Social DevelopmentDepartment

SD SCOPE Paper No. 4

Protecting andStrengthening SocialCapital in Order toProduce DesirableDevelopment Outcomes

David Hulme

Institute forDevelopment Policy andManagement,University of Manchester

January 2000

Social Development Systems for Coordinated Poverty EradicationSD SCOPE Paper No. 4

PROTECTING AND STRENGTHENING SOCIAL CAPITAL IN ORDER TOPRODUCE DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES1

DAVID HULME

INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND MANAGEMENTUNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

Tel: 0161 275 2812Fax: 0161 273 8829

Email: david.hulme@man.ac.uk

January 2000

SD SCOPE Project co-ordinated byCentre for Development Studies, University of Bath

1 This is a revised version of an earlier draft which has attempted where possible to include comments and suggestions by Neil Thin. Copies ofthe original, longer draft are available from SDD Library, DFID or from CDS, University of Bath

This paper is one of a series of twelve written as outputs of SD SCOPE: Social DevelopmentSystems for Co-ordinated Poverty Eradication. SD SCOPE was initiated in 1997 byDFID’s Social Development Department. The project ran for two years from January 1998 andwas implemented by the Centre for Development Studies at the University of Bath, theInstitute for Development Policy and Management at the University of Manchester, andDevelopment Initiatives.

The project’s aims were to: improve DFID’s capacity to support the achievement of positivesocial outcomes for poor and disadvantaged people; develop systematic approaches toanalysing the effectiveness of social development work; and identify and increase access togood practice on social development.

A full list of SD SCOPE papers and authors appears below.

Theme Papers

1. Direct assistance to poor and vulnerable people for greater livelihood security (PhilippaBevan, CDS, University of Bath).

2. Promoting equality between women and men (Nazneen Kanji, Dept of Social Policy, LSE &Sarah Salway).

3. Support for very poor and marginalised individuals through appropriate social protection(Joseph Mullen, IDPM, University of Manchester, with additional material by Peter Davis,CDS, University of Bath).

4. Protecting and strengthening social capital in order to produce desirable developmentoutcomes (David Hulme, IDPM, University of Manchester).

5. Strengthening policy reform by addressing the needs, interests and rights of poor andvulnerable people (Philippa Bevan, CDS, University of Bath with Stephen Lister, Mokoro).

6. Promotion and protection of the human rights of women, children, ethnic minorities,vulnerable groups (Douglas Saltmarshe, CDS, University of Bath).

7. Strengthening productive capacity and environmental conservation through appliedunderstanding of poor people’s livelihood systems (Peter Oates, Mokoro).

8. Promoting socially responsible business, ethical trade and acceptable labour standards(David Lewis, Centre for Civil Society, LSE).

Cross-Sectional Papers (drawing on papers 1-8)

9. Concepts and themes: landscaping social development (Geof Wood, IFIPA, University ofBath).

10. Developing guidelines for assessing achievement in the eight focal areas of socialdevelopment work and for assessing outcomes (Uma Kothari, IDPM, University ofManchester).

11. Programme approaches: spaces and entry points for social development (Philippa Bevan,CDS, University of Bath).

12. Characteristics of DFID-funded projects (Neil Thin, Dept of Social Anthropology,University of Edinburgh).

Contents

Acknowledgements i

Acronyms ii

Executive summary iii

1. Introduction 1

2. The Concept of Social Capital 3Social capital in practice 4

3. Project Objectives and Social Capital 9

4. Indicators and Assessment Procedures 11

5. Programme Approaches and Social Capital 14

6. Lessons Learned and Good Practice 16

Bibliography 19

i

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to all SDAs who have provided project material for the theme papers, andthose who have given useful feedback and comments on this series of papers. Thanks also toEsse Nilsson, SD SCOPE Social Development Information Coordinator, who identified,located and collected project documents for the authors. Esse Nilsson, Hazel Wallis, SDSCOPE Project Coordinator and Sarah Mathews, SDD, should also be thanked for theirediting work on some of the theme papers and for preparing all the papers for publication.

ii

Acronyms

ABO Area-Based OrganisationCBO Community-Based OrganisationCDS Centre for Development StudiesCPE Complex Political EmergenciesCPR Common Property ResourceDFID Department for International DevelopmentDI Development InitiativesFSD Farming Systems DevelopmentGoI Government of IndiaKRIBP Indo-British Farming Project (India)MTR Mid-Term ReviewNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationODA Overseas Development AdministrationPAM Poverty Aim MarkerPEC Project and Evaluation Committee (DFID)PIMs Policy Information MarkersPOM Policy Objective MarkerPUSH II Programme for Urban Self Help II (Zambia)RPP Relief and Rehabilitation Programme (Sri Lanka)SCF Save the Children Fund (UK)SD Social DevelopmentSD SCOPE Social Development Systems for Coordinated Poverty EradicationSDA Social Development AdviserSDD Social Development Department (was Division)SPRP Social Policy Research Programme (of ESCOR)TOR Terms of ReferenceWIRDP2 West India Rain Fed Farming ProjectWIRFP Indo-British Farming Project (India)

iii

Executive Summary

Introduction

This paper examines the social capital theme through a conceptual review and a comparativeanalysis of three Department for International Development (DFID) projects (Programme forUrban Self Help II (PUSH II) in Zambia, Relief and Rehabilitation (RPP) in Sri Lanka andKRIBP/WIRDP2 (Indo-British Farming Project now West Indian Rain Fed Farming Project,phase II) in India). Table 1 provides details of the projects.

Concepts

The concept of social capital entered development theory and practice very rapidly, followingPutnam’s (1993) book. It is an evolving, contested, ambiguous and politically-charged termthat has been given various meanings (Box 1). While most meanings agree that social variables(norms, relationships, institutions) constitute ‘capital’ that can contribute to economicdevelopment and that is a key determinant of the quality of governance, there remains heateddebate about whether social capital accrues at the individual or group or societal level (or allthree). There is also debate about whether society creates social capital (Putnam) or the statecan create social capital (Tendler). No-one has systematically theorised about the role ofexternal agents (aid agencies and international NGOs) in the strengthening of social capital.

There are substantial criticisms of the way in which the concept deals with issues of power andits presumption that progressive social change cannot emanate from conflict.

Two distinct levels of operationalism of the concept can be identified:

• Micro-level: to extend pre-existing concepts, particularly participation and localinstitutional development.

• Macro-level: to argue that the social analysis of development policies and plans has paritywith economic, financial and technical analysis.

For DFID the term has the following meaning: “Social capital derives from the broad idea that social relationships and shared values areresources that can help people act effectively...DFID is focussing on how people usenetworks, associations and broad principles of social organisation as a means of reducingrisks, accessing services, protecting themselves against depredation and acquiringinformation”. (SD SCOPE Terms of Reference, Annex 1:5) Objectives Social capital does not have a PIMS marker but it has a close association with the goodgovernment marker, is related to the women in development, sustainable forest developmentand sustainable agricultural markers and also bears on several other markers (Table 2). The Social Development Handbook (1996) and project documentation (implicitly) indicatethat DFID views the strengthening of social capital as a means for the achievement of poverty-reduction, rather than a goal in its own right (Box 3).

iv

Indicators and assessment procedures The lack of specificity of the term ‘social capital’ and the methodological problems ofassessing the quantity and quality of norms and relationships mean that precise criteria forassessing changes in social capital are not developed at present. From DFID documentation atentative set of 8 criteria can be imputed (Box 4). Table 3 summarises the way in which the objectives of the three case study projects relate tothese criteria. Both PUSH II and KRIBP seek to create new organisations (that can beassessed in terms of numerical target and achievement) and participatory approaches(requiring judgements about their quality). RPP has a more limited focus on social capitalenhancement and, as it emphasises strengthening existing organisations and networks, presentsadditional assessment problems. Keywords and phrases vary between projects and change over time within a project (Table 4).The most frequently used terms relate to civic engagement (‘participation’) and socialorganisation (‘community/area/farmer groups’ and ‘organisations’). When looking at assessment procedures a number of tensions are evident. These arise fromproject needs to promote ‘participation’ and DFID needs to account to Parliament. The keytensions are:

• A bottom-up (beneficiary driven) approach versus a top-down (DFID consultant)approach.

• An emphasis on internal monitoring versus an emphasis on independent assessment.• Assessing the quality of project processes versus evaluating project impact. Only PUSH II was radical enough to treat indicator identification as an activity forbeneficiaries. KRIBP had a much greater focus on the measurement of ‘ultimate’ impacts e.g. productivityand environmental changes. However, the differences between internal assessments (positive)and independent assessment (much less positive) meant that the Mid Term Review (MTR)could not draw conclusions about impact. Programme approaches The three projects have all had SD inputs with PUSH II and KRIBP having substantial inputs.They have a number of common features:

• All are described as ‘process projects’ that will redesign in the light of project experience.• All developed from pre-existing activities (though for KRIBP this was pre-project design

work).• All sought to reduce poverty through the intervention of an aid-financed managing agent

that works with local organisations.• The managing agents were international NGOs (PUSH II and RPP) or a parastatal

(KRIBP). No project was managed by the civil service.

v

• PUSH II and KRIBP focused on establishing new local organisations and using PRA/PLAtechniques. RPP worked with existing organisations and prioritised participatoryapproaches to a lesser degree.

• A central element of the PUSH II and KRIBP approaches was their emphasis on theexternal diffusion of the organisational model they developed outside of the project area.To be cost-effective the model had to be replicable on a wider scale.

Lessons learned and good practice Lessons are summarised in Table 5 and below:

1. Process approaches should be encouraged in projects seeking to change local levelsocial relationships. Ideally these will: have time scales of at least 5 years grow out of pre-existing activity or detailed pre-project research indicate the likelihood of continued support if results are good have rolling annual plans

2. From the outset use existing knowledge (local and universal) about participatoryapproaches and local institutional development.

3. Start on a small scale and only expand when results are clear at that scale

4. Do not pre-define the ‘unit of association’ eg. do not assume ‘a village organisation’

5. Take a nested or pluralist approach to local organisations - hamlet, village, federationand women’s associations may all be useful.

6. Think about vertical and horizontal organisational linkages and especially how neworganisations relate to the state - additional, part of the governance structure, bypassing?

7. Anticipate pseudo-participation and standardisation as participatory approaches got toscale.

8. Incorporate participation into assessment and evaluation.

9. Beware the ‘myth of the smaller farmer’. Poor people have complex livelihoods notsmall farms!

Other issues

• Social Development Department (SDD) needs to decide whether the concept of socialcapital should become part of its central, conceptual apparatus. Three options are identifiedand it is recommended that the concept be developed for use at the macro-level, but that

vi

other more specific concepts (participation, local institutional development) be used formicro-level work.

• It is unclear whether DFID has a systematic process to distinguish forms of civicengagement that are socially inclusive and pro-development from the ‘dark side’ of socialcapital (shared norms and effective associations that are ethnically, religiously etc.exclusive).

• The concept leads to a focus on ‘community’ ‘village’ and ‘area-based’ associations. Thereis a danger that this leads to the treatment of populations as being homogeneous. This wasevident in KRIBP in which grassroot organisation members are regarded as ‘farmers’ whichis very misleading.

Keywords and phrases for social capital theme

PUSH II RPP KRIBP

process project(1994)community developmentparticipatory planning(1996)CBOs (community basedorganisations)personal empowermentsocial empowermentrepresentative and democraticABOsABO capacity building‘Links’ between ABOs andothersABO (area basedorganisations)

primary and secondarystakeholderscoping better with chronicconflict environmentdevelop links betweencommunities/CBOs and arange of service institutionsaccountability to primarystakeholdersmore responsive to[stakeholders’] needsenhancing capacitycost-effective solutions

process project(1992)replicable, participatoryapproachestablish village-basedinstitutionssustainabilityparticipatory agriculturaldevelopment(1996)participatory farming systemsdevelopment (FSD)replicable, participatory andsustainable FSDsustainable improvements inlivelihoodscollective action(1998)sustainable farmer managedgroupsparticipatory planningsystems

1

1. Introduction

This paper reviews the theme of “protecting and strengthening social capital in order toproduce desirable development outcomes”. It commences with a short discussion of theconcept of social capital, and briefly explores the ways in which international developmentagencies and DFID are using the idea. It then presents a set of criteria that can be used toassess whether the theme is informing DFID projects. Following this the theme is exploredempirically through an analysis of the documentation of three projects (Table 1). This involvesa comparative analysis of project objectives, indicators, programme approaches, programmecontent and assessment procedures. The conclusion summarises the key findings and presentsan initial list of lessons that can be drawn from the review.

The three projects that were used in this theme paper are listed below. More detailedexaminations of the them are included in the original draft2.

• PUSH II (Zambia): Project for Urban Self-Help Phase II• RPP (Sri Lanka): Relief and Rehabilitation Programme• KRIBP, now WIRFP2 (India): KRIBCHO Indo-British Farming Project

PUSH II and KRIBP were selected because these are projects in which Social Development(SD) forms an extensive part and which very directly address the social capital theme. Bothhave operated for several years and are likely to continue in DFID’s portfolio for years tocome. They provided a contrast in terms of geographical region and rural/urban focus. Thethird project was selected to permit an exploration of the theme in a conflict situation.Arguably, violent conflict follows a weakening of ‘social capital’ and so the utility of theconcept in complex political emergencies is an important topic.

The method used for this review has been documentary analysis. For a term such as socialcapital (evolving, contested, ambiguous, politically charged) this has been only partiallysatisfactory as much analysis is not documented, DFID debates (i.e. internal conflicts) aboutthe theme are not recorded in project documentation and the role of Social DevelopmentDepartment (SDD) (or Social Development Advisers (SDAs) or SD consultants) vis-à-visother departments is rarely identifiable. Short interviews with SDAs, consultants and DFIDgeographers would be a valuable supplement.

2 Available from the SDD library or from CDS in Bath.

2

TABLE 1: CASE STUDY DFID PROJECTS FOR THEME 4PIMS MARKERS

Project Ref Country Project (andimplementingpartner

DFIDcommitment

PlanPeriod

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

PUSH II Zambia Project for UrbanSelf-Help Phase II,PUSH II (Care -Intn’l)

£2.0 m 1994-1997

1 2 4 2 1 3 4 2 2

RPP Sri Lanka Relief andRehabilitationProgramme(OXFAM and SCF)

£4.0 m 1997-2001

4 2 2 2 2

WIRFP 2 India Western IndiaRainfed FarmingProject, Phase 2

£25.0 1998-2003

4 2 4 2 4 2 2 4

KRIBP India KRIBHCO - IndoBritish RainfedFarming Project

£3.8 m 1993-1998

2 4 2 2 4

3

2. The Concept of Social Capital

The term ‘social capital’ was virtually absent from debates about development until the mid-1990s. However, since the publication of Putnam et al’s (1993) work, it has rapidly movedinto the development discourse in official policy documents, NGO plans and academic studies.Although the term is most commonly associated with Putnam (through his work on societyand governance in Italy) it had been used earlier, and in different ways by Bourdieu (1980 and1986) and Coleman (1988 and 1990). Box 1 contrasts the meanings that these three writershave vested in the term, along with three meanings from people working in developmentagencies. An in depth comparison of these three usages is not needed for this paper, but fourpoints should be noted as they are of importance for the analysis that comes in later sections.

1. The term is contested and there is not an agreement amongst social scientists as to whatit means. Many writers use the term with a high degree of ambiguity.

2. The six meanings are agreed that social processes (relationships, institutions, norms) are‘capital’ that can contribute to the achievement of economic objectives, in the way thatnatural and human capital do. They thus point to the under-valuation of the ‘social’ indevelopment vis-à-vis the economic and the physical.

3. There are very different interpretations (or ambiguity) as to whether social capitalprimarily enhances the capabilities of individuals, or collectivities (ranging from smallgroups to national societies) or both. This is of great importance as if social capital isviewed as accruing to individuals then it is amenable to neo-classical economic analysis.If it is viewed as accruing to specific groups within society (classes, age-sets, genders,ethnicities) then a political economic analyses may be essential. If it is viewed asaccruing to the whole of society then a simple quantitative analysis, focusing on thevolume (rather than the distribution) of social capital becomes appropriate.

4. Social capital pays scant attention to issues of power. Progress emanates from ‘co-operation’ and it is of little use in understanding the progressive role that conflict canplay in processes of social change.

As the development discourse on social capital is most closely associated with Putnam’s workit is worth noting three of the major criticisms (for a discussion see Harriss and de Renzio,1997) of his analysis as these have important practical implications.

1. For Putnam, social capital is created by a society and determines the quality ofgovernance. Critics (Tendler, 1997) argue that the process is not unilinear and that thestate can act on society in ways that can strengthen or weaken social capital.

2. For Putnam social capital is virtually an endowment and is not constructible i.e. thecreation of social capital occurs over generations and centuries, not over years or meredecades. Development practitioners see this as unduly negative.

3. Putnam does not focus on power or social differentiation. Specific social groups mayseek to accumulate social capital so that they remain privileged while other groups(women, minority religions and ethnicities) are subordinated and kept in a position ofrelative, or absolute, disadvantage. His work emphasises the value of ‘co-operation’ butpays scant attention to the role of conflict in social change.

4

BOX 1: The meaning of ‘social capital’

“Social capital . . . refers to features of social organisation, such as trust, norms [ofreciprocity], and networks [of civic engagement], that can improve the efficiency of societyby facilitating coordinated actions”. (Putnam, 1993:167)

“Social capital is the set of resources that inhere in family relations and in community socialorganisation and that are useful for the cognitive or social development of a child or youngperson . . . it is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having twocharacteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and theyfacilitate certain actions of the individuals who are within the structure . . . social capital isproductive, making possible the attainment of certain ends that would not be attainable in itsabsence”. (Coleman, 1990:300 & 302)

“. . . one can give an intuitive idea of it [social capital] by saying that it is what ordinarylanguage calls ‘connections’ . . . by constructing this concept one acquires . . . clubs, or quitesimply, the family, the main site of accumulation and transmission of that kind [economic] ofcapital”. (Bourdieu, 1993:32-33)

“. . . the density and nature of the network of contacts or connections amongst individuals ina given community”. (Narayan & Pritchett, 1996:3)

“. . . the ‘fabric’ of society - the interconnected web of relationships, units and values, suchas organisations, networks, common pool regimes, behavioural norms, information flows,and attitudes that constitute a society’s stability and integrity and promote development.Social safety nets are a part of social capital . . .” (Thin, 1996:52)

“The term ‘social capital’ derives from the broad idea that social relationships and sharedvalues are resources that can help people act effectively...DFID is focusing on how peopleuse networks, associations and broad principles of social organization as a means ofreducing risks, accessing services, protecting themselves against depredation and acquiringinformation”. (SD SCOPE ToR, Annex 1:5)

Social capital in practice

Social capital and international development agenciesWhile international development agencies have rapidly taken up the use of the term and seekto ‘strengthen’ and ‘support’ social capital, to date this has not been done with great precision.This should not be surprising given the contested nature of the concept. It is possible,however, to identify two broad ways in which the term is beginning to influence practice.At one level, the concept is being used to extend and promote pre-existing practice. Inparticular, efforts to encourage participatory approaches to projects and policies are now

5

presented as not merely contributing to short-term goals but also as adding to a nation’s stockof ‘social capital’ in ways that make longer term economic development and more effectivegovernance more probable. Efforts to minimise the ‘social consequences’ of resettlement areno longer viewed basically in terms of economic and asset impacts but also in terms ofminimising the destruction of social capital. The concept is also being applied to the relief-development continuum with the recognition that in war torn societies humanitarianinterventions must consider their impacts on social capital, as well as hunger and suffering,while in societies at risk of complex political emergencies (CPEs), development interventionsshould not weaken pre-existing social capital.

At a higher level, the concept is increasingly being used to argue that the social analysis ofdevelopment policies, programmes and projects has parity with economic, financial andtechnical analysis. Social processes contribute to the achievement of development goals asmuch as economic factors (industrial capital, finance, skills, technology) and naturalendowments (soil, water, minerals). From this perspective social analysis is not an ‘add on’ tomore fundamental analyses but is a central and fundamental component of any proposedintervention. Socially ‘well-designed’ actions do not merely pertain to the disadvantaged butenhance production and wealth creation thus contributing to economic development and goodgovernance. Conversely, socially ‘poorly-designed’ actions will have deleterious long termimpacts on community and national capacities to achieve social and economic developmentgoals.

While some agencies presently use the term very generally (see DFID later), sometimesambiguously, and are making gradual efforts to be more precise about the term, others (e.g.the World Bank) have rapidly sought to specify it as the density of associational life. The lattercourse has the great advantages of making social capital quantifiable and more amenable torapid operationalisation: it has the great disadvantage of simplifying the concept to such adegree that what is measured and operationalised may be a weak or meaningless surrogate forthe essence of ‘social capital’.

No donor has yet clarified the role of external agents (i.e. themselves and their contractors andconsultants) in social capital strengthening. The ‘paradox of assisted self help’ (Uphoff, 1986),has not been addressed: can ‘outsiders’ assist ‘locals’ to associate or does the mere presenceof the outsider (and its agenda) contaminate the process?

Social Capital and DFIDThe concept of social capital has only very recently entered into DFID documentation. It ismentioned once in the 1997 White Paper (DFID, 1997:18) - see Box 2. It is identified as oneof the four ‘issues’ that the Social Development Department prioritises (DFID, 1998) but, thisdocument provides no elucidation as to the content of the term.

While the Poverty Aim Marker (PAM) and Policy Objective Markers (POMs) are too generalto touch on social capital, elements of the concept can be identified in the Policy InformationMarker System (PIMS). While it does not have a marker of its own the ‘good government’marker has significant social capital content, the ‘sustainable forest management’ markerincorporates elements of it (especially items a and c) and a number of markers relate toactivities that potentially create an enabling environment for the evolution of social capital(Table 2). Arguably, a significant number of markers (economic reform, enhancing productive

6

capacity, environment, urban development, technology development, biodiversity) are sotechnically framed that their achievement could damage social capital.

It is as one gets closer to operational activities that the most significant attempts to work outhow the concept relates to practice appear to have occurred. This is particularly evident in theSocial Development Handbook. While the first edition of this (Ladbury, 1993) made nomention of the term, the draft second edition (Thin, 1996) provides a definition (see Box 1)that ‘. . . all ODA aid must contribute to the development of the social capital (institutions andvalues) required for equitable and socially sustainable development’ (Thin, 1996:2).

BOX 2: Social Capital and the 1997 White Paper on International Development

Sustainable development requires the management and maintenance of different sorts of‘capital’ which support human well-being:

• Created capital: including physical infrastructure, machinery and equipment.• Natural capital: the environment and natural resources.• Human capital: human skills and capacity.• Social capital: strong social relationships and institutions.

(DFID, 1997:18)

The draft also identifies social capital as central to the social analysis of ODA developmentactivities and procedures (ibid:3 and 12) and examines all sectoral activities through the lens of“enhancing social capital for sustainable benefits” (ibid:20ff). This latter section replaces thoseparts of the first edition concerned with ‘encouraging participation’ (Ladbury, 1993:46-7ff)and indicates that for DFID operations the operationalisation of social capital has provided anopportunity to move beyond the confines of participation (methods and organisations) and toaddress broader issues of values and institutions (Box 3). It must be noted that this usage ofsocial capital does not see social capital creation as a goal in itself; rather, it is seen as a meansby which development goals can be achieved. Given this situation one must anticipate that‘social capital projects’ will not be explicitly pursued by DFID.

Evidently, the interpretation and operationalisation of the concept for DFID is evolving (SPRPresearch) and so the sections that follow can only serve as an early attempt to assess the waysin which social development advisory work recognises and contributes to social capitalformation.

TABLE 2: Social Capital and the Policy Information Marker System (PIMS)

7

Policy Objective

• Economic reform• Enhancing productive capacity• Good government

• Direct assistance to poor people

• Human development - Education• Human development - Health• Human development - Children by choice• Women in development

• Environment• Combating illicit drugs• HIV/AIDS• Urban development• Private sector development• Technology development and research• Energy efficiency• Sustainable forest development

• Biodiversity• Sustainable agriculture

Relation of PIMS ‘recognised activities’ to‘protecting and strengthening socialcapital’

NoneNone‘Support for democratic and participativeprocesses’‘Promoting greater accountability ofinstitutions’‘Direct promotion and protection of civil andpolitical rights’Enabling actions that make it more likely thatpoor people can take an active role in societyEnabling for the poorEnabling for the poorEnablingFosters the ‘consultation’ and ‘participation’of women in projectsNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone‘Support for the activities of formal andinformal institutions . . .’‘Encouraging the involvement of non-governmental sectors . . .’None‘Participatory approaches to development toresearch and technology transfer . . .’

Source: Analysis of ODA (1996)

8

BOX 3: The ODA Social Development Handbook and Social Capital

Enhancing social capital for sustainable benefits

• Does the project design ensure that people participate as agents rather than as passiverecipients?

• What provision is there for capacity development to ensure graduation from passivity tomore active involvement in development activities during and after the project?

• How will the project contribute to the development of the social capital (institutions andvalues) required for sustainable maintenance or enhancements of project benefits?

• Is participation defined as a end in itself or just as a means to other ends?

(Thin, 1996:20)

Criteria for assessing whether social capital issues inform project processesThe lack of specifity in the term ‘social capital’ means that precise criteria for its assessmentare not feasible at present. However, from an examination of the SD SCOPE ToR and Thin(1996) an initial set of criteria can be imputed (Box 4).

BOX 4

Theme Focus Criteria

• Strengthening Social Relationships 1. Creating new organisations2. Strengthening existing organisations3. Creating new networks4. Strengthening existing networks

• Promoting Shared Values 5. Use of participatory practices6. Creating new means for informationdissemination7. Strengthening existing means forinformation dissemination

• Ensuring that Relationships and ValuesChanges are Pro-development

8. Analysis of whether 1 to 7 will/havefostered social inclusion or social exclusion

9

3. Project Objectives and Social Capital

The meta goal or goal of all three projects is poverty reduction. The social capital theme (theterm itself is NEVER used in any of the project documentation) appears as an importantmeans for the poverty reduction goal to be achieved. There are two main foci: thedevelopment and dissemination of participatory processes (that create opportunities forincreased civic engagement) and the creation of new organisations (that will thickenassociational life). In addition there are various direct (RPP) and indirect references todeveloping the linkages between local level organisations and other organisations. As Table 3indicates PUSH II and KRIBP emphasised participatory approaches and local organisationaldevelopment: for RPP, operating in a war zone with large numbers of IDPs, the focus wasmore on delivering basic services while strengthening local level organisations and localNGOs. The degree to which the projects ensured that the social changes they promoted weresocially inclusive is hard to assess, and explicit systematic discussion of this item was notincluded in documents. Both PUSH II and KRIBP sought to assist ‘the poor’ and ‘women’ toparticipate more full in society while RPPs emphasis was on women and children.

TABLE 3: Project Objectives and Social Capital

Theme Focus Criteria PUSHII

RPP KRIBP

• StrengtheningSocialRelationships

1. Creating new organisations2. Strengthening existingorganisations3. Creating new networks4. Strengthening existing networks

UUU-

U-

-UU

-U

UUUU

--

• Promoting SharedValues

5. Use of participatory practices6. Creating new means forinformation dissemination7. Strengthening existing means forinformation dissemination

UUUU

-

U-

-

UUUU

U

• Ensuring thatRelationships andValues Changesare Pro-development

8. Analysis of whether 1 to 7will/have fostered social inclusion orsocial exclusion

? ? ?

UUU Priority objectiveUU Important objectiveU Mentioned as an objective- Not reported? Unclear

The keywords and phrases relating to the social capital theme are identified in Table 4. Whilethe terms used are an important means of attempting to uncover the concepts that guide goal

10

definition and action their significance should not be exaggerated. Two points in particularemerge.

1. Individuals drafting documents latch on to terms and use them extensively without aprecise definition. Some terms are clearly ‘flavour of the month’ at drafting time (e.g.‘stakeholder’ for the RPP proposal).

2. Terms relating to associational life - particularly ‘institution’, ‘organisation’ and ‘group’ -are used very loosely and interchangeably.

The KRIBP merits special mention in this section as it revealed a fascinating tension aboutproject objectives and social capital. The 1996 mid-term review (MTR) was very concernedthat the project’s ‘participatory approach’ had become an objective in its own right and wasdisplacing the primary goal of improved livelihoods for people. The message spelled out wasclear - participatory process and local organisational development (social capital) are projectmeans not objectives.

11

4. Indicators and Assessment Procedures

The vast and changing lists of ‘social capital’ indicators used by PUSH II and KRIBP and the‘mess’ of indicators for RPP, reveal that indicator setting is highly dependent on the individualdrafting a document, in terms of content and Log Frame experience, and context. While inPUSH II and KRIBP there is evidence of the sharpening of indicators as the project’s evolve,there is not evidence across the three projects that any formal framework, list or method forselecting indicators related to the social capital theme is informing analysis.

TABLE 4: Keywords and phrases for social capital theme

PUSH II RPP KRIBP

process project(1994)community developmentparticipatory planning(1996)CBOs (community basedorganisations)personal empowermentsocial empowermentrepresentative and democraticarea-based organisations(ABOs)ABO capacity building‘Links’ between ABOs andothersABO (area basedorganisations)

primary and secondarystakeholderscoping better with chronicconflict environmentdevelop links betweencommunities/CBOs and arange of service institutionsaccountability to primarystakeholdersmore responsive to[stakeholders] needsenhancing capacitycost-effective solutions

process project(1992)replicable, participatoryapproachestablish village-basedinstitutionssustainabilityparticipatory agriculturaldevelopment(1996)participatory farming systemsdevelopment (FSD)replicable, participatory andsustainable FSDsustainable improvements inlivelihoodscollective action(1998)sustainable farmer managedgroupsparticipatory planningsystems

There are clearly similarities, however, between the organisational building indicators used byPUSH II and KRIBP in terms of the numbers of organisations created, the quantity (numbers,participation rates, plan production) and quality (accountability, transparency,representativeness, efficiency, cost effectiveness, poverty-focus) of their activities and theirlinkages with other NGOs, local authorities and government. The latter involve both ‘upward’linkages (e.g. in PUSH II testing if ABOs put ‘upward pressure’ on councils) and downward‘linkages’ (e.g. in PUSH II the legal and operational recognition of ABOs by councils). Bothof these projects also identify changes in beneficiary behaviour (PUSH II ‘confident andarticulate members’; KRIBP ‘villager self-assertion and activism’) as indicators associatedwith effective local organisational development.

12

There are three differences between the indicators identified by PUSH II and KRIBP thatshould be noted.

1. KRIBP very explicitly identifies the diffusion or dissemination of its participatory approachto farming systems development outside of the project area as an important indicator ofperformance. While PUSH II documents identify this as an important objective it is notexplicitly put into the logframe.

2. KRIBP has a much greater emphasis on the measurement of ultimate impacts especially on

the natural resource system (e.g. ‘improvement of common property resources (CPRs)’)and appears very concerned about the issue of ‘instrumentality’ (whether participatoryapproaches produce measurable changes in household income, productivity, soil and waterconservation, forest sustainability etc.).

3. PUSH II reveals evidence of incorporating indicator identification into its participatory

process and, for example, one of its indicators is ‘CBO effectiveness indicators be set byCBOs by July’. The prioritisation of the task and deadline have been externally imposed onCBOs, but the CBOs can define the indicators. There is no evidence of this in KRIBP and‘participation’ in indicator selection appears to mean DFID, KRIBCHO management andselected field staff but not the intended beneficiaries.

RPP may appear to come out poorly with regard to indicators, but this needs someconsideration. It is at the relief end of the relief-development continuum and the pressures onit (intense and immediate suffering, contingencies, extreme unpredictability, working adjacentto violence) and its priority objective (relief of suffering) may mean that action is accorded ahigher priority than the elegance of paperwork. In a paper-based culture, such as DFID, thereis clearly a danger that the analytical rigour of logframe may be confused with the quality ofintervention. The causal linkage between logframe quality and development impacts ispresently an assumption and not an empirical-verified statement!

Last, and probably least once a project is approved, come PIMS markers (Table 1). All threeprojects score 4 on poverty reduction, 3s or 2s on women in development and then have aspread of other scores. In particular PUSH II and KRIBP score 2s for good governance. Theonly mention of PIMS (other than on Header Sheets and PEC submissions) is that they were‘irrelevant’ for the KRIBP MTR because of changes in the system and a note that they neededupdating. For the social capital theme PIMS can be viewed as having very limited relevanceonce a project has received PEC approval.

All three projects have involved SDD inputs assessing previous performance and/or theproject under review. However, disaggregating SDD inputs from those of other DFID staffand other project partners (especially SD conscious international NGOs) is not feasible.Interviews and the examination of detailed project files would be more effective methods.There are also general trends that need to be considered, especially the way in which TEAMUP training for DFID staff and consultants led to ‘sharpened’ selection of ‘objectivelyverifiable indicators’ which had knock on effects across the board e.g. the rash of impactassessment studies DFID have supported since the mid-1990s.

13

A number of ‘key tensions’ is probably the best way of exploring this in relation to the socialcapital theme. These are:

• Process or impact;• independent assessments or internal monitoring;• τop down or bottom up.

Each of these is examined in turn.

Moves to more participatory approaches to projects have meant that more resources have tobe focused on project personnel facilitating group activity, promoting social mobilisation andtraining groups in management (finance, running meetings, making plans etc.). For KRIBP inparticular this led to a drift of assessment towards a focus on ‘process’. The MTR wasconcerned that participation was being treated as a goal in its own right i.e. if there is lots ofparticipation and training occurring then the project is a success. It steered the assessmentprocedures back towards impact - especially in terms of income, productivity, access toresources, forest sustainability - so that more scientific methods such as formal surveys,agronomic assessments and, ecological monitoring were encouraged.

The second issue, again related to KRIBP, concerns the relative balance between independentassessments of performance or impact vis-à-vis internal monitoring. The former have value fordonor accountability, the latter can strengthen partner institutions. The KRIBP MTRs impactassessment studies found markedly lower levels of achievement than the internal studiesconducted by KRIBCHO. This meant that despite substantial assessment inputs the MTR was‘unable to reach a firm conclusion’ about whether the project was achieving its goals. Thesedifferences were explained by ‘differences in methodology’ but these were not described. It isunclear whether DFID responded to these problems by strengthening internal monitoringsystems or conducting more external studies.

The final issue has particular importance for the social capital theme. Should assessments betop down and have the associated benefits of scientific rigour, independence, technicalexpertise, uniformity and comparability? Or should they be ‘bottom up’ (i.e. the beneficiariesdrive the process) and have the associated benefits of being locally relevant, using localknowledge, fostering ‘ownership’ and building group decision-making skills? For these threeprojects the answer appears to be ‘both’, but there is no examination of whether one can havethe assessment cake and eat the assessment cake at the same time. This is perhaps bestillustrated by RPP, the project memorandum for which has a GANTT chart for Monitoringand Impact Assessment that is based on a comprehensive top down approach. In other parts ofthe text, however, references are made to the importance of participatory assessment bybeneficiaries. But clearly 100% top down best practice and 100% bottom up best practice areincompatible! Similar questions can be raised about KRIBP. It has used both external technicalapproaches and participatory approaches but the documentation clearly pays more attention tothe technical and external: villagers ‘reports’ of impact are mentioned but appear to be treatedas subjective or anecdotal and thus are used to support arguments rather than makearguments. Only PUSH II has been radical enough to push down significant assessmentfunctions to local organisations. The ABOs were given the task of setting the performanceindicators that they will use for monitoring their own progress.

14

5. Programme Approaches and Social Capital

While there are vast differences between these three programmes, a number of similaritiesshould be noted. All have experienced DFID social development inputs, with PUSH II andKRIBP receiving these very intensively. All are described as ‘process’ projects or programmesin their documentation. All developed out of some pre-existing activity: PUSH II from PUSHI, RPP from earlier DFID support for OXFAM and SCF humanitarian work, and KRIBP fromfour years of DFID-GoI discussion and substantial pre-project technical assistance inputs. Allseek to achieve their poverty reduction goal through the interaction of a managing agent withlocal level organisations. And, none are operated by civil service agencies (PUSH II and RPPare operated by international NGOs and KRIBCHO is a ‘parastatal’).

The process approach is of fundamental importance to understanding why these projects havehigh social capital content. The basic recipe is that all use participatory approaches forplanning and managing their activities and seek to use these as part of strategy to create newlocal organisations (PUSH II and KRIBP) or strengthen pre-existing NGOs and CBOs. This isat the heart of PUSH II and KRIBP, but is much less important to RPP which recognises thatits goal and context are likely to make direct management of activities important at certaintimes.

For PUSH II and KRIBP participation is central to the annual planning of local level activities.This is usually conceptualised as a meeting (or meetings) that are open for all of the residentsof a specific area and which uses PRA/PLA methods to review opportunities, problems andpast actions and develop objectives and work-plans for the village/hamlet/community for thenext year. Such planning sessions are facilitated by the managing agent at first (followingactivities to build confidence in the agent to strengthen local processes of collective action).After a period of time the need for external facilitation should cease.

Local level plans should then be implemented by local organisations - sometimes directly,sometimes in association with other agencies (such as when KRIBP farmer groups work withagricultural researchers on varietal selection). Such organisations are provided with support -financial, technical, training, systems (e.g. accountability and transparency) - with the intentionthat they will become ‘sustainable’ i.e. eventually function effectively with no external support.

For both KRIBP and PUSH II direct project activities are only part of the goal. Both are alsoexpected to actively disseminate their models of ‘participatory farming system development’or ‘sub-national governance’ to other organisations or regions.

These features lead to a number of important operational requirements: regular opportunitiesto re-cast Log Frames and the project plan; discretion over the content of annual plans; carefulexperimentation and the documentation of learning; large numbers of community-levelmobilisers or change agents are needed; linkages with other organisations are important; and,flexibility in operations. Generally these requirements have been met, although there isevidence that old-fashioned ‘blueprint’ needs to deliver planned outputs can compromise thesemanagement principles (e.g. the ‘accelerated zoning’ in PUSH II produced poor results).While participatory approaches for planning and management have developed rapidly, muchless has been done in terms of monitoring, review and impact assessment.

15

Programme approaches to deal with the ‘dark side of social capital’ i.e. to ensure that theforms of civic engagement being encouraged contribute to changes in social relationships andvalues that are socially inclusive and ‘pro-development’, are not identified in the projects.While RPP seeks to ensure ‘balance’ in provision of goods and services to different ethnicgroups to reduce the possibility of creating more conflict, it is unclear how issues of socialconflict are to be analysed and managed in PUSH II or KRIBP. Stakeholder analysis providesa possible means for this, but despite references to ‘stakeholders’ it was not systematicallyused in any of the projects’ documentation.

16

6. Lessons Learned and Good Practice

The term ‘social capital’ has only recently entered DFID’s glossary at the policy level. While itis referred to in the Social Development Handbook (second edition) it is not used in any of thethree projects that have been reviewed. In contemporary operational terms it is practised as acombination of participatory project planning and management approaches linked to localorganisational development. In cases with heavy SDD involvement these two key componentsare packaged within a ‘process’ project or programme that builds on earlier phases or createsan initial knowledge base through well-resourced pre-project work. Table 3 has summarisedhow the three project objectives related to a social capital framework: it appears likely thatDFID approaches emphasise the creation of new local organisations and the use ofparticipatory practices. Probably less emphasis is placed on strengthening existingorganisations, creating or strengthening networks (i.e. less organisationally structured forms ofassociation).

Whether DFID has a process (formal or informal, transparent or hidden) by which it assesseswhich forms of civic engagement are socially inclusive and pro-development and which formsmay support ‘the dark side’ of social capital is not clear. Not being clear could be a cause forconcern about DFID’s ignorance: alternatively it may be essential for aid agencies that claim topromote empowerment (and thus social change) without interfering in internal politics! Byseeking to ensure that the local organisations it supports follow democratic norms - open andpublic meetings, regular elections, financial training for leaders, the inclusion of women -DFID attempts to ensure that these organisations pursue social rather than narrow sectionalgoals. While DFID shows signs of learning how to be more effective in local institutionaldevelopment its practice has not fully utilised the pre-existing knowledge base (e.g. Uphoff1986; Esman and Uphoff 1984) in terms of such issues as vertical and horizontal linkages,rotating leaderships and member training. There is no guarantee, however, that ‘good practice’will stop elite capture of local organisations or the creation of new elites (particularly if DFIDpolicy is to ‘back winners’) or that it can stop organisations from reinforcing forms of identitythat could fuel conflict (e.g. ethnicity, religion etc.) in specific contexts. Stakeholder analysis,simplistic though it often is, is one mechanism for exploring such issues. Surprisingly, therewas no evidence of the systematic analysis of stakeholders in the three case studies.

Lessons are being learned through DFID practice, but there are also other lessons that couldbe absorbed. A tentative list of these is provided in Table 5.

The biggest issue that SDD faces about the social capital theme is how it wishes to use theconcept. I can see three main choices:

1. Do not use it - on the grounds that it does not add to understanding and it is ambiguous. 2. Develop the concept for use at a policy level to argue about the centrality of analysis of the

ways in which development policy changes social relationships and shapes governance.This could help to bring together the case for a higher proportion of projects that developsocial capital and help block proposals for policies that destroy social capital (e.g. someforms of rapidly implemented structural adjustment). At the meso and micro-level, othermore specific concepts (participation and local institutional development) would guidepractice.

17

3. Make social capital the central concept for social development work at the macro andmicro level.

The materials reviewed here indicate that the best choice would be (2.) as this would capturethe potential benefits of giving SDD a macro-concept without imposing such a contested termon the detailed and case specific analysis that micro-level interventions demand.

A final point is that overall, the documents seek to avoid issues of power, other than as bye-lines or discussing empowerment in a way that is seen as non-conflictual. This may reflectignorance or may reflect that such issues are dealt with in ways that are not documented.Issues of power can be seen as emerging at four different levels.

1. Internal to the local society - what are the local obstacles to inclusive participation anddemocratic organisation?

2. Between Managing Agent and ‘community’ e.g. KRIBCHOs standardisation of the plansthat participation produces.

3. Between DFID and the Agent and Community e.g. DFID and CARE’s imposition ofgender equity in FZRs on ‘communities’, DFID’s continued assumption that it is workingwith ‘farmer managed groups’ in KRIBP.

4. The ways in which the wider political economy will react to local institutional developmente.g. political parties in Zambia, armed groups in Sri Lanka.

The general impression that the documents give is that these issues are either not of greatsignificance or can be resolved on a ‘win-win’ basis. This may be essential for operationalpurposes, but it means that the dark-side of social capital may not be analysed sufficiently.

18

TABLE 5: Lessons learned - social capital theme

1. Process approaches should be encouraged in projects seeking to change local levelsocial relationships. Ideally these will:• Have time scales of at least 5 years;• Grow out of pre-existing activity or detailed pre-project research;• Indicate the likelihood of continued support if results are good;• Have rolling annual plans.

2. From the outset use existing knowledge (local and universal) about participatoryapproaches and local institutional development.

3. Start on a small scale and only expand when results are clear at that scale

4. Do not pre-define the ‘unit of association’ e.g. do not assume ‘a village organisation’

5. Take a nested or pluralist approach to local organisations - hamlet, village, federationand women’s associations may all be useful.

6. Think about vertical and horizontal organisational linkages and especially how neworganisations relate to the state - additional, part of the governance structure, bypassing?

7. Anticipate pseudo-participation and standardisation as participatory approaches got toscale.

8. Incorporate participation into assessment and evaluation.

9. Beware the ‘myth of the smaller farmer’. Poor people have complex livelihoods notsmall farms!

19

Bibliography

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales. 3, pp 2-3.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theory andResearch for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in Question. London: Sage Publications.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal ofSociology. 94, Suppl. S95-S120.

Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

DFID. (1997). Eliminating World Poverty: A Challenge for the 21st Century, White Paper onInternational Development. London: HMSO (Cm 3789).

DFID. (1998). Fact Sheet: Social Development. London: DFID.

Esman, M and Uphoff, N. (1984). Local Organisations: Intermediaries in RuralDevelopment. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

Harriss, J. and de Renzio, P. (1997). Missing Link or Analytically Missing? The Concept ofSocial Capital: An Introductory Bibliographic Essay. Journal of International Development. 9(7), pp. 919-938.

Ladbury, S. (1993). ODA Social Development Handbook. London: ODA.

Narayan, D. and Pritchett, L. (1996). Cents and sociability: household income and socialcapital in rural Tanzania. (Draft Version). Environment Department and Policy ResearchDepartment, Washington, DC: The World Bank.

ODA. (1996). Policy Information Marker System. London: DFID.

ODA. (1997) SD SCOPE Project Terms of Reference. London.

Putnam, R. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R.Y. (1993a). Making Democracy Work: CivicTraditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tendler, J. (1997). Good Government in the Tropics. Baltimore and London: The JohnsHopkins University Press.

Thin, N. (1996). ODA Social Development Handbook. London: ODA (draft second edition).

Uphoff, N. (1986). Local Institutional Development. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.

20

DFID Project Documents:

1992-97 India Rainfed Framing Project Phase II: KRIBCHO- Draft PEC PM, May 98- Complete Report NARCIS- Project Header Sheet, 1993-98- Header Sheet, Project Framework 1992-97- Working Paper No 1, 1996- Working Paper No 2, 1995- Working Paper No 3, 1996- Working Paper No 4, 1995- Working Paper No 5, 1995- Working Paper No 6, 1996- Working Paper No 8, 1996- Working Paper No 9, 1996- People's knowledge in Project Planning: the limits and social conditions, 1996- Joint ODA/GOI mission, April 1996

1997-98 Sri Lanka Oxfam- PM: Relief and Rehabilitation Programme. PEC (97) 4- Physical Progress report, 1998- Progress report, 1997

1994-97 ZambiaProject for Urban Self-help, Phase 2 (PUSH)- Project Memorandum, 1994-97- PUSH review, 1996- Report 3: First Implementation Phase, 1996- Project Implementation Plan, Year three- Volume I: Main Report and Tables, Feb 1997