Some thoughts on Discussion Themes for the Paris Meeting
Sunimal Fernando, 30.12.02

1.	I suggest we devote some time for discussing how we could deal with the issue of different kinds of social capital and the trade-offs between them. Let me elaborate a little.
Social ties and social capital are discussed by us largely in the context of poverty reduction and social - economic exclusion (and the need for greater social integration at different levels). So we are discussing social capital as a tool of social and economic intermediation for poverty reduction and for the greater social and economic inclusion of disadvantaged groups / communities in a more equitable sharing of the benefits of mainstream economy and society.
When intervening socially with the tool of social capital creation and reinforcement in order to achieve the above objectives, it is important that in each different instance the intervenors have a clear idea about which kinds of social capital need to be strengthened - and paradoxically which kinds of social capital need to be weakened - at different stages of the social intervention. This is because the goal of the intervention is not to simply reinforce and/or create social capital (of all kinds) across the board, but to reinforce/ create the kinds of social capital that will help reduce poverty (may be in the immediate short run) and help weave a more inclusive, integrated society (may be in a longer run perspective) that is economically, morally, ethically, culturally, socially, environmentally and politically sustainable.
Social intermediation, within such a perspective, needs to carefully balance the creation / reinforcement of two kinds of social capital which are often contradictory - namely, 'inward looking', 'self-centred', 'thick', 'bonding' social capital on the one side and 'outward looking', 'other-oriented', 'thin' or as the anglo-saxons like to say 'bridging' social capital, on the other. In practice, creating / reinforcing one kind of social capital can be at the expense of the other. Let me provide an example of two.

Within south Asian village communities are 'sub-communities' (if you like that term) of neighbours, friends,kin-groups or caste groups. Social capital within these kinds of sub-communities is usually strong because numerous social and emotive ties link their members to one-another. The social capital is 'self-centred' - to the exclusion of other similar sub-communities (i.e. other kin-groups, caste groups, neighbourhood groups etc) within the local village community. It has been found that social intermediation which reinforces this kind of 'self-centred' social capital (e.g. by capitalising these kinds of sub-communities into formal 'self help groups') can certainly and successfully create economic value out of the social capital thus reinforced and thereby help reduce poverty among its members. But it has also been found that reinforcing these local 'islands' of social capital in this way serves to further fragment the local village community and thereby reduce its integrity and its strength to negotiate with the forces of the world outside the village. So while in the short run this kind of social intermediation (small self help group formation) helps reduce poverty, in a longer term perspective it results in social and economic fragmentation rather than in the social, economic, cultural and political integration of the poor. What is needed to help reach the latter objective (inclusion, integration) is the creation of 'thin' 'other-oriented' social capital - or 'bridging social capital' - i.e. the creation / reinforcement of 'thin' social linkages between the sub-communities at the village level and between village communities at a regional level. These 'thin' , 'bridging' linkages integrate disadvantaged groups with the wider society, economy and polity. They help forge inclusive civic values, moral values, social values and economic values at a higher territorial level than the one at which primary groups (sub-communities) with thick social capital function and which in turn integrate these groups (sub communities) into broader social, cultural, political, economic and moral entities of which they become a part. And it has been found that this has to be at the cost of some (sometimes much) of the 'thick' social capital found at the primary group level. These are the trade-offs of different kinds of social capital that will have to be made, depending on the objective of the particular social intermediation. 
Depending on the strategy plan of the social intermediation, certain kinds of social capital might have to be reinforced at certain points on the time sequence of the intervention and then weakened at other points of the time sequence so that other kinds of more desirable social capital may grow. For example, before integrating disadvantaged groups with the wider society and economy, it may be desirable to strengthen these groups politically and economically so that they may negotiate with the forces of the wider society and economy (into which they are getting integrated) from a position of greater economic and political strength. For this, it may be desirable to start by reinforcing the already existing social capital of small primary groups - resulting, at that stage of the process, in greater fragmentation of the local community. Once this objective is achieved, in the next stage of the social intermediation it may be good to build 'bridging' social capital to link these primary groups - at the cost of the thick, 'bonding' social capital within the primary groups. Once this objective too is reached and the local village community is integrated on an equitable basis , depending on the circumstances of each particular case, it may be in the right direction to develop 'bridging' social capital to integrate these local village communities into the wider /regional economy and society through political, economic, social and cultural negotiation. The growth of 'bridging' 'other-oriented' social capital at regional level has been found to inevitably weaken the once thick social capital that was earlier reinforced /created at the level of the village community.

In brief, we should not limit ourselves to discussing the creating / reinforcement of social capital as a tool of social intermediation and in order to create economic value. We should also discuss all the dynamics of 'negotiating' between different types of social capital - with 'trade-offs' at different points of the time sequence of the social intermediation - and relate the strategy plan to the overall goals or objectives of the social intermediation itself.

2.	 Any strategy plan of social intermediation has to be based on an understanding of the social, economic, political and cultural dynamics of the community to which the intermediation is targeted. A lot of intermediation fails or has limited outputs because we intervene in a social - economic - political reality without really understanding its internal dynamics: without understanding how the community is 'fired' or 'energised' - without understanding the forces that give that community its particular character or flavour. The different kinds of social capital that exist in a community are an expression or reflection of these dynamics. How do we try and get an understanding of these dynamics in a quick and easy way? What are the practical methodologies we can adopt? What tools have been developed or need to be developed? Many good field workers have a 'gut sense'of the local dynamics. They act on their 'instinct' or 'feeling' of local dynamics. But I think that is not enough. We need to develop a rigorous, disciplined way - and that must be a quick way too - of understanding the local dynamics before we engage in our social intermediation. It may be useful to devote some time to grapple with this problem, or at least to start a debate on this.

My concerns above are on the basis of my south Asian experience. In south Asia we are not in a situation of having to create social capital where little or no social capital exists. On the contrary we are challenged by the existence of fragmented communities characterised by poverty, social and economic exclusion of disadvantaged groups, thick social capital bonding small primary groups or sub-communities and weak 'bridging social capital' between primary groups, ethnic groups, castes, kins-groups and so on - both at the local level and at the regional and national levels as well. In my own personal experience working with grassroots communities and working at regional and national level as well, I find in retrospect that my concerns have more about how to 'weaken' certain types of 'bonding' social capital and how to create new types of social capital to 'bridge' or 'link' groups and communities in order to fight against poverty and exclusion and in order to integrate the nation state.

Some thoughts on Discussion Themes for the Paris Meeting (Continued)
Sunimal Fernando, 02.01.03

I add to my earlier message on the theme of ' Different kinds of Social Capital and the importance of differentiating between them'. 

3. As a working definition we can say that Social Capital consists of the networks, norms and values that people mobilize in formal or informal relationships in order to cooperate and work together towards shared goals to achieve a common purpose through the interaction of shared values and through the institutions and structures they acquire or create to realize these values through some level of collective action.The shared goal is naturally beneficial to those who share in the action - i.e. to those who share in the social capital. At the same time, the social capital thus created, while benefiting those who share in it can very well be detrimental or harmful to one or more other groups of people. The implication is that certain kinds of social capital may not be in the public interest- i.e. particular kinds of social capital, in particular situations and circumstances may not be in the interest of the larger collectivity. We should not assume that social capital is everywhere and always a good thing. Certain forms of social capital can have socially undesirable consequences. Different kinds of social capital create different kinds of society. Before engaging in social intermediation, we must decide what kind of society we desire and then handle the different kinds / forms of social capital in such a way that we can hope to reach our desired society. 

In any society, there exist different kinds of social capital. We need to evolve a conceptual framework that will help us to sort out the different forms of social capital and identify their good and bad consequences. One methodology would be to classify these kinds of social capital in pairs of opposites.Let us try our hand at some kind of classification, bearing in mind that several of the pairs of opposites may often overlap with one another.

a.	Thick social capital vs thin social capital. A high density of internal relationships and a high density of trust within a group vs a low density of internal relationships and trust within a group. The former, while being conducive to the development of social, economic, political and cultural value within a lower level community, can result in the fragmentation of a higher level community or a constraining of the growth of a higher level community. Thin social capital in lower level communities usually facilitates the existence of social capital at the level of higher level communities. South Asia is rich with field experience in support of this contention.

b.	Inward looking social capital vs outward looking social capital. Similar to the above but with a slight qualitative difference. This is social capital capital which closes in vs social capital that opens out beyond the interacting group. The former can result in the virtual closure of the network and its insulation from higher level community while the latter helps open out the community and develop solidarity ties with others belonging to a higher level community.

c.	Bonding social capital vs bridging social capital. Similar to but not identical with the above. Bonding social capital strengthens the glue binding the interacting group together. Bridging social capital creates links which connect the group with other groups at the same level of community or with higher levels of community. The former is usually associated with thick social capital while the latter is associated with thin social capital. Furthermore, the bridging links are thin links while the bonding links are thick links.

d.	Self centred social capital vs other oriented social capital. The former type is associated with fragmented communities, with sub-communities interacting in their own interests to the detriment of the interests of other sub communities that together constitute a higher level community.The latter type is associated with higher level communities composed of sub communities that are more concerned with the interests of the higher level community to which they all belong and to that extent are other-oriented rather than self centred. Self centred social capital can even be harmful to social integration at a higher community level.

e.	Social capital as a 'Club Good' vs Social capital as a 'Public Good'. The former type is the result of social links that benefit only those within the social network - e.g. ' old boy networks ' in urban society that function on the principle of exclusion rather than inclusion. The latter type is the result of social links that place a value on public good or public interest or the good of a wider civil society.

f.	Formal social capital vs informal social capital. Formal social capital refers to social links and values which are institutionalized or formally structured. Informal social capital refers to social links and values that have not generated any formal institutions or structures.

g.	Social capital as a 'Private Good' vs social capital as a 'Public Good'. The former type refers to social capital that functions as a private good of the participants. The latter type refers to social capital that functions as a public good of a wider community or civil society.Similar to the distinction between social capital as a ' club good ' and social capital as a ' public good '. The south Asian experience shows that the creation of small self help groups helps people to cope with special problems of everyday life. But it must be remembered at the same time that these are in fact self interest groups (creating self centred rather than other oriented social capital); close affective bonds (bonding social capital; thick social capital) are developed between the members and this is to the detriment of creating links (bridging social capital; thin social capital) between these primary self help groups which after all may be more important for reducing poverty and social and economic exclusion . 
h.	Social capital with trust vs social capital without trust. The former type refers to social links that are associated with a high level of social trust among the interacting members. In south Asia, this type is common in rural communities. However, the character of associational life has changed qualitatively in urban communities as well as in the post industrial societies of the North. Here we find the existence of a new kind of social capital: Associational links without face to face relationships and without personal networks of interaction - e.g. political participation by staying in touch with issues and other events via the mass media or via opinion polls, interactive networks linked through computer contacts such as internet or EMail or telephone calls. Even in south Asia, at grassroots level we find networks of interaction that are based purely on the instrumental needs of the members - many community based organizations that are generated by intermediary NGOs, for example in order to deliver micro credit, fall into this category. Such networks are not dedicated to a value placed on ' Public Interest ' but function purely to serve the instrumental needs of the members. Here we grapple with an important theoretical issue - namely, can there be social capital without trust? Can there be social capital that does not feed into social trust? Can there be social capital that does not forge community solidarity? Is trust a necessary and integral aspect of social capital?

i.	Social capital oriented primarily to psychological and emotional needs vs social oriented to physical and economic needs. In south Asian rural society,most social capital is a mix of both orientations but with an emphasis on physical and economic needs. In the post industrial North, the literature indicates the emergence of small, strongly bonded primary groups oriented almost exclusively to psychological and emotional needs.

j.	Received social capital vs created social capital. The former type refers to social capital offered to individuals by virtue of membership of a group or network. It is given or imposed institutionally. The latter type describes social capital created or activated by participation in a group or network. Field experience is that if the old forms of the social capital given to individuals by virtue of group or network membership is no longer relevant to the interests they pursue, such social capital will wane for lack of use. In its place, new kinds of social capital, appropriate to the interest pursued by the individuals, will be created by them (or the given social capital will be transformed or modified, in which case it would amount to ' re-created social capital ' or ' re-invested social capital '. A the same time, it is seen that the relationship between received and created social capital is a dialectical one; a dynamic one. In this sense, south Asian field experience shows that social capital is the result of a dynamic supply and demand relationship.

k.	Social capital that protects and develops collective interests vs social capital that goes beyond collective interests and is oriented to social solidarity. The former type protects sectoral interests and is often rights-oriented: Women's Rights, Human Rights etc. The latter type is not self centred but is based on 'solidarity' (a collective response on the part of citizens to social issues such as to issues relating to health,education, unemployment, social exclusion, poverty, economic development, social or physical disabilities etc; recognized as a part of public responsibility). The latter type of social capital is mobilized by civil society as a part of solidarity or public responsibility. It requires the pre-existence of a strong civic sense or in other words a strong civil society. The value orientation of the former form of social capital is ' self-interest ' while the value orientation of the latter form of social capital is ' universal '.

l.	Tapped social capital vs untapped / dormant social capital. The former type refers to social links and social capital that have been generated by common values and are in turn supported by common values. The latter type refers to the existence at shared values which are dormant; yet socially untapped for the creation of social ties and social capital. The latter is a rich source of social capital, yet untapped. There may be moralities and values which people widely share, but in the absence of 'institutions' that bring these people together or ' social entrepreneurs ' that do so and create appropriate institutions, these people will not be acting collectively towards shared goals based on these shared values.

4. Levels of social capital. all the above forms of social capital are found at several different levels. South Asian field experience shows it is useful to identify the following levels of social interaction: - primary group level (self help group, neighbourhood, kin group, local clique or faction etc); local community level (usually the village or hamlet); regional level (commonly a district or sub-district); and, national level. The same kind of social capital can exist at any or several of these levels. The existence of a particular type of social capital at any one level could be either beneficial or detrimental to the creation of the same or some other kind or kinds or social capital at some other level. A simple example. The existence of self-centred or thick or bonding social capital at the primary group level can be detrimental to the development of thick, bonding social capital at the local community (village) level. The complex dynamic of the interplay or these two dimensions of social capital - namely, the qualitative and territorial dimensions (or, the dimension of 'types' and the dimension of 'levels') can be illustrated with hundreds of examples from the field in south Asia. 

5. Mapping of Social Capital. Finance of solidarity has as its objective the use of the instrument of finance to strengthen and create social ties and social capital which in turn will create or strengthen products of economic value. This objective is a reflection of a greater goal - which could be, poverty reduction, reducing unemployment, forging a just and equitable society, job creation, reducing social and economic exclusion, strengthening social integration, crafting a democratic,participatory national society / nation etc. If one wants to reach the desired goal of a particular, defined social intermediation and use the creation and strengthening of social capital as the main strategy of intervention, it is desirable to map out the dynamics of the interplay of social capital in two dimensions - the qualitative (types) and the territorial (levels) dimensions respectively. It could be useful to consider starting a forum debate on appropriate mapping tools and methods. The available international literature indicates that very little progress has been made in this direction.