Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
'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?