MK. PENGELOLAAN SDALH HASIL-HASIL PENELITIAN MODAL SOSIAL Smno.psdl.pdkl.ppsub2013.

MK. PENGELOLAAN SDALH

HASIL-HASIL PENELITIAN

MODAL SOSIAL

Smno.psdl.pdkl.ppsub2013

Diunduh dari: p2dtk.bappenas.go.id/downlot.php?...Modal%20S... ……….15/12/2012

MODAL SOSIAL: DEFINISI, DEMENSI, DAN TIPOLOGIAgus Supriono2, Dance J. Flassy3, Sasli Rais4

2Staf Pengajar Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian – Fakultas Pertanian – Universitas Jember;Mahasiswa S3, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta.

3Sekretaris Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah Provinsi Papua Barat, Mahasiswa S3Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Politik (FISIP) – Universitas Indonesia.

4Staf Pengajar STIE Pengembangan Bisnis dan Manajemen - Jakarta, Tim Teknis ProjectManagement Unit – Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri Daerah Tertinggal dan

Khusus – Bappenas.

ABSTRAK

Semakin mengemukanya pencermatan terhadap keberadaan potensi dan peran penting modal sosial di dalam sistem perekonomian dewasa ini, mulai terjadi ketika para pakar dan pelaku

ekonomi mulai merasakan adanya sejumlah kejanggalan dan kegagalan implementasi mazab ekonomi neo-klasik yang pro-globalisasi dan pro-liberalisasi perdagangan dalam menata

perekonomian dunia baru dewasa ini.

Secara umum modal sosial adalah merupakan hubungan-hubungan yang tercipta dan norma-norma yang membentuk kualitas dan kuantitas hubungan sosial dalam masyarakat dalam

spektrum yang luas, yaitu sebagai perekat sosial (social glue) yang menjaga kesatuan anggota masyarakat (bangsa) secara bersama-sama.

Wujud dari tipologi modal sosial ini dapat berupa modal sosial terikat (bonding social capital) dan modal sosial yang menjembatasi (bridging social capital).







Sistem perekonomian dewasa ini mulai didominasi oleh peranan humancapital, yaitu ‘pengetahuan’ dan ‘ketrampilan’ manusia.

Kandungan lain dari human capital selain pengetahun dan ketrampilan adalah ‘kemampuan masyarakat untuk melakukan asosiasi (berhubungan) satu sama lain’. Kemampuan ini akan menjadi modal penting bukan hanya bagi kehidupan ekonomi

akan tetapi juga bagi setiap aspek eksistensi sosial yang lain. Modal yang demikian ini disebut dengan ‘modal sosial’ (social capital), yaitu kemampuan masyarakat untuk

bekerja bersama demi mencapai tujuan bersama dalam suatu kelompok dan organisasi (Coleman, 1990).

1. Coleman, J., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.







Bourdieu (1986) mengemukakan kritiknya terhadap terminologi modal (capital) di dalam ilmu ekonomi konvensional.

Dinyatakannya modal bukan hanya sekedar alat-alat produksi, akan tetapi memiliki pengertian yang lebih luas dan dapat diklasifikasikan kedalam 3 (tiga) golongan, yaitu:

1. Modal ekonomi (economic capital), 2. Modal kultural (cultural capital), dan 3. Modal sosial (social capital).

Modal ekonomi, dikaitkan dengan kepemilikan alat-alat produksi. Modal kultural, terinstitusionalisasi dalam bentuk kualifikasi pendidikan. Modal sosial, terdiri dari kewajiban

- kewajiban sosial.

4. Bourdieu, P. 1986. The Form of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed). Handbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press.







Definisi Modal Sosial

Modal sosial (social capital) dapat didefinisikan sebagai kemampuan masyarakat untuk bekerja bersama, demi mencapai tujuan-tujuan bersama, di dalam berbagai kelompok dan organisasi (Coleman, 1999).

Secara lebih komperehensif Burt (1992) mendefinsikan, modal sosial adalah kemampuan masyarakat untuk melakukan asosiasi (berhubungan) satu sama lain dan selanjutnya menjadi kekuatan yang sangat penting

bukan hanya bagi kehidupan ekonomi akan tetapi juga setiap aspek eksistensi sosial yang lain.

Menurut Burt (1992), kemampuan berasosiasi ini sangat tergantung pada suatu kondisi dimana komunitas itu mau saling berbagi untuk mencari titik temu norma-norma dan nilai-nilai bersama. Apabila titik temu

etis-normatif ini diketemukan, maka pada gilirannya kepentingankepentingan individual akan tunduk pada kepentingan-kepentingan komunitas kelompok.

1. Burt. R.S. 1992. Excerpt from The Sosial Structure of Competition, in Structure Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University. In Elinor Ostrom and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundation of Social Capital. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

2. Coleman, J., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.3. --------------. 1999. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.






Khusus – Bappenas.Fukuyama (1995) mendifinisikan, modal sosial sebagai serangkaian nilai-nilai atau norma-norma informal yang dimiliki bersama diantara para anggota suatu kelompok yang memungkinkan terjalinnya kerjasama

diantara mereka. Cox (1995) mendefinisikan, modal sosial sebagai suatu rangkian proses hubungan antar manusia yang

ditopang oleh jaringan, norma-norma, dan kepercayaan sosial yang memungkinkan efisien dan efektifnya koordinasi dan kerjasama untuk keuntungan dan kebajikan bersama.

Partha dan Ismail S. (1999) mendefinisikan, modal sosial sebagai hubungan-hubungan yang tercipta dan norma-norma yang membentuk kualitas dan kuantitas hubungan sosial dalam masyarakat dalam spektrum

yang luas, yaitu sebagai perekat sosial (social glue) yang menjaga kesatuan anggota kelompok secara bersama-sama.

Solow (1999) mendefinisikan, modal sosial sebagai serangkaian nilai-nilai atau norma-norma yang diwujudkan dalam perilaku yang dapat mendorong kemampuan dan kapabilitas untuk bekerjasama dan

berkoordinasi untuk menghasilkan kontribusi besar terhadap keberlanjutan produktivitas.

1. Cox, Eva. 1995. A Truly Civil Society. Sydney:ABC Boook2. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press.3. Partha D., Ismail S. 1999. Social Capital A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington DC: The World Bank.4. Solow, R. M. 1999. Notes Social Capital and Economic Performance. In Partha D., Ismail S., 1999. Social Capital A Multifaceted Perspective.

Washington DC: The World Bank.







Menurut Cohen dan Prusak L. (2001), modal sosial adalah sebagai setiap hubungan yang terjadi dan diikat oleh suatu kepercayaan (trust), kesaling pengertian (mutual understanding), dan nilai-

nilai bersama (shared value) yang mengikat anggota kelompok untuk membuat kemungkinan aksi bersama dapat dilakukan secara efisien dan efektif.

Hasbullah (2006) menjelaskan, modal sosial sebagai segala sesuatu hal yang berkaitan dengan kerja sama dalam masyarakat atau bangsa untuk mencapai kapasitas hidup yang lebih baik,

ditopang oleh nilai-nilai dan norma yang menjadi unsurunsur utamanya sepetri trust (rasa saling mempercayai), keimbal-balikan, aturan-aturan kolektif dalam suatu masyarakat atau bangsa dan

sejenisnya.

1. Cohen, S., Prusak L. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organization Work. London: Harvard Business Pres.

2. Hasbullah, J., 2006. Sosial Kapital: Menuju Keunggulan Budaya Manusia Indonesia. Jakarta: MR-United Press.






Khusus – Bappenas.Dimensi Modal SosialModal sosial (social capital) berbeda definisi dan terminologinya dengan human capital (Fukuyama, 1995). Bentuk human capital adalah ‘pengetahuan’ dan ‘ketrampilan’ manusia. Ivestasi human capital kovensional

adalah dalam bentuk seperti halnya pendidikan universitas, pelatihan menjadi seorang mekanik atau programmer computer, atau menyelenggarakan pendidikan yang tepat lainnya. Sedangkan modal sosial

adalah kapabilitas yang muncul dari kepercayaan umum di dalam sebuah masyarakat atau bagian-bagian tertentu darinya. Modal sosial dapat dilembagakan dalam bentuk kelompok sosial paling kecil atau paling

mendasar dan juga kelompok-kelompok masyarakat paling besar seperti halnya negara (bangsa).

Modal sosial ditransmisikan melalui mekanisme - mekanisme kultural seperti agama, tradisi, atau kebiasaan sejarah (Fukuyama, 2000). Modal sosial dibutuhkan untuk menciptakan jenis komunitas moral yang tidak

bisa diperoleh seperti dalam kasus bentukbentuk human capital. Akuisisi modal sosial memerlukan pembiasaan terhadap norma-norma moral sebuah komunitas dan dalam konteksnya sekaligus mengadopsi

kebajikan-kebajikan seperti kesetiaan, kejujuran, dan dependability. Modal sosial lebih didasarkan pada kebajikankebajikan sosial umum.

1. Fukuyama, F. 1995. Social Capital and The Global Economy. Foreign Affairs, 74(5), 89-103. In Elinor Ostrom and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundation of Social Capital. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

2. --------------. 2000. Social Capital and Civil Society. International Monetary Fund Working Paper, WP/00/74, 1-8. In Elinor Ostrom and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundation of Social Capital. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.







Bank Dunia (1999) meyakini modal sosial adalah sebagai sesuatu yang merujuk ke demensi institusional, hubungan-hubungan yang tercipta, dan norma-norma yang membentuk kualitas serta kuantitas hubungan sosial dalam masyarakat. Modal sosial bukanlah sekedar deretan jumlah institusi atau kelompok yang menopang (underpinning) kehidupan sosial,

melainkan dengan spektrum yang lebih luas. Yaitu sebagai perekat (social glue) yang menjaga kesatuan anggota kelompok secara bersama-sama.

Dimensi modal sosial tumbuh di dalam suatu masyarakat yang didalamnya berisi nilai dan norma serta pola-pola interaksi sosial dalam mengatur kehidupan keseharian anggotanya (Woolcock dan Narayan, 2000). Oleh karena itu Adler dan Kwon (2000) menyatakan, dimensi modal sosial adalah merupakan gambaran dari keterikatan internal yang mewarnai struktur

kolektif dan memberikan kohesifitas dan keuntungan-keuntungan bersama dari proses dinamika sosial yang terjadi di dalam masyarakat. Demensi modal sosial menggambarkan segala sesuatu yang membuat masyarakat bersekutu untuk mencapai

tujuan bersama atas dasar kebersamaan, serta didalamnya diikat oleh nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang tumbuh dan dipatuhi (Dasgupta dan Ismail, 1999).

Demensi modal sosial inheren dalam struktur relasi sosial dan jaringan sosial di dalam suatu masyarakat yang menciptakan berbagai ragam kewajiban sosial, menciptakan iklim saling percaya, membawa saluran informasi, dan menetapkan norma-

norma, serta sangsi-sangsi sosial bagi para anggota masyarakat tersebut (Coleman, 1999).

1. Adler, P., Kwon S. 2000. Social Capital: the good, the bad and the ugly. In E. Lesser (Ed). Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Butterworth-Heinemmann.

2. Coleman, J. 1999. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.3. Dasgupta, P., Ismail S. 1999. Social Capital A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington DC: World Bank.4. Woolcock, M. & D. Narayan. 2000. Social Capital: Implication for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. World Bank Research Observer,

15(2), August, 225-49. In Elinor Ostrom and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundation of Social Capital. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.







Beberapa acuan nilai dan unsur yang merupakan ruh modal sosial antara lain: sikap yang partisipatif, sikap yang saling memperhatikan, saling memberi dan menerima, saling percaya mempercayai dan diperkuat oleh

nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang mendukungnya. Unsur lain yang memegang peranan penting adalah kemauan masyarakat untuk secara terus menerus proaktif baik dalam mempertahakan nilai, membentuk jaringan kerjasama maupun dengan penciptaan kreasi dan ide-ide baru. Inilah jati diri modal sosial yang

sebenarnya.

Menurut Hasbullah (2006), demensi inti telaah dari modal sosial terletak pada bagaimana kemampuan masyarakat untuk bekerjasama membangun suatu jaringan guna mencapai tujuan bersama. Kerjasama

tersebut diwarnai oleh suatu pola interrelasi yang imbal balik dan saling menguntungkan serta dibangun diatas kepercayaan yang ditopang oleh norma-norma dan nilai-nilai sosial yang positif dan kuat. Kekuatan tersebut akan maksimal jika didukung oleh semangat proaktif membuat jalinan hubungan diatas prinsip-prinsip sikap yang partisipatif, sikap yang saling memperhatikan, saling memberi dan menerima, saling

percaya mempercayai dan diperkuat oleh nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang mendukungnya.

1. Hasbullah, J., 2006. Sosial Kapital: Menuju Keunggulan Budaya Manusia Indonesia. Jakarta: MR-United Press.







Tipologi Modal Sosial

Pakar-pakar yang memiliki perhatian terhadap modal sosial pada umumnya tertarik untuk mengkaji kerekatan hubungan sosial dimana masyarakat terlibat didalamnya, terutama kaitannya dengan pola-pola

interaksi sosial atau hubungan sosial antar anggota masyarakat atau kelompok dalam suatu kegiatan sosial. Bagaimana keanggotaan dan aktivitas mereka dalam suatu asosiasi sosial merupakan hal yang selalu

menarik untuk dikaji . Demensi lain yang juga sangat menarik perhatian adalah yang berkaitan dengan tipologi modal sosial, yaitu

bagaimana perbedaan pola-pola interaksi berikut konsekuensinya antara modal sosial yang berbentuk bonding/exclusive atau bridging atau inclusive.

Keduanya memiliki implikasi yang berbeda pada hasil-hasil yang dapat dicapai dan pengaruhpengaruh yang dapat muncul dalam proses kehidupan dan pembangunan masyarakat.

Menurut Woolcock (1998), pada pola yang berbentuk bonding atau exclusive pada umumnya nuansa hubungan yang terbentuk mengarah ke pola inward looking. Sedangkan pada pola yang berbentuk bridging

atau inclusive lebih mengarah ke ke pola outward looking.

1. Woolcock, M. 1998. Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society, 27 (1),151-208. In Elinor Ostrom and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundation of Social Capital. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.






Khusus – Bappenas.Modal Sosial Terikat (Bonding Social Capital)

Modal sosial terikat adalah cenderung bersifat eksklusif. Apa yang menjadi karakteristik dasar yang melekat pada tipologi ini, sekaligus sebagai ciri khasnya, dalam konteks ide, relasi dan perhatian, adalah lebih

berorientasi ke dalam (inward looking) dibandingkan dengan berorientasi keluar (outward looking). Ragam masyarakat yang menjadi anggota kelompok ini pada umumnya homogenius (cenderung homogen).

The bonding social capital ini dikenal pula sebagai ciri sacred society. Menurut Putman (1993), pada masyarakat sacred society dogma tertentu mendominasi dan mempertahankan struktur masyarakat yang totalitarian, hierarchical, dan tertutup. Di dalam pola interaksi sosial sehari-hari selalu dituntun oleh nilai-

nilai dan normanorma yang menguntungkan level hierarki tertentu dan feodal.

Menurut Hasbullah (2006), pada mayarakat yang bonded atau inward looking atau sacred, meskipun hubungan sosial yang tercipta memiliki tingkat kohesifitas yang kuat, akan tetapi kurang merefleksikan

kemampuan masyarakat tersebut untuk menciptakan dan memiliki modal sosial yang kuat. Kekuatan yang tumbuh sekedar dalam batas kelompok dalam keadaan tertentu, setruktur hierarki feodal, kohesifitas yang

bersifat bonding.






Khusus – Bappenas.Modal Sosial yang Menjembatani (Bridging Social Capital)

Menurut Hasbullah (2006), bentuk modal sosial yang menjembatani ini ini biasa juga disebut bentuk modern dari suatu pengelompokan, group, asosiasi, atau masyarakat.

Prinsip-prinsip pengorganisasian yang dianut didasarkan pada prinsip-prinsip universal tentang: (a) persamaan, (b) kebebasan, serta (c) nilai-nilai kemajemukan dan humanitarian (kemanusiaan, terbuka, dan

mandiri).Prinsip persamaan, bahwasanya setiap anggota dalam suatu kelompok masyarakat memiliki hak-hak dan

kewajiban yang sama. Setiap keputusan kelompok berdasarkan kesepakatan yang egaliter dari setiap anggota kelompok. Pimpinan kelompok masyarakat hanya menjalankan kesepakatan-kesepakatan yang telah

ditentukan oleh para anggotakelompok.

Prinsip kebebasan, bahwasanya setiap anggota kelompok bebas berbicara, mengemukakan pendapat dan ide yang dapat mengembangkan kelompok tersebut. Iklim kebebasan yang tercipta memungkinkan ide-ide kreatif muncul dari dalam (kelompok), yaitu dari beragam pikiran anggotanya yang kelak akan memperkaya

ide-ide kolektif yang tumbuh dalam kelompok tersebut.Prinsip kemajemukan dan humanitarian, bahwasanya nilai-nilai kemanusiaan, penghormatan terhadap hak

asasi setiap anggota dan orang lain yang merupakan prinsip dasar dalam pengembangan asosiasi, group, kelompok, atau suatu masyarakat. Kehendak kuat untuk membantu orang lain, merasakan penderitaan

orang lain, berimpati terhadap situasi yang dihadapi orang lain, adalah merupakan dasar-dasar ide humanitarian.






Khusus – Bappenas.Masyarakat yang menyandarkan pada bridging social capital biasanya hiterogen dari berbagai ragam unsur

latar belakang budaya dan suku. Setiap anggota kelompok memiliki akses yang sama untuk membuat jaringan atau koneksi keluar kelompoknya dengan prinsip persamaan, kemanusiaan, dan kebebasan yang

dimiliki.

Bridging social capital akan membuka jalan untuk lebih cepat berkembang dengan kemampuan menciptakan networking yang kuat, menggerakkan identitas yang lebih luas dan reciprocity yang lebih variatif, serta

akumulasi ide yang lebih memungkinkan untuk berkembang sesuai dengan prinsip-prinsip pembangunan yang lebih diterima secara universal.

Menurut Colemen (1999), tipologi masyarakat bridging social capital dalam gerakannya lebih memberikan tekanan pada demensi fight for (berjuang untuk). Perjuangan ini mengarah kepada pencarian jawaban bersama untuk menyelesaikan masalah yang dihadapi oleh kelompok (pada situasi tertentu, termasuk

problem di dalam kelompok atau problem yang terjadi di luar kelompok tersebut). Pada keadaan tertentu jiwa gerakan lebih diwarnai oleh semangat fight againts yang bersifat memberi

perlawanan terhadap ancaman berupa kemungkinan runtuhnya simbul-simbul dan kepercayaan-kepercayaan tradisional yang dianut oleh kelompok masyarakat.

Pada kelompok masyarakat yang demikian ini, perilaku kelompok yang dominan adalah sekedar sense of solidarity (solidarity making).







Bentuk modal sosial yang menjembatani (bridging capital social) umumnya mampu memberikan kontribusi besar bagi perkembangan kemajuan dan kekuatan masyarakat. Hasil-hasil kajian di banyak negara

menunjukkan bahwa dengan tumbuhnya bentuk modal sosial yang menjembatani ini memungkinan perkembangan di banyak demensi kehidupan, terkontrolnya korupsi, semakin efisiennya pekerjaan-pekerjaan

pemerintah, mempercepat keberhasilan upaya penanggulangan kemiskinan, kualitas hidup manusia akan meningkatkan dan bangsa menjadi jauh lebih kuat.

Modal Sosial Terikat dan Modal Sosial Menjembatani






Khusus – Bappenas.Secara umum modal sosial adalah merupakan hubungan-hubungan yang tercipta dan norma-norma yang membentuk kualitas dan kuantitas hubungan sosial dalam masyarakat dalam spektrum yang luas, yaitu

sebagai perekat sosial (social glue) yang menjaga kesatuan anggota masyarakat (bangsa) secara bersama-sama.

Demensi inti telaah dari modal sosial terletak pada bagaimana kemampuan masyarakat (bangsa) untuk bekerjasama membangun suatu jaringan guna mencapai tujuan bersama, dimana kerjasama ini diwarnai

oleh suatu pola inter-relasi yang imbal balik dan saling menguntungkan serta dibangun diatas kepercayaan yang ditopang oleh norma-norma dan nilai-nilai sosial yang positif dan kuat. Adapun kekuatan kerjasama ini akan maksimal jika didukung oleh semangat proaktif membuat jalinan hubungan diatas prinsip-prinsip sikap

yang partisipatif, sikap yang saling memperhatikan, saling memberi dan menerima, saling percaya mempercayai, dan diperkuat oleh nilai-nilai dan norma-norma yang mendukungnya.

Wujud dari tipologi modal sosial ini dapat berupa modal sosial terikat (bonding social capital) dan modal sosial yang menjembatasi (bridging social capital). Tipologi modal sosial terikat memiliki ciri khas di dalam

konteks ide, relasi dan perhatian, adalah lebih berorientasi ke dalam (inward looking), sedangkan pada tipologi modal sosial yang menjembatani lebih berorientasi ke luar (outward looking).

Diunduh dari: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fenp20 ……….15/12/2012

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND HOUSEHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT POLICIES:A CASE STUDY IN MYTILENE, GREECE

Nikoleta Jones*, Constantinos P. Halvadakis and Costas M. SophoulisDepartment of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, Lesvos, Greece

Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283

Four main components of social capital are identified: social trust, institutional trust, social networks and compliance with social norms. A theoretical analysis explores the links between these components and environmental behaviour and policy in order to lay the ground for an

investigation of the influence of social capital on the implementation of environmental policy. The influence of social capital on citizens’

behaviour connected with two solid waste management policies is investigated empirically by means of a survey. The findings indicate

some differentiation regarding the influence of the components of social capital upon environmental behaviour in the context of different

environmental policies.





We aim here to investigate further the influence of social capital, as an individual characteristic, on environmental behaviour connected with

environmental policy implementation. In particular, environmental behaviour is explored as a response to the

implementation of two environmental policies aimed at the general public’s management of household solid waste in Mytilene, Greece.

The level of compliance and cooperation of citizens in relation to two different types of policies – a compulsory waste regulation scheme and

a voluntary recycling programme – will be explored by taking into consideration four components of social capital: social trust,

institutional trust, social networks and compliance with social norms.





Social capital and environmental behaviour

Social capital may be regarded as one of the most successful exports from the field of sociology to other scientific fields (Portes 2000).

The wide use of the social capital concept has also been accompanied by significant criticism and discussion regarding issues of its definition, consequences and measurement (e.g. Levi 1996, Newton 2001).

Despite the fact that there is no widely accepted definition of social capital, it has been successfully utilised in several scientific fields as an explanatory parameter for individual and collective issues (e.g. Woodhouse

2006, Nyqvist et al. 2008).The analysis is conducted by dividing social capital into four commonly used indicators: social trust,

institutional trust, compliance with social norms and social networks.

1. Levi, M., 1996. Social and unsocial capital: a review essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work. Politics and Society, 24, 45–55.Newton, K., 2001. Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22, 201–214.

2. Nyqvist, F., et al., 2008. The effect of social capital in health: the case of two language groups in Finland. Health and Place, 14, 347–360.

3. Portes, A., 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15, 1–12.4. Woodhouse, A., 2006. Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: a case study. Journal of Rural

Studies, 22, 83–94.





Social trustTrust is regarded as a core element of social capital (Putnam 2000) and is included in most empirical studies (van Oorschot

et al. 2006). Coleman (1990) emphasised symmetric relationships of interpersonal trust thus examining trust also on an individual level.

A significant distinction within social trust is between generalised and particularised trust (Uslaner and Conley 2003). The former refers to trust in other people in general whereas the latter refers to trust towards certain social groups such as

friends and neighbours. The influence of trust has been used for the explanation of environmental behaviour. Higher levels of social trust may imply

a more positive perception of the environmental behaviour of fellow citizens (Wagner and Fernandez-Gimenez 2008). The individual behaviour is expected to be influenced by the perception that other members of the community act in an

environmentally responsible manner (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Furthermore, particularised trust towards individuals connected with environmental management initiatives (e.g. ministry employees) may also influence environmental behaviour and individual attitudes towards a proposed policy (Stern 2008).

Finally, trust is connected with the willingness of stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes, the level of their cooperation with other stakeholders and the outcome of partnerships for the management of natural resources (Focht and

Trachtenberg 2005).

1. Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

2. Stern, M.J., 2008. The power of trust: toward a theory of local opposition to neighboring protected areas. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 859–875.

3. Wagner, C.L. and Fernandez-Gimenez, M.E., 2008. Does community-based collaborative resource management increase social capital? Society and Natural Resources, 21, 324–244.





Institutional trustA second element of social capital is trust of institutions. Trust in institutions was identified as a social capital component through the work of Coleman (1990). Since then institutional trust has been included in several empirical studies of social

capital (e.g. Paxton 1999). This element may be regarded as a reflection of the perceived level of institutional effectiveness and an indicator of the satisfaction of citizens with the performance of institutions (Kim 2005).

Perception of trust towards institutions involved in environmental policy procedures may also influence the environmental behaviour of individuals (Beierle and Cayford 2002, Jones et al. 2009).

Higher levels of institutional trust, especially towards political institutions, lead citizens to be more willing to accept changes following the application of an environmental policy (Cvetkovich and Winter 2003).

The trust in actors responsible for providing information on environmental issues is expected to influence the level of acceptance of this information by citizens (Groothuis and Miller 1997, Petts 1998).

Finally, institutional trust is also expected to influence the level of participation of stakeholders in decision-making processes (Focht and Trachtenberg 2005).

1. Cvetkovich, G. and Winter, P.L., 2003. Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behaviour, 35, 286–307.

2. Focht, W. and Trachtenberg, Z., 2005. A trust-based guide to stakeholder participation. In: P. Sabatier et al., eds. Swimming upstream. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

3. Groothuis, P.A. and Miller, G.A., 1997. The role of social distrust in risk–benefit analysis: a study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15, 241–257.

4. Jones, N., et al., 2009. Social capital and environmental policy instruments. Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 595–611.5. Kim, J.Y., 2005. ‘Bowling together’ isn’t a cure-all: the relationship between social capital and political trust in South Korea. International

Political Science Review, 26,6. 193–213.





Compliance with social normsColeman (1990) identified social norms on a micro level as elements that ‘specify which actions are regarded by a set of

persons as proper or correct’ norms may be ‘internalised’ and influence an individual’s behaviour (Bratt 1999) through the creation of personal norms (Schwartz 1977).

Individuals who tend to disregard social norms may present antisocial behaviour (Corral-Verdugo and Frias-Armenta 2006). The influence of social and personal norms has been extensively analysed (de Kort et al. 2008).

It is claimed that norms may be used in order to explain environmental behaviour (Nordlund and Garvill 2002). Individuals who tend to present antisocial behaviour (noncompliance to social norms) may also present anti-environmental

behaviour.Furthermore, in communities where individuals tend to comply with social norms there is a higher probability that both

internal and external control will be imposed either in the means of penalties, social exclusion or personal disgrace (Pretty 1998).

1. Bratt, C., 1999. The impact of norms and assumed consequences on recycling2. behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 31, 630–656.3. Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.4. Corral-Verdugo, V. and Frias-Armenta, M., 2006. Personal normative beliefs, antisocial behaviour, and residential water conservation.

Environment and Behaviour, 38 (3), 406–421.5. De Kort, Y.A.W., McCalley, L.T., and Midden, C.J.H., 2008. Persuasive trash cans:6. activation of littering norms by design. Environment and Behaviour, 40, 870–891.7. Nordlund, A.M. and Garvill, J., 2002. Value structures behind proenvironmental behaviour. Environment and Behaviour, 34, 740–756.8. Pretty, J., 1998. Participatory learning in rural Africa: towards better decisions for agricultural development. In: F.H.J.M. Coenen, D.

Huitemaand, and L.J. O’Toole, eds. Participation and the quality of environmental decision-making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 251–266




Environmental Politics. Vol. 20, No. 2, March 2011, 264–283Social networks

The most common structural indicator utilised in the social capital literature is social networks (Coleman 1990). Social networks have been widely analysed in the social sciences through different theories (Granovetter 1973).

In the context of social capital literature, social networks were first analysed by Bourdieu (1986) mainly to emphasise the benefits arising from individuals’ participation in such networks. Through this theory, social networks are regarded as

indicators of the tendency of an individual to participate in collective issues and his/her level of interest in the common good.

Especially regarding formal social networks, these often refer to membership (passive participation) or volunteerism (active participation) in organised groups such as non-governmental organisations (van Oorschot et al. 2006).

However, social networks may also refer to the interconnections between different organisations (Schneider et al. 2003).

1. Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: J.G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–258.

2. Coleman, J.S., 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.3. Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,4. 1360–1379.5. Schneider, M., et al., 2003. Building consensual institutions: networks and the national estuary program. American

Journal of Political Science, 47, 143–158.6. van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., and Gelissen, J., 2006. Social capital in Europe. Measurement and social and regional

distribution of a multifaceted phenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49, 149–176.





Regarding the influence of these structural elements on environmental behaviour, the present analysis emphasises the involvement of individuals in formal networks. It is assumed that individuals who participate

in such networks are also recipients of a higher flow of information on environmental issues. This information may pass from management actors to citizens in the context of an environmental policy and vice versa. Furthermore, it may refer to information distributed among citizens through informal networks (Miller

and Buys 2008). Although provision of information alone is not enough to change environmental habits (Kollmuss and

Agyeman 2002), it may contribute to the diffusion of knowledge on environmental issues, such as improved environmental management practices and increasing awareness of relevant issues (Cramb 2005).

Apart from the provision of information, social networks are also connected with increased environmental awareness and activation for environmental issues (Wakefield et al. 2006).

1. Cramb, R.A., 2005. Social capital and soil conservation: evidence from the Philippines. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 49, 211–226.

2. Kollmuss, A. and Agyeman, J., 2002. Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.

3. Miller, E. and Buys, L., 2008. The impact of social capital on residential water-affecting behaviours in a drought-prone Australian community. Society and Natural Resources, 21, 244–257.

4. Wakefield, S., et al., 2006. Taking environmental action: the role of local composition, context, and collective. Environmental Management, 37, 40–53.





Interconnection of social capital componentsSocial trust is connected with social networks through the enforcement of participation (Newton and Norris

2000). Individuals who tend to trust their fellow citizens present a higher tendency of participating in activities for

the resolution of environmental problems and an increased environmental awareness (Lubell 2002). This is also connected to an individual’s perception that certain members of the community behave in an

environmentally responsible manner (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Furthermore, trust and compliance with norms are both linked with an individual’s perception of the

behaviour of fellow citizens, as analysed both by Putnam (2000).Putnam et al. (1993) underlined the importance of norms of reciprocity, which are also connected with the

symmetric relationships of trust identified by Coleman (1990).

1. Lubell, M., 2002. Environmental activism as collective action. Environment and Behaviour 34, 431–454.2. Newton, K. and Norris, P., 2000. Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture, or performance? In: S.J. Pharr and R.

Putnam, eds. Disaffected democracies: what’s troubling the trilateral countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 52–73.

3. Putnam, R., 2000. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

4. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R.Y., 1993. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

5. Wondolleck, J.M., and Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making collaboration work. Lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Washington, DC: Island Press.





Social capital and citizens’ behaviour during environmental policy implementation

The literature review has highlighted significant links between the four components of social capital and environmental behaviour.The level of compliance and cooperation of citizens during environmental policy applications may depend on several factors (Etzioni 1961,

Bullock and Rogers 1976, Parsons 2001) including social capital parameters (Jones et al. 2009). However, the influence of social capital components may vary depending on the type of policy instrument implemented.

A significant distinction is between obligatory and voluntary policies. The former promote certain regulations and force citizens to comply with them whereas the latter depend on voluntary participation and promote collaboration of individuals during policy implementation (Bruckmeier

and Teherani-Kronner 1992, Rittberger and Richardson 2003, Olsson et al. 2004, Koontz and Thomas 2006, Morton 2008). The other instruments exist, such as marketbased instruments, providing economic incentives in order to promote citizens’ cooperation (Driesen

2006) and communicative instruments (Eckerberg 1997) aiming to diffuse information and increase environmental awareness. In reality, environmental policies refer to a combination of these instruments in order to increase their efficiency.

1. Bullock, C.S. III. and Rodgers, H.R. Jr., 1976. Civil rights policies and the matter of compliance. In: J.E. Anderson et al., eds. Cases in public policy making. New York: Praeger, 237–257.

2. Driesen, D., 2006. Economic instruments for sustainable development. In: B.J. Richardsonand and S. Wood, eds. Environmental law for sustainability. Portland, OR: Hart, 277–308.

3. Eckerberg, K., 1997. Comparing the local use of environmental policy instruments in Nordic and Baltic countries – the issue of diffuse water pollution. Environmental Politics, 6, 24–47.

4. Etzioni, A., 1961. A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press.5. Jones, N., et al., 2009. Social capital and environmental policy instruments. Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 595–611.6. Koontz, T.M. and Thomas, C.W., 2006. What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative

management. Public Administration Review, 66, 111–121.7. Morton, L.W., 2008. The role of civic structure in achieving performance-based watershed management. Society and Natural Resources, 21,

751–766.8. Parsons, W., 2001. Public policy: an introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. 4th edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.





The four components of social capital are expected to influence significantly citizens’ cooperation and compliance with an environmental policy. The most indicative connection derives from the influence of

structural elements. Social networks are important during the implementation of public policies in order to diffuse information

and minimise non-compliance due to lack of knowledge (Anderson 2006). However, social networks are expected to be of high significance in the case of ‘softer’ policy instruments (voluntary and informative) which do not oblige citizens to change their behaviour. In order for citizens to cooperate voluntarily and

present a shift in their behaviour, there is a greater need for benefits resulting from social networks. These mainly refer to an increase in participation, the diffusion of knowledge of the positive outcomes of the policy

and information on means of participation.Involvement in participatory management projects may also have a positive influence on other aspects of

social capital such as trust (Mandarano 2008).Furthermore, the tendency of individuals to comply with formal social norms may have a significant

influence in the case of regulatory instruments (Jones et al. 2009).

1. Anderson, J.E. 2006. Public policymaking: an introduction. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.2. Jones, N., et al., 2009. Social capital and environmental policy instruments. Environmental Politics, 18 (4), 595–611.3. Mandarano, L.A., 2008. Evaluating collaborative environmental planning outputs and outcomes: restoring and

protecting habitat in the New York–New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27, 456–468.

Diunduh dari: www.crcreresearch.org/survey.htm……….15/12/2012

ModelA structural equation model

(SEM) was used to validate the proposed

conceptual structure. In particular, the observed

variables measuring social capital were connected with the

four latent factors of social capital (social and institutional trust, compliance with social

norms and social networks). The latent variables were then

connected with different types of environmental behaviours each constituting a different

model .Structural model for waste

regulation.





SOCIAL CAPITAL VARIABLES

The selection of the observed social capital variables was based on relevant studies measuring social capital (e.g. Narayan and Cassidy 2001, Grootaert and Bastelaer 2002, van der Gaag and Snijders 2005, van Oorschot et al. 2006).

Regarding social trust, both generalised and particularised trusts were measured. The former was explored through the commonly used question of social trust: ‘Would you say that most people can be trusted or you can’t be too careful?’ along with the respective question on fairness, ‘Most people are fair or try to take advantage of you’ (Narayan and Cassidy 2001,

Woodhouse 2006).

Both questions were measured on a 10-point Likert scale where 0 represented ‘can’t be too careful’ and 10 referred to ‘most people can be trusted’. Regarding particularised trust, it was explored in relation to neighbours on a same 10-point Likert scale. This parameter was included in the model because in Mytilene neighbours share the same waste bins and thus it is

expected to influence individual behaviour.

1. Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T., 2002. Understanding and measuring social capital: a multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.Narayan, D. and Cassidy, M.F., 2001. A dimensional approach to measuring social capital: development and validation of a social capital inventory. Current Sociology, 49, 59–102.

2. van der Gaag, M. and Snijders, T.A.B., 2005. The resource generator: social capital quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 27, 1–29.

3. van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., and Gelissen, J., 2006. Social capital in Europe. Measurement and social and regional distribution of a multifaceted phenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49, 149–176.

4. Woodhouse, A., 2006. Social capital and economic development in regional Australia: a case study. Journal of Rural Studies, 22, 83–94.





SOCIAL CAPITAL VARIABLES

Institutional trust was also explored on a 10-point Likert scale (0 – ‘Don’t trust at all’ 10 – ‘I trust completely’) (Paxton 1999, Newton and Norris 2000, Van Oorschot et al. 2006) for three institutions.

Trust towards the Ministry of Environment and the Municipality of Mytilene was explored due to their responsibility for the management of household solid waste management and recycling. Furthermore, trust towards local NGOs was included in

the structural model for recycling behaviour due to the responsibility of the institution for the recycling programme in Mytilene.

A third component explored participation of individuals in formal social networks either as members or volunteers in organisations. Similar to previous measurements (Newton and Norris 2000, Beugelsdijk and van Schaik 2005, van Oorschot et al. 2006) individuals were asked whether they are a member or a volunteer in an organisation, measured in dichotomous

format. The aim of the question was to investigate active and passive participation of individuals and their tendency to participate in

community issues. A list of organisations functioning on the island was presented in order to facilitate individuals. These included a variety of environmental, health, sport and other organisations.

1. Beugelsdijk, S. and Schaik, T.V., 2005. Differences in social capital between 54 Western European Regions. Regional Studies, 39, 1053–1064.2. Newton, K. and Norris, P., 2000. Confidence in public institutions: faith, culture, or performance? In: S.J. Pharr and R. Putnam, eds.

Disaffected democracies: what’s troubling the trilateral countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 52–73.3. Paxton, P., 1999. Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127.4. van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., and Gelissen, J., 2006. Social capital in Europe. Measurement and social and regional distribution of a

multifaceted phenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49, 149–176.





The questionnaire included several questions aiming to investigate the tendency of complying with certain norms of behaviour. In the social capital literature, this

parameter is explored through questions investigating how wrong individuals regard certain actions (van Oorschot et al. 2006,Jones et al. 2008).

A general question of antisocial behaviour was included regarding the avoidance of paying taxes. Furthermore, illegal disposal of construction waste along with illegal

construction were also included. All questions were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 – ‘totally justifiable’, 5 –

‘totally unjustifiable’).

1. Jones, N., et al., 2008. Social capital in Greece: measurement and comparative perspective. South European Society and Politics, 13, 175–193.

2. van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., and Gelissen, J., 2006. Social capital in Europe. Measurement and social and regional distribution of a multifaceted phenomenon. Acta Sociologica, 49, 149–176.





Environmental behaviour variables

Regarding variables investigating environmental behaviour for the management of household solid waste, respondents were asked to declare the frequency of proceeding to four environmental actions.

Three behaviours were connected with the waste regulation: disposal of waste in closed plastic bags, waste disposal close to the hours of waste collection and reduction of waste volume. The recycling of aluminium cans was also examined. All behaviours were measured on a 4-point scale (1 – ‘Never’, 2 – ‘Sometimes’, 3 –

‘Most times’ and 4 – ‘Always’).

For the investigation of each type of behaviour, different structural models were created. In Figure 1, the structural model for behaviours connected with the waste management is presented (excluding trust in

NGOs). Finally, demographic data (gender, age, income, education and employment) were collected in the final part

of the questionnaire.




Diunduh dari: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=851693&show=html ……….4/1/2013

Nick Llewellyn, Colin Armistead, (2000) "Business process management: Exploring social capital within processes", International Journal of Service Industry Management,

Vol. 11 Iss: 3, pp.225 - 243

. This paper explores evidence of “social capital” within the service delivery process of a large telecommunications company. It considers the extent to which a specific

business process exhibited structural, relational and cognitive features of social capital, which enabled social credits to be traded and status to be conferred across operational

boundaries. Through a textual analysis of interview data, the research generates an understanding of how certain groups within business processes – often utilising

informal structures – created, maintained and exchanged social credits.

This framework of analysis is then applied to address the function of social capital within the process. Evidence is presented to suggests that credits shared across

functional boundaries informed upon employees ability to deal with emergencies, recover services and to cope when things went wrong. The paper concludes by making

a range of propositions that may enable managers to identify, build and maintain social capital within processes.

Nick Llewellyn, Colin Armistead, (2000) "Business process management: Exploring social capital within processes", International Journal of Service Industry Management,

Vol. 11 Iss: 3, pp.225 - 243

Diunduh dari: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=851693&show=html ……….4/1/2013

Diunduh dari: http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/14_1/articles/article6full.htm ……….4/1/2013

Schaefer-McDaniel, Nicole J. (2004). “Conceptualizing Social Capital among Young People: Toward a New Theory.” Children, Youth and Environments 14(1): 140-150.

The concept of social capital has gained more recognition in the past few decades but has created conceptual confusion due to varying uses of the term by different writers. Definitional and methodological flaws plague the few studies that have explored social capital among young

people. This paper offers a critical synthesis of the construct and also introduces

a new theoretical framework of social capital among young people to encourage future research.

The author understands social capital among young people to consist of three components, two of which have previously been discussed in the

adult social capital literature: 1) Social networks/interactions and sociability; 2) trust and reciprocity; and 3) sense of belonging/place

attachment. Lastly, beneficial outcomes of exploring and investing social capital in this population are discussed.



Pierre Bourdieu: Social Capital and Cultural CapitalSocial capital, according to Bourdieu (1984), consists of two dimensions: 1) social networks and connections/relationships and 2) sociability. Bourdieu specifically explains that people must not only have relationships with others, they must further understand how these networks operate and how one can maintain and utilize these relationships over time. Particularly, Bourdieu emphasizes that social networks must be constructed and then skillfully maintained in order for the actor to utilize their resources. Bourdieu (1977) further described the concept of “cultural capital.” He used the term to refer to information or knowledge about specific cultural beliefs, traditions, and standards of behavior that promote success and accomplishment in life. Cultural capital is passed through the family from parents to children by spending economic resources on culturally valued and specific items such as books, tickets to the theater or museums, and other culturally-specific artifacts. This concept specifically incorporates an understanding and familiarity of a dominant culture and language in society.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1977). “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” In Halsey, A.H. and Jerome Karabel, eds. Power and Ideology in Education. New York: Oxford University Press.Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge.



James Coleman: Social Capital in Families and Schools The family system is the basis for American sociologist James Coleman’s definition of social capital. He observed that family systems are made up of a) financial capital (financial resources for household and child rearing expenses); b) human capital (parental education and economic skills); and c) social capital (Coleman 1988, 1990a). While the first two concepts refer to parental financial and cognitive abilities, the latter term strictly refers to the more social and interpersonal aspects of family life. Coleman (1988) recognized two distinct components of social capital: social capital 1) as a relational construct and 2) as providing resources to others through relationships with individuals. Social capital is specifically defined by its function (Coleman 1990a) and refers to “an asset that a person or persons can use as a resource. Social capital is any kind of social relationship that is a resource to the person” (Coleman 1990b, 35).

Coleman, James S. (1985). “Schools and the Communities They Serve.” Phi Delta Kappa 66:527-532.Coleman, James S. (1987). “Social Capital and the Development of Youth.” Momentum 18 (4): 6-8.Coleman, James S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.Coleman, James S. (1990a). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Bellknap Press.Coleman, James S. (1990b). “How Worksite Schools and other Schools Reforms can Generate Social Capital: An Interview with James Coleman.” American Federation of Teachers: 35-45.



Robert Putnam: Social Capital in Communities

Robert Putnam extends the definition to apply to societies and communities in general. His interpretation of social capital has therefore often been referred to as a “collective asset” and a “common good” (Warren,

Thompson, and Saegert 2001, 1) of neighborhoods and communities. Putnam (2000) differentiates between physical capital (physical objects), human capital (individual

properties), and social capital. In his theory and like the two theories previously discussed, social capital refers to social networks and interpersonal relationships.

According to Putnam, the notions of trust and reciprocity arise from our social network relationships and thus generate “civic virtue” (Putnam 2000) or a trusting community where residents not only know each

other but are actively involved in each other’s lives and maintain trustful and helpful relations (e.g., looking after a neighbor’s children).

Putnam notes that close or collective communities have greater social capital. The understanding of social capital primarily as a private good (increased social capital facilitates beneficial outcomes for the individual, such as academic success), Putnam’s theory solely understands social capital as a public good (high social

capital facilitates beneficial outcomes for the community, such as reduced crime or increased political participation).

Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Putnam, Robert D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.



The dimensions of a social capital framework for young people



Social Networks and Sociability The first component, social networks and sociability, are original dimensions of Bourdieu’s social capital

theory. Bordieu’s definition of sociability- the ability to sustain and utilize one’s social network- is similar to de Souza Briggs’ (1998) notion of “social leverage” (possessing the skill to get ahead) as a feature of social

capital. Morrow (2001) similarly urged that “actors need to recognize their networks as a resource in order for these networks to constitute social capital” (56). Sociability is no less a central concept in children’s social capital as

well.The emphasis on social relationships and subsequently social network analysis has been gaining increasing attention since the late 1970s. Wellman’s classic 1979 article highlights how intimate relationships to others

in our community can help us in everyday matters. Network analysis has been referred to as a “powerful model of [the] social structure” (Scott 1988) and has further contributed to other social science areas

including political sociology, social support, social influence, and epidemiology (Galaskiewicz and Wasserman 1993).

A review of the history of network analysis suggests that communities are in fact networks and that “social capital is a network phenomenon” .

1. Galaskiewicz, J. and S. Wasserman (1993). “Social Network Analysis: Concepts, Methodology, and Directions for the 1990s.” Sociological Methods and Research 22(1): 3-22.

2. Morrow, V. (2001). “Young People’s Explanation and Experiences of Social Exclusion: Retrieving Bourdieu’s Concept of Social Capital.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21(4/5/6): 37-63.

3. Scott, J. (1988). “Social Network Analysis.” Sociology 22(1): 109-127.

Trust and Reciprocity Drawing on Coleman’s and Putnam’s understanding of social capital,

mutual levels of trust and reciprocity will also be incorporated into this theory of social capital among young people. In order to benefit from relationships to others and to use them as resources, one needs to be able to trust that network members are providing us with correct and

helpful information and genuine support. In particular, children need to establish trustful relations with family members, people in their

neighborhoods, peers, and teachers or other role models.

This dimension also refers to authentic fairness, overall trustworthiness, and acts of helpfulness such as engaging in helping behavior without

gaining direct benefit (e.g., helping a person cross the street).



Sense of Belonging / Place Attachment Despite the significance of place attachment or sense of belonging in the environmental psychology literature (Chawla 1992), this concept has gained very little recognition in the social capital literature. Putnam mentions sense of belonging to a community in his definition (Putnam 1993) but neglects to explain or integrate this concept into his overall theory. Sense of belonging, as defined here, is closely related to the concept of “psychological sense of community” that is oftentimes mentioned in the community psychology literature (Sarason 1974). While sense of belonging refers to an individual feeling of belonging after attaching symbolic meaning to a certain environment, psychological sense of community refers to the degree to which individuals feel that they are part of a collective community. More specifically, two components overlap with sense of belonging: membership (sense of feeling a part of a group or environment; sense of feeling like one belongs in their environment) and influence (the individual matters to the group; cohesiveness; the group is complete only with the individual) (MacMillan and Chavis 1986). Sense of belonging also incorporates a more symbolic attachment or investment to the place, particularly a feeling of “rootedness or centeredness” (Proshansky, Fabian, and Kaminoff 1983).

1. Chawla, Louise (1992). “Childhood Place Attachment.” In Altman, I. and S.M. Low, eds. Place Attachments. New York: Plenum Press.2. MacMillan, D.W. and D.M. Chavis (1986). “Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory.” Journal of Community Psychology 14: 6-23.3. Proshansky, H.M., A.K. Fabian and R. Kaminoff (1983). “Place Identity: Physical World Socialization of the Self.” Journal of Environmental

Psychology 3: 57-83.4. Putnam, Robert D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.5. Saranson, S. (1974). The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.



Social Capital and the EnvironmentThis theory of social capital should now be grounded in the physical environment. James Gibson (1979)

discusses in his theory of environmental affordances that certain parts of the environments allow or afford certain types of behaviors. Along with this understanding, it is also necessary to explore young people’s use

of physical space in their everyday environments and identify areas that enhance or foster social interactions as well as recognize areas that restrict or prohibit such activity. Spaces that enhance social interactions and a

sense of belonging (such as parks, meetings places, spaces for socializing, etc.) thus can contribute to building social capital. This line of research should determine the places where social capital is being created

and explore how the physical form of the places contributes to its growth. Urban planners should then collaborate with young people in designing these types of spaces in their communities. Social and public

policies and interventions can also address the creation or modification of these spaces to serve the particular needs of their users. These types of designs, policies, and interventions would then contribute to

building social capital among young people.

Gibson, J.J. (1979). Ecological Approaches to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.



Social Capital and Health

Social capital is a by-product of our social relationships that makes possible the achievement of certain aims that cannot be accomplished by individuals in its absence . It is premised upon the notion that an

“investment” in a relationship will ultimately result in some sort of “return”. In other words, social capital has (1) a relational element residing in the social organizations of which the individual is a member, and (2) a

material element that relates to the resources to which that individual has claim by virtue of his or her membership within the group. Accordingly, social capital enables individuals to use the relationships they

develop to “get by” (e.g., gain emotional support and caregiving) or to “get ahead” (e.g., information sharing) (Lin, 2001), both of which have implications for health and well being.

The contribution of social capital to health has been demonstrated in a variety of fields, particularly within epidemiology. Wilkinson (1996) first introduced social capital to the public health field, arguing in 2000 that “an important part of the social gradient in human health is attributable to the direct effects of social status,

rather than to other influences on health like poorer housing, diet and air pollution”.

1. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action . New York : Cambridge University Press. 2. Wilkinson, R. (1996). Unhealthy societies: The afflictions of inequality . London : Routledge.

Gilda's Club and Social Capital Development: Furthering Health and Well-being

Diunduh dari: http://healthycommunities.uwaterloo.ca/gc/background.htm ……….4/1/2013

Macinko and Starfield (2001) determined social capital has been applied in four ways in the epidemiology literature: “(1) as an explanatory ‘pathway' in the relationship between income equality and health status;

(2) as a factor in the study of social networks and health; (3) as a mediator of the performance of health policies or reforms; and (4) as synonymous with social deprivation or social cohesion in relationship with

violence and crime”).Szreter and Woolcock (2004) noted social capital has links to health in three main ways: social support,

inequality, and political economy. Our intent here by noting the various ways social capital has been studied is simply to demonstrate the breadth of the social capital scholarship within the epidemiological literature.

More importantly, we emphasize that the volume and diversity of the empirical evidence demonstrating the significance of social capital as a determinant of at least some important health outcomes is quite

impressive. Indeed, health researchers have long known that, at an individual level, networks, social participation, and supportive social relationships are good for individual health. People with strong social

ties, for instance, have mortality half or a third of that of people with weak social ties (Berkman, 1995), and low social support predicts coronary heart disease (Bosma et al., 1997).

1. Berkman, L. E. (1995). The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosom Med , 57 , 245-254. 2. Bosma, H., Marmot, M., Hemingway, H., Nicholson, A., Brunner, E., & Stansfield, S. (1997). Low job control and risk of CHD in the Whitehall II

study. British Medical Journal , 314 , 558-565. 3. Macinko, J., & Starfield, B. (2001). The utility of social capital in research on health determinants. The Milbank Quarterly , 79 (3), 387-427. 4. Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health.

International Journal of Epidemiology , 33 , 650-667.



Third Places Here, we use the term place deliberately, in contrast to space , which is “a realm without meaning” (Cresswell, 2004). Place

is defined by more than biophysical elements; it refers to the socio-cultural meanings and emotional attachments held by an individual or group for a spatial setting. Accordingly, this conceptualization recognizes that places are social constructions

insofar as their meanings are “created and reproduced through interpersonal interaction, formalized in social behaviour, and ultimately persist in collective memory” (Stokowski, 2002).

Put another way, the accumulation of experiences within a place personalizes it and gives it meaning (Stedman, 2003). By attributing meaning to a space, individuals become attached to the meanings themselves (Stedman, 2003). Consequently, “the connections people have with a place extend far beyond use; they are layered with very passionate and deep-seated

personal elements” (Cheng, Kruger & Daniels, 2003). Ultimately, Stokowski (2002) argued, “each effort to create a place becomes an elaboration of the beliefs and values of some collection of people, expressed and fostered in their promotion of a preferred reality” . The construction of place, therefore,

involves a process of relationship building that ultimately reflects a collective identity that we believe can be used as a resource to aid in the maintenance and enhancement of individual health. This proposal aims to investigate this possibility.

1. Cheng, A. S., Kruger, L. E., & Daniels, S. E. (2003). “Place” as an integrating concept in natural resource politics: propositions for a social science agenda. Society and Natural Resources , 16 , 87-104.

2. Cresswell, T. (2004). Place: A short introduction. Malden , MA : Blackwell Publishing.3. Stedman, R. C. (2003). Sense of place and forest science: Toward a program of quantitative research. Forest Science , 49

(6), 822-829. 4. Stokowski, P. A. (2002). Languages of place and discourse of power: Constructing new senses of place. Journal of Leisure

Research , 34 (4), 368-382.



Third Places In particular, we are interested in third places , informal gathering places apart from home (the first place)

and work (the second place).

Oldenburg, the originator of this concept, defined third places as “havens of sociability where conversation is the main activity and conviviality prevails” (2003). In his writings about third place, Oldenburg has argued third places give extended meaning to the concept of the support group. That is, they provide “not only

emotional support but practical assistance as well. As acquaintances evolve into friends, the desire to help others grows. Needed items are loaned or given, as is skill, advice, and expertise.

Time, effort, and money are saved when needs and problems are mentioned in the company of friends” ( Oldenburg , 2003). This description is consistent with social capital theory, yet Oldenburg and other

scholars have failed to identify the explicit connection. It does, however, fit well with a theoretical framework we have developed to explain the process of social capital development for health and well-being (Glover &

Parry, 2005).

1. Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Context, by-product, and action: The linkages among leisure, social capital, and health. In D. L. Kerstetter & W. Hendricks (eds.), Abstracts from the 2005 Leisure Research Symposium [CD ROM] . San Antonio , TX : National Park and Recreation Association.

2. Oldenburg, R. (2003). Third places. In K. Christensen, & D. Levinson (eds.), Encyclopedia of community (pp. 1373-1376). Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.



A Model of Social Capital Development

Our model (see figure 1) begins with sociability at its core. Indeed, if social capital is about anything, it is about what Portes (1998) called “the positive consequences of sociability” .

Settings, like third places (e.g., Gilda's club), that encourage social contact draw relative strangers together routinely and frequently, thus building a durable social network for those involved. Moreover, these social contexts serve an important function in terms of facilitating the ongoing maintenance and sustainability of

social relationships. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) noted, “social relationships generally, though not always, are strengthened

through interaction but die out if not maintained” . This observation ultimately speaks to an accepted notion upon which social capital is premised: The maintenance and reproduction of social capital are made possible only through the social interactions of members and the continued investment in social relationships (Portes,

1998). Repeated social contact reaffirms the sociable bonds among individuals. To this end, ongoing sociability is

paramount to the sustainability of relationships that provide some return to the individual.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghosal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organization advantage. Academy of Management Review , 23 (2), 242-266. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology , 24 , 1-24.



The relationships developed in social contexts can lead to certain spin off effects or byproducts of those relationships. These by-products, conceptualized here as social capital (e.g., norms of

reciprocity, obligation, group sanctions), are crucial to an individual's health, for they can facilitate three forms of action: (1) expressive, (2) instrumental, and (3) obstructive. The first,

expressive action , fits within the social support school of thought insofar as it facilitates emotional support, thereby helping individuals maintain their emotional well-being. Here, group

solidarity is cemented by a common experience of adversity (e.g., dealing with cancer). The second form of action, instrumental , is tied to the material dimension of social capital, which

gives members of a social network access to resources.

Acquiring valuable information from friends and acquaintances is one of the most common, yet important by-products of relationships. Cancer patients, for instance, may share their treatment

experiences, notes about doctors, and various tips or advice they received regarding their conditions. By providing access to this information, these individuals help to advance their own health and that of their friends who are also dealing with cancer. While getting ahead does not necessarily mean “curing” their cancer, the information they gain and put to use places them further along in coping with their experiences and aids in their decision making processes. In short, instrumental action allows individuals to “get ahead” by gaining access to resources to

which they would otherwise have no access.



Finally, the third form of action, obstructive , recognizes the harm relationships can have on individual health. Correspondingly, its inclusion in the model provides a more balanced perspective related to social capital and health insofar as it acknowledges the ill-effects

relationships can create for individuals. In direct contrast to instrumental action, obstructive action can represent a set back or keep an individual from getting ahead. In our findings from

our study of women dealing with infertility, we offered many examples related to this outcome. Notably, research participants who remained infertile felt compelled to support friends who

conceived or adopted children, even though such support made them feel uncomfortable and upset about their own situations. The activities that generated stress in the participants were,

more often than not, child centered activities such as birthday parties, baby showers, toy-shopping, Easter egg hunts, and Halloween parties.

All of these events served to remind the research participants of their own childlessness, thereby creating further stress in their lives. Nevertheless, the social norms and sanctions

embedded in their friendships (e.g., social capital) compelled them to continue to support their friends under stressful circumstances. We aim to further explore the potential outcomes (e.g., expressive, instrumental, and obstructive action) of social capital developed in the context of

Gilda's Club, with particular emphasis on the role of place as a container for the sociability that impacts upon health and well-being.





Diunduh dari: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm/journals.htm?articleid=1723965&show=html&WT.mc_id=alsoread……….4/1/2013

Valeria Sodano, Martin Hingley, Adam Lindgreen, (2008) "The usefulness of social capital in assessing the welfare effects of private and third-party certification food safety policy standards:

Trust and networks", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 4/5, pp.493 - 513

The aim of this paper is to assess the welfare effects of the newest trends in food safety policies characterised by the shift from public to private intervention.

Design/methodology/approach – Food safety policies are analysed through concepts of new economic sociology, with a critical review of the literature on social capital.

Findings – The article shows that as food safety and quality attributes responsible for the exchange complexity are simply codified and enforced through standards and

third-party certification, the global value chain governance shifts from a relational type to a power-based type, with possible negative welfare effects.

Research limitations/implications – Further research would be required to verify the welfare effects suggested on the theoretical ground.

Practical implications – The article makes a useful updating of food safety policies and organisational innovation in the food system.

Originality/value – The paper introduces some new (with respect to the marketing literature related to the food system) concepts and theories of economic sociology.

Diunduh dari: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm/journals.htm?articleid=1723965&show=html&WT.mc_id=alsoread……….4/1/2013

Valeria Sodano, Martin Hingley, Adam Lindgreen, (2008) "The usefulness of social capital in assessing the welfare effects of private and third-party certification food safety policy standards:

Trust and networks", British Food Journal, Vol. 110 Iss: 4/5, pp.493 - 513

MK. PENGELOLAAN SDALH HASIL-HASIL PENELITIAN MODAL SOSIAL Smno.psdl.pdkl.ppsub2013.

Documents