Social Capital: a Fad Or a Fundamental Concept?*

Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept?* Elinor Ostrom Centerforthe Study of Institutions,Population, and EnvironmentalChange Workshopin PoliticalTheory and PolicyAnalysis Indiana University Socialcapital is an essentialcomplement to the conceptsof natural, physical and human capitaland can be usedfor beneficialor harmful ends-or simply beallowed to dissipate.While allforms of capitalare essentialfor development, none of them are sufficient in and of themselves.In this paper,Ifocus first on the conceptof human-madecapital and examinesome of the essentialsimilari- ties betweenphysical, human, and social capital.In the secondsection, four differencesbetween physical and socialcapital will be examined,including: (a) social capitaldoes not wear out with use, but rather with disuse; (b) social capitalis not easy to observeand measure;(c) socialcapital is hard to construct through externalinterventions; and (d) national and regionalgovernmental institutions stronglyaffect the level and type of socialcapital available to individuals to pursue long-termdevelopment efforts. The third sectionwill discuss the problemof creatingsocial capital and present a game-theoreticanalysis of how a group offarmers createsrules to allocatethe benefitsand costs of building and operatingtheir own irrigationsystem. Empiricalevidence derivedfrom a study of 150 irrigationsystems in Nepal supports the conclusionsof this analysis.The last sectionis devotedto the policy significanceof the theoretical and empiricalfindingspresented in this paper. Years of development policies encouraged by donor agencies focusing on building infrastructure as the key to economic growth have made many individuals and government officials rich. Only the crumbling remains of poorly maintained roads, irrigation systems, and public facilities, however, are left today in many countries for all the billions in- vested. There is a serious need to rethink the overemphasis on physical The author appreciates the continued support of the Ford Foundation and the Bradley Foundation and the outstanding editing of Patty Dalecki. 172 Ostrom 173 capital alone. The recent groundswell of attention in development lit- erature to social capital is thus a refreshing and needed change (Harriss 1997;Fountain 1997;Levi 1996;Newton 1996;Narayan 1998;Putzel 1997; Sabetti 1996;World Bank 1997). As is to be expected with any effort to introduce a new concept into policy discourse, some authors have exaggerated claims for the univer- sal efficacy of social capital. However, some criticisms have blanketed carefully conducted analyses along with those that were rightfully in need of critical review. In other words, there has been a lot of serious work and some hoopla focusing on social capital. Some commentators think that social capital is just another fad. This is unfortunate. But, we must address the question of whether the concept will become a core foundation for our understanding of how individuals achieve coordi- nation and overcome collective-action problems to reach higher levels of economic performance. Or, will this currently fashionable concept soon be retired to the dust heap of previous panaceas? It is important that social capital be taken seriously and not allowed to be carried off as a fad. Social capital is an essential complement to the concepts of natural, physical, and human capital. Just as we have come to recognize that building roads and irrigation projects or providing edu- cation and training are not sufficient by themselves to enhance the economic and political growth of developing societies, social capital alone is not sufficient for development. Social capital can be used for benefi- cial or harmful ends or simply allowed to dissipate. While all forms of capital are essential for development, none of them are sufficient in and of themselves. Social capital shares some fundamental attributes with other forms of capital while it presents some attributes that differ. We need a much better understanding of how social capital is constituted and transformed over time. In this paper, I will focus first on the concept of human-made capital and examine some of the essential similarities between physical, human, and social capital. The fourth type of capital-natural capital- encompasses the rich array of biophysical resource systems that are the ultimate source and storehouse of all human productivity (jansson and others 1994).The problem of sustainable use of natural capital is itself a vitally important and immensely difficult topic that cannot be addressed in the confines of this paper. In the second section, four differences between physical and social capital will be examined: (a) social capital does not wear out with use, but rather with disuse; (b) social capital is not easy to observe and measure; (c) social capital is hard to construct through external interventions; and (d) national and regional govern- mental institutions strongly affect the level and type of social capital available to individuals to pursue long-term development efforts. The third section will discuss the problem of creating social capital-par- ticularly self-organized resource governance systems. As an illustration 174 Institutional Analysis of these processes, I will present a game-theoretic analysis of how a group of farmers creates rules to allocate the benefits and costs of building and operating their own irrigation system. I will also present empirical evi- dence derived from a study of 150 irrigation systems in Nepal and from in-depth case studies of efforts to improve the physical capital of irrigation systems without paying attention to the social capital of these systems. In the last section I will discuss the policy significance of the theoretical and empirical findings presented in this paper. The concept of human-made capital All forms of human-made capital are created by spending time and effort in transformation and transaction activities in order to build tools or assets today that increase income in the future.' "People form capital when they withhold resources from present consumption and use them instead to augment future consumption [or production] possibilities" (Bates 1990, p. 153). Investments in physical capital are usually a self- conscious decision, while human and social capital may be developed as a by-product of other activities as well as purposely. The essential role of capital is everywhere acknowledged, but not always well under- stood. Unfortunately, capital is sometimes equated with money. Money is not capital, but rather the means by which some forms of physical, human, and social capital may be obtained. Money, like many resources, can alternatively be used for consumption or sit unused as a store of value. Many types of capital can be created without money, or with very little of it, based on the time and energy spent by individuals in building tools and facilities, learning skills, and establishing regularized pat- terns of relationships with others. All human-made capital involves creating new opportunities as well as exercising restraints, a risk that the investment might fail, and the possibility of using capital to produce harms rather than benefits. Physical capital Physical capital is the stock of human-made, material resources that can be used to produce a flow of future income (Lachmann 1978).2 Physical capital exists in a wide variety of forms including buildings, roads, wa- terworks, tools, cattle and other animals, automobiles, trucks, and trac- tors-to name just a few. The origin of physical capital is the process of spending time and other resources constructing tools, plants, facilities, and other material resources that can, in turn, be used in producing other products or future income. 3 The construction of physical capital involves establishing physical restraints that (a) create the possibilities for some events to occur that would not otherwise occur (for example, channeling water from a dis- Ostrom 175 tant source to a farmer's field), and (b) constrain physical events to a more restricted domain (for example, water is held within a channel rather than allowed to spread out). Thus, physical capital opens up some possibilities while constraining others. The intention to construct useful physical capital is not always fulfilled. An investment in physical capital may not generate the improved flow of future services. A new but crumbling roadway or irrigation system, or an empty building, repre- sents a failed investment decision. Physical capital may have a dark side and generate more harms than benefits. Investing in a weapons facility increases the quantity of physical capital existing at a particular point in time, but the product of this form of physical capital is the threat of human destruction. Even investments in the production of consumer goods can produce substantial externalities. A nuclear power plant that leaks radioactive materials, for example, is constructed in order to increase the availability of power for positive purposes but may produce more negative externalities than the net benefits generated. Physical capital cannot operate over time without human capital in the form of the knowledge and skills needed to use and maintain physical assets to produce new products and generate income. If physical capital is to be used productively by more than one individual, social capital is also needed. Human capital Human capital is the acquired knowledge and skills that an individual brings to an

Load more