Government investing in social capital: Some dilemmas in The Netherlands Tenth Anniversary Forum of the CIIF Hong Kong, 23 November 2012 Paul Dekker Tilburg.

Government investing in social capital: Some dilemmas in The

Netherlands

Tenth Anniversary Forum of the CIIF

Hong Kong, 23 November 2012

Paul Dekker

Tilburg University & The Netherlands Institute for Social Research | SCP

Outline

1. Social capital: a crash course

2. Dutch policies regarding social capital

3. Dilemma 1: Bonding or bridging? (multicultural society)

4. Dilemma 2: Barbeques or bricks? (neigbourhood development)

5. Dilemma 3: Big society or ‘ppp’? (civil society)

6. Conclusions: Back to the ‘civic community’ & practical issues

1. Social capital

1. Earlier authors, but interest in 1990s:o Sociology: Externalitieso Economics: Social aspects, cultureo Political science: Networkso Politics: New brighter view on

cohesion – investment perspective

2. But different conceptualisations: Individual / micro / functional versus Collective / macro / normative

3. My starting point is political science/normative: Robert Putnam

Robert Putnam

Civic community → Social capital

Civic community = ‘… active participation in public affairs … pursuing “self-interest properly understood” … interact as equals … helpful, respectful, trustful … strong views on public issues, but they are tolerant of their opponents … a sense of shared responsibility for collective endeavors.’ (1993: 87-90)

Social capital ‘… refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’ (1993: 167)

‘… refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’ (2000: 19).

From ‘generally speaking, serve civic ends’ (1993) to something that ‘just like any form of capital’ can be used in a pleasant and an unpleasant way (2000).

Sources, mechanisms and outcomes

Source: Ruuskanen (2001) www.stat.fi/tup/sospo/kasite_en.html

Three basic forms

1. Bonding: (‘strong’) ties in informal sphere, immediate life; with similar people, sharing identities, in-group

2. Bridging: (‘weak’) ties people who are not close, in the civic realm, between groups and communities

3. Linking: ties connecting individuals and groups to people or groups in position of political or financial power

2. Dutch policies

Similar concepts:

Social cohesionSocial/cultural integrationEmpowermentCitizenshipCaring societyResponsible societyBig society

3. Bonding or bridging?

Ideals/policies regarding immigration:

Multicultural society: positive about group identities, categorical policies, public support for migrant groups →

Integration (assimilation?): Dutch values, minimal standards, courses and exams for ‘Inburgering’ (= making citizens) →

Citizenship?: Colour blind, focus on individual rights and duties

Social capital

Studies about importance of (family) ties for migrants; positive role of migrant organisations for political involvement; differences between Moroccan, Turkish and Chinese communities

Projects to empower Muslim women, activities for young people, homework classes, mentorships

Disputes: No hard evaluation studies / ideological debates about the risks of bonding capital

4. Barbeques or bricks?

How to improve / upgrade a poor (multicultural) urban district?

Evaluations of neigbourhood policies Social capital is an important concept

in this field

No or only weak ‘effects’ of soft social capital interventions on hard measures (education, employment etc.)

Building new houses is more effective

... but expect no spontaneous mixture of old poor and new rich inhabitants

Create hard common interests: Schools and other facilities, not bbq’s

Other social capital findings

Multicultural society: Ambivalent findings as regard the decline of trust and social capital in diverse areas

Benefits for care: NO positive relationships between neighbourhood involvement and informal care

Benefits for health: Positive ‘effects’ of contacts/sociable atmosphere of neighbourhood on happiness and health of inhabitants

5. Big society or hybrids?

Long tradition of ‘community development’ (rural and urban areas): empowerment, cohesion

Crisis of the welfare state: budget cuts

No defence: no evidence for positive results and some evidence for making people dependent on state subsidies

In recent years: ‘responsabilization’ of citizens & ‘big society’ = civil society without state support

Research findings

Viable and sustainable citizens’ initiatives are facilitated by government

Citizens reluctant: (local) government is needed to decide and as an arbiter (low trust in other citizens?)

Involvement of government: Risks of ‘crowding out’ smaller than chances of ‘crowding in’

Tradition of subsidized private action: → ‘public-private partnershop (‘ppp’)

6. Conclusions

Social capital is a metaphor: Useful to focus on social relations, values and culture, but not an operational target

Be normative: It is not just about trust and cooperation, but about good trust and cooperation → from social capital back to the civic community

Be specific, but do not ignore ‘vague’ social capital by-effects.

Go on to evaluate projects: The Netherlands can learn from HK!