Download Social capital accumulation and impact at urban/local level in Latvia

SOCIAL CAPITAL ACCUMULATION AND EFFECTS
AT LOCAL LEVEL: EVIDENCE FROM LATVIA AND
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Guido Sechi
Department of Human Geography, University of Latvia
International Center for the Study of Institutions and Development,
Higher School of Economics, Moscow (short-term visiting researcher)
Summary
• Social capital perspectives in local development studies and the case
for micro level analysis
• Social capital in Latvia and RF: an overview
• Empirical case studies
• Effect of personal wealth on trust accumulation in Latvia
• Effect of social capital dimensions on environmental learning in Latvia
• Effect of perception of empowerment and institutions on civic engagement
and generalized trust in two macro-districts of the Russian Federation
• A possible social capital-based framework for regional studies in
transitional contexts
Social capital, local communities, and transition
• Woolcock and Narayan (2000) advocate for a synergy view of social capital
in development studies:
• Intra-community networks
• Institutions-society relations
• Community SC is mainly understood as a collective resource in local
development studies (collective action, resource management….)
• Limits of informal grassroots networking
• However, in many development / transition contexts, the role of
interpersonal, even narrow, social networks may have positive effects
• Access to services, welfare, solidarity in most developing and transitional countries
• In China, source of civic / political participation
Social capital analysis at micro level in local
development studies: advantages
• Understanding the personal networking, geographical / political /
economical context-specific roots of community social capital
(Ledeneva, 1998; Round, 2006)
• Taking into account both structure and agency, static and dynamic factors
• Investigating psychological / cognitive dynamics related to territorial
social, economic, ecological impacts (identity generation;
environmental behaviour; civic / political attitudes)
Demographics and socio-economic features
of Latvia
• Just over 2 million inhabitants
• Ethnically diverse (about 35% native Russian speakers, mainly
concentrated in Riga and other main cities)
• About 50% of the population living in Riga metropolitan area
• Urbanisation level 67.7%
• Constant demographic decline since 1991
• Strong GDP contraction after the 2008 economic crisis, following a
period of sharp increase
Social capital in Latvia: an overview
• Main sources
– Background research LSDS 2030 (Laboratory of Analytic and Strategic Studies, 2006)
– Latvia Human Development Report 2006/2007
– Friedrich Ebert Foundation – Latvia (Fall 2006 survey)
– Life in Transition surveys 2006 / 2010
Horizontal SC in Latvian society
– Very developed informal (familiar) networks
– Lower generalized trust (sharp decrease after the 2008-09 crisis)
– Vertical SC in Latvian society
– Low belief in democratic institutions (post-crisis decrease)
– Moderate level of trust towards institutions (post-crisis decrease)
– Low level of civic participation
– Intra-community gaps (generational, ethnic…)
Social capital in Russia: an overview
• Main sources
• Life in transition survey 2006, 2010
• Developed informal ‘narrow’ networks
• Generalized trust higher than the transition region average
• Increase from 2006 to 2010, in particular among the elderly and middle-age
and upper income groups
• Institutional trust generally low
• Exceptions: presidency, government, armed forces
Empirical research: three case studies
• Research issues
• Effect of personal wealth, trust towards institutions, social engagement on
generalized trust accumulation in Latvia
• Effect of social capital dimensions on environmental learning in Latvia
• Effect of perception of empowerment and institutions on generalized trust in
two macro-districts of the Russian Federation
• Approach
• Structural equation modelling for latent / observed variables
• Micro level analysis
Personal wealth and trust
accumulation in Latvia
Aim, methodology and data
• To investigate the causal chain connecting personal wealth, trust
towards institutions, community engagement, and trust towards
surrounding people
• Integration of social capital and social categorization theory
• Structural equation modeling for observed variables
• Over 1000 individual observations on the whole territory of Latvia
(age 15-64)
Theoretical model
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Variables
• Household income levels (economic wealth)
• Trust towards the state (trust towards institutions)
• Intensity of neighborhood engagement (social engagement)
• Trust towards neighbours (trust towards people)
Results (general sample)
Economic wealth
(household)
0.125***
Trust towards
institutions
0.130***
Social
engagement
0.181***
Trust towards
people
Sensitivity analysis
• Considering that according to preliminary results social capital-based identity
building in Latvia is based on different views of proximity:
• Geographical
• Ethno-linguistic / religious
• Professional / educational
• Results tested against:
• Geographical divide
• Riga / urban areas / rural areas
• Ethno-cultural divide
• Latvian / Russian speakers
• Professional-educational divide
• Higher education / up to secondary education
• Economic divide
• Income below / above average
Riga inhabitants
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Other towns inhabitants
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Rural areas’ inhabitants
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social engagement
Trust towards
people
Latvian speakers
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Russian speakers
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Primary / secondary education
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Higher education
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Over 35
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Under 35
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Poorer
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Wealthier
Economic wealth
(household)
Trust towards
institutions
Social
engagement
Trust towards
people
Results (sensitivity analysis)
• Geographical divide
• Very high sensitivity
• All sub-groups show non-significance of at least one hypothesis
• Ethno-cultural divide
• Main results confirmed; no sensitivity
• Professional-educational divide
• High sensitivity
• Main results confirmed for respondents with lower education
• Economic wealth divide
• High sensitivity
• Main results confirmed for poorer respondents
Comments
• Non-significant role of ethnic differences
• Lamont (1992): declining weight of ethnic differences in social capital dynamics
• Effect of personal wealth on trust towards institutions is absent in urban areas
and among educated and wealthier people
• Effect of trust towards institutions on social engagement is absent in Riga and
among educated and wealthier people
• Urban / educated people create their own opinions on institutions and act socially
regardless of their personal fortunes?
• Effect of social engagement on trust towards people is significant only in urban
areas
• Relevant role of personal contact on trust / identity capital in diverse, non-compact
environments
• Unexpected effect: in two cases (other towns’ / elders) wealth has a negative
direct effect on trust towards people
Social capital as antecedent
of environmental learning
Data
• Data collection carried out in 2006/07 on behalf of the Latvian
Ministry of Regional Development
• Trust, personal networking, civic attitudes and engagement, quality of life
assessment
• 528 individual observations
Social capital and environmental
learning
Structural capital
Relational capital
Knowledge
acquisition
Attitudinal
cognitive capital
Cognitive tools
Environmental
knowledge
Tsai and Ghoshal (1998): inter-unit learning in large companies
Structural SC
Relational SC
Cognitive SC
KW sharing
Value creation
Variables






Community involvement (structural capital)
Sense of territorial belonging (relational capital)
Tolerance towards ethnic minorities (attitudinal
cognitive capital)
Education degree (cognitive tools)
Satisfaction with personal knowledge
enrichment (knowledge acquisition)
Consciousness about pollution-related issues
(environmental knowledge)
General model
Structural capital
0.146***
-0.011
Relational capital
-0.140***
0.042
-0.027
(-0.293***)
0.107***
Knowledge
acquisition
Attitudinal
cognitive capital
0.102**
-0.009
Cognitive tools
0.080***
Environmental
knowledge
Sensitivity analysis
• Residence place dimensions
• Major cities
• Small towns and rural areas
• Ethno-cultural groups
• Latvian speakers
• East Slavic speakers
• Age
• Over / under 20 in 1991
• Personal income
• Above / below average salary
Comments
• Structural capital – relational capital – knowledge acquisition path is
significant
• Consistency with Tsai and Ghoshal’s findings
• Environmental learning benefits are sensitive to control variables
• Different meanings of ‘intellectual capital growth’
• Sensitivity to the social context
• Non-significant direct effect of structural capital on knowledge
acquisition
• Different concept of structural capital: non-instrumental networks
• Modest effect of cognitive capital
Institutional perception and trust
accumulation in Russia
Aims and approach
• To investigate the relations between civic engagement, trust towards
institutions, and generalized trust, at the micro level
• Effect of institutional perceptions on trust and civic engagement
To integrate the social capital framework with social categorization and
social agency theory
• Quantitative analysis of survey data based on structural equation
modelling for latent variables
Social agency theory
• Social groups can be characterized by intentionality, unity, and
consciousness of that unity (Gilbert, 2004; Tomasello, 2009)
Hypotheses
•Social capital theory (community view)
• Structural capital and civic engagement foster
generalized trust (Putnam, 1993; Nahapiet and
Ghoshal, 1998)
•Social categorization theory: effect (both
mediated and direct) of large-scale trust on smallscale trust
•Social agency theory
• Empowerment
engagement
perception
facilitates
civic
Latent variables
• Exogenous
• Empowerment perception
• Trust towards institutions
• Endogenous
•
•
•
•
•
Family-based networking
Friendship relations
Civic engagement
Trust in the society
Openness / tolerance in the society
Hypotheses
• Empowerment perception  Civic engagement
• Institutional trust  Trust in the society
• Institutional trust  Openness in the society
• Empowerment perception  Family-based networking (-)
• Family networking  Trust in the society
• Family networking  Openness in the society (-)
• Family networking  Friendship contacts (-)
• Friendship contacts  Openness in the society
• Openness in the society  Trust in the society
Study context
• Two okrugs of the Russian Federation
• Central Federal District
•
•
•
•
Centered around Moscow and the core of historical Russia
High urbanization level
Generally high GDP
Ethnically homogeneous (>90% ethnic Russians)
•
•
•
•
Mainly constituted by autonomous Republics
Low urbanization level
Lowest GDP among Russian federal districs
Highly multiethnic (31% ethnic Russians – majority only in Stavropol kraj)
• North Caucasian Federal District
• General features of social capital in Russia (EBRD, 2012)
• High level of interpersonal trust
• Mixed level of trust towards institutions (high-presidency, low-parliament)
• Low inter-ethnic / inter-religious tolerance levels
Methodology and data
• SEM for latent variables (AMOS 20.0)
• Survey “Values and Economical Behavior: Testing explanatory models
in experiments and field studies”, administered between June 2012
and August 2012
• This study was conducted by request of the International Laboratory
for Socio-Cultural Research of Higher School of Economics (Moscow)
• 2046 individual observations
• Individuals aged 18-60
General sample
Central Federal District
North Caucasus Federal District
Summary of findings
• Non-significant impact of civic engagement on trust accumulation
• Unexpected significant effect (negative impact of empowerment
perception on generalized trust) (general sample / Central District)
• Main differences between the two districts
• More relevant (both positive and negative) effect of personal networking
(family / friendship-based) on openness and generalized trust in the Central
District (more fragmented social environment; ethnic-driven social patterns)
Summary of findings (II)
Results seem to support:
• Social categorization hypothesis
• Strong impact of trust towards institutions on generalized trust
• Impact of personal networking on generalized trust
• Social agency hypothesis
• Impact of empowerment perception on civic engagement and openness in
the society
• Impact of trust towards institutions on trust and openness in the society
An analytical model for the study of
social capital accumulation and effects
in development studies
Methodological hypotheses
• Synergy view (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000): social capital accumulation
and effects are the result of community networks plus institutions-society
relations
• Necessity to take into account both:
• formal and informal networks
• static and dynamic factors
• Disciplinary perspective
• Relevance of both social capital accumulation and impact dynamics
• Levels of analysis
• Micro vs macro
• Necessary to integrate both levels in a synergic perspective (intra-community dynamics plus
governance and institutions-society relations)
Operationalization of dichotomies
• Bonding vs bridging SC
• Structural: Informal solidarity vs formal associations; narrow vs broad
networking
• Relational: Immediate groups trust vs generalized trust
• Vertical vs horizontal linkages
• Vertical (at micro level): institutional trust, quality of governance….
• Antecedents
• Socio-political / socio-economic context, culture, personal background
• Structure vs agency; static vs dynamic factors
Structural socioeconomic / political
conditions
Perceptions of
governance,
social justice;
socio-economic status
Cultural
background
Personal values /
beliefs; educational
attainment
Personal
background
Behaviours,
civic / political
attitudes
Structural
(bonding / bridging;
informal / formal)
Social capital
Relational
(bonding / bridging)
Benefits
(quality of life,
wealth)
Спасибо большое за Ваше внимание!
[email protected]