have
been
used
and
abused
time
and
time
again,
especially
during
election.
When
one
offers
them
something,
an
innovative
product
or
service
for
instance,
almost
always
their
question
will
be
whats
the
catch?.
Demolitions
and
closing
down
of
factories
have
cost
so
much
social
capital
the
effect
of
which
may
transcend
generations.
As
pointed
out
by
Putnam
(The
Strange
Disapperance
of
Civic
America,
2001,
p.11),
some
government
policies
have
almost
certainly
had
effect
of
destroying
social
capitalslum
clearances
in
the
1950s
and
1960s,
for
example,
replaced
physical
capital
but
destroyed
social
capital.
Consider
the
case
of
displaced
communities
in
Mindanao,
robbed
of
their
ancestral
lands.
How
does
one
reverse
the
negative
impact
and
rebuild
trust?
If
somebody
knew
the
answer
then
the
conflict
would
have
long
been
ended.
In
terms
of
policy
on
education,
Putnam
(1993,
p.8)
suggested
that
policymakers
move
beyond
debates
about
curriculum
and
governance
to
consider
the
effects
of
social
capital.
As
Comer,
an
educational
reformer,
proposed,
education
process
should
deliberately
involve
parents
and
other
members
in
the
process.
The
current
educational
system
is
individualistic
and
thus
if
policy
would
consider
social
capital,
the
intervention
must
focus
on
community
development
(pp.9-10).
Since
the
Philippine
education
system
takes
after
the
American
model,
the
countrys
policymakers
should
consider
this
point.
Besides,
the
American
education
model
has
been
criticized
for
its
competitive
learning
environment,
rewarding
the
best
of
the
best.
In
contrast,
the
European
model
encourages
collaboration
among
the
students,
encouraging
them
to
improve
their
mean
performance
instead
of
recognizing
only
the
best
students.
Thus,
early
on
in
their
lives,
people
are
taught
about
working
together,
which
is
the
essence
of
social
capital.
Social Capital in Development Page 21 of 24
Aside from education policy, Fukuyama (2001) also suggested that social capital be created by public policy that builds on existing social network such as provision of public goods. Home ownership rather than tenancy, for example, help build peoples sense of security as well as establish roots and trust. Putnam (1993, p.7) furthered that living in a neighborhood depleted in social capital, for example, regardless of the stock of individual resources, has deleterious effect. Families in deprived neighborhood have to deal not only with the societal issue such as unemployment but also with the behavior and frustrations of other jobless families in the neighborhood (Kawachi, Kennedy, Lochner, & Prothrow- Stith, 1997, p.1496), thus the emphasis on community development.
III.
Conclusion
This
essay
argues
that
trust
and
norm
of
reciprocity
make
social
capital
more
than
what
has
been
defined
at
individual
level
and
enable
group
or
community
actions
that
would
not
have
been
possible
in
its
absence.
It
also
argues
that
social
capital
is
more
applicable
and
appropriate
in
group
or
community
context
rather
than
in
personal
and
family
levels.
The
essay
also
shows
that
social
capital
is
created
either
organically
or
naturally,
or
by
some
external
agents,
mainly
by
institutions
such
as
the
state,
religion,
civil
society/NGOs,
and
even
by
globalization.
Inequality,
on
the
other
hand,
and
all
its
forms
cause
the
breakdown
of
social
capital.
Through
policies
and
incentive
structures,
development
administration
can
help
create
social
capital
and
direct
it
positively
to
achieve
economic
and
political
development
goals.
Several
variables
are
associated
with
social
capital
formation.
Aside
from
the
direction
of
causality
the
need
to
be
established
yet,
co-determination
of
these
variables
also
has
to
be
tested.
For
example,
education,
economic
affluence
and
employment
are
likely
to
have
causal
relationships,
and
so
as
poverty
and
migration.
What
this
essay
also
contributes
to
the
discussion
are
the
elements
of
history
of
colonialism
and
culture,
expectations,
and
risks.
Social Capital in Development Page 22 of 24
Social
capital
contributes
to
economic
development
in
that
it
cuts
down
on
transaction
and
information
costs,
and
facilitates
coordination
of
economic
activities.
It
also
stabilizes
economy
as
a
whole.
Similarly,
it
contributes
to
political
development
by
strengthening
or
complementing
the
weak
sector
of
the
society,
protecting
public
interests,
and
reducing
transaction
and
information
costs
as
well.
The
understanding
of
social
capital
and
what
it
can
do
or
make
people
do
can
lead
to
various,
concrete
development
programs
that
range
from
preservation
of
culture
to
community
development.
Public
policy
and
administration
then
can
build
on
the
communitys
stock
of
social
capital
and
can
in
fact
effect
change
that
will
lead
to
economic
and
political
development,
and
civic
empowerment.
The
social
fabric
created
by
social
capital
therefore
has
to
be
considered
in
development
administration,
as
it
makes
cooperation,
coordination,
and
information
flow
more
efficient
and
cost-effective
than
if
it
they
were
to
take
place
under
a
formal,
institutional
setup
often
designed
with
control
systems.
It
then
follows
that
community
preparation,
local
participation
or
engagement
of
the
community,
and
the
power
of
the
informal
leaders
have
to
be
in
check.
However,
Putnam
(1993,
p.
10)
warned,
social
capital
is
both
a
requisite
for
and
a
consequence
of,
not
a
substitute
for
sound
public
policy.
The
discourse,
however,
does
not
end
here;
instead
it
leads
to
further
questions.
To
what
extent
does
social
capital
influence
the
effectiveness
of
development
programs?
What
are
the
features
of
successful
social
capital
building
mechanisms
that
contribute
concretely
to
economic
and
political
development,
and
civic
empowerment?
Finally,
what
is
the
countrys
current
stock
of
social
capital
and
how
can
it
be
used
more
effectively?
Social Capital in Development Page 23 of 24
Bibliography
Acs, Z. J. (2002). Innovation and the Growth Cities. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Cameron, J. (2000). Development Economics, the New Institutional Economics, and NGOs. Third World Quarterly , 21 (4), 627-635. Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social Capital, Civil Society, and Development. Third World Quarterly , 22 (1), 7-20. Gomez, R., & Santor, E. (2001). Membership Has Its Privileges: The Effect of Social Capital and Neighborhood Characteristics on the Earnings of Microfinance Borrowers. The Canadian Journal of Economics , 34 (4), 943-966. Ito, S. (2003). Microfinance and Social Capital: Does Social Capital Help Create Good Practice? Development in Practice , 13 (4), 322-332. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social Capital, Income Inequality, and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health , 87 (9), 1491-1498. Narayan, D., & Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory. Current Sociology , 49 (2), 59-102. Putnam, R. (1993). The Prosperous Community Social Life and Public Life. The American Prospect , 4 (13). Putnam, R. (2001 19-December). The Strange Disapperance of Civic America. Retrieved 2012 8-July from The American Prospect: http://prospect.org/article/strange-disappearance-civic-america Ray, D. (2007, March). Development Economics. New York, New York, USA. Sebastian, A. M. (2011, June). Market Saturation of Microfinance in Metro Manila: Fact or Fiction? . Sen, A. (2002). How Does Culture Matter? In V. Rao, & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and Public Action. (forthcoming). Woolcock, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Syntehsis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society , 27 (2), 151- 208.
Page 24 of 24