Download Measurement of social capital in the UK

Measurement of social capital in the UK
Penny Babb
Social Analysis and Reporting Division
Office for National Statistics
This paper presents the context for the development of statistics on social
capital in the UK, the approach taken for measuring social capital, and the UK
position on international work in the area.
In terms of the reasons for work on measuring social capital, it is helpful to
first consider the political context for these developments. In 1997 a new
government came to power in Britain. It was the first Labour government for
18 years and they brought with them a shift in thinking and approach to policy
development.
There was a new interest in evidence-based policy – drawing on social
research to inform the nature, implementation and evaluation of policies.
There was also a desire to address social inequalities – looking for ways to
reduce the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged of UK society.
This focus resulted in the development of community policies, to regenerate
neighbourhoods and promote cohesive communities. The principal aim of the
community policy is to:
develop strong and active communities in which people of all races and
backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms…
This was also a period of great change for government statistics. The UK
national statistics office was created from the Central Statistics Office and the
Office for Population Censuses and Surveys. There was a move also to
become more responsive to policy needs for data. However, at the same it
was recognised that we needed also to be more proactive in identifying
pertinent issues and ways that we could inform the development of policy
through the collection and dissemination of statistics.
Alongside this was a desire to expand our analysis and reporting of social
change. Part of this was in looking for new ways of describing the trends and
issues of particular societal interest. But also there was an increased
awareness of the need to examine the impact of factors operating at an areal
level, as well as individual characteristics.
A number of topics emerged of central concern – these were ethnicity and
identity, e-society and social capital. These were each areas that required
developments in the collection of data to assist in the formulation of
appropriate policies. Social capital was an issue of tremendous interest in
numerous government departments – particularly those covering education,
health, crime and citizenship but also through to the central policy strategy
and delivery areas.
However, social capital is a nebulous concept and one that required definition
and operationalising for use in the policy context. It is multifaceted and
operates at both individual and areal levels. It is also culturally sensitive and
so needed understanding as experienced within the United Kingdom.
ONS has a key role and responsibility to provide the tools for the data
collection – part of this is to ensure that harmonised questions for use on
surveys are developed and used to support the cross-government initiatives.
There has been much debate both within the UK and internationally over the
definition of social capital. It encapsulates a new way of looking at old
problems. However there is now general consensus that social capital is to do
with networks and norms. The OECD definition of social capital presented in
The Well-Being of Nations describes it as:
networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that
facilitate co-operation within or among groups
This embodies both networks and norms and so was adopted in the UK to
form the basis of our data collection and analysis.
To measure social capital, we first needed to identify the key dimensions that
underpin it. Five main aspects form the basis of the UK work:
• civic participation – the propensity to vote, to take action on local or national
issues
• social networks and support – such as contact with friends and relatives
• social participation – involvement in groups and voluntary activities
• reciprocity and trust – which include giving and receiving favours, as well as
trusting other people and institutions such as the government and the police
• views about the area – although not strictly a measure of social capital, it is
required for the analysis and interpretation of the social capital measures, and
includes satisfaction with living in the area, problems in the area.
This framework is based on earlier work carried out in the UK and
international studies. Our aim has been to produce a standardised set of
questions that can be used in national and local studies to describe the
patterns of social capital within the UK, and to help inform the development of
national governmental policies, as well as local community action.
Two forms of the harmonised question set were developed – the full or main
set which takes around 20 minutes to complete and the core question set
which takes about 5 minutes to complete. The question set is currently being
run on the General Household Survey in Great Britain. Results will be
available in 2006. It is also being adopted on other household surveys within
the UK, including the Citizenship Survey and the Survey of English Housing,
which is currently in the field.
The UK harmonised question set was originally designed for computerassisted interviewing and work is now underway to develop a self-completion
version. Alongside this is the preparation of a guide or tool-kit to provide the
information needed to help design and run the postal surveys that will use
these questions.
Questions on bridging social capital that represent networks that help us get
ahead in life couldn’t be included within the first stage of the development.
However, work is now planned to develop and then test these questions in
order to extend the question set.
We are also in the process of investigating the nature of the social capital of
young people. Earlier work highlighted that this age group had surprisingly low
levels when measured on the same indices as used for all adults. In the
course of the analysis the question arose whether this difference was due to
genuinely low levels of involvement or whether the measures used failed to
pick up the actual activities undertaken by young people. This is an example
of one way in which social capital is context specific. New questions were
developed to test this hypothesis and the results are currently being
examined.
The GHS 2004 data will be analysed – probably in early 2006 when the data
become available – to describe the national picture of social capital and
provide a baseline for comparisons into the future and against local studies.
These data will also be used to model local level estimates of social capital
indicators. This modelling work is currently underway using the British Crime
Survey to produce estimates of indicators such as helping each other, tight
knit community, friendly place to live and fear of crime. We hope to include
these estimates on our web site showing neighbourhood statistics across the
UK.
There is a general desire within national statistical offices to be able to
compare with other nations. Many of the problems that are encountered are
not unique to social capital measurement. However, the problems of
conceptualisation are magnified with social capital. The problem is
compounded as we look at the varying nature of different societies and their
experience of social capital. Add language into the mix and the measurement
becomes even more challenging.
There is much to be gained from striving for a common understanding of the
facets of social capital. We have learnt much from the experience of other
countries, both in terms of their particular experience of social capital, as well
as their means of approaching its measurement. However, it is important that
we appreciate the differences when defining indicators, for example, voting
becomes less useful as a measure when it is mandatory, as in some
countries.
We also need to recognise that the social capital experience within one
country is impacted by the events in other countries. This may be through, for
example, migration, and the interaction of differing cultures. It may also be
through economic and social events – the recent events in Iraq will have had
a tremendous effect in other countries on the views of individuals and the
experience within communities, depending on their religious beliefs, ethnicity
or country of birth.
These problems are further compounded by the dynamic nature of social
capital, such as changes in networks and the impact of technological
developments, leading to shifts in lifestyle, and also to problems in comparing
indicators over time. For example, cohort differences are likely to be observed
following the uptake of texting and emailing as ways of keeping in touch with
friends and relatives.
It is important to acknowledge the work of the OECD and the Siena group,
and their member countries, for their work over the past few years in
addressing these key issues. The OECD raised four possible options
regarding international comparisons at their conference on social capital
measurement in Budapest in 2003.
The first presents a non-flexible module that is agreed at an international
level. The second provides a flexible list with perhaps a core set of indicators,
plus a series of optional questions run on a variety of surveys rather than one
dedicated survey. The third option covers internationally agreed concepts, but
without specific questions. It would involve having specified the underlying
dimensions of social capital and established agreed definitions and
categorisations. These would be supported by defined indicators and
guidelines on the ways to conduct the survey, such as on sampling methods
and response rates. While being responsive to local needs and experience, it
would limit to a degree the comparability between countries.
The last option is to agree to disagree – this would exacerbate international
comparability problems and limit possible comparisons and sharing of
experience.
Our preference is for something between options 2 and 3. We feel it is vital to
reach a common understanding of the key concepts of social capital but also
to appreciate that these will be played out differently between different
countries. This will allow us to still learn from others to inform our own
measurement and policy development.
The guidelines would also allow us to identify best practice but wherever
possible to use common indicators. However it won’t always be meaningful to
do so and different indicators may be needed to reflect the local experience.
The efforts to achieve standardisation are already underway. For example the
European Union Survey of Income and Living Conditions has included
indicators of social participation, such as contact with relatives and friends,
and informal volunteering. While there was some debate over the appropriate
phrasing, a version of these questions will be included when the questionnaire
is adopted. It will be some years before the data will be obtained, when we will
have an opportunity to be able to make the first comparisons. However, this is
a useful experience and can help inform our further efforts to achieve
comparability.
The UK harmonised question set is presented on the UK National Statistics
web site: www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital