Preliminary Result Of Social Capital

447 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Preliminary Result Of Social Capital

  1. 1. 集団分極化現象と米国市民による政策投票の実 験から学ぶリスクコミュニケーションの方法 Forest Governance in Banyumas: Preliminary Report of Social Capital Analysis Tatsuro Sakano & Farhan Helmy Department of Social Engineering Tokyo Institute of Technology December 4, 2006
  2. 2. Positive Effects of Social Capital: Some Evidences(1) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)
  3. 3. Positive Effects of Social Capital: Some Evidences(2) Excerpted from Uslaner(2003)
  4. 4. Three generations of developmental strategy ► 1st 50s-60s Material Base (Physical Capital) modernization by external infusion of sufficient capitals and technology under the guidance of western experts. →does not create next cycle of production ► 2nd 70s-90s People Centered (Human Capital) Self-reliant, human development, empowerment “build people’s capacity to solve their problems” →created foreign educated, PhD holders, but poverty remained ► 3rd 2000s- Trust Base (Social Capital)
  5. 5. Definition of CPSETs  “Common Property Socio Eco Tech system” is a system which has the following properties behaviors benefit input commons output •Indivisibility, mutual dependence of one’s benefits on others •Free ride-ability (defection is dominant strategy) •System collapsibility (if all take D then outcome is Parete ineff.  rational individual choice → socially irrational outcome •CPR Problem by G.Hardin (negtive externality) •Public goods problem by M.Olsen (positive externality)
  6. 6. Public Goods Problem & Local Governance ► Market    indivisible、free ride(social dilemma)      ⇒necessity of collective action ► State    high monitoring cost, exploitation,rent-seeking    inflexibility to local commons      ⇒necessity of the third approach ► Local governance (Local Property Regime)   self-enforced collective choice mechanism      ⇒transaction coast <CC-DD      ⇒matter of social invention, diversity      ⇒social capital (trust & network of civic engagement) 6
  7. 7. Definition of Social Capital ► Alexis De Tocqueville “Propensity for individuals to join together to address mutual needs and pursue common interests.” community spirit, civic engagement, a sense of belongingness a sense of individual stewardship for common good ► Coleman(1988) Putman(1993) : A Functional View “relationship, which facilitates solving collective action dilemmas by lowering transfer cost of right to control one’s action” norms of reciprocity generalized collective action civic engagement trust
  8. 8. Banyumas Survey: sampled villages downstream(5) middle(9) upstream(20) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Sample Size : 1005 households
  9. 9. Occupation by area   upstream middle downstream total farmers 72.5 54.5 55.7 65.6 employed 12.8 24.8 29.5 18.2 others 14.8 20.7 14.8 16.2
  10. 10. Preliminary Findings: Focused Questions ► Perception about deforestation Forest preservation Level of Deforestation Overexploitation in Upstream Areas Forest Management Responsibility ► Social Structure for collective action Mutual Aid within community Cooperation inside/outside village Response to logging activity ► Social Structure of Trust
  11. 11. forest preservation is important for your area? 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 disagree(4.7) nutral(1.5) agree agree some(50.5) strong(44.0) Mostly (94.5%) agrees
  12. 12. Level of deforestation 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 ) 7) ) .9) ) .4 .5 .6 . 9 18 (9 6 3 (1 (1 (3 m ly( us us er le ht rio h ob io ot g r se pr sli se no o ts no No consensus on the seriousness of deforestation Only 16% perceives deforestation is serious
  13. 13. over exploitation in upstream affect on downstream region? 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1) ) 2) .5) .3 . 5. 48 21 6 (2 al( e( e( ng tr m e ro nu gr so st sa e di re e re ag ag Considerable portion disagrees
  14. 14. Problem of deforestation water shortage 55.9 land slide 0.7 erosion 0.7 flodding 0 wikd pigs 9.2 lainnya 4.6 Water shortage is the most common problem
  15. 15. responsibility to manage forest gov (national/district) 15.7 gnv (village) 2.3 local coommunity 18.3 gvn & LC 37.9 mandor 17 KPH 0.4 SFC & LC 0.6 Community is expected to take responsibility
  16. 16. Summary of Perception about Forest Preservation ► Almost all agrees on the importance of forest to their area ► However, awareness of deforestation is not high ► There are some perception gaps on (1) seriousness of deforestation (2) the interdependency of up & down stream area ► Water shortage is most distinctive damage ► Community is expected to play primary role in responding to deforestation
  17. 17. most people in this village/neighborhood will help you if you need disagree 9.5 nutral 11.5 agree some 62.3 agree strong 15.2 Mostly expect mutual help
  18. 18. community help (when unfortunate happen such as land slide/flood, the community get together to help? very unlikely 0.4 somewhat unlikely 0.9 somewhat likely 13.1 very likely 71.2 Mostly expect mutual help in emergency
  19. 19. how likely will be criticized or sanctioned when not participate in community activity? very unlikely 2.1 somewhat unlikely 11 somewhat likely 22.5 very likely 50.3 Monitoring & control is effective in community
  20. 20. Work/interact with other groups with similar group in no 18.5 no 27.5 occasionally 26.6 occasionally 22.2 frequently 13.4 frequently 8.6 In the village & neighborhood Outside the village & neighborhood Contact with outside the neighbor hood is less
  21. 21. if you find logging activity what community will do if they what do you do ? Ask/inform to find logging? neighbourhood 25.1 check to the location 16.8 community leader 12.1 no action 42.5 get organized to meet village gvt 18.2 19.5 community leader SFC 21.7 inform to the police 13.4 police 4.2 others 6.1
  22. 22. Summary of Potentiality of Collective Action ► Mutual aid within communities are perceived high for both of daily life necessity and in case of emergency ► There are effective control and monitoring mechanism to suppress free riding (keep members contribution to community activities) ► However, overall expectation to community to monitor illegal logging is not high (about 40%) ► Among several actors, community/neighborhood is the highest to be reported about illegal logging
  23. 23. smaller small great greater   extent extent extent extent own ethnic/tribe 1.7 5.6 10.8 82 other ethnic/tribe 6 27.5 24.4 42 religious leader 0.5 2.1 7 90.3 shopkeeper 1.1 7.7 12.8 75.7 local gvt 2 8.4 14.8 74.5 police 4.6 17.7 17 58.5 international NGO 5.2 15.3 29.9 30.7 national NGO 3.4 13.8 27.6 37.8 RPH 4.4 14.6 20.7 58.5 KPH 3.8 14.2 23.2 56.8 community leader 0.7 2.5 7 89.5 researcher 1.3 5.7 11.8 80.7 stranger 13.1 31 26.7 23 military 3.1 7.5 13.6 69.3
  24. 24. advice & expertise from whithin the members 32.3 other sources in the community 11.1 sources outside the community 10.6
  25. 25. Summary of Social Structure of Trust ► There are three groups according to the level of trust (1)high trust group own ethnic/tribe, community leader religious leader researcher (2)low trust group stranger, NGO, other ethnic group (3)middle trust group local government, military police, RPH, KPH ► The basis of social trust resides in community ► The further from the community, the less trust ► The government agency lie in the middle
  26. 26. Tentative conclusion and further analysis ► The nature of CPSETs defines collective action problem: size/spatial, stakeholders, difficulty of collective action ► Sharing perception about interdependency is the necessary condition for collective action ► There are goods points and bad points (1) perception gap about inter dependency and seriousness (2) variation is high among community by community (3) necessity to explain this variation dependency on forest → awareness where they live, occupation difference
  27. 27. Tentative conclusion and further analysis ► The structure of social trust shows: (1) The basis of social trust resides in community (2) The further from the community, the less trust → difficulty for inter community level cooperation → necessity of third trustful party (3) The government agency lie in the middle NGO s trust is low → local researcher/institution might be the key? (4) Good governance at community level is the basis for inter-community level cooperation not a barrier. ► Participatory mapping is considered to be good start

×