Volume 4, Number 1
April 1998

Gender and Social Capital

Lawrence Haddad sparked a discussion on social capital and gender. To establish initial common ground, he referred to two definitions of social capital: "features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" (Robert Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6, January 1995, 67; see also Putnam's Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, 1993), and a "radius of trust" and "associations beyond the family" (Francis Fukuyama, Trust, 1995). Following Putnam and Fukuyama, Haddad suggested that social capital allows "dilemmas of collective action to be resolved."

Can social capital be measured? Haddad suggested that measurement is difficult in a quantitative sense, but that he and his collaborators plan to measure it in a survey in Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa along five different dimen-sions: (a) economic and social networks (family and non-family--remittances, sharing of land, sharing of dwelling, caring for children, looking after livestock, and so on), (b) participation in community groups, (c) civic-ness (such as voting and knowledge of local events, (d) trust, and (e) violence.

Presuming we can measure social capital at the individual level, Haddad noted that a number of interesting research questions arise, including (a) what is the stock of social capital held by men and women within the family/household and how does it differ along rural/urban or inter-/intrafamily lines? (b) do the effects of social capital depend on whether it is held by men or women? and (c) how important is social capital for bar-gaining within the household and does it influence a wide range of outcomes (fertility, labor supply, child nutrition)?

Addressing many of the issues raised above, Diane Russell suggested that it might be best to focus on the process of creating or maintaining social capital and the evolution of forms of social investment, rather than measuring particular "pieces" of social capital. She also suggested that Haddad's descriptions of social capital conflate very different kinds of social phenomena, from psychological issues of trust behavior, respect, and reputation to forms of participation in civic activities. In any case, perhaps the most salient point is that social investments of some kind have to be made in order for individuals to survive.

Russell argued that there are two main categories of social investments made by individuals: proximate investments in people, groups, and institutions that directly affect their daily lives; and more distant investments in individuals, groups, and institutions that they hope will bring future benefits. Different strategies are employed. In the first kind of social investment, there is a great deal of calculation about the risk of not investing, and often coercion of a subtle kind is involved (particularly of women and younger people) to "donate" their labor, resources, and ideas to a "common" cause. In the second kind of investment, people are thinking about their long-term interests or, more often, the interests of their children. Of course, much of the participation in these more distant investments is also coerced or manipulated, but there can be room to maneuver. Perhaps instead of there being a net decline in social capital, there is a shift from building social capital in the immediate sphere to diversification and "distancing" of social capital. This diversification is not a bad thing--it means that people might come together around common interests rather than just because they are kin; also that people are trying to respond to different incentives and risks in a changing environment. Whereas before it was essential that children master their immediate social and physical worlds, and as such have responsible tutors, guides, and sponsors in their own communities, most folks now consider it essential that their children master technological and educational skills often not present in the community.

What about trust? Russell argued that trust often cannot be separated from the need to participate in the proximate sphere of relations. Real trust and respect do exist and are precious commodities wherever they are found. Similarly, social institutions that actually respond to their constituents, not just the needs of the elite who organize them, are vitally important, and rare, in the world.

On the relationship of violence to social capital, Russell suggested that violence results from rising expectations, the clash of the elite and their clients over access to and control over resources, and the failure of the more proximate institutions to contain these expectations and conflicts. More distant institutions, such as civic organizations, schools, and churches, often do a poor job as well, to the extent that they are tied to relations within the proximate sphere, and to larger interests that are in conflict.

For Russell, building up an understanding of social capital can best be done by stepping outside of an individualist frame of reference and examining social institutions and how these interface with individual social investment strategies. How a person's own social capital is constructed is an interesting part of the picture, but may not be very useful in understanding social capital overall, or looking at how notions of social capital can adapt to new circumstances. But if one is going to measure it, time should be taken to understand and employ local categories of trust, respect, sharing, and cooperation within the context of different social roles, and in relation to actual behaviors and investments. To think about how to go about building social capital, we need to ask: social capital for what? Who benefits? Who risks? How can people identify in-stitutions that foster true collaboration and respect? How can individual social capital be channeled into stewardship behavior?

Lisa Smith described a study, which was published as "Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy," in Science, August 15, 1997, 918-924. The authors, Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls, actually attempted to measure social capital--or what they called "collective efficacy" ("social cohesion among neighbors combined with their willingness to intervene on behalf of the common good")--among almost 9,000 residents in more than 300 neighborhoods in Chicago. Smith said that the study showed that the outcome of mutual benefit (resulting from social capital) was reduced violence.

To measure collective efficacy, the authors employed a combination of two related variables: "informal social control" and "social cohesion and trust." The degree of informal social control is gauged by asking residents questions about their neighbors' behaviors. The degree of social cohesion and trust is gauged by asking five questions: How strongly do you agree that 1) people around here are willing to help their neighbors, 2) this is a close knit neighborhood, 3) people in this neighborhood can be trusted, 4) people in this neighborhood generally don't get along with each other, and 5) people in this neighborhood do not share the same values?

Bill Kinsey also mentioned a hands-on methodology for community empowerment, which could be seen as an analogue for building social capital. The methodology was part of a project called "Imagine Chicago." The core of the technique is called "Appreciative Inquiry" (AI). Kinsey suggested that AI might be deemed a way of first having a community inventory its own social capital and then using such capital for community purposes. The methodology is now being widely replicated in the U.S. and increasingly in development work elsewhere.

Finally, Kris Merschrod suggested that social capital is plain old solidarity. If solidarity is considered a two-dimensional property space, it can be defined by the "quantity" and "quality" of space. Quality is mapped on a mechanical-to-organic scale and is the type of glue that holds the social system together. Quantity is mapped on a high-to-low scale and is the strength of the glue holding it together. Merschrod noted that the discussion so far had jumped about between the type of social system and unit of analysis in the reference system.