2.4 Natural Resource Management and Social Capital Towards An Understanding of Social Capital
Among various explanations on promoting sustainability of resource use over time is the presence of social capital. It is viewed as one important feature
for long-enduring self-governance of common-pool resources. Social capital is identified as “the capacity of communities to cooperate for managing natural
resources in a sustainable way” Birner and Wittmer 2004. Coleman 1990 used social capital to refer to features of social organization such as trust, norms and
networks. Ostrom 1990 used social capital to refer to the richness of social organization.
Social capital has been investigated by different disciplinary perspectives Rudd 2001. Sociologists view social capital as with individual who can use
social networks for personal economic advantage by acquiring resources within the network Nee 1998; Burt 2000. Political scientists have a tendency to
emphasize civil society and how it can enhance the level of general trust in a society. Having trust for strangers can make it easier to engage in transactions
with them and, in aggregate, can enhance regional economic performance see Putnam 1993. Economists see social capital in a boarder terms, as the
institutional infrastructure that facilitates trade with strangers whom one might not trust at all. It is because property rights, money and banking, insurance, and the
legal system reduce people’s reliance on personal trust, therefore reducing the transaction costs of trading North 1990.
Table 4 Complementary categories of social capital
Structural Cognitive
Sources and manifestations
Roles and rules Networks and other interpersonal
relationships Procedures and precedents
Norms Values
Attitudes Beliefs
Domains Social organizations
Civic culture Dynamics factors
Horizontal linkages Vertical linkages
Trust, solidarity, cooperation, generosity
Common elements Expectations that lead to cooperative behavior, which produces
mutual benefits. Source: Uphoff 2000.
Even though it is difficult to measure social capital, it proposes three areas, in which social capital may contribute to societal performance: trust and
trustworthiness; civic engagement and cooperation; and social networks which encompass of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital Grafton 2005.
Correspondingly, Uphoff 2000 views social capital as having some combination of role-based or rule-based structural and mental or attitudinal cognitive
origins. They are related and interactive, but distinguishable Table 4.
Common-Pool Resources and Social Capital
With regard to common-pool resources, the institutional capacity of resource users is a necessary condition to resolve the problems associated with
common-pool resources, i.e. free riding and overuse. However, based on detail study of several local commons, the capacity of resource users to design and
enforce rules is not a sufficient condition to ensure resolution of complex dilemmas. Extending reciprocity to others, building trust to develop better rules,
and accessing reliable information about complex process is important assets for resource users to craft and enforce institutions. Resource users who have
developed forms of mutual trusts and social capital can utilize these assets to craft institutions that avoid the common-pool resources dilemma and arrive at
reasonable outcomes Ostrom et al. 1994. In this respect, trust is one significant aspect for the establishment and
endurance of institutional arrangements. Trust makes social life predictable, while it creates a sense of community, and it makes it easier for people to work
together or cooperate Folke et al. 2005. Trust, together with shared norms and norms of reciprocity are cognitive social capital, which is important to lubricate or
facilitate cooperation among individuals to develop and implement rules or institutions, and resolve collective action problems that are needed to achieve
societal goals Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993; Ostrom et al. 1994.
Potential Role of Social Capital in Coral Reef Management
Many studies shows that in tropical developing countries, where formal institutions may be relatively weak, social networks remain important for
controlling opportunism and solving social dilemmas in the inshore fisheries Berkes 1986; Rudd 2001; Bavinck 2001. These studies focused on local-level
or community-based fishery management, in which a well-defined boundary of social structure and interaction exist. In this way, the recurrent interactions
among agents will form a local social structure may affect economic decisions and outcomes of resource users through three main mechanisms, as follows:
1. Information sharing. Frequent interactions in local organizations and networks, agents are more likely to observe each other’s behavior one-way
information sharing and to exchange information about their daily lives two- way information sharing.
2. Impact of transaction costs. Frequent and regular interaction in social settings, agents establish patterns of expected behavior and build bonds of
trust. Combined with the possibility of sanctions, this lowers the likelihood of opportunistic behavior by agents that are in the same social structure, thus
affect the level of transaction costs associated with many market exchanges. 3. Reduction of collective action dilemmas. Selective constraints are important
for agents as an incentive to participate in mutually-beneficial collective action Olson 1965. Frequent and regular interactions in social settings lead to the
development of institutions that can serve as such constraints, thus lowering the incentives of individual agents to free ride Isham 2001: 4-5.
Three main dimensions of social capital with regard to social networks are distinguished: bonding, bridging and linking social capital Woolcock 1998;
Narayan 1999. Bonding social capital is strong bonds of social relationships which are endorsed among family members or among members of an ethnic
group. Bridging social capital is weaker but more cross-cutting ties of social relationships, which can be found in relationships from different ethnic groups or
acquaintances. Linking social capital are connections between those with differing levels of power or social status e.g. links between the political elite and
the general public or between individuals from different social classes Aldridge et al. 1999; Grootaert et al. 2003.
Based on definitions of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital, the impact of social capital in fishery management as pointed by Isham 2001 is
restricted to the bonding social capital, which is networks and interactions among resource users within a local social boundary. However, local or community-
based management is often faced challenges from external economic and political stresses which impinge upon those systems, such as loss of community
control over the resource, commercialization of subsistence fisheries, rapid population-growth, and rapid technology-change Berkes 1985. This challenge is
related with the cross-level issues that are pervasive in commons management Berkes 2006.
While rules and institutions to govern coral reef management and reef fishery need to install in order to resolve exclusion problem and subtractability
problem, the way forward is to promote not only bonding social capital, but also
bridging and linking social capital. The diverse networks of social capital can contribute to different aspect of fisheries governance: promote conflict resolution,
increase rule compliance, enhance flexibility to change, overcome rent-seeking behavior, and promote management options for uncertainty Grafton 2005, as
presented in Table 5.
Table 5 Social capital and fisheries governance
Type of social capital Aspects of fisheries
governance
Bonding Bridging Linking
Conflict resolution X
X X
Rule compliance X
X X
Enhanced flexibility to change
X X Rent-seeking
behavior X X
Management options with uncertainty
X X X Source: Grafton 2005. Note: ‘X’ indicates the governance factor row is likely increasing
in the number and quality of connections of the given type of social capital column. In other words: social capital will increase governance factors.
Building and Investing in Social Capital
If social capital is a necessary condition to craft and enforce rules for common-pool resources Ostrom et al. 1994, as well as for fisheries governance
Grafton 2005, therefore it is significant to acknowledge how improvement in social capital is to undertake. Another crucial consideration for social capital
investment is to overcome the cross-level issues that are pervasive in commons management. Therefore, the role of cross-scale institutions is significant to
provide a means to bridge the divide between processes taking place at different levels Berkes 2006. This means are to build bridging and linking social capital.
Bridging social capital is invested through promotion of interactions across groups, while linking social capital is built by way of promoting interactions
between resource users and decision makers. Nevertheless, building bonding social capital is not to be neglected, as it is important for a community-level
cooperation and interaction in order to promote institutional capacity at local level. A number of studies advocate how to invest in social capital. Berkes 2006
proposes it can be promoted through cross-scale institutions such as co- management agencies, boundary organizations, and epistemic communities.
Isham 2001 suggests on promoting capacity building of local leaders, organizing stakeholder conferences, and supporting fishing organizations. Folke
et al. 2005: 451 advocate for investing in social relationships to facilitate
building trust that is important for cooperation. Rudd 2001: 12-13 promotes the construction of meeting halls, cross-visits among different communities of fishers,
and the provision of facilitators and extension agents for community management planning. Grafton 2005: 761 underscores the importance of linking social capital
in fishery that is the relations between a fishery regulator or a government agency and a group of fishers. Table 6 present three different methods in which social
capital investment can be promoted. Table 6 Methods of social capital investment
Methods of social capital investment Authors
Network stakeholders
interactions Capacity
building for fishers
Fishing organizations
Berkes 2006 X
Folke et al. 2005 X
Grafton 2005 X
Isham 2001 X
X X
Rudd 2001 X
X X
Pomeroy and Berkes 1997 X
X
Furthermore, strategies to promote institutions for cross-scale linkages can take, at least, four different forms. The relationships and networks for facilitating
development, empowerment and co-management, are formed by three different stakeholders: fishers F, Department of Fisheries DOF, and NGOs. These
strategies are presented at Figure 8.
Figure 8 Institutions for cross-scale linkages.
Source: Berkes 2002; adapted from Ahmed et al. 1997. Note: Fishers F; Department of Fisheries DOF; Non-governmental organizations
NGO
DOF F
DOF NGO
F DOF
F
NGO
DOF NGO
F a
b c
d
Chapter 3 Research Methodology
A research methodology is presented in this chapter. It explains the research framework and the consideration of selecting five small islands for this
study, followed by the data collection methods employed. Finally, analytical methods are described.
3.1 Research Framework
This study uses an institutional approach. This approach assumes that individuals trying to solve problems as effectively as they can. Resource users,
i.e. fishers, in many settings are strongly motivated to find better solutions to their problems if they can. Their economic livelihood depends on their creativity in
solving individual and joint problems Ostrom 1990. A comparative case study presents the best method for an institutional
approach, especially for the study of common-pool resources Agrawal 2001: 1663. By using this method, the study can identify the important causal
mechanisms and focus the range of relevant theoretical variables and their interactions. The comparison is based on successful and unsuccessful cases,
and the study tries to identify the internal and external factors that can impede or enhance the capabilities of individuals to use and govern coral reef resource use
Figure 9.
Figure 9 Factors affecting common-pool resource use.
Source: Dolšak and Ostrom 2003.
Resource characteristics
Economic environment
Political environment
Legal environment
Technology Characteristics
of resource users
Institutions governing
resource use Resource
use