Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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]