You are on page 1of 35

The

Use of Social Capital in Complementing Social Protection: What Works in the Philippines
Submitted by Asuncion M. Sebastian On 8th April 2011 To Dr. Ma. Divina Gracia Z. Roldan Of the De La Salle University Political Science Department In Fulfillment of the Requirements Under the Course Seminar on the Philippine Development Experience

Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 Social Capital Demystified ..............................................................................................3 Definitions ....................................................................................................................................................... 3 Determinants.................................................................................................................................................. 5 Dimensions...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Filipinos Bayanihan and Social Capital .............................................................................................. 7 Case 1: Gawad Kalinga .....................................................................................................8 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 Group characteristics................................................................................................................................10 Generalized norms.....................................................................................................................................11 Togetherness ................................................................................................................................................11 Everyday sociability ..................................................................................................................................11 Neighborhood connections ....................................................................................................................12 Volunteerism ................................................................................................................................................12 Trust.................................................................................................................................................................12 Case 2: The Socorro Island Community .................................................................. 13 Background ...................................................................................................................................................13 Group characteristics................................................................................................................................14 Generalized norms.....................................................................................................................................16 Togetherness ................................................................................................................................................16 Everyday Sociability..................................................................................................................................17 Neighborhood connections ....................................................................................................................17 Volunteerism ................................................................................................................................................17 Trust.................................................................................................................................................................17 Case 3: The Microfinance Clients Using the Grameen Methodology ............. 18 Background ...................................................................................................................................................18 The Philosophy behind the Grameen Method ..........................................................................18 Grameen Method in the Philippines .............................................................................................20 Group characteristics................................................................................................................................21 Generalized norms.....................................................................................................................................22 Togetherness ................................................................................................................................................22 Everyday sociability ..................................................................................................................................22 Neighborhood connections ....................................................................................................................22 Volunteerism ................................................................................................................................................23 Trust.................................................................................................................................................................23 Comparison of the Three Cases ................................................................................. 23 Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 27 Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................... 28 Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 29

The Use of Social Capital in Complementing Social Protection: What Works in the Philippines Introduction
These economies (South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand) didn't have the social securities that you find in the European welfare-capitalism model. Asia's leaders kept on saying that such securities are not needed in Asia because of Asian Valuesthat community values are such that people will automatically take care of each other in a crisis. So said Amartya Sen (1999) in an interview but which he ended with Well, the fact is they didn't. The question is, does this Asian value that purports that people will take care of each other hold true in the Philippines, where welfare-capitalisms social securities are often insufficient? This paper thus aims to do the following: 1. Examine whether social capital is used in the country to complement the social protection provided by the government; and 2. Determine what dimensions work or not work in the Philippine context using Narayan and Cassidy framework. In line with these objectives, the paper looks into three Philippine cases: 1. Gawad Kalinga 2. Socorro Island community, and 3. the microfinance centers using the Grameen (group) lending methodology (alternatively called Grameen borrowers in the Philippines in this paper). By Resolution No. 1, Series of 2007 of the Social Development Committee (SDC) of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), the term social protection is defined in the Philippines as follows:

policies and programs that seek to reduce poverty and vulnerability to risks and enhance the social status and rights of the marginalized by promoting and protecting livelihood and employment, protecting against hazards and sudden loss of income, and improving peoples capacity to manage risks. (Development Academy of the Philippines, 2009) According to the report prepared by the Development Academy of the Philippines (2009), there are four components or categories of social protection: 1. Labor market programs are enhancing employment opportunities such as trade policies and skills development and training; and labor protection of the rights and welfare of workers. 2. Social welfare programs are preventive and developmental interventions to support the minimum requirements of the poor, particularly the poorest of the poor and oftentimes comprise direct assistance. These are intended to reduce risks associated with unemployment, resettlement, marginalization and lifecycle risks. 3. Social safety nets are measures that serve as stopgap or urgent mechanisms to address effects of economic shocks, disasters and calamities on specific vulnerable sectors. These interventions are intended to provide relief and transition. 4. Social insurance programs are designed for beneficiaries to pay a premium over a given period of time to mitigate income risks by pooling resources and spreading risks across time and classes. Table 1 below shows which of these areas of social protections the case subjects attempt to address. Table 1. Type of Social Protection Provided by the Case Subjects
Gawad Kalinga Socorro Island Community Grameen borrowers - Philippines Labor Market X X Social Welfare X X Social Safety Nets X Social Insurance X

The social protection programs are founded on the social capital within the area of operations of the case subjects.

Social Capital Demystified


Definitions
The Social Capital Research published a comparative list of definitions of various authors from various fields of disciplines. There has been no definitive, undisputed definition of social capital; however, the common thread among the most definitions of social capital is that they focus on social relations that have productive benefits. (Claridge, 2004) Annex 1 summarizes the numerous definitions of social capital found in the literature (adapted from Adler and Kwon 2002). They vary depending on whether their focus is primarily on (1) the relations an actor maintains with other actors, (2) the structure of relations among actors within a collectivity, or (3) both types of linkages (Adler and Kwon 2002). (Claridge, 2004) A focus on external relations has also been called 'bridging' (Woolcock 1998) or 'communal' (Oh et al. 1999) and a focus on internal relations 'bonding' or 'linking'. Similar categorization could be done according to other criteria such as strong or weak ties, horizontal or vertical, open or closed, structural or cognitive, geographically dispersed or circumscribed, and instrumental or principled. (Claridge, 2004) The contemporary discussions on social capital beginning the 1980s have been dominated by three authors: Pieere Bourdieu, a pure sociologist; James Coleman, a sociologist with strong connections to economics through rational-choice theory; and Robert Putnam, a political scientist. (Claridge, 2004) Bourdieu defined social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition or in 3

other words, to membership in a group which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a credential which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word (Bourdieu 1986, web page). Bourdieu's original work on social capital was analyzed within the context of his critical theory of society, and of the three contemporary works, his contains the least empirical analysis with only fragments of reference to it (Adam and Roncevic, 2003). (Claridge, 2004) Coleman draws together insights from both sociology and economics in his definition of social capital. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors whether persons or corporate actors within the structure (Coleman, 1988, p. S98). Coleman's work represents an important shift from Bourdieu's individual outcomes (as well as in network- based approaches) to outcomes for groups, organizations, institutions or societies, which represents a tentative shift from egocentric to sociocentric (Adam and Roncevic, 2003; Cusack, 1999; McClenaghan, 2000). Coleman explores how the productive nature of social capital might offset deficiencies in other capital such as human and cultural capital (Teachman et al. 1997). Coleman extended the scope of the concept from Bourdieu's analysis of the elite to encompass the social relationships of non-elite groups (Schuller et al. 2000). (Claridge, 2004) Robert Putnam, on the other hand, was responsible for popularizing the concept of social capital through the study of civic engagement in Italy (Boggs, 2001; Schuller et al., 2000). Such was Coleman's influence over the scholarly debate, Putnam cited Coleman's Foundations of Social Theory as a central source (Routledge and Amsberg, 2003). Putnam gave the following definition: social capital refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions (Putnam et al. 1993, web page). (Claridge, 2004)

Determinants

The determinants of social capital are numerous and varied, and, as pointed out by Claridge (2004), there is both a lack of consensus and a lack of evidence to support the propositions. Aldridge, Halpern et al (2002) suggested that the main determinants of social capital include the following: history and culture; whether social structures are flat or hierarchical; the family; education; the built environment; residential mobility; economic inequalities and social class; the strength and characteristics of civil society; and patterns of individual consumption and personal values. (Claridge, 2004) Pantoja (1999) identified a different set again, including these: family and kinship connections; wider social networks of associational life covers the full range of formal and informal horizontal arrangements; networks; political society; institutional and policy framework, which includes the formal rules and norms that regulate public life; and social norms and values. (Claridge, 2004) The majority of these claims originates in applied theory and stem from much work done on other concepts such as network analysis, civic society, cultural studies, education, psychology, and many others. (Claridge, 2004) The authors, however, were not clear about how these factors determine social capital, i.e. does flat or hierarchical structure, high or low mobility, high or low level of education, create social capital?

Dimensions

The main dimensions of social capital are commonly seen as follows: (Claridge, 2004) Trust (Coleman 1988; Collier 1998; Cox 1997; Kawachi et al. 1999a; Kilpatrick 2000; Leana and Van Buren III 1999; Lemmel 2001; Putnam 1993; Putnam et al. 1993; Snijders 1999; Welsh and Pringle 2001) 5

Rules and norms governing social action (Coleman 1988; Collier 1998; Fukuyama 2001; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993) Types of social interaction (Collier 1998; Snijders 1999) Network resources (ABS 2002; Kilpatrick 2000; Snijders 1999) Other network characteristics (Burt 1997; Hawe and Shielle 2000; Kilpatrick 2000; Putnam 1995) adapted from (Hean et al. 2003, p. 1062). Informal social ties, formal social ties, trust, and norms of collective action (Liu and Besser, 2003) Narayan and Cassidy (2001) identify a range of dimensions illustrated in Figure 1 on the next page. This framework would be used in assessing the dimensions of social capital that are at work or apparent in each of the cases. The authors definitions and/or measures of each dimension are presented in the Annex 2.

Figure 1. Dimensions of Social Capital (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001)

Filipinos Bayanihan and Social Capital


What Narayan and Cassidys framework does not capture is the indigenous Filipino value of bayanihan. The term bayanihan originally refers to neighbors carrying a hut or house to a new location. People now use it to describe 7

community spirit, with members helping one another without self-serving interests but without necessarily living or operating within the same community. As of late, this term has been used to describe that phenomenon when myriads of people from all over go out of their way to help the victims of, for example, calamities, as what happened during the super typhoon Ondoy. In the two cases presented in this paperGawad Kalinga and Socorro Island Communitybayanihan is explicitly cited as a foundation of their systems. In fact, Gawad Kalingas Empowerment Session on Nation-Building has three talks, entitled Bayan (Nation), Bayani (Hero) and Bayanihan (Being a Hero to Others). The goal of this session is to encourage the local government units to adopt and support the Gawad Kalinga program and reduce squatting and poverty in their areas by as much as 30 percent in the two years. Among the microfinance Grameen practitioners, some interpret group liability and mutual support that are expected in each center (or unit) as the modern-day expression of the age-old Filipino tradition despite Grameens roots from Bangladesh; however, the attribution to this value is not as strong as in the first two cases. Fundamentally, bayanihan may be a combination of three dimensions in Narayan and Cassidys model: 1) generalized norms; 2) neighborhood connection (although the authors have vague description of this dimension); and 3) volunteerism.

Case 1: Gawad Kalinga

This section is based entirely on the case Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga published by Asian Institute of Management and Microfinance Management Institute (2007). The development model of Gawad Kalinga shows that social capital works at two levels: 1) within the low-income community; and 2) among the volunteers and

donors, both individuals and institutions, that wished to contribute to the transformation of the communities.

Background
Tony Meloto founded Gawad Kalinga in 1995, with this realization: I discovered that the poors problem was not joblessness but their perception of their loss of human potential to live a productive life. They did not have a sense of security. I also realized that they could not be helped individually so the intervention had to be community-based. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) With this guiding philosophy, Gawag Kalinga aims at eradicating poverty by building villages and communities for squatters all over the country. It provides the community with food, clothing, health care, education, and housing, and focused on community empowerment for self-governance and self-reliance. Its thrust was alleviating poverty by building the nation through various channels: first, by addressing the basic needs such as land, housing, and food and then later, by trying to move people from mere consumption to production. The livelihood component provided skills training, capital, materials, and markets for the products of the villagers. Self-sufficiency in food was also encouraged through vegetable gardens, urban agriculture, quail-raising, and fish culture, among others. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) Each Gawad Kalinga village has between 10 and 20 caretakers, all of whom were members of Couples for Christ (CFC), an affiliate Catholic group of Gawad Kalinga, with many non-CFC volunteers as well. The caretakers visited the villages two to three times a week to check on the residents and look over their formation, which entailed 27 sessions of values formation program. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007)

Group characteristics

At the community level, Gawad Kalinga helped the people establish neighborhood associations to inculcate the values of citizenship and accountability, team effort and cooperation, unity and a community spirit. The neighborhood association served as a mechanism for sustainable development as it institutionalized the principle of helping the poor help themselves. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) At the volunteer level, Mr. Meloto had in mind the vast network of CFC when he formed the organization. As of 2006, CFC had 5,000 chapters with a total of 1 million members in over 1,000 towns in the Philippines alone. It also had a presence in 143 countries. Over the years Gawad Kalinga workers sustained the program through the padugo system, or what was called bleeding for the cause whereby each caretaker shared what he or she could in the form of money, service, materials, or labor. Although some caretakers donated land to Gawad Kalinga, a source claimed that less than 10 percent of the CFC members belonged to the upper middle class; the rest were essentially poor and many did not have their own homes either. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) Meanwhile, at the donor level, Gawad Kalinga wanted to build its programs on relationships. They wanted something that attracts unity, convergence, and partnership, which are not possible in a purely donor-donee arrangement. Thus, the movement sought out and welcomed the participation of all sectors of Philippine society while serving as a hub in the multi-sectoral partnership. Volunteers and public attention poured in beginning 2001. Gawad Kalinga received support from President Arroyo in 2002, then from former President Aquino in 2003. Later, some 300 mayors and 300 corporations joined the movement. Its current partners came from several local government units, national government agencies, business corporations, civic organizations, schools and professional associations, youth groups, and an array of ordinary, concerned citizens. According to Mr. Meloto, the organization leveraged in 10

sustaining its operations: the poors labor equity, the local governments land and infrastructure development, the donors material and/or labor contribution, and Gawad Kalingas volunteer caretakers. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007)

Generalized norms

In the Gawad Kalinga communities, particularly in its pilot area Bagong Silang, young people sniffing rugby (solvent) in the streets in broad daylight were rehabilitated. Crime rate was also to have decreased significantly as a result of community rehabilitation in Gawad Kalingas 12 rollout provinces including Cebu, Bacolod, and Davao. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) In effect, Gawad Kalinga was able to strengthen the social capital within the community by building the trustworthiness of people. Thus, in this angle, one may conclude that Gawad Kalinga worked not because of the inherent social capital in the community, but because Gawad Kalinga helped build the social capital within.

Togetherness

This dimension could be present in the relationship between the community members and the caretakers (see Volunteerism for details). However, the case has no information on the kind of relationship people in the community have.

Everyday sociability
The case presents no indicative data on the Everyday Sociability of the Gawad Kalinga communities. However, one may safely assume that since they live in the same community, undergo the same training provided by program, and enjoy the same services extended to them, the frameworks suggested measuressuch as the time spent outside the household in other ways, for example, doing chores, shopping, talking, drinking, or just spending time together, and visiting people at their homesare not remotely possible. 11

Neighborhood connections

The caretakers saw Gawad Kalinga as a missionnot a project, not a feel-good venture, neither an outreach program, nor a fieldtrip. They said Gawad Kalinga was the Filipino bayanihan in action, which meant dividing the burden of responsibility so that the work was evenly distributed. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) From this statement, one may deduce that the community has relatively highly connected.

Volunteerism

This dimension of social capital is most apparent at the levels of donor individuals and institutions. Gawad Kalinga expressed that it relied on its members spirit of volunteerism. Aside from the caretakers, architects and engineers worked in the construction of structures, while doctors and nurses served in the medical missions. Most importantly, the caretaker team spent time with the community and built friendships along the way. Through these relationships, Mr. Meloto said, the poors dignity was restored because they were treated as equals. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) This kind of relationship between caretakers and community members could very well be under the dimension of Togetherness, too.

Trust

The residents in Bagong Silang (and in the first few succeeding sites where the Gawad Kalinga program was first implemented) were initially not very receptive to the program. They asked the Gawad Kalinga volunteers questions such as Whos the politician behind this? and Whats the catch? The poor had become wary of offers of help, especially from politicians who had abused and exploited them in the past. Eventually, the volunteers were able to gain the poors trust by simply doing their jobs (because you cannot have it in speeches and forums). Gawad Kalingas mission became social work, providing for the peoples physical 12

needsfood, clothing, health care, and educationand in the process gaining the trust of the villagers. (Sebastian, Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, 2007) The case is lacking in this area such that no data could serve as evidence of the level of trust of people in the neighborhood, business owners, and local government, among others.

Case 2: The Socorro Island Community

This section is based entirely on the unpublished case study entitled The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area commissioned by the Microfinance Council of the Philippines in 2006.

Background

Socorro Island, a fifth-class1 island municipality in Northern Mindanao, is considered hard-to-reach area in the microfinance parlance primarily because of its physical characteristics. It could be reached by pump boat from the ports of Surigao City, Dapa, Claver, and Cantilan. In a day, the boats from these ports had only one scheduled trip to Socorro and back. During typhoons and the amihan (northeast monsoon) season from November, or some say as early as September, to January, turbulent waters made boat rides to the island very risky, as attested to by several drowning incidents. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) During typhoons, too, people who lived in nipa huts barely survived the typhoons and had to spend days in their relatives or friends houses until the bayanihan group2 was able to rebuild their typhoon-damaged houses. When traveling by sea became unsafe due to the amihan or typhoons, boats did not sail in and out of the island, thereby cutting off supplies of gasoline, rice, fish, and
1

Department Order No.32-01 of 2001 of the Department of Finance defined fifth-class municipalities as those with an average total revenue of at least Php7 million per annum (US$137,255 using the 2001 exchange rate of US$1 = Php51), but not exceeding Php13 million (US$254,902). 2 In the case, the term bayanihan refers both to the tradition of house building or to the ethnic group of house-builders (if spelled with capital B).

13

other necessities. On such instances, the people had to rely on canned and dried produce for food. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006)

Group characteristics

The presence of several microenterprises in the area could be an indication of the locals enterprising spirit. They were thrifty, loan-averse, and were more receptive to the idea of savings and credit discipline than those from the cities or urban areas. The locals were used in putting their money in the religion-based cooperative rather than in banks though. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) Although people were generally hospitable, they were also clannish, which was something attributed to economic necessitya survival instinct triggered by the harsh environment when people from different provinces started to settle in Socorroand demographics. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) The locals being clannish could also be explained by their age-old tradition of grouping households: Bayanihan, Suhoton, and De Oro to name a few groups. There were 21 groups, each having its own specialization and comprising some 95 percent of the town population. The biggest group Bayanihan, for example, was composed of some 5,000 house-builders (or 42 percent of Socorros voting population estimated at 11,799 as of 2004). (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) Group membership was passed on to the next generation: if the parents belonged to Bayanihan, their children, when they start earning a living, would automatically be part of that group. Inter-group marriages as well as changing of membership were allowed although they seldom happened. The membership was also based on religion: only those who were baptized under the Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) or the Philippine Ecumenical Christian Church 14

(PECC) may be part of the groupings. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) Each group was headed by a President, who could pass on his/her leadership to anyone of his/her children who he deemed fit to the position and at a time prescribed by their Church. The children were presented to the group but the final decision would come from the out-going President. The Vice-President and the Secretary, on the other hand, were elected by members. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) Every July, which was considered the bayanihan or house-building month, the men who belonged to the group were required to give 50 percent of their monthly income (if salaried workers) or labor hours equivalent to one working month to the house-building activity of the community. The female members, on the other hand, were required to give 25 percent of their monthly income (if salaried workers) or their labor hours equivalent to two working weeks. The money collected from the members went to the group secretarys safekeeping. The financial condition of the group was presented to the body every month the groups way of auditing the accounts. The fund was normally used for providing free health services to the members, assistance to the needy especially during calamities, and other facilities such as swimming pool, rest house, and pump boat, that were made available to the members for free. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) During this season, too, houses were built free of charge for the needy and homeless members. The member-beneficiary only had to provide the building materials and food for the laborers (two meals and two snacks in a day). During the same season, too, the tradition of house-building was prioritized over the conduct of business such that people were so focused on bayanihan and only those who could still manage to run their businesses while participating in bayanihan maintained their loan accounts with the banks. (Sebastian, The 15

Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) While the members pooling of their resources every July is first categorized under Group Characteristics as it explains the communitys source of group funding, it may also fall under Helpfulness of people as well as under Volunteerism. As a source observes, people from Socorro were laid back, creating a very relaxed atmosphere in the community. This trait also made it difficult for them to have a change in mindset, e.g. many, if not all, fisherfolks still do not use motorized boats in fishing. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006)

Generalized norms

As mentioned in the previous section, the culture of bayanihan may also be classified under Generalized norms particularly under Helpfulness of people. This helpfulness especially in times of needs, coupled by the strong spirit of cooperation, were considered an obstacle by those who wished to extend services to the community, e.g. financial services by the banks. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) The inherent social system enabled the community to be self- sufficient thus they hardly saw, if at all, the need to get into transactions with the outsiders.

Togetherness
Business establishments, such as banks, preferred hiring someone outside of the community. Although homegrown talents would have an edge of knowing the culture and being part of the social network, hiring them often resulted in a highly unprofessional barkada (peer group) system that could sometimes lead to

16

control issues. This situation could be an indication of the level of peoples Togetherness in Socorro.

Everyday Sociability

As of 2003, Socorro consisted of 14 villages and 3,071 households. Its population then reached 17,932, which was even smaller than the student population of a secondary school in Manila or was just about the size of a barangay in Metro Manila. Since the people were confined in an island and had regular church- based activities, chances are, they had high everyday sociability. However, one could only deduce this conclusion from the context, as no data related to this issue were presented in the case.

Neighborhood connections

Same as in Everyday sociability although no data related to this issue were presented in the case.

Volunteerism
As mentioned in the previous section, the culture of bayanihan may also be classified under Volunteerism.

Trust

The peoples houses and farms were situated in what were considered ancestral lands, that were nonetheless untitled. Parcels of land were considered as belonging to particular families based on tradition; squatting was not practiced in the area. Hence, ownership could not be proved. According to sources, the people of Socorro did not see the need to have their land titled, as economic activities in the island were limited to begin with. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) From the social capital perspective, this scenario is an indication of high level of trust of people in neighborhood (i.e., no felt threat of land grabbing).

17

However, the level of trust of the community toward the outsiders was quite low. The only bank that operated in the island initially found it hard to sell financial products to the locals because of trust issues. Despite its aquaculture resources, too, the community dealt only two traders. (Sebastian, The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area, 2006) The same was true with regard to people coming from outside the islandthe mainland Surigaonons had this opinion of the Socorro: as island people, they tend to look at everyone from outside their island as their enemy. Given these characteristics, the Socorro people could be classified as exclusive or binding.

Case 3: The Microfinance Clients Using the Grameen Methodology


Background
The Philosophy behind the Grameen Method
The group micro lending, which eventually became known as Grameen methodology, was first applied in Bangladesh, as used in a project by Muhammad Yunus. Grameens focus was on the landless poor, those who had no choice but to earn by selling labor, and on women. Grameen had for two reasons for choosing women: 1) women in the Bangla society did not have access to financial services apart from their husbands or male figures in the family, and constitute the majority of the poor, the underemployed, and the economically and socially disadvantaged; and 2) credit given to women brought about change faster than when given to men. (Yunus, 1999) Loan payment was good for 50 weeks, repayments/ amortization was made weekly and started one week after the loan release. Interest rate was at 20 percent. When people borrowed for survival, such as to buy food or medicine, 18

they found it difficult to get repay such loan and would often borrow from another source to repay the loan used for consumption. Some people also got loans from traders who bought produce from these people at a pre-set price, which was often below market price, in exchange for the loan. If these producers could get a capital such that they did not have to get into a contract with the traders and thus would get to sell their produce at the market price, then they would not be caught in the vicious cycle of poverty. (Yunus, 1999) Yunus (1999) started a project, the predecessor of todays Grameen Bank. He took out a loan from a bank and gave it out to the poor women producers as micro loans at $25 without collateralhe served as guarantor to these poor and transacted with the bank in their behalf. Following were his insights, which formed the philosophy behind the Grameen lending method: To my great surprise, the repayment of loans by people who borrow without collateral has proven to be much better than those whose borrowings are secured by assets. The poor know that this credit is their only opportunity to break out of poverty. They do not have any cushion whatsoever to fall back on. (Then) we discovered that support groups were crucial to the success of our operations, we required that each applicant join a group of like-minded people living in similar economic and social conditions. Convinced that solidarity would be stronger if the groups came into being by themselves, we refrained from managing them, but we did create incentives that encouraged the borrowers to help one another succeed in their business. Group membership not only creates support and protection but also smoothes out the erratic behavior patterns of individual members, making each borrower more reliable in the process. (emphasis by the author)

19

If an individual is unable or unwilling to pay back her loan, her group may become ineligible for larger loans in subsequent years until the repayment problem is brought under control. This creates a powerful incentive for borrowers to help each other solve problems and to prevent problems. (Yunus, 1999) This is the sentiment of almost every Grameen borrower: All her life she has been told that(her family) could not afford to pay her dowrythat she should have been killed at birth, aborted, or starved. To her family, she has been nothing but another mouth to feed, another dowry to pay. For the first time in her life (with the loan given her), an institution has trusted her with a great sum of money. She promises that she will never let down the institution or herself. (Yunus, 1999) As in the case of Gawad Kalingas building communities and in the process strengthening their social capital, what Yunus did to the womengiving them access to resources and pulling them together into support groupsbuilt the social capital within their group. His statements above show how social capital was used to make the Grameen system work.

Grameen Method in the Philippines


Yunus (1999) thought that Grameen has succeeded not because of culture but despite the culture. He said that establishing Grameen Bank required them to create a counterculture that values womens economic contribution, rewards hard work, and punishes corrupt practices. Grameen discourages the practice of dowry payments. In 1989, three non-government organizations replicated the Grameen method in the Philippines: Ahon sa Hirap Incorporated (ASHI), Negros Women for Tomorrow Foundation (NWTF), and Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD). Yunus (1999) thought operating a Grameen-type lending program in the Philippines would be a lot easier than doing so in Bangladesh, 20

where long-standing poverty, low status of women, and frequent natural disasters are more extreme. Initially, only Grameen method was used in the country until the late 1990s when many microfinance institutions (MFIs) adopted the individual lending method that originated also from Bangladesh. Providing other services has also become a trendmicro insurance, business development services, and livelihood or skills training, among others. Today, only few MFIs are using the original Grameen method and many are combining it with the individual method to come up with a hybrid program. One of the Grameen implementers remarked, our group method is now dysfunctional. One now begins to ask what it is that makes Grameen method, which is based on the social capital of women, work or not work in the Philippine setting.

Group characteristics

Women borrowers recruited their own co-members that would be formed into a group of five and 10 groups made up center. The idea was that the women would recruit only those people whom they trust. However, at times, they just invited anyone, even those who were not inclined to do business, just so that they could form a group; otherwise, they would not be granted loans. Aside from group liability, where members were obliged to pay for the loan of their defaulting co-members, they also pooled money for center activities or for social insurance (especially for those MFIs that neither have any agreement with third-party insurers nor have their own insurance companies). As in the original model, the borrowers met every week for their center meetings where they decided where to accept a woman into the center or not and how much loan would be granted each member based on their existing business or business proposal. They were also supposed to meet for mutual support and skill training. Loan disbursement and collection were also done during center meetings. There were instances, however, when center meetings had become nothing more than just a venue for businessdisbursement and collection of payments. Some even

21

perceived it merely as a time away from their business and home, thus they would have preferred to have individual loan instead.

Generalized norms
The centers were conceptualized to serve as a support system to the women membershelping one another in their business, even in their personal, concerns. In many cases, women like their being part of a center in that they saw it as an opportunity to socialize. However, in many cases too, what they did not like about it was the shared liability, which was often perceived as not fair, this despite the MFIs explanation that they were the ones who chose their group members and that they were supposed to help one another, thus they were held responsible for one anothers liability.

Togetherness

Borrowers in almost all cases got along wellthere had been no reported cases of animosity. The borrowers level of togetherness, however, variedwhile some lived within the same neighborhood, especially in the rural and suburban areas, others lived quite far apart that they only saw one another during the weekly center meetings.

Everyday sociability

This dimension is related to the aspect of Togetherness in the previous section.

Neighborhood connections
The pattern of Neighborhood connections follows that of Togetherness it seemed stronger and more apparent in rural and suburban areas where it was not unusual to find some people from the same center gathered in a members house. They normally knew who just gave birth, whose husband lost a job, and the like. 22

Volunteerism

Volunteer work among the borrowers was often initiated by the MFIs, particularly in their social responsibility programscoastal cleanup, tree planting, feeding programs, among others. The magnitude and frequency of these activities were limited though.

Trust
Among the various MFI borrowers, there were no cited cases of mistrust as in the case of Socorro Island community or cases of building trust as in the case of Gawad Kalinga.

Comparison of the Three Cases

The three cases may be analyzed using the more easily observable and verifiable determinants of social capital, as suggested by Aldridge et al (2002) and Pantoja (1999): Table 2. Comparison of Select Determinants of Social Capital in Three Cases Gawad Kalinga Socorro Island Grameen borrowers in PH History and Evolution/ Old, strong, The lending culture transformation of established, method started in communities preserved 1989 but the started in 1995 traditions centers formed since did not necessarily stay intact Family connection Relatively strong, Very strong, inter Relatively weak as community generational membership membership changes over time rather stable Mobility Low mobility due Low mobility in Relatively high to security isolated island provided by land community ownership Social norms and Established Established by Tended to adopt values through values tradition the local cultures, formation no norms of their programs of own Gawad Kalinga 23

Using the above framework, it can be concluded that social capital is strongest in the Socorro Island because of history and culture, which are also related to social norms and values, and low level of mobility of members. The Church and social structures in the island community also helped in strengthening connections among the members. On the other hand, social capital is weakest in the case of the Grameen borrowers because of their apparent weakness in the four determinants. Perhaps, the long- standing poverty, low status of women, and frequent natural disasters (being) more extreme in Bangladesh worked in establishing social capital among the Bangladeshi womenthese factors could have resulted in stronger sense of culture, connection, and social norms and values such that they made the Grameen method worked better in Bangladesh than it is now in the Philippines. In terms of the seven dimensions of social capitalgroup characteristics, generalized norms, togetherness, everyday sociability, neighborhood connections, volunteerism, and trustthe analysis of the three cases is summarized in Table 3 on next page. In the analysis of social capital dimensions, Socorro Island also appears to have the strongest base (except for Trust under which there are no sufficient data and whose measures require further in-depth research). Perhaps, because of the communitys physical and socio-economic context, people have learned to be self-sufficient, relying only among themselves rather on other sectors and on the government for their needs. While Socorro Island has strong determinants of social capital, it likewise has relative strength in almost all dimensions, especially in Group Characteristics, Generalized Norms, Everyday Sociability, and Volunteerism.

24

Table 3. Summary of Dimensions of Social Capital in Three Cases


Group Characteristics Number of memberships* Contribution of money Frequency of participation Participation in decision making Membership heterogeneity Source of group funding Generalized Norms Helpfulness of people Trustworthiness of people Fairness of people Togetherness How well people get along Togetherness of people Everyday Sociability Neighborhood Connections** Volunteerism Expectations of volunteering Criticism for not volunteering Fair contribution to neighborhood Trust*** Gawad Kalinga (GK) Relatively strong identification to GK Village/community level per GK area Sweat equity Continuous No data Community-specific External Strong and sustained spirit of Bayanihan Identified with value of Bayanihan Maybe gauged in the reliability of Bayanihan No data Context conducive to togetherness High level of cooperation Living within the same community Average Provided measures are limited to make judgment Strong Expected from members No data Embedded in the system Not comparable due to lack of data Grameen borrowers in the Philippines Strong and distinct No strong and distinct characteristic due to unstable membership Municipality Group recruitment of 40 members Sweat equity and Loan liability and group monetary contributions fund Continuous Depending on loan term No data Community-specific Internal Strong and sustained spirit of Bayanihan across generations Identified with the value of Bayanihan High No data Active Self-selection Internal Relatively weak Mixed culture Mixed Expressed negative sentiment against group liability Relatively good Socorro Island

Context conducive to togetherness High level of Generally good cooperation Living within the same Mixed community High Context/area dependent Provided measures are Provided measures are limited to make limited to make judgment judgment Strong and sustained Relatively weak across generations Expected from members Voluntary Monitored by the Church / group Embedded in the system Not comparable due to lack of data No data No data Not comparable due to lack of data

*Membership could be even expanded to include selection and expulsion process, which can contribute to the cohesion of the group and thus to social capital. **The expressed gauge of Neighborhood Connection in the framework is rather limited thus it is taken out in this analysis. In the previous section, this dimension is analyzed based on the proximity of the members of the group and their contexts. *** Measures of this dimension require further in-depth research.

25

Unlike Socorro Island, the Gawad Kalinga communities has no long history to speak oftheir identity could only be as old as Gawad Kalinga which started in 1995and no culture of its ownas community members were migrants from outside Manilathat could be a source of social capital. In this case, the Gawad Kalinga movement built the social capital in the community over time by promoting the spirit of Bayanihan, expressed through various mechanisms. One of the most important factors in its model is providing community members with permanent residence through the housing program that limited the mobility of the informal settlers and thus eventually allowing them to establish connections. Another critical factor is the support of the caretakers that influence the norms and values of the emerging communities. As a result, the social capital within Gawad Kalinga communities became strong, particularly in the areas of Group Characteristics, Generalized Norms, and Volunteerism, and did well on average in other areas (except again in Trust). The comparison on Table 3 shows the relative weakness of social capital among the Grameen borrowers, except in the area of Togetherness. The original Bangladesh microfinance model was built on the created social capital, which was apparently assumed to have existed in the Philippine society when the model was replicated in the country. Compared with Gawad Kalinga program, the Philippine microfinance approach is less geared towards building community or the social capital within it, probably because they assumed that it existed already. However, it was not the case. The weakness in Philippine Grameens determinants of social capital could have led to the weakness of its dimensions as well. The microfinance institutions, should they intend to build the social capital of its centers, could therefore learn from the Gawad Kalinga model. They could initiate interventions to build the social capital within the groups; the challenge, however, would be the members dispersion in various locations unlike in the case of two other samples where their members live together in the same community.

26

Conclusions

Authors have theorized that social capitalthat which refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions (Claridge, 2004)compensates for the weakness or absence of social securities in certain countries, particularly in Asia. In the Philippines, the three cases that have been cited to have used social capital to provide social protection proved that indeed social capital can compensate for the lack of social securities in societies, generally with the members and other external parties pooling their resources in order to do so. Gawad Kalinga provided basic needs to its supported communitiesfood, clothing, health care, education, and housingas well as means of livelihood that include skills training, capital, materials, and markets for the products. It also promoted self- sufficiency in food and self-governance. In Socorro Island, the indigenous system ensured that every community member was provided with housing as well as with health services, calamity assistance, and even access to common recreational facilities such as swimming pool, rest house, and pump boat. Finally, Grameen replicators provide micro savings, micro insurance, marketing services, and skill training to their clients, in addition to the traditional micro credit where members share liability. That the Asian value that purports that people will take care of each other holds true in the three Philippine cases though in varying degrees. Although the elements considered in the analysis of both the determinants and dimensions of social capital are limited, one may observe the logical connection of the two: strong determinants lead to strong dimensions of social capital. Thus, in analyzing social capital, these two elements should be considered alongside each other. The strength or weakness of a dimension could be explained by certain determinant/s.

27

Regardless whether social capital is inherent (as in the case of Socorro Island) or exogenous (as in the case of Gawad Kalinga and the original Grameen microfinance in Bangladesh), the strength of its determinants could also be translated into strengths in the demonstrated dimensions, which, in turn, sets the ground for sustainability of the provision of social protection. The common strong dimensions in the two working models are Group Characteristics, Generalized Norms, and Volunteerism. Development models or programs should therefore consider these areas to increase their chance of success and sustainability in providing social protection if they intend to use social capital as a strategic base or input.

Suggestions for Future Research

The measures used in defining the determinants and dimensions of social capital are vague, if not too narrow or limited. There are also some overlaps: connections, and norms and values are identified both as determinants and dimensions. The frameworks, however, if developed further, could be useful tools in the further analysis of social capital and how it works in the development context. The authors of most literature on social capital, who admitted that social capital is stronger in the East, are ironically Westerners. Future research may thus be valuable in exploring the possible difference in the experience and use of social capital in the East and West. Finally, research may be done to further the issue of whether social capital is any different from leadership and network power.

28

Works Cited
Claridge, T. (2004). Social Capital and Natural Resource Management. Brisbane, Australia. Development Academy of the Philippines. (2009). Review and Strengthening of the National Social Protection and Welfare Program . Project Terminal Report. Narayan, D., & Cassidy, M. F. (2001). A Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory. Current Sociology , 49 (2). Sen, A. (1999, December 15). Humane Development. (A. Kapur, Interviewer) The Cantilan Bank Socorro Branch: A Rural Banks Venture into a Hard-to-Reach Area (2006). Tony Meloto: The Man at the Helm of Gawad Kalinga, AIM-1-07-0001-CS (2007). Yunus, M. (1999). Banker to the Poor. New York, New York, USA: Public Affairs.

29

ANNEX 1 Summary of Definitions of Social Capital (Claridge, 2004)


External versus Internal Authors Definitions of Social Capital

'a resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among actors' (Baker 1990, p. 619). Belliveau, O'Reilly, 'an individual's personal network and elite institutional Wade affiliations' (Belliveau et al. 1996, p. 1572). 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition' (Bourdieu 1986, p. 248). Bourdieu 'made up of social obligations ('connections'), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility' (Bourdieu 1986, p. 243). 'the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable Bourdieu network of more or less institutionalized relationships of Wacquant mutual acquaintance and recognition' (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 119). 'the number of people who can be expected to provide Boxman, De Graai. support and the resources those people have at their Flap disposal' (Boxman et al. 1991, p. 52). 'friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive opportunities to use your financial and Burt human capital' (Burt 1992, p. 9). 'the brokerage opportunities in a network' (Burt 1997, p. 355). 'the process by which social actors create and mobilize their network connections within and between organizations to Knoke gain access to other social actors' resources' (Knoke 1999, p. 18). 'the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of Portes membership in social networks or other social structures' (Portes 1998, p. 6). Internal/ 'the web of cooperative relationships between citizens that Bonding/ Brehm Rahn facilitate resolution of collective action problems' (Brehm Linking and Rahn 1997, p. 999). 'Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of Coleman social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure' (Coleman 1990, p. 302). 'the ability of people to work together for common purposes Fukuyama in groups and organizations' (Fukuyama 1995, p. 10). 'Social capital can be defined simply as the existence of a External/B ridging/Co Baker mmunal


certain set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permit cooperation among them' (Fukuyama 1997). 'a culture of trust and tolerance, in which extensive networks Inglehart of voluntary associations emerge' (Inglehart 1997, p. 188). 'those expectations for action within a collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal' seeking behavior of its Portes members, even if these expectations are not oriented toward Sensenbrenner the economic sphere' (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993, p. 1323). 'features of social organization such as networks, norms, and Putnam social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit' (Putnam 1995, p. 67). 'those voluntary means and processes developed within civil Thomas society which promote development for the collective whole' (Thomas 1996, p. 11). 'naturally occurring social relationships among persons which promote or assist the acquisition of skills and traits valued in the marketplace. . . an asset which may be as Both types Loury significant as financial bequests in accounting for the maintenance of inequality in our society' (Loury 1992, p. 100). 'the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social Nahapiet Ghoshal capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network' (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 243). 'the web of social relationships that influences individual Pennar behavior and thereby affects economic growth' (Pennar 1997, p. 154). 'the set of elements of the social structure that affects Schiff relations among people and are inputs or arguments of the production and/or utility function' (Schiff 1992, p. 160) 'the information, trust, and norms of reciprocity inhering in Woolcock one's social networks' (Woolcock 1998, p. 153).

ANNEX 2 Elements of Dimensions of Social Capital (Narayan & Cassidy, 2001) Group characteristics o How many groups or organizations do you belong to? These could be religious groups, sports teams, or just groups of people who get together regularly to do an activity or tasks. o On the average, how much money, if any, do you contribute to the groups to which you belong in a month? o On average, how often do you participate in the activities of the groups to which you belong in a month? o To what extent do you participate in the group(s)(s) decision- making? o Thinking about the members of this group, would you say that most are from the same: Neighborhood/village/community? Family or kin group? Tribe/caste/ethnic/linguistic group? Religious group? Educational background and income level? Gender? Generalized norms o Generally speaking, would you say that you cant be too careful in dealing with people, or that most people can be trusted? o Would you say that most of the time people are just looking out for themselves, or they are trying to be helpful? o Do you think that most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to be fair? Togetherness o How well do people in your community/village/ neighborhood get along these days? o How would you rate the togetherness or feeling of belonging in your neighborhood/village/community? Everyday Sociability - In addition to participating in group activities or associations, people also do many activities informally with others. How often do you do each of the following? o On the average, how often in a month do you get together with a group of people to do arts, crafts, or other recreational activities? o Who are these people with whom you do arts, crafts, or other recreational activities? o Who are the people with whom you get together to play cards, games, or board games? o On average, how often do you get together with others to play cards, games, or board games? o Who are the people with whom you spend time outside the household in other ways, such as doing chores, shopping, talking, drinking, or just spending time together? o Who are the people who visit you at home? o Who are the people with whom you eat meals outside the home?

Neighborhood connections o How likely is it that you would ask your neighbors to take care of your children for a few hours if you were sick? o How likely is it that you would ask your neighbors for help if you were sick? Volunteerism o In your community/neighborhood, it is generally expected that people will volunteer or help in community activities. o People who do not volunteer or participate in community activities are likely to be criticized or fined. o Most people in your community/neighborhood make a fair contribution to community/neighborhood activities. o On average, how many times per month do you volunteer in community activities? Trust o How much do you feel you can trust the people in each of the following groups? People in your tribe/caste/race/religion/ or ethnic group? People in other tribes/castes/race/religion/or ethnic groups? People in your village/neighborhood? People who belong to the same clubs, organizations, or groups as you? The business owners and traders you buy things from or do business with? Politicians? People in your family? Government service providers (education, health, electricity, water, etc.)? Local/municipal government? Judges/courts/police?