Thank you, Jean-Pierre.
A short break.

Marco Santori, Banca Etica, Italy:
I would like to know if indicators capable of measuring social capital have been identified.

(Renée Do the work for us!)

"No!You are not the only people looking for indicators. There are reports issued by the OECD, the WB, the UNDP; all these institutions now have a battery of more or less acceptable indicators. You are probably familiar with Viveret's work on new means of measuring wealth. Just so that we can consider, among all the different indicators of wealth, the non-monetary production of social wealth. In fact, we are in the same field. Reference has indeed been made to Canadian, Australian and Italian work concerning the Banca Etica. The problem lies in the fact that all measuring criteria are, by definition, quantitative; it is only an indicator that allows us to imagine something. That something, the qualitative field, is true wealth. The problem lies in the distortion between the quantitative and measurable indicator and this essentially fluid matter: trust. The fact that when I look someone in the eye and see that he/she understands me and agrees or disagrees with me this is the essential factor in the social capital that we are now creating."

Riza Primahendra, Bina Swadaya, Indonesia

Initially, social capital was used by people to defend themselves in their relationship with nature. We are aware that people needed their communities to survive. However, in modern societies we can see that social capital is used in a different sense. Nowadays, leaders can replace bureaucracy in the name of social capital and there are even examples in which leaders fail to comply with their responsibilities in the name of social capital. When something is not the State's responsibility, social capital is responsible. Another example is that, in multilateral organisations such as the World Bank, social capital is used much too often instead of financial capital; WB agents attempt to reduce the cost of their projects in developing countries. "You have to contribute to the project and we do not have to provide you with funds. We will only pay a consultant. We will not pay for the project, that is up to you." This is a major change: we have gone from a social capital which was used by people to a social capital which has become a tool with which to reach other objectives. 

I would like to hear your opinion on this. Thank you.

"This is a basic question and we can enlarge the concept of social capital to include the demands placed increasingly on civil society, in relation to organised public societies, public administration of the economic society of financial institutions. What you say is totally true. Both for public bodies and for banks, when something is too expensive, or when they don't know what to do and wish to get rid of a responsibility, they usually end up saying "in the name of respect for people, we give you the responsibility of solving the problem of solidarity with the elderly, the problem of health...". This perversion evidently exists and can be seen all over the world. Having said this, I believe that there is another way of approaching the problem between the social capital mobilised in civil society and the social capital mobilised within institutions. The way that these institutions work is not exempt from social capital. Let's consider an administration, for instance. If we observe the relationship between civil servants and their bosses, the relationships within the public authorities are relations based on distrust, where only the rules are of any importance. Nothing works as it should. We are know experiencing an absurd situation related to air traffic control in French airports: a work-to-rule. A work-to-rule means that the workers say that they are going to do exactly what the rules tell them to do. They do everything they are supposed to do, and nothing that they are not supposed to do, according to the rule book. In all institutions, whether public, private or business-related, if this is done "on purpose, blindly, like robots", everything comes to a halt. Everything. What does this mean? For a public or private institution to work properly, everyone involved has to do their bit. This famous human capital and this famous social capital, as we have defined them, are necessary ingredients for the correct functioning of public institutions, businesses or banks. How can we connect internal social capital with external social capital? Increasingly, as the functioning of institutions, public bodies and banks has to adapt as much as possible to the actual situation, and to social and civic requirements, in order to work properly and be productive according to their own production standards, they will also need to connect to the networks of society which are generating social capital. The true problem lies in the connection between the social capital of institutions and government, and the social capital of civil society. It could also be the case that these two types of social capital fight against each other, in which case there would be, to analyse the situation from a neutral perspective, major dysfunctional risks. On the one hand we have civil society firmly entrenched in its ghetto and on the other, institutions which do not involve society. Our democratic functioning, in many cases, especially in France and Italy, evidently faces this type of problem of disassociation between the regulations applicable to society and to institutions. The lack of connection between the two gives rise to a political crisis, a serious democratic crisis. 
This is occasionally positive, when it leads to widespread changes. But we are not in this situation.

I don't know if I am answering your question. There is a risk of perversion: when the public authorities, banks or economic leaders do not accept responsibility in a certain area, usually an area which does not generate much money or political benefits. And they say "It's up to you!". As for the immigrants arriving in our European societies, it's up to civil society; we are closing the borders. There are a series of mechanisms of this kind which are highly perverse. But is also surprising that public policies are policies that are now calling for action from private or social partners, and they are no more than empty words ("mumbo jumbo"). Indeed, civil society is needed to triumph. I believe that civil society is now in a potentially strong position. "If you need me, I can bargain with you." Perhaps we can establish a new deal.

I'm sorry for such a long response, but this is the focal point of an important issue."

Roshaneh Zafar, Kashf Foundation, Pakistan
(she speaks very fast, in a low voice and at a distance from the microphone. I am sorry)

"Once again, there are no measurements other than the minutes. Let's consider two examples: private companies and the public authorities. 
For a long time, companies have been based on the concept of vertical integration in order to retain control over the entire production, distribution and communication chain. The idea was for the entire chain to remain within the same control system. Progressively and empirically, they started to realise than it was much better to outsource a series of factors to more or less independent economic units with which they entered into contracts, but which they did not control. This outsourcing and contract-based system in the economic field shows that the mechanism based on social capital type links is more effective than hierarchies and hierarchical subordination. 
For public groups, its is the decentralisation and independent movements applied to decentralised units. France has lived for centuries with a highly centralised system, with highly bureaucratic hierarchical relations. Progressively, with a large number of problems due to blockages, we are realising that the bureaucratic costs are enormous, that the processes are too slow and that institutions are not responding adequately to society's needs. Therefore, we are looking for more decentralised and diversified system to administer common public utility functions.

The English did the same with devolution. Countries which had based their national identity on unified and heavily homogenous systems are increasingly seeking democratic efficacy in diversification, since national unit is not weakened, but strengthened when we all build together.

The two aspects of social capital are:
-	There is a social capital of cohesion, which always tends towards the centre. It is the sect phenomenon; the juxtaposition of sects or corporate interests does not give rise to a capacity for external cooperation, but a strong capacity for internal cooperation. 
-	There is another kind of social capital. It is what Anglo-Saxons call bridging social capital, a social capital which allows us to build bridges and which is created with and enriched by relations outside the community. 
This is an important consideration, because folding communities, communities which fold in on themselves, which reinforce the links and the feeling of belonging which is so strong in the community, can be factors isolating the community from its surroundings, preventing it from developing and sharing with others from outside the community. 

This is the problem of decentralisation and reinforcing national unity, of the construction of continental spaces (EU, USA, etc.). In all the continents, consideration is being given to the construction of continental solidarity without at the same time impoverishing national solidarity. How do we build and reinforce national solidarity without impoverishing local solidarity? This connection between self-centred social capital and social capital looking outwards is still a problem on which we have to work (there is no magical formula to solve it), both in the intellectual field and in militant practice."

Ben Quinones, APDC, Indonesia

You define social capital as the capacity to cooperate. But we can image that some have more capacities than others. Could you tell us if there is a good social capital and a bad social capital? 
Let me give you two examples. I believe they are relevant to our discussion. 
An individual with many skills goes to a village, speaks to the people and convinces them. He says "This is our objective" and they, since they have less skills, merely say "yes, yes"... Is this good or bad? 
The second situation is a group of individuals with similar skills who say "Let's cooperate! It is our common objective". Would you say that the first case is an example of bad social capital and the second an example of good social capital? 

"We are facing the definition of social capital which does not coincide with my definition, as I explained earlier. It is a Bourdieu type definition. What Bourdieu says is the following: some people have relational, intellectual and conceptual skills that allow then to dominate others socially.
Social capital as I attempt to define it is a characteristic of society, a system, a social structure which allows all the members to cooperate. In the first case, there is no cooperation, but subordination. For me, this is bad social capital; but it is not really social capital at all. 
Let's not discuss the terms. What were you asking precisely? To build social capital of cooperation, it is very important for training, experience and progressive discovery of each individual's potential that we do not use the strategies that the English call empowerment. We have no equivalent in French; it is a word referring to the construction of individual skills. It does not only consist of learning or knowledge, but also with the fact of feeling sufficiently satisfied with oneself to be able to speak to others from what one is. This construction or 'musculation' of the individual in his/her relationships with others is an essential condition for the construction of social capital. In the examples given on finance of solidarity systems, we can see than some of them have placed them in the centre of their systems, considering that all the agents on the terrain have to be equal and that they must be helped to be equal. They will then build something together that they can really share. And in other systems, it is said that they will be offered a good finance of solidarity system and they then realise that it does not work, that it is expensive and unproductive. This is because there are no individual contributions. We will name no names.
It is quite basic: it is not possible to think in terms of social capital without thinking about power. And you were right to point this out, since we need not only intellectual and affective sharing, but also a sharing of power which is not based on subordination."

Reynaldo Marconi, Finrural, Bolivia

We have started to consider the subject of social capital here in relation to the struggle against poverty. In this field, in recent years, there have been major evolution in how to measure poverty. Some years ago, we were thinking a great deal about satisfying basic necessities and human development. Something similar is happening today, when we talk about human capital or social capital. 
With regards to this evolution, I place great value on your presentation, Jean-Pierre, and I have two questions: 
There is a Spanish saying which goes "He who is not satisfied does not seek satisfaction". How true is it that this concept of social capital is merely transient? 
I like your definition of the common good, which has different meanings for French and English speakers. However, in a context of globalisation like the one we have today, how can we reconcile this concept of social capital? (tape change) 

"It is very confusing. The basic problem, as I see it, is that we are always starting with situations in which there are unequal cooperative skills. It is evident that, in a way, in many cases of extreme poverty, it is easier, more tempting and initially more productive to cease to seek cooperation aimed at generating common good, and to merely demand assistance and attempt to build a relation based on maximum force, but only on a conflictive basis. There are many development movements which leave us in constant doubt: if I agree to help to produce my means of survival, will I allow others to ignore the problem and worsen the imbalance of development? The powerful will take care of the powerful and the poor will be left to navigate their ocean of poverty. Two questions now arise: in a globalisation system, with a lack of equality, how can be build a common good that is not the common good of the powerful?

I don't have much of an answer for your question. It is eminently political. I firmly believe that it is the militant who speaks and that we have to act constantly in two fields: reinforcing the capacity for positive solidarity, building on the terrain, and taking the political battle to a higher level concerning the criteria, values and intellectual construction of the criteria of reference. What is being done today in the investigation of new development indicators may seem to be absurd intellectual exercises which have nothing to do with the problem itself, and that we need to create a common language allowing universal references on which to base the political struggle. We therefore have to work on two sides. To say that “we worry about ourselves and others should worry about themselves” is dramatic. To say that we are not going to take up positions in the battle of ideas, the world-wide political battle, and that we will not build for the community on the terrain, among ourselves, is weakening. We have to place both feet firmly on the ground...they're often on two different planets,... which could lead to a lack of balance".

Paul Kampakol, Forum of young entrepreneurs, Congo.
When you mentioned language, you referred to a concern of mine, since I am beginning to wonder whether, when we talk about social capital and social links, we are not talking about something that was once in fashion: culture. Because it is being said that social capital can exceed a certain terrain, that it can overcome its limits and be useful in other areas. Returning to culture, we have to consider the elements that form a certain culture. From the beginning, I see these elements appear:
-	Values
-	A sense of belonging
-	Common knowledge
-	Language, as we have just mentioned
-	Each individual's role in society
There is also the tension between each individual's medium and his/her interests. Culture can be separated from a certain medium, when we are talking about interests.
We don't have to talk about social capital for an individual, just as we can not talk about a culture for an individual. We have to see things from a more general perspective; an individual may have many capitals, depending on his/her interests.

"I agree with you completely. The important thing is that to speak to others we have to be ourselves. And this is applicable both to individuals and to communities. The problem of folding-in communities lies in the fact that communities are so fragile that they are afraid of sharing with others. We have to reinforce the sense of belonging to a community and use it constantly as a means of communication with others. Although we present ourselves to others exactly as we are, if there is no dialogue, our own identity is weakened. In other words, the identity of an individual or a community can not survive, develop or be enriched if there is no dialogue. And we have to have the means to dialogue with others. I agree with you completely. Power is only a social role ; it is essentially social interchange. There is no power without counter power. According to French myth, power can not be shared. But we must also remember how Hegel considered the relationship between master and slave: the master needs the slave's freedom, because a totally dominated slave is useless. It's the same problem as the work-to-rule I mentioned just a moment ago. We always need others in their specificity so that we can exist in our own identity. 
The problem is to build values (you have mentioned values suitable for each area), but for there to be dialogue, we have to build shared values. Based on each individual's values, what is it that can get us all together? Inasmuch as we need to exist with others, we have to find the criteria, rules, values and standards which create this capacity to live with others. I am convinced that it is not possible to act without universal references, even on a world-wide scale. The problem is that we don't have to say 'here we are, we are the Jewish-Christian civilisation. Thanks to Plato, we known that above there is a world of ideas, the True, the Beautiful and the Good, all unified. We also know the myth of the cavern: to leave the world of illusion, of the shadows projected on the background wall, we turn around, look at the Sun and see the True, the Beautiful and the Good, as they are in Eternity, which exist outside ourselves'. No. What we need is to create universal standards, which are not given, but the conditions for the survival of mankind, established by and for mankind. For mankind to exist without destroying itself, we have to recognise and built whatever is needed to guarantee its survival. This is the universal concept that we have to build together. This is a universal concept (and I go back to what I mentioned just a moment ago) which is based on social sharing, social practice and political bargaining. These have to be sustainable and not contingent points of reference. My culture is not your culture. It's not enough to say “All cultures are equal”. We have to work on the conditions required for different cultures to live in harmony without destroying each other. They are universal standards which should be reconsidered from the beginning. They are the conditions for the co-existence of man in peace. Nowadays, thanks to mobility, we find situations in which individuals are creating this universal concept. We all belong to several cultures and groups. More so every day. We live in one place, we were born in another place and we marry somewhere else. We constantly find ourselves in a universe in which individual belongings are mobile and plural. And we also need stable collective references which are not added, but are the product of mankind building its own conditions for survival."

Isabel Cruz Hernandez, AMUCSS, Mexico
With regards to an analysis of major world-wide trends, I would like to ask you which positive, and not only negative, forces you observe in order to build social capital. 
By definition, social capital is built by individuals, and it is then progressively woven by national, regional networks, etc., in vertical and horizontal integration. However, we are witnessing a considerable erosion of these local networks because of the heavy impact of globalisation in all fields; the idea is to identify counter powers. What impact can we have and on which level? 
In Mexico, where I live, since there is no access to economic and financial media, social movements (particularly related to agriculture) are very active. How can we include the construction of this social capital on a local level which is constantly changing?
Which do you think are the main trends of globalisation and which are the challenges presented by the construction of social capital? 

"I will answer as quickly as possible, because your question opens up a large area requiring consideration.	 I would say that the first positive effect of globalisation is what is happening here. Indeed, organisations are possibly becoming weaker, but at the same time, we are reinforcing the communication networks between the landless peasants of Brazil, the Mexican peasants and... José Bové! At the same time, there is a capacity for collective expression on occasion of the major world-wide conferences, the counter summits and the increasing awareness (not virtuous but indeed convenient) of the large structures governing the world, which are the major international institutions (financial or otherwise). These are the large multinational companies, blinded in their desire to win a frenetic race for power and short-term profits, which realise that at this rate they will collapse. In the medium and long-term, they are facing challenges that they are unable to control, related both to safety (food safety and safety of other kinds) and saturated markets. With all the perversions involved, it is positive that the OECD is concerned with human capital or social capital, or that the WB is conducting a broad-based, in-depth and intelligent study on what poverty is and the efficacy of the different ways of combating poverty. I believe that this is both the result of a sociopolitical conflict on a world-wide scale and of the well meant interest of a series of institutions. In all institutions, we find a difference between programme managers who follow a routine and a certain number of steps, generally on the highest or lowest levels. The great machines now governing and accompanying globalisation are affected by contradictions and questions arise. This creates important areas for the involvement of people who previously were in a minority and acted like “David before Goliath”. I am sure that, in this universe of globalisation, we have the necessary means and that everything is not against us. This may be too optimistic, but I am sure that it is necessary!".

Charlot Razakaharivelo, Vola Mahasoa, Madagascar
When I hear you, I get the impression that this social capital philosophy will take years to progress. I am somewhat confused by the relationship between social capital and social links; you mentioned that it is a product and also that it is a resource. There's a contradiction here. Is the notion not mature enough to solve this contradiction? What is the relation between the two concepts? Can we say that if social links improve, social capital will increase? How complementary are they?

"I believe that I have already answered this question. In any case, we can establish a unique relationship, in a single direction, between social links and social capital. It is basically a dialectic relationship. Social capital that is not based on and does not produce social links is a capital that will soon disappear. Social capital is social links in movement, producing something. they are a resource with which to produce a collective good, which gives rise to a social link. It is evident that enriched social links that do not produce social capital or the capacity to work together will be weakened. The relationship, therefore, is one of mutual reinforcement. I don't see a contradiction. It's like saying that there is a contradiction between physical exercise, gymnastics and health. If we do gymnastics, we get tired. But if we don't, it's worse. We clearly have to move in order to live, and to live in order to move; it's not a contradiction."

Elisabeth Bourguinat, Paris school of administration, France
I am glad that Charlot has started a discussion on social links, since this is the fundamental issue where more questions arise. I tend to agree with him, because I get the impression that you are presenting an optimistic view based on the hypothesis that everything is fine in the best of worlds: social capital reinforces the social links that reinforce social capital, which contributes to economic development. If everyone was to be concerned with social capital, social links and economic development, we would be in paradise on earth. For two days now, since we have been working on this subject, we have observed some small problems. Especially related to the fact that social capital and social links can exist on several levels, on the local level and on other higher levels. The resources allocated to the development of social capital on one level are lost for the other levels. What options do we have? In this case, I believe that there may be discrepancies between social capital and social links; the fact that we develop social links locally prevents social capital from being created if we lack communication with elsewhere, as you mentioned. Following the levels, could there be a contradiction? This problem gets worse when we also include economic development. Social capital and social links have a cost but how can we distribute the resources between social capital and economic development? For the members of the IMF represented here to day, this does not give rise to existential problems. What is the objective? Economic development, the development of social capital or the development of social links (considering that the community is more important than the individual)? These three aspects are related, but according to priorities, the indicators and the assessment performed by the IMF will not be the same. Therefore, I believe that there is a conflict between these three notions, even though they may appear to be in harmony.

"I don't believe that there is a conflict between the notions. On the other hand, I am sure that there is tension between the levels. For example, if we observe the French model, it is a certain concept of public service which has created, among French citizens, a kind of social link in their relationship with the State. I have been defending State reform for thirty years. Without a doubt, this inheritance from the republican State has created a strong sense of belonging to the Republic by means of a social link which is not of a local nature. Therefore, when a State is built, a kind of very distant social link is also built. Where there is really a difference, and eventually an opposition, is between the different levels on which this dialectic relationship between social capital and social links is built. Once again, in my opinion, social capital is a social link in movement, an active resource.
Is social capital as an economic resource contradictory with money as an economic resource? And, to rephrase your question, is the objective to produce commercial value or a social link? 
I return to the contradiction between social capital and financial capital.

It may be because I am an incorrigible optimist, but to fight with force as we are doing, I sincerely believe that we have to believe that we are getting somewhere, and this requires a major dose of optimism. 
Independently from the finance of solidarity, I am surprised by all what in France is called social economy (cooperatives, mutual societies or associations), all these collective structures which are based on the idea that what we have to value as a resource is a human and social resource, and that what we have to aim at is the development of individuals and collective solidarity. Based on this resource and this aim, the result obtained is an economic result. This is in opposition to classical capitalist logic, the objective of which is to place the highest value on the returns on investment. And since a work force is necessary, it is redistributed in order to feed it, and this is how we obtain solidarity, according to those who defend liberalism, as a by-product of the desired economic effect. 
What surprises me is that these people, who were originally driven by charitable reasons (the boss's good works), and then continued (financing an opera house, a theatre company, a museum, and eventually helping small associations working in Asia, Africa or on the outskirts of French cities), talk increasingly of triple bottom line, of business yield criteria, of factors which were previously by-products useful to support the company's image and were not part of the development project. They have not changed for the better. It is merely that the same conditions applied to the development of capitalist production require factors which were previously at the centre of the Social Economy of Solidarity (SES). That's why I'm optimistic. Everyone who has contributed, in the social economy field, as a driving force and as the goal of the economic act, with non-monetary values, now has one of the elements of the answer to the problem facing the entire globalised economy.
We find ourselves facing a relation of forces which is being inverted. These SES agents, broadly ignored in the past, who had opted out, are now going to become the centre of society. This is being negotiated and discussed. Above all, during majority changes. It may even be easier to negotiate with this government than with the other!"

Renée Chao-Beroff, CIDR, France
Now that we have been around the world and back, I am going to centre on the finance of solidarity and what you have just said. social capital as a producer of economic value.
Thanks to trust, on the one hand we can save transaction costs and on the other, innovate and run risks.
In our discussions, we have identified these effects of social capital on the finance of solidarity, but we tend to say that the effects occur in the medium term, whereas in the short term we always start by losing ground a little. In order to be able to save and perform long-term activities, we initially have to invest in creating this social capital and these social links. If they already exist, they have to be reinforced. These activities have a cost. It is a deferred return.
What is your opinion on this? 

"The diagnosis is correct. Inasmuch as we can see the medium and long-term effects, we have to look to public finance, because the market will not finance this kind of activity, for the means with which to make short-term investments which do not generate immediate profits. Thanks to all our work and our relations with the public authorities, we have gained a certain amount of experience. I am going to talk about one of the networks for which I was once responsible, which operated in ignorance for a long time, and which found it very difficult to sell the public authorities the conditions for its survival, in terms of the operating costs associated to the primary network. After over twenty years of existence and a chaotic but, in spite of everything, heavy growth, it is starting to obtain results that are convincing enough to, when the figures are published, and I am talking about ten or fifteen years, multiply the public investment by 4 or 5 in terms of payback of the investment. It is worth it. And now they come in search of us. 
Yes. Twenty years later!
They are Local Initiative Platforms of the FIR Network (France Initiatives Réseau)."

Renée Chao-Beroff
We had clearly seen that the finance of solidarity could come from the public investment field. Although this is possible in the north, in southern countries the governments lack the means to make this kind of investment. We therefore look for alternatives and this is why we have done this work on the indicators, in order to have an impact on a category of "ethical" investors, patient in terms of profits. We look for indicators showing that the return on investment will be slow, but effective. 

"This work on indicators is evidently a difficult and long project, but it is absolutely essential. It is one of the alternative ways that has to be developed as quickly and well as possible. But there is another parallel way, which consists of simply identifying the major investors from the north to the south. I have worked with one company, a subsidiary of a French electric company, in Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. A quarter or a fifth of all their electric users don't pay; they just link up to the building's main wiring. What impact does this have on the company producing the electricity and maintaining the grid? They can not say: "They don't pay, so I'll remove the wiring". This would be scandalous and inadmissible. They therefore continue to lose money. They are interested in activities to mobilise the energy and power of the inhabitants. These activities change the relation to electricity. We have started activities which did not initially have positive results, training electricians in the favelas, establishing small electric companies to be in charge of installing and administering the meters. The company, and the city, is highly interested in financing these activities: they have created a sense of civic belonging and the rules governing an organised civil society. And so have the inhabitants.
We are talking about a long-term investment."

(end of tape)