Members of the interdepartmental working group on social capital met on March 26, 2003. At that time they indicated that an important early step in the project would be to gather input from departments as to the directions an analytical and measurement framework should take. As a result, an interdepartmental consultation workshop was organized for June 19, 2003.
The one-day workshop was designed to solicit structured input from informed federal policy researchers and managers. Representatives from 15 departments and agencies attended, and in total there were about 50 participants. In advance of the workshop, the PRI prepared and circulated a set of background papers (which follow this report) and discussion questions around three themes:
- conceptualization of social capital;
- measurement of social capital; and
- policy implications of social capital.
Findings
…on the definition and measurement of social capital
A leaner definition of social capital may be more widely useful.
- While social capital may contain multiple dimensions with complex interconnections to the wider social, political, economic, and cultural environment, it may not be helpful to attempt to capture all these elements in a single definition.
- A leaner definition would lend itself to being operationalized in many different ways, depending on the issue in question.
- There was some degree of consensus (with a vocal dissenting minority) that social capital should be defined primarily in terms of networks of social relations.
- It is these networks that convey social capital and provide their members with access to various kinds of resources and supports.
- Other more qualitative dimensions of social capital associated with how these relations work (i.e., network-specific values, norms, and trust) may or may not be important to study depending on the specific issue at hand.
- Those aspects of social capital we wish to study and measure cannot be determined in the abstract but will depend on the policy questions of interest. A conceptual focus on networks provides a means of ensuring consistent measurement across a variety of policy applications.
- We must ensure that government efforts to research and operationalize social capital are connected to federal policy and program objectives.
- Immigrant integration and diversity, health, economic participation, and social inclusion were among the policy areas identified at the workshop as likely to benefit from a social capital perspective.
- Social capital networks are dynamic, not static; they can be quite episodic and context specific. (A network that forms around one issue or activity may or may not continue to be active after the original issue or activity is concluded.)
- Specific manifestations of social capital may be highly useful in achieving certain outcomes, while of limited value or even counterproductive in achieving others.
- For example, bonding social capital (homogeneous ties inside the group of belonging) is crucial for new immigrants in "getting by" on a day-to-day basis, but may later be less useful than bridging social capital (linkages to groups and institutions outside of the ethnic community) for "getting ahead."
- Similarly, different dimensions of social capital (e.g., levels of trust within the network or the gender of the network members) may be critical for determining outcomes in one area, but of only marginal importance in others.
- The potential impact of social capital on various outcomes will vary depending on the ways in which its effects are enhanced or diminished by the wider social, political, economic, and cultural environment.
- Organizations and institutions may play an important and varied role in facilitating or hindering the development and operation of social capital.
- As social capital is a highly context-dependent phenomenon, the validity and reliability of measures of social capital and its impact are much greater at the micro-level (e.g., among individuals in particular networks or within specified neighbourhoods).
- Depending on the policy issue at hand, it may however be desirable to study social capital at higher levels of aggregation (e.g., region, province, nation).
- Serious concerns exist about many of the present approaches around the world to studying social capital at the national aggregate level.
- The ability to link micro and macro spheres is conceptually possible if, in both cases, we start with a common framework based on individuals and the networks of social relations of which they are a part.
- This is a particular example of the same issue.
- Trust between members of a specific network is an important feature that allows that network to function and endure.
- We cannot assume that this necessarily translates into more generalized trust.
- As a result, the emphasis on measures of generalized trust as a proxy for social capital may be misplaced.
- The widely used "classic question" on trust is poorly designed. There is evidence from the United Kingdom that the answer given by respondents will vary enormously depending on the wider theme of the survey in which it is included (i.e., a health survey that includes the classic trust question gets dramatically different results from a crime survey).
- Mixing up these components is the source of much of the confusion in the literature and in policy discussions about social capital.
- We may wish to end up talking about any or all of these depending on the policy question and specific context, but they should be kept analytically distinct.
- We need to better understand the actual mechanism of social capital formation (i.e., "what's inside the black box").
- Other dimensions of social life that are often (but inaccurately) categorized under the broad banner of "social capital" (e.g., generalized trust, civic and social participation, attitudes, etc.) are important and can be the object of study in their own right.
Social capital is a possible means to an end, not an end in itself.
- We should not be thinking about a national strategy to build social capital or a policy statement to increase the social capital of Canadians for its own sake.
- Social capital itself is best understood as a means or process for accessing various forms of resources and support through networks of social relations.
- The idea is to place emphasis on the possible role of social capital, as a resource and a process, in facilitating the achievement of broader policy objectives, such as immigrant integration, economic participation, or improved education and health outcomes.
- More social capital will not necessarily always lead to better outcomes; while there are high levels of social capital in certain First Nations communities, for example, its presence is not sufficient to overcome extreme poverty.
- Social capital can sometimes also facilitate negative or perverse outcomes.
- Social capital alone may not always be enough to achieve objectives, but it may be a useful complement or reinforcement for other policy tools and resources in achieving policy/program objectives. For example, it is particularly relevant in the area of immigrant integration where it can complement other integration tools such as language training.
- We may not be able simply to switch social capital on or off by itself and produce desired outcomes. Rather, we must appreciate that it is only one element in a wider world of complex social processes.
- A social capital lens in policy/program development and implementation could start with raising awareness across government about its potential role in achieving (or obstructing) policy objectives.
- While many policies and programs are already incorporating elements of social capital (e.g., social capital-building practices, such as inter-community partnerships, are often used as funding requirements), there could be more systematic tracking of the use of social capital in achieving program outcomes.
- To this end, the government can be more active in developing and refining measurement tools and indicators to register the presence of social capital and assess its impacts on program outcomes.
- Identifying the effects of social capital on existing program outcomes could facilitate their reproduction in other program areas.
- We must ensure that programs and policies across government do not work at cross-purposes in the ways in which they incorporate or affect social capital; seemingly unrelated government interventions (e.g., in areas of transportation, housing, etc.) might actually undermine social capital resources that other programs are counting on to achieve their objectives.
On Conceptualization
Social capital involves networks of social relations that can facilitate outcomes. This said, we must consider the best way to define and conceptualize social capital more precisely, given the differences in approach in the literature.
- Specifically, should norms generally, and trust in particular, be considered an integral component of social capital itself - or are they only complements and/or potential outcomes?
- Similarly, should the resources or abilities of each of the members of a social network be considered a part of social capital, or only a complement?
- Can we conceptualize social capital in a way that has a consistent meaning at both the micro-levels of individuals, families, and neighbourhoods, and at the macro-levels of cities, regions, and nations?
- Are there other potential configurations of social capital we might identify beyond bonding, bridging, and linking that would be helpful for public policy research and development?
The United Kingdom and Australia have adopted the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition for framework development and measurement:
networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups.
- Is this the operational definition that should be adopted to guide measurement in the Canadian context?
- What are the key components of social capital that need to be operationalized and measured?
- What is the appropriate unit of analysis/measurement?
- What levels of aggregation are needed (e.g., geographic areas, population groups)?
- What outcome measures are most important?
- What policy areas could benefit most from a social capital perspective? Are there any particular policy issues that can be informed by additional research on social capital?
- What programs in the federal government (or other levels of government) already affect the accumulation of various forms of social capital, even if not articulated in these terms?
- Is there a need to develop a more consistent and integrated approach to the use of social capital for policy across the federal government?
- There are several ways of incorporating a social capital perspective into policy. These range from
- viewing social capital formation as a primary policy objective;
- including social capital as a tool, among others, for achieving mainstream policy objectives; and
- using a social capital "lens" in policy development and implementation.
- In light of these various models, what are the prime opportunities for action?
- What are the potential jurisdictional issues/implications?
No comments:
Post a Comment