Social Capital and Local Development Theories: Lessons from the Pintadas
Experience (Bahia, Brazil)
Carlos Milani 1
The academic literature and the reports from international agencies that deal with the theme of social capital are generally based on the idea that economic variables are not enough to produce sustainable development, from its social and environmental perspectives.
Economic growth, they say, does not necessarily and directly produce social development.
These documents point out that the institutions as well as the social system are key elements in solving the problem of access to economic benefits and their distribution. In their respective fields of study, authors such as Robert Putnam, James Coleman, Michael
Woolcock, Henrique Rattner, Ricardo Abramovay, among others, address civic commitment networks, mutual trust norms and the wealth of the social fabric as fundamental factors in local development (both rural and urban). Social, institutional and cultural factors are therefore recognized for their direct impact on qualitative increases in communication among individuals and social actors, in the production of better ways of social interaction and in the reduction of collective action dilemmas.
It is well known that local development involves social, cultural and political factors, which are not exclusively regulated by the market system. Economic growth is an essential variable although not enough to promote local development. Considered as pluridimensional
(Henri Bartoli, 1999), a historical path (Ignacy Sachs, 1993) and a project (François Perroux,
1961), local development is wisely marked by the culture of the context in which it evolves.
Local development can be considered as a set of cultural, economic, political and social activities –from an intersectorial and micro/meso/macro-scale perspective – that participate in a project of conscious transformation of the local reality. In this social transformation
1 Research project title: Social Capital, Political Participation and Local Development: Actors in Civil Society and Local Development Policies in Bahia (2002-2005), funded by the Research Support Foundation of the State of Bahia (FAPESB) and developed within the Escola de Administração at the Federal University of Bahia (UFBA/NPGA/NEPOL/PDGS). Thanks to the following junior researchers for their support: Diana Santos, Sheila Cunha and Tiago Guedes. Contact at cmilani@ ufba.br, and information about the project at http://www.adm.ufba.br/apesqnepol_capital.htm
1 project, there is a significant degree of interdependence among the diverse segments that compose society (political, legal, educational, economic, environmental, technological, and cultural) and the agents present in different economic and political scales (from local to global). It is fundamental to consider local development as a project that is integrated in the market, but not just this: local development is also a product of social relationships rooted in conflict, competition, cooperation and reciprocity; these social relationships put together actors, interests and projects of a social political and cultural nature.
Consequently, to reaffirm the relevance of these dimensions of local development does not seem to constitute the particularly innovative and pertinent aspect of the literature on social capital. What are the premises and the origin of social capital? What can critical analysis of the concept of social capital bring to the field of local development? Does the definition of social capital integrate the notions of social control, citizen participation, political culture, cohabitation and civic culture? Does the concept of social capital represent an epistemological advance in the current attempt at constructing new analytical categories for reading and explaining the reality of local development? What is the heuristic value of this concept?
In this article, first we will expose and analyze the experiences of local development in the Municipality of Pintadas (Bahia, Brazil). These experiences should provide us with meanings (practices and expressions) of social capital, which represent a main input in the local development equation in Pintadas. They should allow us to explain, in a contextualized way and by means of empirical evidence, possible relationships between these meanings of social capital and the social transformations project in the city of Pintadas (both in its discourse and in its results). In a second moment, based on a preliminary revision of some studies on social capital, we attempt to question the importance of this concept in order to understand the structures of local power and to analyze local development in its complexity.
We work with the hypothesis that the analytical potential of the “social capital” category has two main pillars of sustainability: on the one hand, the concept of social capital has explicative and evaluative con-committal dimensions, in as much as it aims at
2 comprehending and analyzing the local development, and at the same time, valorizing and evaluating social reality (ie, via project evaluation methodologies, new indicators for measuring local development, strengthening public policies on social capital or social interventions by associations and NGOs); on the other hand, this concept tries to articulate the dynamic of the processes and history (values, trust norms and participation) with the logic of the economic results and efficiency (economic development).
I. PINTADAS: FROM CONSERVATIVE MODERNIZATION TO POLITICAL CONTESTATION
The Municipality of Pintadas, located close to 350 km west of Salvador, in the semi- arid region of Bahia, with 100% of its territory included in the so-called “Drought Polygon”, is classified by UNDP as having a low human development index (HDI). Brazilian National
Statistics (IBGE) Data from 2000 reveals that the population is of 11,166 inhabitants, of which 63% live in the rural zone (the average rural population in the state of Bahia is 37.6%).
The farm concentration and the extensive agricultural practice (an activity which saves on labor costs) are essential trademarks in the rural world of Pintadas; close to 80% of the rural producers own 15% if the land; the small-scale producers cultivate subsistence food, such as corn, beans and manioc, highly susceptible to drought. From this socio-economic picture results the seasonal migration to the Brazilian Southwest: each year (in general between
March and December), close to three thousand workers, mainly men, leave this area, mostly for São Paulo, in order to work in the alcohol mills. Due to the lack of work and income opportunities, and to the precarious survival condition, 50% of the families were classified as below-poverty in 1989 (Freitas, 1999).
Given this context, the social movement in Pintadas, a people’s movement organized based on the needs of the rural producers, began in the 1960s, led by the Catholic Church.
Therefore the popular practice of mutual aid (mutirão), known in Pintadas as “stolen bull” and
“whale”, already constitutes an instrument of collective resistance. The participation of more progressive sectors of the Catholic Church since the 1970s, with the installation of the
Ecclesial Base Communities (CEBs), has strongly influenced the local social organization.
3 The CEBs encouraged the formation of the Pastoral Community Council and the Pastoral
Youth Council. The presence of the Pastoral Land Council, since the 1980s, has strengthened the solidarity practices among the rural workers, and contributed to transforming the popular manifestation of mutirão into a regular labor activity at the service of the Pintadas community.
The philosophical, humanistic and religious basis of this movement is rooted in the theology of freedom. Upon the arrival in 1984 of three missionaries – including the current mayor Mrs. Neusa Cadore (from the Labor Party, PT) –groups were formed to discuss the local reality and the needs of the rural workers. In 1985, Pintadas became a municipality, emancipating itself from the neighboring Municipality of Ipirá – which granted the social movement greater local political structure.
The cooperation with international agencies is another mobilizing element towards local development in Pintadas. The TAPI Project (Project “Appropriate Technology for
Small-scale Irrigation”) was launched in 1988, based on a partnership with the French government, seeking improvement in the management of water resources 2. Two years later, a Dutch agency created connections with the city for the training of local monitors, in order to fill the need for more trained labor force. Currently, the international NGOs most present in Pintadas are DISOP (Belgian NGO: micro-financing), Peuples Solidaires (France: water resources), Il Canale (Italy: capacity-building) and DED (German Service of Technical and Social Cooperation: monitoring of socio-productive activities).
2 See, for example, BAZIN, Frédéric. Projeto Pintadas: do apoio à agricultura familiar ao desenvolvimento territorial. Online at http://www.pronaf.gov.br/Enconro/textos/Pintadas%2003%2006.doc.
4 Figure 1: Pintadas Network
Comunità Montana DISOP (Italy) Peuples (Belgium) Solidaires (France) DED ASA SICOOB (Germany)
Rural Union Parish COOAP EFA Community Center Padre Ricardo Association Radio Cinema Women’s RHELUZ Il Clemente Association Canale Mariani Foundation (Italy) (Salvador) Town Hall CESE UFBA (Salvador) (Salvador)
Source: Fischer and Nascimento (2002); Moura et al. (2001); Informativo Rede Pintadas (julho de 2003).
The Pintadas Movement was further impelled by the constitution of the Pintadas
Network (in operation since 2000 and legally institutionalized as an association since July
2003), represented in the figure above. The majority of the strategic decisions for development in Pintadas are discussed within the Network, with participation of representatives from the member-entities. The Network put together an innovative local- level practice in June 2002, the First People’s Congress. This Congress had the support of the Town Hall, and gained significant public participation in the meeting of all the Network members, in the presentation of experiences and proposals for public policies, in the organization of large public assemblies, as well as the election and designation of delegates for the Congress Plenary (with a total of 250 delegates). University professors and volunteer
5 technicians, though external elements to the group of citizens in Pintadas, also participated in this initiative in 2002 3.
The election of the missionary Neusa Cadore (who came from Santa Catarina, in
Southern Brazil) in 1996 can be considered a political element equally central to the history of participatory management experiences in Pintadas. In 2000, reelection was inevitable, since the people’s movement began in such a peculiar way that it ended up awaking within the local population a desire for common improvement and deeper transformation of the local political structures.
However, the budgetary difficulty in the Municipality is considerable: Pintadas is one of the 20 Bahian municipalities with the lowest tax payment. Furthermore, Pintadas is also faced with the problem of access to land (and consequent modernization of the agrarian and agricultural structures) of the availability of drinking water and of isolation in relation to the market (difficult access to highways and distant from the main circulation of the semi-arid region). In addition, with the election of a PT candidate to the local government, Pintadas no longer constitutes a priority for the state government (based in Salvador) for investments in socio-economic infrastructures. For example, coincidence or not, a few weeks after the election of Neusa Cadore, the only banking agency of the Municipality (BANEB) was closed in 1997, which, among other factors, occasioned the establishment of the local credit coop,
SICOOB, shown in Figure 1.
From this brief description of some preliminary results of the case study on Pintadas, come several questions on the definition of social capital, as well as its relationships with local development (which, in this article, are summarily developed) 4. Firstly, regarding the values and social norms constituted by social capital, Pintadas helps us to consider the narrow relationship between Christian faith and social transformation: the notions of citizenship and civic commitment go hand in hand with what the Church preaches. Several
3 Since the mid-90s, the Brazilian rural world has seen significant proliferation of municipal councils for rural development. Hundreds of municipal secretariats of agriculture have been formed; social pressure has been organized to obtain resources from the Federal Funds and to embetter local agricultural policies; rural settlements have been built (assentamentos); and efforts have been deployed in the formation of rural organizations (Abramovay, 2000).
6 speakers in interviews made between March and August 2003 reaffirm that the Catholic
Church is the main partner in the dissemination of social transformation practices in
Pintadas. Through the values related to solidarity and cooperation, the progressive wing of the Catholic Church encourages the construction of community and collective feelings: illustrations of this are the socio-economic projects implemented by the Padre Ricardo
Association which imply the use and management of community equipment and the collective work. Economic development is thus viewed by the community as a means for organizing the small producers, providing them with possibilities for expanding participation in society, trying to encourage in them the critical sense and awareness of liberty, responsibility and the notion of human rights. In the same manner, the collective action is justified due to its economic benefits: the publicity pamphlets of the credit coop SICOOB 5, founded in 1997, remind the farmers that, thanks to collective responsibility, they can obtain cosigned funds and loans that, individually, they would not be able to (or they would have to pay high interest rates to banks whose agencies are far from Pintadas).
Secondly, the collective identity is narrowly related to the social movement in
Pintadas. The commitment to the res publica originates, among other factors, in the historical fight for survival and the combat against inequalities in access to land and water. It can be said that contestation is a key-element for understanding the collective awareness and leadership in Pintadas. A fundamental point is that the values and commitments of the contestation are linked to practice. The Pintadas Network itself (which presents mechanisms and instruments that are still in the beginning stages) seeks to influence the coordination of cooperation strategies. The Pintadas Network is not yet a substantially operational network, nor is it able to connect its members in a systematic fashion, but its functional limitations
4 We are currently conducting surveys to collect qualitative data on values, social practices, access to information, level of associativism, relationships with public power fo the population of Pintadas. This data will be analysed in January 2004. 5 The basic rule of SICOOB is to invest 70% of the coop’s funds locally. SICOOB has assets of around 2 million US dollars (in Reais, the Brazilian currency). Since it began its operations, the coop has had 600 thousand Reals of left over that were distributed among the coop members. The discussion groups with farm owners are very important: on average, 1200 coop members participate in the assemblies and debates. In 2001, training courses were organized for 315 members. The rate of non-reimbursement for the Caprine Project (PROCAAP), for example, is around 0.8%, while the one for of the National Support Program for Family Agriculture (PRONAF, a huge national-level project) is around 3%. Close to 50% of the coop members live in Pintadas, but SICOOB reaches other neighbouring municipalities. The human relationship is considered by the director of SICOOB, Mr. Walcy, a fundamental element for the success of the coop.
7 (which can become an obstacle in future development) are currently counterbalanced by two elements that integrate the group of social capital expressions in Pintadas: a cultural element marked by mobilization and responsiveness of different network members, and a political element influenced by the way power is distributed and administered within the network. We believe that the conclusion of this case study in Pintadas will allow us both to show that local development is fundamentally a problem related to power, culture and politics, and to define social capital through its political dimensions greatly related to contestation 6.
II. CONTEXTUALIZING THE STUDIES ON SOCIAL CAPITAL
II.a) Theory and practice of development in the 1990s Since the 1990s, development knowledge as well as local development projects have undergone profound transformation: the universal character of development has been seriously questioned; the imposition in several contexts
(especially in less developed countries) of uniform and so-called universal norms and techniques (defined, above all, in the capitals of Western countries) has been challenged; finally the theoretical efforts to legitimize economic development separately from its social and cultural dimensions have failed. The United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) Global Human Development Report (GHDR) from
1990 was an important bench mark in this historical moment: the human development index (HDI), despite its recognized methodological difficulties, came to relativize the use of GNP/inhabitant as a universal measure of development, thus having a strong symbolic impact. Social and economic inequalities became the definitive focus of both development theory and international cooperation discourse: in 2000, the UNPD GHDR indicated that the distance separating the average
6 One of the possibilities we are exploring is regarding “rupture theories” in the analysis of collective action. See, for example, USEEM, Bert. (1998), Breakdown Theories of Collective Action. In Annual Review of Sociology, Palo Alto, volume 24, pp. 215-238.
8 individual income of the poorest and the wealthiest inhabitants of the planet, which was 1:30 in 1960, jumped to 1:60 in 1990 and to 1:74 in 1999.
It is true that, since the 1990s, some international agencies have attempted at renovating international cooperation practices. It is true that mainstream economics has accepted to deal with social and institutional themes, too. However, the development paradigm has equally been criticized in its foundations, in its frequently contradictory practices and its founding myths. Firstly, as Gilbert Rist pointed out in a remarkable study where he addresses development as a “Western belief”, the development paradigm is to be criticized for its social evolutionism: under-developed countries should reach the same levels of developed countries, through continuous, linear and cumulative steps. Secondly, it is attacked for its emphasis on individualism and economicism. Thirdly, it is denounced for mixing up how reality is with how it should be (normativism), and making no order between ends and means
(instrumentalism). In other words, Gilbert Rist refused the idea that it is possible to deterministically anticipate the future steps to be followed by the economies of the
South and, furthermore, to define the tools for reaching determined objectives in a universal manner, regardless of local contexts and dynamics (Rist, 1996).
After all, is development the simple planetary extension of the market system in detriment to the values related to solidarity, ethics, intergenerational responsibility, culture and history, which are distinct in different regions of the world? Despite the well-constructed discourse in manuals and reports, can it be said that development is a synonym for intervention, imposition or humanitarian assistance? Is it possible to make the international rhetoric, science and practices on development more coherent? The difficulty in answering such questions, brought to the international debate by intellectuals, social movements, academics, the media and national and
9 international NGOs, leads many thinkers to proclaim the end of development and to look towards post-development. In 2002, for example, an international colloquium was organized at UNESCO on the need for deconstruction of development, a term and practice that would be strictly associated with colonization, the westernization of the world, economic-financial globalization and planetary uniformity. Authors and intellectuals such as Wolfgang Sachs, Serge Latouche, Ivan Illich and Arundathy Roy maintain that it is fundamental to requalify and to critically analyze the processes of social transformation encompassed under the label of “development’ – or simply to radically abolish it as a category! Although they didn’t explain how to substitute the concept and the practice of development, above all in the contexts in which the inequalities and needs are still very rampant, these contestatory groups vehemently criticized the incoherent practices of development and their disastrous results on local cultures. The World Social Forum, in its three editions since January 2001, can be considered as one of the privileged meeting spaces for these expressions of contestation 7.
Recognition of the errors committed, the distortions caused and, above all, the permanence of social inequalities are at the core of the crisis that marked development in the 1990s by exacerbated criticism and, at the same time, by an attempt at renovation. It should not be forgotten that, during this same period, the
State was criticized for its ineptness, corruption, inefficiency and lack of transparency.
In some cases, the proposals for a qualitative transformation of development would be associated with the State crisis, which propitiates quick conclusions regarding the origins of both crises: for some agencies and thinkers, the problem of development could thus be directly related to State-run development models. The State is not large enough to deal with global problems, but not so small either in order to be near
7 For a detailed description of the Colloquium, see www.unesco.org/most/unmakedev.htm. 10 the citizen and to closely follow the relationships that gradually turn local development a complex phenomenon. The State should then not be considered as a fundamental player in development.
In this context, new themes emerged on the official agenda of multilateral cooperation: themes such as decentralization, local governance, participation, the emergence of civil society and, more recently, social capital. These themes integrate an array of new projects within the cooperation for development system. Although they have distinct natures, all of these new themes are directly related to institutional, political, cultural and social aspects of development. They all tend to point towards the diversity and the particularity of the local contexts. They all recognize the evidence that each context has its own needs and demands and therefore, specific and different answers in terms of public policies and local development projects.
Such themes and projects from the renewed international agenda of the
1990s, while recognizing the limits of development already criticized in tha past by authors such as Ignacy Sachs and Amartya Sen, also tend to highlight the local as the major scale of analysis and intervention, and not the national one. These themes and projects tend to consider the local scale as separate and independent from the national one. They articulated the local and the global levels directly, irrespective of the mesoeconomic and mesopolitical levels. In this context, local development would be considered a panacea for which there would be no limits or constraints.
To understand local development from this above-explained perspective brings forth evident risks. The first one is the risk of localism, which imprisons actors, processes and dynamics exclusively within their locality, their closest geographical area, without making the necessary connections with other scales of power. The second risk is to think it is possible to have a local development that is autonomous
11 and separate from national and international development strategies. How can one conceive of local economic development strategies as though they had no interdependent relationships, for example, with scientific and technological national policies or with world trade negotiations? A third risk is the atomization of local development as the immediate result of the fragmentation of initiatives that are not necessarily coherent one with another.
There are, however, other more complex forms of conceiving local development. For instance, the analysis of local development can be strengthened with the expansion of economic globalization, since local development strategies could emphasize the relevance of diversity and contexts, and be a counterpart to the acceleration of uniformity and homogeneity. The local as a scale of analysis and intervention can be emancipatory; it can become a source of new utopias; it can be a lever for social transformations. In order for development to occur, Amartya Sen reminds us that it is fundamental to expand the ability for accomplishing activities that are freely chosen and valued by each development actor; therefore, development is not an automatic consequence of economic growth (Sen, 2000). Local development, thought of as a social transformation project, corresponds to the criteria stated by
Amartya Sen.
Therefore, local development can become a more dynamic analytical tool if and when it is related to inequality processes. It is necessary to understand that factors that generate inequality and exclusion cannot be exclusively deconstructed through a top-down approach (Silveira, 2001, p. 31). Therefore, thinking about local development implies surpassing the local that is limited by geographical spaces; it also implies saying no to the false antinomy between the micro and the macro levels.
The local is here composed of a territory (leading some authors to think more in
12 terms of territorial development) with its endogeny (local development makes local potential become effective and dynamic) and its particularity (local factors and resources). The local is, in this sense, socially and territorially constructed: it is defined by the permanence of a stable field of interaction among social, economic and political actors.
It is from this viewpoint on local development and from the perspective of political science that we analyze social capital. The theme of social capital is not new, but was taken up vigorously by the development agenda in the mid 1990’s, and appears frequently in article titles in periodicals and books, especially after 1999
(Sobel, 2002, p. 139). Favoring the cultural and political dimension of local development, the idea of social capital is of interest, in this article, principally due to the opportunity it opens for a complex analysis of the socio-political and institutional features of development.
II.b) A Brief Analysis of Some Studies on Social Capital
The discussions surrounding the attribution of authorship to the term “social capital” are sterile and academically uninteresting. We simply register that Lyda
Hanifan defined social capital in 1916 as a group of tangible elements that are most important in the daily lives of people, such as good will, camaraderie, empathy, and social relationships between individuals and their families 8. Hanifan’s work is based on the idea that social networks can be of economic value. Later, Jane Jacobs,
Glenn Loury, Pierre Bourdieu and Ekkehart Schlicht used the term and theorized about the notion of social capital (Meda, 2002). According to Robert Putnam, urban
8 HANIFAN, Lyda Johnson. (1916), The rural school community center. In Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, n°. 67, pp. 130-138.
13 planner Jane Jacobs 9 was the first social analyst to use the term “social capital” as we understand it today (Putnam, 1995).
The analyses conducted in the United States pioneer the attempt at understanding the relationships between the wealth of civil society and the building of democracy. Since the well-known studies of Alexis de Toqueville in the 19th century
(among which Democracy in America stands out), the majority of the analyses on the
North-American society itself highlight the impact of civic commitment and civil society organisations (associations, clubs, unions) in the construction of liberal democracy. From the combination of civic commitment, individual freedom and community liberties came social capital, the base of North American liberal democracy. Thus, the decrease in the degree of participation of North American citizens in associations, leisure clubs and religious groups would also explain disinterest in the representative democratic system.
On the Old Continent, political development and the history of relationships between the State and society result in fewer studies and in an acceptance of social capital as related to the individual and class benefits originating from personal relationships and socially shared values. Pierre Bourdieu, one of the great scholars to have extensively worked on the theme of social capital in France, remembers that social capital is one of those resources that can classify individuals and social groups, the others being economic, symbolic, historical and cultural capital. For
Bourdieu, social capital is the group of relationships and networks of mutual assistance that can be mobilized effectively to benefit the individual and his/her social class. Social capital belongs to the individual and to a group: it is both the stock and the base of an accumulation process that allows people who are initially well off and well situated to become even more successful in social competition. The idea of
9JACOBS, Jane. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Random House, p. 138. 14 social capital is rooted in resources stemming from participation in networks and relationships that are more or less institutionalized. However, Bourdieu considers social capital as almost belonging to the individual, given that it provides, above all, private and individual benefits (Bourdieu, 1980). In France, social capital of individuals could, in this sense, allow them access to information, professions, and favors, institutional benefits, regardless of the Republican norm of equality among citizens. Bourdieu developed the concept of social capital in terms of class strategy, power and domination. Social capital has, for him, an instrumental nature (the same as economic capital or cultural capital) that is used by rational actors seeking to maintain or reinforce their stature and power within society.
As can be seen in Table 1 below, the studies on social capital try to unite analytical categories originating from economics and other social sciences (above all political science, sociology and anthropology): stock, resources, cumulativeness, social networks, mutual trust, cohabitation, civic commitment, among others.
Putnam, for example, points out that in a community or a society blessed by significant stocks of social capital, social networks of civic commitment incite the general practice of reciprocity and facilitate the emergence of mutual trust (Putnam,
1995, p. 67). Furthermore, in the specific field of political science are the social capital studies on revalorization of the analyses surrounding political culture. On recognizing the relevance of political culture in democratic consolidation, they consider that the constitutional and institutional arrangements are not autonomous to the cultural standards of the community or the nation. Democracy is thus reconsidered as a process that surpassed legitimacy by legality (an expression coined by Max Weber). The maintenance and the strengthening of democracy are resultant not only from the structure of institutionality, but also the existence of
15 citizens informed and alert to what is happening in politics. Substantial democracy presupposes the combination of representative and participatory democracy; it is broader than mere procedural democracy. The news in political science studies on social capital is the fact that they are trying to integrate individual values to policy and to conceive the citizen as an active player. The great paradigms that serve as a base for these studies are participatory democracy (Pateman), deliberative democracy (Habermas) and radical democracy (Chantal Mouffe). Furthermore, the analyses of the integration process of citizens into participatory democracy and the relevance of social capital in politics are, as a rule, done inductively through case studies and empirical studies (Baquero, 2002).
In the field of economics and, more specifically, development economics, practically all the most recent research recognizes the relevance, to varying degrees, of institutional and social factors in economic development (Monastério, 2000). The powerful influence of Gary Beckers’ analyses (for whom social capital is any kind of social interaction with a continuous effect, different from individual atomized behavior and conducted outside the market – ie. an externality that corrects market imperfections) is part of the past: many economists give in to the obviousness of the capitalist market’s heteronomy in the production of social and economic development. Market does not generate, exclusively and by itself, development, quality of life, respect for human rights. This can be considered as a relative advance within the discipline of development economics.
Generally speaking, social capital studies within economics can be classified into four categories:
a) Quantitative Studies: these studies say that the number of not-for-profit
associations has an impact on social capital and economic development.
16 Examples include studies conducted based on the World Values Survey by
Ingelhart, research by Narayan on social capital and poverty in Tanzania (the
regions in which there was less poverty had higher levels of social capital –
measured by participation of individuals in social activities and by the trust
they had in institutions and in other individuals) as well as studies by Temple
in some sub-Saharan African countries demonstrating the combination of
density factors in social networks in which ethnic diversity, social mobility and
the extent of telephone services increase national economic growth rates. b) Comparative Studies: in addition to the classic studies of Putnam on the
north and south of Italy (1993) and the United States (1995, 1998), Portes
(1995) studies communities with Korean and Mexican groups in the USA and
concludes that the former have a more articulated social structure, which
influences the degree of development in their communities: the Koreans help
other recently arrived immigrants, grant them credit and insurance for opening
businesses, assist in the education of children, and facilitate access to English
classes. c) Qualitative Studies: Anderson (Unites States, 1995) studied the role of the
“old minds”, the elders in the Afro-American communities considered as
sources of social capital (wisdom and advice to youth). In the qualitative study
series, the work of David Robinson, in New Zealand, deserves special
attention. It highlights three key aspects of social capital: citizens with
knowledge and dynamism in public action (citizen-actors); a network of
volunteers, not-for-profit associations and organizations (agencies); forums for
public deliberation (opportunity). The citizen actors substantiate the active
citizenship; the agencies are the operators and mediators, as the opportunity
17 corresponds to the public space for discussion, negotiation and deliberation.
In Brazil, Marcello Baquero analyses the trust deposited by citizens in the
political party construction systems and in the electoral processes, in addition
to promoting a network of studies on political culture in Rio Grande do Sul. d) Evaluative Studies: these studies analyze forms through which the concept
of social capital can be used to help organize activities and processes, above
all in the field of local development. Authors such as Caio Marcio Silveira and
Augusto de Franco in Brazil demonstrate the need to encourage social capital
through participative and community management mechanisms. Augusto de
Franco, for example, defines social capital as a group of resources associated
to the existence of networks connecting people and groups that promote
partnership – for example, mutual recognition, trust, reciprocity, solidarity and
cooperation – and empowerment – or rather, democratization of power that is
effectuated with an increase in possibility and ability of the population to
influence public decisions (De Franco, 2001, p. 153). Social capital can thus
be measured based on the percentage of people who participate in civil
society organizations, public policy councils and development forums.
18 Table 1: Synthesis of Social Capital Definitions
Author Definition Variable Emphasis Benefits Pierre Set of real or potential resources resulting from The durability and the size Starts from the principle that capital and its Individual benefits, Bourdieu belonging, for an extended period and of the network of diverse expressions (economic, historical, and also benefits to institutionally, to networks of mutual relationships. The symbolic, cultural, social) can be projected social class to which acquaintance or recognition relationships. connections that the onto different aspects of capitalist society and the benefited network can effectively other forms of production, as long as they are individuals belong. mobilize. considered socially and historically limited to the circumstances that produced them. James Social capital is defined by its function. It is not Family support systems. Following the rational choice theory (and its Benefits result from Coleman a single entity but rather a variety of entities with School systems (catholic) in application in sociology), Coleman believed the empathy of a two common characteristics: they are a form of the social capital of the that social exchanges were the sum of person or social social structure, and they facilitate the actions of USA. Vertical and individual actions. group, and the sense those individuals who are members of this horizontal organizations. of obligation in social structure. relation to other people or social groups. Robert Social capital refers to aspects of social Intensity of social life In Putnam’s vision, the political dimension is Both individual and Putnam organizations, such as networks, norms and (horizontal associations), superimposed on the economic dimension: collective benefits. trust, which facilitate coordination and number of citizens who civic traditions allow us to preview the degree cooperation for mutual benefit. read the press, number of of development, and not the contrary. The voters, members in choirs civic community conditions the “institutional and soccer clubs, performance”. confidence in public institutions, relevance of the philantropic activities. Mark The economic actions of agents are inserted Duration of relationships Granovetter criticizes the two visions of Social capital is a Granovetter into social networks (social embeddedness). (considered as positive and economic behavior: the neoclassic vision, public asset and a Social networks are potential creators of social symmetrical). Intimacy. that he qualifies as under-socialized, given private asset at the capital, able to contribute to the reduction of Emotional intensity. that it perceives only the individuals as same time. opportunistic behavior and in the promotion of Quantity and quality of atomized and disconnected from social mutual trust between the economic agents. reciprocal services relationships; and the structuralist, Marxist provided. vision, that he qualifies as over-socialized, since individuals are considered as totally dependent on their social groups and the social system to which they belong.
19
John Durston Social capital corresponds to the content of Trust. Reciprocity. Social capital is to behavior and strategies as From individual to certain social relationships – those that combine Cooperation. cultural capital is to abstract values, tenets, social (in accordance trust attitudes with reciprocity and cooperation – norms and visions of the world. Typology of with the type of social which allows greater benefits to those who have social capital: individual (relations among capital). them. people in ego-centered networks), group (extension of ego-centered networks), communitarian (collective character, being a member is a right), bridge (symmetrical access to distant people and institutions), latter (asymmetrical relationships in democratic contexts, empower and produce synergies) and of society as a whole. David Social capital refers to a group of resources Trust relationships. Social capital is cumulative and can increase Common benefits Robinson accessible to individuals or groups while Interactions opportunities according to: legal environment, commitment (that satisfy the belonging to a network of mutual acquaintance. and meeting places. terms (according to the values that dominate individual and the This network is a social structure and has Reciprocal obligations. the social system), commitment rules (forms collective at the same aspects (relationships, norms and trust) that Access to knowledge. assumed by the social relationships and time, via negotiation). help develop the coordination and cooperation transparency of information), interaction that produce common benefits. processes (deliberation). Source: author’s elaboration.
20 This brief revision of some of the literature on social capital allows us to emit five commentaries of a preliminary nature. Firstly, it is evident that there is no consensus as to the concept of social capital. Its definition continues to be an area for disputes, above all, because it tries at the same time to compatibilize the processual logic of the social relationships with the field of public development policies: social capital is a source of resources; it is also a group of norms, institutions and organizations; it is moreover a form of reconceptualization of the role that norms and values play in economic life (Molyneux, 2002).
Furthermore, very often the definitions of social capital are tautological and circular: social capital can be understood within a relationship of cause and effect, the factors associated to it having, therefore, economic and social effects; these, in turn, influence the creation of social capital (interdependently). The conceptual uproar that results from what is said above can, on the one hand, serve different agendas and interests, without providing great services to the critical comprehension of reality. On the other hand, it is true that from the polysemic fluidity of the concept, the opportunity may emerge to reopen the debate on old themes associated to the tensions between “capital” and “social”, between the “individual” and the “collective”, the “private” and the “public” in the comprehension of the social dimensions of development: one of the dangers, as Ben Fine remembers, is the reduction of social theory to the theory of social capital (Fine, 2001, p. 175 and ss).
Secondly, regardless of the above mentioned disputes, there seems to be a consensus among the authors as to the importance of the context in the definition of the variables and factors of social capital: it is recognized that social capital cannot be isolated from its context and thus artificially constructed. The possible strength of the notion of social capital is in the fact that it stems from and, at the same time, has an impact on a series of contextualized human behaviors and social activities.
Social capital is rooted in context-based social relationships. As David Robinson puts it, social capital is a set of resources to which an individual or a group has access when he/she or the group belongs to an exchange network with mutually advantageous relationships (Robinson, 2002,p.3). Aspects of this social structure, such as relationships,
21 norms and social trust, can help develop coordination of activities and cooperation in mutually beneficial projects. Resources, here, refer to factors such as statute, attention and knowledge, as well as opportunities for participation and communication. Therefore, they do not refer to the connections that only give access to physical resources or disseminate information. Social capital refers to the abilities and skills of citizens to connect
(connectedness): relationship networks produce the flow and exchange of information, and create spaces in which communication can take place. This creation of communication spheres is a key function for social systems that are rich in social capital, since these spheres open access to information and allow opinions and knowledge to be shared. The feeling of belonging to the group (group identity) is fundamental in the definition of social capital: it allows us to move from an identity based on knowledge (Cogito ergo sum) to one based on a feeling of belonging (Cognatos ergo sum). Nevertheless, recognizing the importance of the context does not imply adopting an ethnocentric vision of social capital, as presented in the developmentalist concept of civic culture set up by Gabriel Almond and
Sydney Verba11.
Thirdly, social capital is a very particular category of capital. The term “capital” refers, in general, to wealth, a fund or a stock (of land, real estate, articles) that contributes toward production and which can provide income. The physical capital of economic theory is a stock of assets, as human capital is a stock of skills, qualities and aptitudes. Social capital would therefore be a stock of relationships and values. It would be collective (for many participants) and shared by society. An increase of social capital would depend on the depth, multiplication, intensity, renovation and creation of these relationships and their networks.
On recognizing the particularity of social capital, is it possible to conceptualize it from the perspective of the common good? Is it possible to abandon the idea of simply aggregating individual preferences and no longer consider social capital as a result of the density of social networks formed by the members of a given society? In other words, why
11 See ALMOND, G. and VERBA, S. (orgs.). (1980), The Civic Culture Revisited. Boston: Little Brown.
22 not develop a patrimonial perspective towards social capital, which would imply considering it as a global state of a society (how much a society can offer its members, the degree of freedom of its members, the state of inequalities, the global stock in education, cultural and artistic productions, ecologic capital)? Dominique Meda, in raising such questions, challenges us to surpass the definition of social capital as a quality of social networks and relationships between individuals, considering society, the nation, the country as a whole, as a collective that also has its own asset. Social capital would thus correspond to what Meda calls “the social state of the nation” (état social de la nation). Society would have a certain number of assets, capital and resources; their improvement, accumulation and quality (or, a contrario, reduction and degradation) could be measured (Meda, 2002).
Another aspect of the particularity of social capital is regarding its cumulativeness.
Using social capital tends to increase stock through actions that encourage creation and reproduction (networks, communication, support and cooperation). It is reduced, however, when there are attitudes and behaviors related to intolerance, discrimination and disrespect of human rights, as well as restrictions on freedom of expression and political organization, the reduction of public spaces for democratic deliberation and the lack of recognition of the rights of minority or excluded groups.
Fourthly, social capital can be understood as a property of society (civicness, for
Molyneux), property of a community or a resource operationalized by individuals in order to maximize their abilities and to accomplish their objectives. It can be a property of society as a whole because, besides being a central factor in the development equation and a fundamental element for the economy, its value surpasses its economic utility. It stresses the importance of non-economic aspects of social life, such as the capital of trust and acquaintanceship, the collective ability of living and acting together in an efficient manner.
Fifthly, the relevance of the concept of social capital can be affected by the idea of connecting it necessarily and exclusively to a positive effect. Politicians can often be interested in magic formulas for “creating and strengthening social capital”. Our epistemological concern is more in the sense of discovering it, developing this thin layer that
23 encompasses it and prevents it from becoming untangled. Instead of asking the question:
“How can we construct social capital in our societies?”, we suggest another question: “How can people belonging to a given community (re)activate and use their social capital?”.
II.c) The Interests of International Organizations
It is true that, in the field of local development, social capital and one of the forms of making it operational – participation – are not novelties in developing countries, particularly in
Latin America. From the 1960s, the Catholic Church (with the Movements and the Ecclesial
Base Communities) and some leftist movements initiated the practice of participatory methods in Latin America. The same applies to some urban participatory management experiences, especially in Brazil. What appears to be new, however, is the importance that these practices have acquired on the international development agenda. Social capital and participation are no longer marginal themes in the field of development and they are of interest not only to the social sciences that traditionally analyzed local social phenomenon from the perspective of social groups and individuals (specifically sociology, anthropology and psychology).
There are many international institutions that develop programs on social capital.
Such programs tend to call attention especially to the institutional conditions of development.
Among the organizations, as shown in Table 2 below, are FAO (Food and Agriculture
Organization), the World Bank, ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America) and the
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). This interest can be analyzed from at least four perspectives.
24 Table 2: International Organizations and Social Capital
Organizations and Programs Definition of Social Capital Object and Method Publications and References World Bank: Social Capital Refers to institutions, Two main objects: the sources of social capital The WB site contains very valid Initiative (launched by the WB relationships and norms that (family, civil society, communities, ethnicity, references for the researcher Department of Social substantiate the quality and the public sector, gender) and the possible (www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital). Development in 1998) quantity of social interactions in a relationships between social capital and several The authors most often cited are Robert society. It is not only the sum of development issues (crime and violence, Putnam, Narayan and Portes. the institutions that constitute a economy, business and migration, education, society, rather it is the glue that environment, finances, health etc.). Measuring maintains them. social capital is essential for understanding the role of this «externality» in economic and social development. FAO: Institutional Refers to the set composed of Works via institutional development and The notion of «institution» is central in Development Program social cohesion, common participatory mechanisms: empowerment, FAO’s work. The main reference is (Department of Sustainable identification of governing norms, participation in decision-making processes and Douglas North. Development, 1998) cultural expression and social the encouragement of social networks, behaviour, which turn society into especially cooperatives in rural areas. Works something greater than the sum with project evaluation and project-cycle of its individuals. management methodologies. OECD: Center for Research Networks and norms, common The method used by the OECD is divided into Initial publication The Well-Being of the in Education and Innovation values and beliefs that facilitate seminars with public decision-makers, and Nations: The Role of Human and Social (International Conference on cooperation within and among projects for measuring social capital. The Capital, in which Coleman, Putnam and Social Capital Indicators, social groups. comparability of the measurement instruments Fukuyama are the principal references. organized in 2002) is an important concern for the OECD. ECLAC: Social Development The effective ability that some Its main focus is in social capital relationships Publication: Capital social y reducción de Division individuals have in order to with urban poverty, public policies, gender and la pobreza en América Latina y el mobilize, in support of a social rural sustainability. Caribe: en busca de un nuevo group, those associative paradigma (2003). John Durston and resources found in social Lindon Robinson are important networks to which they can have references. access.
25 Firstly, international organizations have acknowledged the limits of neoclassic economics in trying to explain development and its driving forces 10. The limitations of the neoclassical approach had already been analyzed and criticized within and outside economics, for example, regarding the flaws and asymmetries in terms of accessible information in the market (Joseph Stiglitz), the role of institutions in economic development
(Albert Hirschman, Douglas North), the existence of objective and subjective elements that explain the behavior of individuals (Luckman and Garfinkel, who discuss the role of the representations, mental schemes, knowledge and beliefs in the definition of the interests of individuals), or the notion of habitus , as a category that questions structural conditions – economic and cultural determinisms – in light of possible actions of individuals (Bourdieu).
Of course some authors more than others will have decisive influence in the agenda of
International Organizations (IO’s).
Secondly, IO’s benefit from the fact that the social sciences have definitively revolted against the colonization and the empire of economics in the field of development: mathematical formalism and statistical inventiveness are currently put to the test by social sciences. Methodological individualism and utilitarian maximization are equally questioned. It is interesting to perceive that the main contributions produced by the IO’s on social capital do not come from economics, but from other social sciences – which always have, however, economics as its alter ego, whether in method, or in its defense of the hypothesis that non-economic factors produce development and reduce inequalities.
Thirdly, from the political and ideological point of view, from the crisis of neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus, came the “rediscovery” by international financial institutions of the role of State and the social dimension of development (the
10 Based on the rational choice theory (according to which men act as utility-maximizers and according to transparent and accessible information), neoclassic economics has always defended the imperative of molding the world according to an imagined ideal of perfect and universal markets. Neoclassic economics has developed its body of theory giving answers to two basic questions: Why are market flaws so important? Why would state intervention improve the situation given the quality of services provided by the State?
26 World Bank more than the IMF). In the “new” Post-Washington Consensus , the social dimension would be more relevant in development and the State would have its regulating function more universally recognized. Some authors say that the change would be more in the scope of discourse and declarations than in effective practice. It would affect the level of direction of the organizations more than their civil servants, who would absorb such attempts for change less quickly. In any case, it is important to understand whether or not the fac t that IO’s take into account social capital and its correlated themes
(participation, decentralization, local governance) in their communication strategy has any impact in the qualitative transformation of their work programs and methods (for example, as regards the definition of funding priorities or the conception of new project evaluation methods).
Fourthly, the interest of IO’s in social capital reflects the relative success that non- economic development indicators (for example, the HDI of UNDP) obtained in developing countries: the recognition of the relevance of social capital for development is immediately followed by a need to measure it quantitatively and qualitatively. As remarked in a report by the OECD published after a conference organized in 2002 about social capital indicators, the methodological challenge is enormous, both in measuring properties of unstable, variable, ambiguous and polysemic concepts, such as a community, trust, network, organization, and in considering the multidimensionality and the contextual variability of social capital. The competition of IO’s for social capital indicators is equally exacerbated due to the tendencies for budget reductions and the growing need for justification and evaluation of every dollar invested in international cooperation.
It is true that IO’s work on social capital mainly from its instrumental perspective: how does social capital allow us to understand that a given community has better rates of development than others? Furthermore, in some cases (especially the case of the World
Bank and the OECD), there is an interest in finding out how social capital can allow the
27 reduction of market imperfections. However, their work does not make it clear whether or not social capital can have a good side and a bad side for the market, or how social capital can be a service to the market, or a disservice: for example, if the business people or public agents of a given ethnic group favor business or interaction with individuals of the same group, this interaction helps the market because it produces growth and so, is it a good source of social capital? Or could this be classified as nepotism? The work of the
IO’s has not yet answered such a question, which in our opinion, is associated to the ambiguities produced by comfortable causalities established between social capital and local development.
CONCLUSION
In the scope of the research project on local development practices in Bahia, our main objective is to seek socio-political and economic meanings and expressions for a critical and analytical definition of social capital. In our preliminary definition, we conceptualize social capital as the sum of resources included in the forms of political and cultural organization of a population’s social life. Social capital is a collective good that guarantees respect for mutual trust norms and civic commitment. It depends directly on horizontal associations between people (ie. associative networks, social networks), on vertical networks between people and organizations (ie. networks among people who do not belong to the same social classes, religion or ethnic group), on the social and political environment of a given social structure (ie. an environment rooted in the respect for civil and political freedom, the rule of the law, public commitment, appropriate recognition of the role and position of others in deliberations and negotiations, permission that people give themselves to have the right or duty to participate in collective processes, as well as norms of commitments assumed between the private and the public) and, finally, on the construction process and legitimacy of social knowledge (ie. the way how atomized
28 information or practices referring to only some groups are transformed into socially shared and accepted knowledge).
In defining social capital as above, we should specify that the tension between the
“social” and the “capital” is evidently complex and dialectic. The “social” refers to
“association”, “partner”, whereas the “capital” belongs to a collectivity or to a community.
Social capital is shared and does not belong to individuals; it is not spent with use - on the contrary, use of social capital makes it grow. In this sense, the notion of social capital that we uphold indicates that the resources are shared at the level of a group or a society, going beyond the levels of the individual or the family. This means that those sharing a given resource of social capital are not necessarily related as friends or members of a larger family; it means that social capital exists and grows based on relationships of trust and cooperation, and not on relationships rooted in antagonism. In addition, social capital is “capital” because – to use the language of the economists – it can be accumulated, be used or maintained for future use, and yield benefits; it has stocks and a series of values.
However, it is not about a commodity or a simple exchange good that can be quantifiable irrespective of contexts and practices of local development.
Bibliographical References
ABRAMOVAY, Ricardo. (2000), “O capital social dos territórios: repensando o desenvolvimento territorial”. In Economia Aplicada, volume 4, número 2, abril/junho. ATRIA, Raúl. (2003), Capital social: concepto, dimensiones y estrategias para su desarrollo. In ATRIA, Raúl et alii. Capital social y reducción de la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe : en busca de un nuevo paradigma. CEPAL, Michigan State University, pp. 581-590. BAQUERO, Marcello. (2002), « Democracia, cultura e comportamento político: um análise da situação brasileira ». In PERISSINOTTO, Renato e FUKS, Mario (orgs.), Democracia, Teoria e Prática. Rio de Janeiro: Relume Dumará, Curitiba: Fundação Araucária, pp. 105-138. BARTOLI, Henri. (1999), Repenser le Développement, En Finir avec la Pauvreté. Paris, UNESCO/MOST/Economica, 205 p. BOURDIEU, Pierre. (1980), “Le capital social: notes provisoires”. In Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, volume 31, pp. 2-3.
29 COLEMAN, James. (1990), Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetz, Harvard University Press. DURSTON, John. (2003), Capital social: parte del problema, parte de la solución, su papel en la persitencia y en la superación de la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe. In ATRIA, Raúl et alii. Capital social y reducción de la pobreza en América Latina y el Caribe : en busca de un nuevo paradigma . CEPAL, Michigan State University, pp. 147- 202. DE FRANCO, Augusto. (2001), “O conceito de capital social e a procura de um índice sistêmico de desenvolvimento local integrado e sustentável”. In SILVEIRA, Caio Márcio e DA COSTA REIS, Liliane (orgs.). Desenvolvimento Local, Dinâmicas e Estratégias. Rede DLIS/RITS, pp. 153-162. FINE, Ben. (2001), Social Capital versus Social Theory, Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millenium. Londres: Routledge, 293 p. FISCHER, Fernando; NASCIMENTO, Antônio. (2002), Projeto Rede Pintadas. Escola de Administração da Universidade Federal da Bahia, mimeo. FREITAS, Mirian Tereza. (1999), Pintadas: Gestão Social em um Modelo Democrático-Participativo. Salvador, Trabalho da Disciplina Política e Gestão Social do NPGA/EAUFBA, mimeo. GRANOVETTER, Mark. (1973), The Strength of Weak Ties. In American Journal of Sociology, volume 78, número 6, pp. 1360-1380. ______. (1984), Economic Action and Social Strcuture: The Problem of Embeddedness. In American Journal of Sociology, volume 91, número 2, pp. 481-510. HERMET, Guy. (2001), Capital social et développement. UNESCO/Paris: Colóquio “Lutte contre la pauvreté urbaine: quelles politiques?”, dezembro, mimeo. JOHNSON, C. (1996), Institutions, Social Capital and the Pursuit of Sustainable Livelihoods. Working Paper, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex University. LEMANN, Nicholas. (1996), “Kicking in Groups”. In The Atlantic Monthly, abril, volume 277, nº. 4, pp. 22-26. MARTINHO, Cássio. (2001), “Algumas Palavras sobre Rede”. In SILVEIRA, Caio Márcio e DA COSTA REIS, Liliane (orgs.). Desenvolvimento Local, Dinâmicas e Estratégias. Rede DLIS/RITS, pp. 24-30. MEDA, Dominique. (2002), “Le capital social: un point de vue critique”. In L’Economie Politique, Paris, n°. 14, abril, pp. 36-45. MOLYNEUX, Maxine. (2002), “Gender and the Silences of Social Capital: Lessons from Latin America”. In Development and Change, 33 (2), pp. 167-188. MONASTÉRIO, Leonardo Monteiro. (2000), Capital Social e Crescimento Econômico: Mecanismos. Trabalho apresentado no VI Encontro Regional de Economia BNB/ANPEC, Fortaleza, Revista Econômica do Nordeste, vol. 31, N°. especial, pp. 866- 880. Available at http://www.leonardomonasterio.hpg.ig.com.br/index.htm MOURA, Maria Suzana et al. (2001), Gestão do desenvolvimento local, tempos e ritmos de construção: o que sinalizam as práticas. Salvador, Escola de Administração da Universidade Federal da Bahia, mimeo. PERROUX, François. (1961), L’Economie au XXe siècle. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. PUTNAM, Robert. (1995), « Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital ». In Journal of Democracy, janeiro, volume 6, n° 1, pp. 65-78. RATTNER, Henrique. (2002), Prioridade: construir o capital social. Available at www.abdl.org.br/rattner RIST, Gilbert. (1996), Le développement, histoire d’une croyance occidentale. Paris, Presses de Sciences Po, 426 p.
30 ROBINSON, David (org.). (2002), Building Social Capital. Wellington (Nova Zelândia): Institute of Policy Studies, Voctoria University of Wellington, 85 p. SACHS, Ignacy. (1993), L’Ecodéveloppement, Stratégies de Transition vers le XXIe siècle. Paris, Syros, 120 p. SEN, Amartya. (2000), Un nouveau modèle économique, développement, justice, liberté . Paris, Editions Odile Jacob, 356 p. SILVEIRA, Caio Márcio e DA COSTA REIS, Liliane (orgs.). (2001), Desenvolvimento Local, Dinâmicas e Estratégias. Rede DLIS/RITS, 164 p. SIRVEN, Nicolas. (2001), Capital Social et Développement: Quelques Eléments d’Analyse . Bordeaux, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV, Centre d’Economie du Développement, Documento de discussão n° 57. WOOLCOCK, Michael. (1998), “Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework”. In Theory and Society, 27 (2), pp. 151- 208.
31