Reassessing the concept of ‘social capital’: considering resources for satisfying the needs of rural communities

This article arises from a doctoral thesis completed in the Department of Development Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in 2006.

Abstract

This article reassesses the concept of ‘social capital’. Against the background of existing theoretical views, as well as several points of critique, it reconceptualises the concept in terms of its ability to satisfy needs at various levels of society. It puts forward two arguments: first, that looking at a community's resources from the theoretical perspective of social capital gives a better understanding of existing socio-economic processes; and, second, that such a perspective can help the researcher identify a number of further resources available to communities. The article develops a critique of existing social capital theory. It looks at how appropriate the concept is to the situation of rural communities in the developing world, and suggests that a resource-oriented social capital is a promising and appropriate concept for inclusion in development efforts.

Keywords:

• Social capital
• needs
• resources
• rural communities

1. INTRODUCTION

This paper reassesses the concept of ‘social capital’. Its aim is to contribute to current debates by considering social capital as a collection of resources. It uses theoretical views of social capital and a selection of cases from rural communities to reconceptualise social capital as resources that could be used to satisfy a wide variety of community needs, particularly those of rural communities in the developing world. It discusses some critical views of social capital so as to present an overview of the many different interpretations of the concept and to give it a new direction towards resources, particularly resources for satisfying the needs of these rural communities.

This reconceptualisation is necessary because the concept is variously interpreted in the academic literature, leaving it vulnerable to misinterpretation, confusion and even abuse. Furthermore, while including the concept in economic development projects looks promising, better use could be made of it by looking at what it means if resources are considered for satisfying the needs of rural communities. This article therefore argues that, although there are various interpretations of social capital, and despite the methodological implications of these various interpretations, these views are theoretical pointers to the richness of the concept and indicate the many possible ways the concept can be used. To support this argument, the article considers how useful the existing theory of social capital is for improving the situation of the developing world.

2. SOCIAL CAPITAL

The literature review that follows discusses a selection of studies and major theoretical viewpoints that have been influential in establishing social capital in academic thinking.

2.1 Pierre Bourdieu's view: relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition

The French sociologist Bourdieu identifies and describes a number of different kinds of capital: cultural, economic, functional, linguistic, personal, political, professional, social and symbolic (1986:243–55). He defines social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu, 1986:248) and asserts that capital can be converted or transformed from one form to another (1986:252–5). Capital is thus produced and reproduced.

Bourdieu suggests that the volume of social capital possessed by a person or agent is important for understanding the structure and functioning of the social world (1986:248–9). Central to his definition of social capital is the idea that a social network ‘works’ for its members:

the network of relationships is the product of investment strategies, individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships that are directly usable in the short or long term, i.e., at transforming contingent relations, such as those of the neighbourhood, the workplace, or even kinship, into relationships that are at once necessary and elective, implying durable obligations subjectively felt (feelings of gratitude, respect, friendship, etc.). (Bourdieu, 1986:249)

He also suggests that social capital is made up of social obligations (‘connections’) that, in certain conditions, are convertible into economic capital. With connections of this nature it becomes possible for the whole group, and for individuals, to have access to certain benefits. Belonging to an elite group, for example, may be materially beneficial to the individuals of such a group. Economic capital can be transformed into social capital, and social capital can be used to obtain economic capital. These conversions can be seen in the exchange of gifts or when people gratuitously spend time, attention, care and concern in exchange for monetary rewards. Such actions may be seen in economic terms as wastage. On the other hand, they may also be seen as ‘solid investments’, in terms of the logic of social exchange, because profits will appear in the long run, in either monetary or other forms (Bourdieu, 1986:243, 253).

Smart criticises Bourdieu's idea of social capital, which he says overlaps largely with Bourdieu's idea of symbolic capital. Smart also asserts that social capital is the most tentative and least secure of all Bourdieu's categories of capital, and says that Bourdieu's view may further be criticised because he fails to recognise, implicitly, the value of social capital in the context of the developing world (1993:392–3).

Bourdieu's key insight was that the forms of capital are convertible or fungible; that they can be traded and negotiated with each other and actually require such trades for their development (Portes & Landolt, 2000:531).

2.2 James Coleman's view: social capital as relationships

The American sociologist Coleman describes social capital as a ‘social structural resource’ that serves as ‘a capital asset for the individual’ (1990:302). He introduced social capital to the social sciences by claiming that the relationships formed between human beings are responsible for the harmonisation of healthy social institutions. Well-developed social networks and institutions, in his view, are products of social systems with a high degree of social capital. He also suggests that there is a direct relationship between the volume of social capital and economic development (Midgley & Livermore, 1998:31). Social capital can thus be compared with physical capital in the sense that it is productive, and economic development has a better chance of flourishing in social systems with strong social networks, well-developed associations and a high degree of civil engagement.

Coleman's view of social capital also focuses on the interaction between individuals. Some forms of social capital are not possessed by individuals but, as a result of the interaction between individuals, emerge in the form of trust, expectations, obligations, norms and shared information. Thus not only the interaction of individuals, but also the consequent appearances of social capital can be seen as an ongoing resource for the group and for the individual.

2.3 Robert Putnam's view: social organisations and connections

Bourdieu and Coleman's views of social capital centre on individuals or small groups as the units of analysis (Portes & Landolt, 2000:531). Whereas this may be useful for social capital theorists, Putnam (1993, 1995) offers more practical and empirically grounded views. The evolution of ideas of social capital from Coleman to Putnam was a major advance (Fine, 1999:7). Putnam (1993, 1995) thought of social capital as a resource that resulted from people's social connections. He showed how social capital can be a valuable resource and, conversely, how a lack of social capital had been responsible for the apparent decline of American democracy.

Putnam (1993, 1995) contributed substantially to the debate in the social capital literature. His idea of social capital, as features or aspects of social organisations (e.g. networks, norms and trust), has been widely accepted and supported. In a review of Putnam (1995), Ehrenhalt (2000:61) describes his work as ‘a substantial achievement’. Putnam argues that horizontal networks of reciprocity are fundamental to civil society and that these networks can be seen in horizontal (as opposed to authoritarian) community organisations. Putnam's ideas have practical applications, as can be seen in his much discussed and debated article on American democracy (Putnam, 1993). In Italy, public participation in local government was explained in terms of social capital (Putnam, 1995:14).

Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1990) and Putnam (1993, 1995) were pioneers in designing the social capital paradigm, introducing it to the social sciences and applying their views in western and European societies. Some other views of social capital are discussed below.

2.4 Other theoretical viewpoints

Beyond the main theoretical origins and influences of social capital, the concept has received a number of further definitions. Rudd (2000:135) quotes a number of these: (1) ‘those expectations for action within a collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal-seeking behaviour of its members, even if these expectations are not oriented toward the economic sphere’ (Portes & Sensenbrenner, 1988, cited in Rudd, 2000); (2) ‘the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, cited in Rudd, 2000); (3) ‘one's sympathy (antipathy) for others, idealised self, and things’ (Robison & Siles, 1997, cited in Rudd, 2000); (4) ‘a culture of trust and tolerance, in which extensive networks of voluntary associations emerge’ (Inglehart, 1997, cited in Rudd, 2000); (5) ‘obligations and expectations, which depend on trustworthiness of the social environment, information-flow capability of the social structure, and norms accompanied by sanctions’ (Coleman, 1988, cited in Rudd, 2000); (6) ‘features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ (Putnam, 1995, cited in Rudd, 2000); (7) ‘a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or certain parts of it’ (Fukuyama, 1995, cited in Rudd, 2000); (8) ‘the quantity and quality of associational life and the related social norms’ (Narayan & Prichart, 1997, cited in Rudd, 2000); and finally (9) ‘The social capital of a society includes the institutions, the relationships, the attitudes and values that govern interactions among people and contribute to economic and social development … It includes the shared values and rules for social conduct expressed in personal relationships, trust, and a commonsense or “civic” responsibility that makes society more than a collection of individuals’ (World Bank, 1998, cited in Rudd, 2000).

In addition, the World Bank has recognised social capital as a reflection of the value of cooperative social activity (Skidmore, 2001:57). Fukuyama (2001:7) also refers to social capital as ‘an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals’. Fernandez et al. (2000:1289) use the term ‘social capital’ to reflect the ‘instrumental value of social relationships’. Paxton (1999:93), in similar vein to Bourdieu, Coleman, Putnam and other views expressed so far, sees social capital as ‘objective associations’ between people by which individuals are tied to one another in social space and as a ‘subject’ type of ‘tie’ in which trust, reciprocity and positive emotion are embedded. Barr (2000:539) defines social capital in terms of the network of relationships between the agents within an economy.

On the basis of the views of social capital expressed thus far, the concept appears to have a wide range of applications in civil society and community life in particular. Norms, networks and trust, as in Putnam's (1993) definition, appear to be fundamental to the understanding of the concept, and there seems to be a general consensus in the literature that these are part of social capital (Giusta, 1999:921). Portes (1998:6) also notes that there is a growing consensus in the literature that social capital stands for ‘the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures’. Todaro and Smith (2009:329) also recognise group trust and ‘a shared history of successful collective action’ as elements of social capital.

Keyword searches for ‘social capital’ on the Internet further show that there is a wide variety of interpretations and applications of the concept in many disciplines. This study pursues a narrow application, bringing the concept of social capital closer to a resource orientation beyond economics, and to present an interpretation that may be useful for development academics and planners.

3. CRITIQUE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

The theoretical perspectives discussed above suggest that social capital can be useful for the development process in several ways. However, the concept can also be wrongly applied. Therefore, before considering a resource perspective on social capital, it is necessary to look at some of the main critiques from different schools of thought.

3.1 Conceptual critique

Although social capital has clearly been a popular topic for conceptual discussion (Falk & Kilpatrick, 2000:87; Fox & Gershman, 2000:174), writers do not agree on a precise and uniform definition (Fukuyama, 2002:27). Fine (1999:8) calls it a ‘chaotic’ concept, and Smart (1993:393) state that it is ‘vague by its very nature’.

Because social capital is a qualitative concept, it is necessary to acknowledge that it is difficult to define precisely. This difficulty has not only evoked academic interest but also made it possible to relate current academic thinking about social capital to different spheres of society. Portes (1998:2, 2000:31) notes that the original meaning and the heuristic value of the concept are being tested by the increasingly diverse applications.

Given the range of definitions of social capital, broad definitions seem to work better than attempts at precise ones. Grootaert (1998:2) describes social capital as ‘the glue that holds society together’, and Small (2002:10) describes it as an umbrella term for a number of ideas about the relationship between social resources and economic success.

3.2 Economic critique

Putnam (1993:38) notes that social capital has come to be seen as a ‘vital ingredient for economic development around the world’. Much social capital theory focuses on economic productivity, and economists have extended the use of the concept beyond its original meaning (Schmid & Robinson, 1995:59). By so doing, they have not only secured a place for it in economics literature but also succeeded in tying social capital theory to practice. For example, Fernandez et al. (2000:1288) investigated the hiring of new workers via employee referrals and concluded that a firm's investment in the social capital of its employees yields ‘significant economic returns’. Barr (2000:539, 557) also found that entrepreneurs perform better in economies with high stocks of social capital. Similarly, Neace (1999:149) examines the role of entrepreneurs as agents for creating social capital in emerging economies, and Midgley and Livermore (1998) focus on how social workers can use social capital to enhance economic development.

Economists can therefore make good use of the concept, although social capital thinking can, as Smart (1993:389) also notes, collapse into ‘economic reductionism’. Sections 3.3 to 3.7 below present critiques of social capital with specific reference to the rural developing world, with the aim of showing up weaknesses in the use of the concept.

3.3 Cultural critique

Putnam's idea of social capital as features of social organisations such as networks, norms and trust does not specifically account for all cultures of the developing world, which have their own complicated norms and rules. Pye emphasises that these norms and rules can differ significantly for eastern and western cultures; for example, in the way people are expected to show respect to authority figures (Pye, 1999:765–7). Similarly, Krishna (2001:930) points out that social capital will not manifest in the same ways in all cultures, and Fedderke et al. (1999:713) note that all societies have normative structures and that different societies have probably developed different sorts of social capital.

3.4 Methodological critique

Clearly it is difficult to construct a fit-for-all social capital methodology. Nichols (1996:651) and Bridger and Luloff (2001:458), among others, agree that social capital is hard to measure. The World Bank web site on social capital suggests that indicators of social capital could be developed and used to measure it (World Bank, n.d.). However, selecting indicators can be a problem in itself and researchers seem to draw indicators from the currently available theory of social capital (Paxton, 1999:91), choosing mainly such features as reciprocity, trust, social networks and norms.

Since conceptualising social capital is an issue, researchers are also likely to disagree about the relevance of measurement indicators. Besides the popular theoretically grounded indicators, other indicators are also used; often fine-tuned to suit the research objectives. Studies such as those by Falk and Kilpatrick (2000:98–9), Onyx and Bullen (2000) and Small (2002) combine qualitative and quantitative indicators. Small (2002:10) adds that the most popular application of social capital is in participatory development. One would then expect that participative methodologies and indicators would be used to research social capital in rural areas and in informing development policy. Still, no uniform measurement for social capital exists.

3.5 Different forms of social capital

The discussion above of the literature shows that writers and researchers still do not have clarity on the different forms of social capital. Nevertheless, the fact that opinions differ on its content and character may be seen as useful in its own right.

Paxton (1999:93) regards social capital as present, active and latent. Its presence, however, does not necessarily mean that it is being productive; it merely, in Paxton's view, increases the capacity for action and ‘facilitates the production of certain goods’. When social capital is active, it makes various things possible for the individuals and for the group as a whole. If social capital is seen as latent, this means it can be regarded as potential energy. Recent studies distinguish between bonding and bridging social capital (Onyx & Bullen, 2000:38; Szreter & Woolcock, 2002, cited in Thomas, 2003:20–1; Campbell, 2004:14–15). ‘Bonding social capital’ means social cohesion and strong mutual support and participation on the local level, whereas ‘bridging social capital’ means people's ability to access resources outside a homogeneous group, which suggests weaker ties within the group and more tolerant behaviour towards outside groups.

Bridger and Luloff (2001:458) note that a better understanding of the forms of social capital is important for developing sustainable communities. Social capital may also be limited or absent in rural communities (Small, 2002:17). Particularly interesting is the possible detrimental effect of negative social capital on local communities.

3.6 Negative social capital

A number of studies focus on the ‘dark side’ of social capital (Putzel, 1997:943; Portes, 1998; Mcilwaine & Moser, 2001). Ostrom (1997:162) acknowledges that a system of government that uses military rule and instruments of force can destroy a society's social capital while building up its own. Portes (1998:15–8) notes four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion of outsiders, excessive claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedom and downward levelling norms. Rubio (1997) terms criminal activity a ‘perverse’ form of social capital, and Fox, in his study of social capital in rural Mexico (1996:1098), concludes that ‘politics of fear’ explains the unevenness of social capital in civil society, particularly in societies subjected to authoritarian rule. Authors such as Small (2002:6) and Lehning (1998:239) suggest an alternative measure of social capital: to measure the absence of social capital by using indicators such as suicide, crime rates and family breakdowns.

It may also happen that social capital is acquired by a small group at the cost of the larger community or society. Paxton (1999:96) notes that militia or ethnic separatist groups may reduce social capital in the larger community because of high social capital within their own group. The negative side of social capital should therefore not be ignored in rural communities, particularly in the developing world, where resources are scarce. Because poor communities such as those in rural villages have many needs they tend to stay socially connected in order to satisfy them.

3.7 Needs in the developing world

The developing world presents many obstacles to the accumulation of social capital. Accordingly, in rural communities of the developing world, social capital is expected to be very low – that is, if social capital is understood in a material, quantitative sense. Fox and Gershman (2000:412) note that besides the desperate needs for basic life-sustaining goods in rural developing communities, social capital is unevenly distributed in these communities. An economistic view of social capital (as a need in itself) will therefore reveal further needs. This needs orientation of social capital shows that social capital can easily be misinterpreted as a need, a problem or something that is absent from rural communities. On the contrary, social capital has ample resource potential and, as the following section argues, can be used as a resource in various ways. Exactly how social capital can be useful in African communities will remain an open-ended question. Nevertheless, it is within the context of the problems (or needs) experienced in developing countries, and specifically by rural communities, that social capital's potential for satisfying needs becomes apparent.

Building on the above theoretical views and critique, the following section deepens the discussion of social capital to include the satisfaction of needs in the developing world and thus attempts to reorientate social capital thinking towards indigenous qualities and existing social assets as social capital resources in the developing world.

4. SOCIAL CAPITAL AS RESOURCES FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

Using Bourdieu's understanding of social capital, as discussed above, and keeping in mind the above critiques, the following sections argue that, and provide supporting evidence for, understanding social capital as a collection of resources can contribute to a better understanding of complex social processes in the developing world.

4.1 Resources for individuals and families

Rudd (2000:132) notes that social resources can be used by individuals to increase their well-being. Social capital may be seen as a resource for society but also as a powerful resource enabling individuals to gain advantage over people. Community organisers and local leaders in rural areas of the developing world often have prestige and status – enough to affect social capital on the local level. In an African context it is the traditional leaders who enjoy these high-prestige leadership roles.

Family membership is an equally important kind of social capital. Putzel observes there is a trend in social capital literature to idealise the family ‘as the most productive site of social capital and therefore a pillar of civic virtue and democracy’ (1997:945). He says the family is a major site of socialisation in societies and that there is a kind of trust associated with the intimacy of the family (Putzel, 1997:945). Numerous studies have focused on social capital and families, suggesting that the bonding taking place in families is a kind of resource. A family can be considered a kind of social capital, since it serves to link its members to the larger society: Sanders and Nee (1996:233) describe the family as an institution that is an important social capital resource for immigrants; Maluccio et al. (2000:56) find that social capital, in the form of group membership, plays a role in household welfare; and Hofferth and Iceland (1998:574–8) show that rural families tend to have stronger social and economic ties with kin than urban families, which makes family membership an important form of social capital for rural communities. The institution of the family as a form of social capital has special significance for rural families since these tend to be larger than urban families and one would expect the resource pool to be bigger in extended families, such as those found in many parts of Africa and the rest of the developing world.

Coleman explicitly links social capital with the individual but, as Portes (2000:3) notes, Putnam's (1993, 1995) notion of the ‘stock’ of social capital entails a conceptual stretch to social capital being a resource for communities and nations. This understanding was soon acknowledged and captured by other writers. For example, social capital activities, according to Hall (1999, cited in Lowndes, 2000:534), are formed by means of ‘regular contact with others, beyond the sphere of the family or the market … the kind of face-to-face relations of relative equality associated with participation in common endeavours’.

Contemporary theorists seem in agreement that social capital should be seen not merely as an asset for individuals or their primary group. If social capital is understood as a resource of social connections, as Putnam defines it, then it is possible to establish a link between social capital and local level social activities beyond the family, such as in small rural villages and larger communities.

4.2 Resources for rural communities and villages

Community members can gain access to community resources through community infrastructure and activities (Sun, 1999:406). Rural communities do not generally have access to the same resources as those in industrialised countries and must therefore rely heavily on indigenous social capital to compensate for market failure (Skidmore, 2001:58). Informal indigenous norms allow individuals to pool their resources for their mutual benefit. For example, rotating savings and credit associations, as found in South Africa (Buijs, 1998:63–4; Vermaak, 2000:38–48), show that social connections can indeed become resources for both the individual and the broader community or rural village. Taking into consideration other similar studies, such as Spio et al.'s study of money collectors in Ghana (1995:256–7) and Wahid's study of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh (1994:1–14), it can be argued that these indigenous financial schemes are social capital in action.

Fedderke et al. (1999:709) refer to a study of rural villages in Tanzania and suggest that there appears to be a strong correlation between the social well-being of a rural village and its level of social capital. Fukuyama (2002:33) agrees that the micro level, such as a small rural village, provides realistic ways of building social capital in rural communities of the developing world. Falk and Kilpatrick (2000:93) argue accordingly that social capital resources may be detected only when they are used at the micro level.

4.3 Natural resource management

Viewing social capital as a resource can provide a clearer picture of the types of development intervention needed for people to interact more effectively with their environment. A number of studies have shown that social capital is useful for the sustainable management of natural resources. Pretty and Ward (2001:213) cite an example of soil conservation committees in Kenya that enabled farmers working in groups to outperform farmers working alone. Both Rudd (2000:133) and Bebbington (1997:190) stress that institutions, as human artefacts, help humans to cope with environmental complexities and to interact with their environments with confidence and predictability. This viewpoint is well illustrated in a study by Pelling (1998:484) showing that social capital has been a useful resource for identifying vulnerability to disasters and also for mitigating them when they occur. Natural resources are important and particularly relevant for rural communities because of their close association with their natural environment. Social capital, on the other hand, is useful beyond physical boundaries and can address further social issues in rural societies, such as interventions focusing on gender.

4.4 Gender studies

Studies have recognised the value of social capital as a resource in a gender context (Gittell et al., 2000:123–47; Molyneux, 2002:176). Such studies are significant for the developing world where women are frequently neglected and culturally subordinated. Onyx and Bullen (2000:36) established in their study of five communities in Australia that women are less likely to feel safe in their local communities. To overcome gender discrimination, governments and development agencies frequently prioritise women in their poverty relief and development programmes. However, despite these efforts to empower them, women in rural areas are still neglected on a large scale. Mayoux (2001:442) studied micro finance among rural women in Cameroon and concluded that reliance on ‘indigenous social capital’ can empower women, and Molyneux (2002:177) presents evidence from Latin America showing that poor women, more than men, across many countries engage in reciprocal supportive relations and participate in local associational activities.

4.5 Education

Besides child education, adult and peer education also depend heavily on social capital. McClenaghan (2000:566, 572) proposes that social capital enhancement can have direct links with adult education since community development (as commonly practised in rural areas) is often defined as a social learning process. McClenaghan's research also shows an ‘apparent differential impact of social capital on the educational outcomes of children and the participation rates of adults in formal learning’ (2000:574). The education of peer groups, in Campbell's opinion (2004:12–3), can mobilise and create social capital by drawing on existing community networks and strengths.

4.6 Health

Social capital can be an important resource for the practice of good health in both urban and rural societies: health promotion, health education, the prevention of ill-health and disease, and primary healthcare. Thomas (2003:27) found that social capital provides a valuable entry point for health workers in informal settlements. The concept of social capital as a health resource is important for rural communities in southern Africa, where traditional families tend to be large and HIV/AIDS is taking on disastrous proportions. Social capital programmes can, by means of bonding and bridging (see Section 3.5 above) keep HIV/AIDS sufferers connected to their families and communities.

4.7 Politics and the state

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is the promise that social capital can be used to forge good relationships between local communities and the state. Evans (1996:1119, 1124) argues in this regard that endowments of social capital are crucial for a synergetic relationship between the state and civil society, and other authors have also recognised social capital as a policy resource (Candland, 2000:357; Fox & Gersham, 2000:186; Pennington & Rydin, 2000:233; Molyneux, 2002:75). Brown and Ashman (1996) show in their analysis of 13 cases of intersectoral cooperation among non-governmental organisations, grassroots groups, public agencies and international donors that social capital can be a resource for solving ‘intractable development problems’. Brown and Ashman also warn that such cooperation must bridge gaps in culture, power, resources and perspective. Smith (1998:93–107) applies social capital in the context of transnational politics, and concludes that it is important for a society to generate social capital because it is a useful resource for operating in a broader political order and establishing effective democracies.

Other possible useful applications for social capital are peace studies (Rudd, 2000:135), conflict resolution (Allen, 2001:119) and virtual communities on the Internet (Blanchard & Horan, 1998:293).

Social capital, therefore, holds many promises for inclusion in development programmes. It can also, as Emmett (2000:7) notes, help to explain why some community-based development efforts fail and why others succeed. The manifestations of social capital in a community suggest possible applications for improving conditions for the community, beyond just promoting economic development. Social capital appears to be specifically useful for community development programmes that, by virtue of the multidimensional nature of community development, can make it possible for local people to take advantage of their existing social resources. The broadness of the social capital concept, as discussed in Section 2 above, and especially as reflected in the views of Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1990) and Putnam (1993), makes it useful for fulfilling a wide range of economic, socio-cultural, political and even moral agendas (McClenaghan, 2000:571). Evidence for Bourdieu's view of social capital, namely that it can be reproduced (Bourdieu, 1986), has been presented in the discussions in this section. As such, social capital becomes a synergetic resource in development, and projects that acknowledge and encourage local social capital will be more likely to succeed.

5. CONCLUSION

The theoretical perspectives discussed in this article highlight the need to view social capital as a resource. Despite the criticisms of the concept, taking this resource perspective makes it possible not only to recognise further resources available to communities but also to develop new forms of social capital. Such an understanding can therefore help development planners to design more successful development interventions, particularly for rural communities.

Admirable though the applications of social capital suggested in this article may seem, they may also be regarded as idealistic and perhaps never fully realisable. But knowing how social capital is produced, distributed and maintained in rural communities may help to understand our own, and various other, social worlds better and shed light on viable development alternatives for consideration by decision and policy-makers.

Understanding the manifestations of social capital in rural areas can show the need for effective government and for institutional involvement in these areas, and can also compel a re-think of existing development programmes. These programmes can, in addition to their development objectives, create social capital by connecting people. Understanding social capital in rural areas also highlights the need to design contextually appropriate development programmes. Lastly, while social capital seems usable on many levels of society, taking a resource perspective is certainly promising for bridging cultural differences and connecting isolated communities through national development programmes.

Notes

This article arises from a doctoral thesis completed in the Department of Development Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in 2006.