university of limerick ollscoil luimnigh 12 may 2007, session d4eileen humphreys, hsyrc, dept....

University of LimerickOllscoil Luimnigh

Social capital, governance and local communities

SAI 34th Annual Conference

University of Limerick

10-13 May 2007

[email protected]


Research on social capital

• Study (2003 fieldwork) ….1.Test / develop means of measurement

2.Types and variations in social capital .. urban neighbourhoods

• Civic perspective … spatial … contested“The stocks of social trust, norms and networks

which people can draw on to solve common problems” (Putnam, 1995)


Policy context & interest• Policy interest ….

– EU, World Bank, OECD …– NESF 2003, TF on Active Citizenship 2006 … NDP 2007-2013

• Themes ….– Social capital, prosperity …. Good governance

• Social capital in public policy … – Direct (NGOs & volunteering) .. – Indirect (conditions)

• Socio-economic / structural factors …• Planning …. neighbourhoods …• Institutional arrangements (decentralised structures …)

• Institutional ….. community development …. partnerships• Targeting disadvantage, coordination, “fast tracking” funding..• Local governance … “Cohesion” structures … county level


Dimensions

Elements

Bonding

Strong, homogeneous

Bridging

Weak, horizontal,

heterogeneous

Linking

Weak, vertical, heterogeneous

Values Social trust

Reciprocity

Cohesion (2)

Inclusion

Trust community leaders

Trust in community organisations

Trust in institutions (7)

Community efficacy

Local governance (3)

Networks Know neighbours

Network density

Interaction

See enough of family & friends?

In vol orgs-passive

In vol orgs-active

Religious services

(Reasons for non-involvement)

Aware of SC linking organisations

Involved in SC linking organisations

Intermediate outcomes

Doing & accepting favours

Social support

Civic interest (news media)

Civic action (voting, action on n’hood problems)


Study neighbourhoods 2002 (CSO)Area Classification

(GAMMA)Social class Education CD & policy

Tipperary Town (part) (2,130 pop., 760 households)

Disadvantaged – disimprovement

Overall mixed 27% low qualification

Long history, organic development

Moyross (4,100 pop., 1,110 households)

Very disadvantaged – improvement

Lower socio-economic classes

40% low qualification

Policy support 1990’s(strong, externally focused)

King’s Island (2,760

pop., 972 h’holds) Extremely disadvantaged – much worse

Lower socio-economic classes

46% low qualification

Policy support 1990’s(fragmented)

Thurles (part), 1,900 pop., 729 households

Below average – disimprovement

Overall mixed 21% low qualification

Limited & very recent support


Bridging: Trust in community activists and

community groups

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

All TipperaryTown

Moyross King'sIsland

Thurles

Neighbourhood / area

Ave

rage

sco

re -

rang

e -2

to +

2

Activists out forthemselves

Groups do theirbest

Overall trust


Linking: Trust in various institutions by neighbourhood

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

All Tipp. Tow n Moyross King's Island Thurles


Mean

value

- ran

ge -2

to

+2

Local Council

Health Board - health

Health Board - SW

Guards

Courts

Probation Service

Local clergy


Linking: Trust in institutions and public institutions by

neighbourhood

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

All Tipp. Tow n Moyross King'sIsland

Thurles


Mea

n va

lues

- ra

nge

-2

to +

2 All instits

All public (excluding clergy)


Linking: Governance - Perceptions of citizen

engagement with the local council by neighbourhood

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

All TippTown

Moyross King'sIsland

Thurles


Mea

n va

lue:

rang

e -2

to

+2

doesn’t care

doesn't keep informed

involves in decision-making


Social capital bridging and linking networks: Selected Indicators

0102030405060708090

Neighbourhoods

% o

f tot

al p

opul

atio

n in

volv

ed

In vol orgs

Active in vol orgs

Aware of linking SC orgs

In linking SC orgs


Social capital scores

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

All Tipp Town Moyross King'sIsland

Thurles

Neighbourhood

Ave

rage

sco

re -

rang

e -2

to

+2

Overall SC

Bonding

Bridging

Linking


Dependent variables

Predictors

1. Social Capital

2. Bonding 3. Bridging 4. Linking

Context - Place

Neighbourhood

-Moyross**

-King’s Isl.*

+Tipperary T.*

-Moyross*

+King’s Isl**

-Tipperary T.*

-Moyross*

-King’ Isl

+Tipperary T.

-Moyross**

-King’s Isl.***

+Tipp. T.***

Composition

Individuals & households

+Education**

-Single parent / alone*

+Residence*

-Single parent/alone*

-Renting***

+Education**

-Single parent / alone

+Education

-Single parent/alone*

Contextual conditions

Facilities, services, quality, problems

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality**

+Identity***

-Problems*

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality*

+Identity***

-Problems**

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality**

+Identity***

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality**

+Identity**

+Services*

Adjusted R sq

F stat

0.451

36.197***

0.354

24.695***

0.328

21.531***

0.332

22.290***

Cases 386 390 379 387


Dependent variables

Predictors

Values Networks Intermediate Outcomes (social & civic)

Context - Place

Neighbourhood

-Moyross* -City*** -City

Composition

Individuals & households

-Renting

+Education*

-Single parent/alone

-Renting*

+Education

-Single parent / alone**

+Residence*

-Renting

-Single parent / alone*

Contextual conditions

Facilities, services, quality, problems

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality**

+Identity***

+Services**

-Problems***

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality

+Identity***

+Services

+Problems

+Comm.Inf.***

+Quality

+Identity

+Services

+Problems**

Adjusted R sq

F stat

0.441

33.980***

0.335

22.072***

0.158

8.934***

Cases 378 378 382


Conclusions• Bridging & linking SC …

weak• Policy-induced structures

may help but …– Well-connected get better

connected ..– Grass-roots … remain

unconnected .. Not embedded ..

• Attitudes of trust .. – Some very distant …

disadvantaged areas

• More affluent areas .. structures

• More of the same won’t work…

• ‘Cohesion’ … more confusion but good for some …

• Identity & profile of LDSIP (partnership) structures

• Focus on conditions– Facilities / services in

communities …– Political opportunity

structure (decentralised)


Implications• Evidence of ‘institutional

void’ in local governance– Revisit notions of

participative & representative democracy

• Dependency on small elite group … overused and ..

• ‘Tinkering’ v. addressing issue .. weak democratic local structures…

• Delivering into local communities (LA / local agency competence)…– Planning function…– Housing …

• How to achieve a wider range of participation?– Changing structures …

embed in wider social networks …

– What incentives for participation ..

• What changes for local communities and when?

• What issues?– Structures + culture of

participation– Information & expertise – The 1% solution (Demos,

UK; TF Active Citizenship)??

university of limerick ollscoil luimnigh 12 may 2007, session d4eileen humphreys, hsyrc, dept....

Documents