| Discourses
on social capital are many and varied and span the fields of
psychology, economics, sociology and political science. However,
there is growing consensus that ‘social capital refers
to the norms and networks that facilitate collective action’.¹
Within this context, there is currently considerable interest
in the role of social capital in society and in particular,
its potential to foster national development. This is evidenced
both in academia and among development practitioners.
In keeping with the primacy of gender in socio-economic
development issues, the gender-related dimension of social
capital is one of the emerging themes in discussions of the
subject. Of major importance in this regard is whether gender
constitutes a principal determinant in the possession of social
capital and if so, what are the differences observed between
men and women in respect of this attribute.
The family as the main source of economic and social welfare
has been identified as the first building block in the generation
of social capital for the larger society² Women as primary
caregivers are seen as playing a critical role in the process.
It is argued for example, that an individual’s capacity
to trust is rooted in the mother-child relationship³
Studies have also indicated that there are substantial differences
in men’s and women’s networks, particularly in
respect of composition. The available evidence points to the
fact that men belong to more formal networks reflecting their
employment status; while women have more informal networks
which are centred around family and kin.¹4 n¹Differentials
in social networks have also been shown to translate into
differences in access to information and economic circumstances.5
There is also the proposition that capital inequality leads
to socio-economic inequality. A researcher explored this in
a survey in China, where the differences between men and women
were examined in respect of capital deficit (unequal distribution
of capital across social groups) and return deficit (differential
return of capital across social group). The results of the
study showed that females had significant social capital deficit
when compared to their male counterparts, but that their return
deficit was somewhat reduced due to kinship ties linked to
political capital (connections in the Communist Party).6
In the Jamaican context, as well as the wider Caribbean,
women are heavily involved in civil society groups including
a range of community-based organizations, but men in the society
tend to have more powerful formal networks, many of which
are business oriented. Although many observers have often
pointed to the impact of the “Old Boys” networks
and elite business clubs on men’s economic fortunes,
there are no systematic studies which document these linkages.
This papers seeks to fill the void by exploring the proposition
that women in the Caribbean have more bonding social capital
(characterised by strong bonds e.g. among family members or
among members of an ethnic group; good for ‘getting
by’) while men have more bridging social capital (characterised
by weaker, less dense but more cross-cutting ties e.g. with
business associates, acquaintances, friends from different
ethnic groups, friends of friends, etc; good for ‘getting
ahead’).7
The measurement of social capital presents a number of theoretical
and methodological complexities. Major concerns include the
need to accurately operationalize the concept and formulate
accurate measurement instruments. The methodology adopted
in this study draws upon instruments that have been developed
by the World Bank Social Thematic Group for general applicability
and have been tested in developing countries. Elements of
instruments employed as part of national statistical systems
in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia and the United
States of America have also been utilized. One of the objectives
of the research is the adaptation of these instruments to
take into account Caribbean specificities and the development
of a model for use in the region.
NOTES
1. This point is made by Michael Woolcock in a paper entitled
Social Capital in Theory and Practice: Reducing Poverty
by Building Partnerships between States, Markets and
Civil Society, presented at a UNESCO sponsored Symposium
on Social Capital Formation in Poverty Reduction, in
Geneva, 28th June 2000.
2. See for example, Bubolz 1998 and Hogan 1998.
3. Picciotto 1998 makes this point.
4. See study on Brazil by Neuhouser 1995 and Moore 1990
5. This is argued by Kabeer 1996
6. Nan Lin , Department of Sociology, Duke University
analysed the results of this survey in an article entitled
Gender Inequality in Social Capital: Theory and Research,http;//www.sfu.ca/~insna/SunbeltAbstracts/Lin_Nan.html.
7. These operational definitions are used by the United Kingdom
Office for National Statistics. |
