Ecological Economics 34 234 131 – 144
AN ALYSIS
Live long and prosper: collective action, social capital and social vision
M urray A. R udd
S chool for Field S tudies, Center for M arine R esource S tudies,
16
Broadway, Be6erly, M A
01915
, US A R eceived 24 August 1999; received in revised form 15 D ecember 1999; accepted 1 F ebruary 2000
Abstract
To understand the social driving forces that lead to environmental change, we must account for the role of social interactions, the development of norms of behavior and the institutionalization of rules and norms — the
development of ‘social capital’. This paper demonstrates the utility of social capital theory by articulating linkages between human decision making at individual and collective levels and social vision, an important research focus
within the emerging ecological economics research tradition. Social capital theory clarifies relationships between social interactions and outcomes that contribute to the production of environmental quality, public peace and economic
prosperity, necessary factors for long-term social and ecological sustainability. © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords
:
Social capital; Collective action; Behavioral rational choice; Cooperation; Social vision www.elsevier.comlocateecolecon
1. Introduction
Increasing human impact on the environment has led to broad and unique global environmental
challenges Turner et al., 1990 that are character- ized by complex technological, social and ecologi-
cal systems interacting at variable spatial and temporal scale F olke et al., 1998; G ibson et al.,
1998. An emerging scientific consensus is of the opinion that these human-induced environmental
impacts are problems that could impose enormous economic and ecological costs on human society
and the biosphere Arrow et al., 1995; Costanza et al., 1997.
F olke et al. 1998 point out that it is vital to recognize that environmental problems are not
only ecological in perspective but are also, at their root, social problems caused directly or indirectly
by the aggregate effects of humans going about their everyday lives. This viewpoint strongly sug-
gests that environmental problems are linked to issues of collective choice at local, regional, na-
tional, and international levels Ostrom, 1999. H umans, as key instigators of environmental
change, will need to act collectively to develop
Tel.: + 1-649-9463362; fax: + 1-649-9463246. E -mail address
:
mruddsfs-tci.org M .A. R udd 0921-800900 - see front matter © 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 2 1 - 8 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 - X
cooperative solutions that can help control further environmental degradation that threatens our qual-
ity of life and, possibly, our very life support system itself. The emerging research tradition
1
of Ecolog- ical Economics, in attempting to address issues of
environmental sustainability, therefore finds itself drawing from the realm of classic collective choice
theories developed at the intersection of political science and economics Commons, 1950; Olson,
1965; N orth, 1990; Ostrom, 1990; M iller, 1992.
Within formal models of rational choice it is generally assumed that human and organizational
behavior can be explained adequately in terms of internal economic cost – benefit calculations. While
these models are powerful when narrowly focused, social context as a determinant of human choice is
critically important for understanding and solving human problems of collective action, and rarely
considered in formal models of rational choice. This is a central theme of the ’new institutionalism’
in economics Coase, 1960; Williamson, 1985; N orth, 1990, political science M arch and Olsen,
1984; Ostrom, 1990; Sandler, 1992 and sociology Smelser and Swedberg, 1994; N ee and Ingram,
1998; Portes, 1998.
This recognition, that social context matters for collective action, has further led to the viewpoint
that social relationships themselves can constitute resources that individuals can appropriate to assist
them in increasing their well-being. Beyond per- sonal instrumental benefits, social relationships can
also lead to the development of norms of trust and reciprocity that have spillover effects — positive
social externalities — within society as a whole. At the most expansive level, the institutions of mar-
kets, property rights, the legal system and the structures of governance affect the social and
cultural environment within which social relation- ships are constituted. This complex of social rela-
tionships, norms, and institutions is now often referred to as ‘social capital’ Coleman, 1987;
G rootaert, 1998; Ostrom, 1999; Woolcock, 1998.
Why would such concepts matter? There are enormous implications for the ’production’ of uni-
versal public goods such as knowledge and peace in a modern world characterized by complex,
inter-related, and contestable political and eco- nomic relationships set within bio-physically con-
strained and uncertain environments. There is substantial empirical evidence to support the hy-
pothesis that norms of reciprocity, trust, and insti- tutions matter in the production of quasi-public
and pure public goods Putnam, 1993; F lora et al., 1997; N arayan and Pritchart, 1997; Temple and
Johnson, 1998. The production or enhancement of ‘nature’ itself can also legitimately be viewed as a
public good. Without clear rules of responsibility and reciprocity, the maintenance and production of
environmental quality can be jeopardized because it is otherwise in narrow individual self-interest to
‘free-ride’ on the contributions of others Olson, 1965; H ardin, 1968. Social capital, as an input
factor in the production of environmental quality, thus needs to become an important focus in the
sustainability debate.
Elements of a social capital framework provide promising
theoretical links
between research
themes in ecological economics and ‘new institu- tionalism’ in social science. A particularly impor-
tant link can be drawn between behavioral theories of rational choice Satz and F erejohn, 1994; Os-
trom, 1998, the structural variables that help create social capital, and the collective choice
processes that generate shared vision. Shared social vision allows consideration of alternative futures
and acts as a normative filter, leading to policy prescriptions and concrete human action e.g.
Senge, 1990; M eppem and G ill, 1998; van den Belt et al., 1998.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify elements of a social capital framework that can be used to
develop theories of the effects of institutional structure on sustainability and to articulate the
links between social interaction, collective action and social vision. Specifically: 1 outline the theo-
retical bases of social capital, 2 examine disci-
1
Laudan 1977 introduced the concept of ‘research tradi- tion’ that he defines as the set of general assumptions about
the entities and processes in a domain of study and about appropriate methodology to be used for investigating prob-
lems in the domain and constructing theories about the do- main. A research tradition influences constituent theories by
1 determining types of problems researchers address by delimiting domain and methodology, 2 constraining types of
theories that can be developed, 3 providing heuristic control or guidelines about how theories can be modified and im-
proved, and 4 providing a justification role for baseline assumptions about nature and causal processes whose exis-
tence and operation the specific theories take as given.
plinary distinctions in defining social capital, 3 develop a link between social capital theory and
behavioral theories of rational choice and 4 discuss the importance of applying social capital
theory in ecological economics research on social vision that can link individual-level behavioral
rational choice and collective decision making.
2. Theoretical background
