SOCIAL CAPITAL AS A POLICY RESOURCE

Many public actions depend for their ultimate success on the support, or at least acquiescence, of identifiable groups of citizens; but the way in which these permissive public attitudes have enriched the prospects of various social improvement policies in a democratic state are not well understood. In its third cycle, PBRC studied how this “social capital” is being converted to such policy uses.

It began by defining social capital as “the cumulative capacity of individuals and social groups to work together for a common good.” This approach reverses the point of view that has dominated the literature on the subject, which concentrates on the conditions under which social capital is created and how it influences outcomes, including its by-products. While not ignoring background information in each such use, the PBRC studies considered how social capital becomes a resource to serve a variety of public purposes. The cases we studied came from different policy arenas: enrichment of special education programs, programs of rural development, service to the rights of indigenous groups, national reconciliation or reorganization, applications of science and technology to human problems, industrial relations, women’s rights, and even public aspects of religious observance. The indirect outcomes included increased or reinforced local self-reliance and control, enlarged confidence in public institutions, improved social mobility for the disadvantaged, historical preservation, and better social justice through more equitable allocations of resources. For example, we learned that:

• Chinese leaders used the system of higher education to encourage new forms of commercial management and then appealed to newly-minted entrepreneurs to transmit other values such as promoting one-child families;
• in South Korea the leaders began preparations for possible reunification with the North by establishing elaborate educational curricula intended to reinforce loyalties to family members across the border;
• Taiwan used its educational resources cumulatively, but for conflicting purposes, first to stress affinities with Chinese traditions, and subsequently to serve pluralistic purposes by celebrating the indigenous culture;
• China imposed new objectives upon old organizations, using labor unions, which were originally expected only to reinforce discipline in state-owned enterprises, to support special incentives to workers in foreign enterprises;
• Philippines and Mexico encouraged village-level agricultural organizations to promote national health standards;
• grassroots community development efforts in Bangladesh were initiated to advance national productivity goals but soon were used to promote social equity.

These cases showed that existing organizations could help achieve changing goals and still sustain their original capacity to function without sacrificing existing commitments, even when such diversions were not compatible with their own purposes. But sometimes this flexibility depleted an organization’s essential strengths, especially when the new activities served primarily to enlarge the scope, reputation, and influence of its leaders rather than its members.  PBRC concluded that considering social capital as a policy resource requires more sensitive attention to the circumstances of its use than does the conventional politician’s treatment of a consenting or protesting “public” to advance transitory causes.