IJSTR International Journal: Social-Capital-The-Historical-Emergence-And-Its-Implications-To-Agricultural-Development-Program.pdf
Published in : INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC & TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH VOLUME 5, ISSUE 07, JULY 2016
ISSN 2277-8616
DO NOT COPY PASTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OR PROPER PARAPHRASING
DO NOT COPY PASTE WITHOUT PERMISSION OR PROPER PARAPHRASING
Social Capital: The Historical Emergence And Its
Implications To Agricultural Development
Program
Aerin Nizar, Saleh S. Ali, D. Salman, E. Demmalino
Abstract: It is important to initially understand historical and philosophical trails of the emergence of social capital concept before studying its implications to agricultural development through the stakeholders’ interactions. The emergence of social capital concept can be traced back from the classic social theories of Durkheim and Marx as well as other contributed classic scholars in social and economic theories. The concept originated when the forethought of morality conscience, solidarity, cooperation, morality, norms, values, and commitment were brought up to the period of people’s movement. Social capital does not have one single definition because the concept requires a context to define its meaning. Along the years of concept’s development, experts have found a common ground that the definition of social capital can be seen in the context of a social relation of the actors in achieving their common goals. Many empirical researches had been conducted to study social capital in the agricultural development to learn the social capital elements in mutual trust, reciprocity, and network. Many researches also had found that higher social capital level in people, organization, or community, contributes to a better agricultural development outcome. Therefore, social capital becomes one of the significant elements in pursuing development objectives and accountabilities through stakeholders’ social interactions.
Index Terms: social capital, historical, definition, agriculture, and agricultural development ————————————————————
Aerin Nizar, Saleh S. Ali, D. Salman, E. Demmalino
Abstract: It is important to initially understand historical and philosophical trails of the emergence of social capital concept before studying its implications to agricultural development through the stakeholders’ interactions. The emergence of social capital concept can be traced back from the classic social theories of Durkheim and Marx as well as other contributed classic scholars in social and economic theories. The concept originated when the forethought of morality conscience, solidarity, cooperation, morality, norms, values, and commitment were brought up to the period of people’s movement. Social capital does not have one single definition because the concept requires a context to define its meaning. Along the years of concept’s development, experts have found a common ground that the definition of social capital can be seen in the context of a social relation of the actors in achieving their common goals. Many empirical researches had been conducted to study social capital in the agricultural development to learn the social capital elements in mutual trust, reciprocity, and network. Many researches also had found that higher social capital level in people, organization, or community, contributes to a better agricultural development outcome. Therefore, social capital becomes one of the significant elements in pursuing development objectives and accountabilities through stakeholders’ social interactions.
Index Terms: social capital, historical, definition, agriculture, and agricultural development ————————————————————
1 HISTORICAL PHILOSOPHICAL TRAILS OF SOCIAL
CAPITAL CONCEPT
As suggested by Portes (1998), that the source of historical and philosophical roots of social capital concept was in the classical sociologists thought of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). First we will look at Karl Marx’s social theory that describes the emergence of social classes consciousness that began when the industrial workers started to understand the similarities of their circumstances and the proletariat also learned to know each another and support each other’s initiatives. Solidarity was not arising because of their childhood’s existing norms but it was emerged as a feeling of kinship (Marx [1894] 1967, Marx and Engels [1848] 1947). Therefore, it can be said that the egocentrism was not existed in the proletarian class and they were united by the limitations that they possessed and therefore becomes the source of group’s social capital at that time. The terminology of social capital were originally applied for very different purposes when we looked up to the thought of Alfred Marshall and John Hicks which they use the term to distinguish between sets of temporary and permanent physical capital, although the idea that the norms of working together is needed to direct the 'invisible hand’ that existed in market transactions (Woolcock, 1998).
As suggested by Portes (1998), that the source of historical and philosophical roots of social capital concept was in the classical sociologists thought of Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). First we will look at Karl Marx’s social theory that describes the emergence of social classes consciousness that began when the industrial workers started to understand the similarities of their circumstances and the proletariat also learned to know each another and support each other’s initiatives. Solidarity was not arising because of their childhood’s existing norms but it was emerged as a feeling of kinship (Marx [1894] 1967, Marx and Engels [1848] 1947). Therefore, it can be said that the egocentrism was not existed in the proletarian class and they were united by the limitations that they possessed and therefore becomes the source of group’s social capital at that time. The terminology of social capital were originally applied for very different purposes when we looked up to the thought of Alfred Marshall and John Hicks which they use the term to distinguish between sets of temporary and permanent physical capital, although the idea that the norms of working together is needed to direct the 'invisible hand’ that existed in market transactions (Woolcock, 1998).
Meanwhile, Adam Smith in his book of The Wealth of Nations
and The Theory of Moral Sentiments also had another opinion
and stated that the market does require sensibility of certain
moral, but there were serious limitations on the ability of the
market to be able to regulate itself and the ability to provide
outcome that could support the welfare. Therefore, institutions
such as government and religious institutions have a key role
in providing and regulating the market. As for Adam Muller
openly argued to Adam Smith that the collection of the spiritual
capital of a community was mostly determined by its economic
circumstances and not by certain moral sensibility. Moreover,
Woolcock also stated, the role of norms and institutions in
explaining economic life were concealed at the 19th century,
while some scholar with utilitarian, economic, and classical
politic perspectives such as Mill, Bentham, and Ricardo were
preferred ignoring the social science that begins by the ideas
from the book of The Wealth of Nations and not from the book
of The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Woolcock affirmed that
Swedberg has noted that the tradition of Durkheim’s, Weber’s,
and Marx’s followers in Classical Sociology, were strongly
influenced by the economic debate and other issues that arise
in that period, and many referred it now as the social capital
that is already implicitly stated on these ideas. Similar debate
about the sociology controversy also entered American
universities through the University of Chicago in the 1890s in
which the case of social forces as independent factors that
shape the development of urban areas became the
differentiator that divides the sociologists and economists in
social studies approach respectively.
Source of the social capital idea was also found in the study of the second classical era of sociologist as in Durkheim's theory of social integration and the ability of sanctions in a group ritual. Portes (1998) mentioned that as in the case of exchange of reciprocity, the motivation of the giver that mediated socially, had important role, but in this case, the expectation to get a reciprocal gift was not based on knowledge of the recipient, but it comes from the giver and recipient who were at the similar social structure. An attached exchange model like this has two consequences: first, the help-giver receives reciprocal benefits of his actions do not directly come from beneficiaries, but it comes from the collective overall returns in the form of status, respect, and recognition of the group. The second consequence is that the collectivity itself serves as a guarantee that any debts existed must be repaid. For example, Portes said that a member of an indigenous group who provides scholarships for students in his customary group, therefore, he expects a refund that it was not coming from the student, but in the form of recognition and status in his group collectivity. The student social capital does not rely on the direct knowledge of their givers, but relies on membership in the same group. Examples of second consequence is a banker, who may extend a period of his unsecured debt to a member of the same religious community with the big expectation that payment will be their debt because of sanctions and isolation threats from the community. Therefore, it can be said that there is trust in this condition because of existing obligations fulfilled without going through law enforcement or violence, but through the existed power within the community.
Another scholars of social capital such as Portes and Sensebrenner, describes the early emergence and impact of social capital in which there are four types of social capital that deals with the main theoretical traditions. Both of these authors explain that of Marx and Engels we can infer their ideas about the relationship of solidarity, for example calamity experienced together that can be a source of group cohesion (e.g. sharing behavior among refugees). From Simmel we learn about exchanges of reciprocity, which is about the norms and obligations arising through the network formed from the exchange that occurred (e.g. aid between neighbours . The classical sociological scholars such as Durkheim and Parsons discusses the need for the introduction of value, where the idea of values, moral rules, and the commitments that precede their covenant relationship. While Weber discusses the idea of trust that can be implemented where the formal institutional arrangements and certain groups applied different mechanisms to ensure compliance with the rules that agreed in advance, for example, formal or bureaucratic institutions by using legal mechanisms and the use of family group substantive mechanism. Thus, it can be said that form the four sources of classical sociologist scholars and the utilitarian tradition, the concept of social capital has a footprint and resources on today's modern social research.
2 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
Since its emergence, social capital concept has become the attention of sociologists, economists, and political scientists. There are three scholars’ names that are the most frequently used as a reference in reviewing the concept of social capital, namely Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam. This is because the amount of their contributions in reviewing and the study of this concept. Bourdieu and Coleman focused his studies on the role of individuals and social organizations that bind in estimating one's progress and collective action. While Putnam developed the idea of community groups and activities as a basis for social integration and prosperity and also develop social capital by studying it from the context of democratic governance (Edwards, 2001). Several academics who also has a major contribution in the thought of the concept of social capital as Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam is Fukuyama (1995) who developed the idea of social capital with regard social capital as an element of constructive and creation of economic prosperity. While Grootaert & Bastelaar (2002) study social capital in the perspective of its relation to regional development, and also Burt (2000), who examines social capital and collective action. Woolcook (2000) states that one of the earliest pioneers of social capital was Lyda Judson Hanifan (The Community Centre, 1920) who said that "social capital ... relating to ... is a real asset to most human life; for example goodwill, friendship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit ".
Furthermore, in the last 10-15 years Robert Putnam and James Coleman is known as the person who brought the term "social capital" to the surface. Putnam looked at social capital as a set of horizontal relationships between people who encourage cooperation for the benefit of a community. While Coleman expands the definition that was still limited at that time by including a vertical relationship that is characterised by a hierarchical structure and distribution of uneven power. Coleman also stated that social capital can even have an useless or harmful impact to society as a whole. The notion of social capital according to Putnam in Salman (2010) is part of social life, the social networks, norms and trust, which encourages people to act together more effectively to achieve common goals. Social capital can be said to be a social relationship that exists between individuals or groups of individuals or other groups that in some point will produce a social networking, cooperation, exchange of information, mutual trust, where these things become the capital underlying social relationships are intertwined. Ali (2009) also states that social capital is the basic essence of cooperation, where such cooperation is a form of basic social processes that allow survival and growth of a society. Cooperation is an interaction to achieve the objectives and it requires a good continuity so that the process is not susceptible to interference or obstacles that may hinder to achieve the common goal.
After Putnam and Coleman, Douglas North (1990) appeared later to give the concept of social capital that includes broader institutional relations and formal structures such as government, political regime, the rule of law, and the judicial system. With a focus on human cooperation, North said that the evolution of institutions creates a friendly environment for collaboration solution on complex exchanges and that will create an economic growth. Mancur Olson (1982) in Adler & Kwon (2002) also presents the broad concept of social capital by stating that if a society enjoyed political stability in a long period of time, they tend to be able to build a powerful special interest groups that resulted in the society’s welfare. The following is a table of social capital definitions that was written lately by some experts in three different perspectives.
TABLE 1. VARIOUS DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THREE PERSPECTIVES
(See the above Link)
Source of the social capital idea was also found in the study of the second classical era of sociologist as in Durkheim's theory of social integration and the ability of sanctions in a group ritual. Portes (1998) mentioned that as in the case of exchange of reciprocity, the motivation of the giver that mediated socially, had important role, but in this case, the expectation to get a reciprocal gift was not based on knowledge of the recipient, but it comes from the giver and recipient who were at the similar social structure. An attached exchange model like this has two consequences: first, the help-giver receives reciprocal benefits of his actions do not directly come from beneficiaries, but it comes from the collective overall returns in the form of status, respect, and recognition of the group. The second consequence is that the collectivity itself serves as a guarantee that any debts existed must be repaid. For example, Portes said that a member of an indigenous group who provides scholarships for students in his customary group, therefore, he expects a refund that it was not coming from the student, but in the form of recognition and status in his group collectivity. The student social capital does not rely on the direct knowledge of their givers, but relies on membership in the same group. Examples of second consequence is a banker, who may extend a period of his unsecured debt to a member of the same religious community with the big expectation that payment will be their debt because of sanctions and isolation threats from the community. Therefore, it can be said that there is trust in this condition because of existing obligations fulfilled without going through law enforcement or violence, but through the existed power within the community.
Another scholars of social capital such as Portes and Sensebrenner, describes the early emergence and impact of social capital in which there are four types of social capital that deals with the main theoretical traditions. Both of these authors explain that of Marx and Engels we can infer their ideas about the relationship of solidarity, for example calamity experienced together that can be a source of group cohesion (e.g. sharing behavior among refugees). From Simmel we learn about exchanges of reciprocity, which is about the norms and obligations arising through the network formed from the exchange that occurred (e.g. aid between neighbours . The classical sociological scholars such as Durkheim and Parsons discusses the need for the introduction of value, where the idea of values, moral rules, and the commitments that precede their covenant relationship. While Weber discusses the idea of trust that can be implemented where the formal institutional arrangements and certain groups applied different mechanisms to ensure compliance with the rules that agreed in advance, for example, formal or bureaucratic institutions by using legal mechanisms and the use of family group substantive mechanism. Thus, it can be said that form the four sources of classical sociologist scholars and the utilitarian tradition, the concept of social capital has a footprint and resources on today's modern social research.
2 DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND ITS DEVELOPMENT
Since its emergence, social capital concept has become the attention of sociologists, economists, and political scientists. There are three scholars’ names that are the most frequently used as a reference in reviewing the concept of social capital, namely Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam. This is because the amount of their contributions in reviewing and the study of this concept. Bourdieu and Coleman focused his studies on the role of individuals and social organizations that bind in estimating one's progress and collective action. While Putnam developed the idea of community groups and activities as a basis for social integration and prosperity and also develop social capital by studying it from the context of democratic governance (Edwards, 2001). Several academics who also has a major contribution in the thought of the concept of social capital as Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam is Fukuyama (1995) who developed the idea of social capital with regard social capital as an element of constructive and creation of economic prosperity. While Grootaert & Bastelaar (2002) study social capital in the perspective of its relation to regional development, and also Burt (2000), who examines social capital and collective action. Woolcook (2000) states that one of the earliest pioneers of social capital was Lyda Judson Hanifan (The Community Centre, 1920) who said that "social capital ... relating to ... is a real asset to most human life; for example goodwill, friendship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit ".
Furthermore, in the last 10-15 years Robert Putnam and James Coleman is known as the person who brought the term "social capital" to the surface. Putnam looked at social capital as a set of horizontal relationships between people who encourage cooperation for the benefit of a community. While Coleman expands the definition that was still limited at that time by including a vertical relationship that is characterised by a hierarchical structure and distribution of uneven power. Coleman also stated that social capital can even have an useless or harmful impact to society as a whole. The notion of social capital according to Putnam in Salman (2010) is part of social life, the social networks, norms and trust, which encourages people to act together more effectively to achieve common goals. Social capital can be said to be a social relationship that exists between individuals or groups of individuals or other groups that in some point will produce a social networking, cooperation, exchange of information, mutual trust, where these things become the capital underlying social relationships are intertwined. Ali (2009) also states that social capital is the basic essence of cooperation, where such cooperation is a form of basic social processes that allow survival and growth of a society. Cooperation is an interaction to achieve the objectives and it requires a good continuity so that the process is not susceptible to interference or obstacles that may hinder to achieve the common goal.
After Putnam and Coleman, Douglas North (1990) appeared later to give the concept of social capital that includes broader institutional relations and formal structures such as government, political regime, the rule of law, and the judicial system. With a focus on human cooperation, North said that the evolution of institutions creates a friendly environment for collaboration solution on complex exchanges and that will create an economic growth. Mancur Olson (1982) in Adler & Kwon (2002) also presents the broad concept of social capital by stating that if a society enjoyed political stability in a long period of time, they tend to be able to build a powerful special interest groups that resulted in the society’s welfare. The following is a table of social capital definitions that was written lately by some experts in three different perspectives.
TABLE 1. VARIOUS DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN THREE PERSPECTIVES
(See the above Link)
From the table, we can see different versions of the social
capital definition, which in general, however, actually have a
common ground, but also explain the slight but important
difference. Adler and Kwon (2002) outline three groups
definition of social capital. The first is a definition that the
difference is in its focus substance, the source or the impact of
social capital; The second definition is a definition that the
difference lies in its primary focus which is to (i) the
relationship that maintained by an actor with other actors
(external), (ii) the structure of relationships between actors in a
collectivity (internal), or (iii) both types of relationship
connectivity above. The first and second groups of definition,
Bridging (External) and Linking (Internal) is primarily focus on
social capital as a resource that already exists in the social
network that binds the main actors with other actors. The third
definition of the group is the most neutral and has the
advantage of involving the internal and external dimensions in
the elaboration of its definition and has a broad scope. The
World Bank definition of social capital used mostly as a
reference in the study of agricultural development is due to the
intensive study of the World Bank on social capital that has
succeeded to operationalize it by developing tools to measure
social capital level, the named the measurement tools as
SOCAT (Social Capital Assessment Tools). Many empirical
researches under World Bank had been conducted and
showed us how much impact of social capital on development
outcome. Citing Serageldin, former vice president of the World
Bank special program, who states "Social Capital is an internal
social and cultural coherence of society, norms and values that
govern interactions among people and institutions in which
they are linked in it...social capital is the glue that holds
society together to be together, where no social capital there
would be no economic growth or human well-being. Without
Social Capital, society at large will collapse, which the world
has witnessed some sad example of the condition "(Grootaert
& Bastelaer, 2001: iii).
3 SOCIAL CAPITAL AND ITS IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Development is a process that is complex and multi- dimensional that requires a lot of variables to perform and achieve the desired changes. During this time the approach used in the development paradigm is often only refers to the evident or visible capital as physical capital, human capital, and financial capital, but still there were less development policy that includes the role of social capital in increasing development outcome. Researches and studies on the role of social capital and its involvement to sustainable development have been carried out for many times and had clear empirical evidences that demonstrating a social capital significant contribution to the sustainable development (Grootaert & Bastelaer, 2001). In addition, the concept of social capital are also believed to have better insight and understanding in analyzing the relationship between stakeholders as actors involved in development activities in a community or group of communities (Putnam, 1993). In relation to the impact of social capital on the agricultural development, several studies have been conducted by a number of researchers, for example Krishna and Uphoff (1999), who found a number of important variables related to positive and consistent with the results and performance of the agricultural developments; Fafchamps and Minten (2001) examines the role of social capital in the performance of agricultural crops traders who concluded that social contacts have reduce the transaction costs, while family networks and parents’ experience can assist to determine social capital.
Grootaert and Krishna (2007) had conducted an intensive study of empirical research on social capital and its relation with the agricultural development. The study was significant and conducted for seven years to see how social capital developed in several parts of India as well as examine the involvement of some of the elements and found that social capital generated socially through internal efforts of community groups and are not generated by external aids. In relation to the social capital productivity on agricultural commodities, especially rice, some studies have also been conducted. For example case study conducted b, Cottrell, and King (2014) found that social capital change the Mekong Delta rice farmers in Vietnam we as the result of several government interventions. Furthermore, a study conducted by Roy Chan and Rainis (2012) in Bangladesh, who developed a model of sustainable rice farming, which contributes to the improvement of social capital level in society. Schroeder, Zeller, and Agboh- Noameshie (2013) also examines the social capital in relation to collective action and the role of women rice farmers in Benin, West Africa, on a case study on the implementation of Rice Technologies in Benin, which concluded that the social capital and collective action can improve the economic and social position of women farmers who are usually marginalized in resources and technology. Furthermore, Edillon (2010) examines the use of the framework of Social Capital in informing rice farmers a program of a new technology model to improve rice production in the Philippines. The research results stated that policies and programs can affect social capital in qualitatively and quantitatively manner. They also found that social capital also has impact on the farmer's decision to adopt new technologies. JICA, a donor Japan, in 2009 examined the impact of social capital on farmers’ access to irrigation in Sri Lanka, which concluded that the access to irrigation have positive influence on the development of social capital such as the emergence of mutual trust and norms in working among farmers, so that the longer farmers have access to irrigation, the greater the social capital that will accumulate among farmers. Furthermore, Monge et.al. (2008) with IFPRI, an international organisation for the Agricultural Research Division also released a study of how social capital, through the identification of patterns of social interaction, affect the process of adoption of agricultural innovations to small farmers in Bolivia. In Indonesia, some studies relevant to Social Capital and its relation to community development and agriculture have also been widely published. For example, a study conducted by Mangkuprawira (2010) who addresses the social capital capacity improvement of a field facilitator is among the essential elements for the farming community development. Other research results is by Syahyuti (2008) who see the role of social capital in the trading of agricultural commodities, which shows that when the market conditions are not perfect, social capital is growing fast and become the core of the entire domestic market trading system. Furthermore, Tatlonghari et al. (2012) found in their research on rice farmers in Indonesia and Laos that due to the influence of a strong social network in the community, the farmers have an effective exchange methods for disseminate information. As the research results of Prihtanti et. al. (2014), also examines the functions of the socio-cultural system of organic rice farmer in Central Java, who concluded that the social cohesion of organic rice farmers are stronger than conventional farmers as the result of higher social capital level. Research related to social capital have also been conducted at the region of South Sulawesi, as the study of social capital on the supporting infrastructure for rice production in South Sulawesi reviewed by Daud (2006) that examines community empowerment farmers and irrigation management at three districts of South Sulawesi by measuring the levels of social capital on that community with SOCAT.
Development is a process that is complex and multi- dimensional that requires a lot of variables to perform and achieve the desired changes. During this time the approach used in the development paradigm is often only refers to the evident or visible capital as physical capital, human capital, and financial capital, but still there were less development policy that includes the role of social capital in increasing development outcome. Researches and studies on the role of social capital and its involvement to sustainable development have been carried out for many times and had clear empirical evidences that demonstrating a social capital significant contribution to the sustainable development (Grootaert & Bastelaer, 2001). In addition, the concept of social capital are also believed to have better insight and understanding in analyzing the relationship between stakeholders as actors involved in development activities in a community or group of communities (Putnam, 1993). In relation to the impact of social capital on the agricultural development, several studies have been conducted by a number of researchers, for example Krishna and Uphoff (1999), who found a number of important variables related to positive and consistent with the results and performance of the agricultural developments; Fafchamps and Minten (2001) examines the role of social capital in the performance of agricultural crops traders who concluded that social contacts have reduce the transaction costs, while family networks and parents’ experience can assist to determine social capital.
Grootaert and Krishna (2007) had conducted an intensive study of empirical research on social capital and its relation with the agricultural development. The study was significant and conducted for seven years to see how social capital developed in several parts of India as well as examine the involvement of some of the elements and found that social capital generated socially through internal efforts of community groups and are not generated by external aids. In relation to the social capital productivity on agricultural commodities, especially rice, some studies have also been conducted. For example case study conducted b, Cottrell, and King (2014) found that social capital change the Mekong Delta rice farmers in Vietnam we as the result of several government interventions. Furthermore, a study conducted by Roy Chan and Rainis (2012) in Bangladesh, who developed a model of sustainable rice farming, which contributes to the improvement of social capital level in society. Schroeder, Zeller, and Agboh- Noameshie (2013) also examines the social capital in relation to collective action and the role of women rice farmers in Benin, West Africa, on a case study on the implementation of Rice Technologies in Benin, which concluded that the social capital and collective action can improve the economic and social position of women farmers who are usually marginalized in resources and technology. Furthermore, Edillon (2010) examines the use of the framework of Social Capital in informing rice farmers a program of a new technology model to improve rice production in the Philippines. The research results stated that policies and programs can affect social capital in qualitatively and quantitatively manner. They also found that social capital also has impact on the farmer's decision to adopt new technologies. JICA, a donor Japan, in 2009 examined the impact of social capital on farmers’ access to irrigation in Sri Lanka, which concluded that the access to irrigation have positive influence on the development of social capital such as the emergence of mutual trust and norms in working among farmers, so that the longer farmers have access to irrigation, the greater the social capital that will accumulate among farmers. Furthermore, Monge et.al. (2008) with IFPRI, an international organisation for the Agricultural Research Division also released a study of how social capital, through the identification of patterns of social interaction, affect the process of adoption of agricultural innovations to small farmers in Bolivia. In Indonesia, some studies relevant to Social Capital and its relation to community development and agriculture have also been widely published. For example, a study conducted by Mangkuprawira (2010) who addresses the social capital capacity improvement of a field facilitator is among the essential elements for the farming community development. Other research results is by Syahyuti (2008) who see the role of social capital in the trading of agricultural commodities, which shows that when the market conditions are not perfect, social capital is growing fast and become the core of the entire domestic market trading system. Furthermore, Tatlonghari et al. (2012) found in their research on rice farmers in Indonesia and Laos that due to the influence of a strong social network in the community, the farmers have an effective exchange methods for disseminate information. As the research results of Prihtanti et. al. (2014), also examines the functions of the socio-cultural system of organic rice farmer in Central Java, who concluded that the social cohesion of organic rice farmers are stronger than conventional farmers as the result of higher social capital level. Research related to social capital have also been conducted at the region of South Sulawesi, as the study of social capital on the supporting infrastructure for rice production in South Sulawesi reviewed by Daud (2006) that examines community empowerment farmers and irrigation management at three districts of South Sulawesi by measuring the levels of social capital on that community with SOCAT.
4 CONCLUSION
From understanding the philosophy and history of the emergence of the concept of social capital as well as a number of definitions that appear in various contexts of thoughts, the understanding of this concept and implementation within the program can be more comprehensive in analyzing the development phenomena around us. From the social capital historical paths we have learnt that the concept can be traced back as far as the 18th century’s popular scholars, such as Durkheim and Karl Marx, to the modern scholars, such as Robert Putnam and Coleman. It means that this concept is significant because many scholars have tried to conceptualize social capital and operationalize it to their field of works. World Bank as a well- known organization for development programs around the world have also conducted an extensive works on social capital and even have developed tools to measure social capital level by using SOCAT. We also have learnt that social capital can be studied both from social or economic perspectives to allow us to look up to the bigger picture of development outcome. Definition of social capital is also varies and depend of the context and substantive element in the development program.
This paper is trying to expand our perspectives on social capital idea that it is actually multi-applicable from social, economic, politic, and cultural context. As a result of the study above shows that a number of researchers have developed and utilized the concept of social capital and has been widely accepted as a mean to analyse and describe the study of the development and performance of programs, especially agricultural development programs although academics of social capital have tried to conceptualise the idea in different manners. Therefore, it can be concluded later that if a community of people, groups, organizations, or institutions have high levels of social capital of mutual trust, mutual reciprocity, and a strong network and followed by the ability to coordinate and synergize resources owned or may be accessed, then conditions like that can create a double positive impact that will affect on positive development performance. This is possible to materialize because social capital is not just a "glue" that binds members of the community together in collective activities to achieve common goals, but also can become a driving engine to effectively directing members of the group or institution to move forward to contribute in development activities.
From understanding the philosophy and history of the emergence of the concept of social capital as well as a number of definitions that appear in various contexts of thoughts, the understanding of this concept and implementation within the program can be more comprehensive in analyzing the development phenomena around us. From the social capital historical paths we have learnt that the concept can be traced back as far as the 18th century’s popular scholars, such as Durkheim and Karl Marx, to the modern scholars, such as Robert Putnam and Coleman. It means that this concept is significant because many scholars have tried to conceptualize social capital and operationalize it to their field of works. World Bank as a well- known organization for development programs around the world have also conducted an extensive works on social capital and even have developed tools to measure social capital level by using SOCAT. We also have learnt that social capital can be studied both from social or economic perspectives to allow us to look up to the bigger picture of development outcome. Definition of social capital is also varies and depend of the context and substantive element in the development program.
This paper is trying to expand our perspectives on social capital idea that it is actually multi-applicable from social, economic, politic, and cultural context. As a result of the study above shows that a number of researchers have developed and utilized the concept of social capital and has been widely accepted as a mean to analyse and describe the study of the development and performance of programs, especially agricultural development programs although academics of social capital have tried to conceptualise the idea in different manners. Therefore, it can be concluded later that if a community of people, groups, organizations, or institutions have high levels of social capital of mutual trust, mutual reciprocity, and a strong network and followed by the ability to coordinate and synergize resources owned or may be accessed, then conditions like that can create a double positive impact that will affect on positive development performance. This is possible to materialize because social capital is not just a "glue" that binds members of the community together in collective activities to achieve common goals, but also can become a driving engine to effectively directing members of the group or institution to move forward to contribute in development activities.
REFERENCES
-
[1] Adler, Paul S. and Kwon, Seok-Woo. 2002. Social Capital
: Prospects for a New Concept. Academy of Management.
The Academy of Management Review. Vol 27 p. 17-40.
http://www.bcf.usc.edu/~padler/research/SocialCapital(AM
R)-1.pdf. Diakses tanggal 28 Maret 2015. Pukul 23.55
-
[2] Ali, M. Saleh. 2010. Konstruksi Teori. Bahan Kuliah
Program Doktor Ilmu-Ilmu Pertanian, Program Pasca
Sarjana UNHAS, Makassar. Tidak dipublikasikan.
-
[3] Burt, Ronald S. 2000. The Network Structure of Social
Capital. University of Chicago and Institute European
d’Administration d’Affaires (INSEAD). Research in
Organizational Behavior Volume 22.
-
[4] Daud, Sitti Bulqis. 2006. Community Empowerment and
Irrigation Management: A Case of Water Users
Association in South Sulawesi in Potential of Social
Capital for Community Development. Report of the APO
Survey and Symposium on Redesigning Integrated
Community Development 2003-2005. Asian Production
Organization (APO), Tokyo, Japan. ISBN: 92-833-7050-3
-
[5] Edillon, Rosemarie G. 2010. Social Capital and the
Decision to Adopt New Technology Among Rice Farmers
in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Development
Number 68, First Semester 2010. Volume XXXVII, No 1.
-
[6] Edwards, B., Foley, M., and Diani, M. 2001. Beyond
Tocqueville: Civil Society and Social Capital Debate in
Comparative Perspective. University Press of New
England. www.jstor.org/stable/27927846 diakses tanggal
20 Maret 2015 pukul 00.03
-
[7] Fafchamps, M and Minten, B. 1990. Social Capital and The Firm: Evidence From Agricultural Trade.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/Resources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper-
Series/SCI-WPS-17.pdf. Diakses tanggal 7 April 2015.
Pukul 12.29
[8] Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York. Free Press.
[9] Grootaert, Christiaan,. and Thierry Van Bastelaer, 2002.Introduction and Overview. Pp 1-7. The Role of Social Capital in Development. Edited by Thierry Van Bastelaer. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
-
[10]JICA, 2009. Impact Evaluation of Irrigation Projects.
www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work/evaluation/reports/2010/p df/part2-2_02.pdf . Diakses pada tanggal 5 Januari 2015.
[11] Krishna, Anirudh and Uphoff, Norman. 1999. Mapping and Measuring Social Capital: A Conceptual and Empirical Study of Collective Action for Conserving and Developing Watersheds in Rajashtan, India. The World Bank. Social Development Family, Sustainable Development Network, June 1999. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTSOCIALCAPITAL/R esources/Social-Capital-Initiative-Working-Paper- Series/SCI-WPS-13.pdf diakses 12 Juni 2014 pukul 11.22.
[12] Mangkuprawira, Sjafri. 2010. Strategy to Improve Social Capital Capacity and Human Resource Quality as Facilitator in Agricultural Development. Agro Economic Forum Vol 28 No. 1. Pusat Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Kementrian Pertanian RI.
[13]Monge, Mario., Hartwich, Frank., Halgin, Daniel. 2008. How Change Agents and Social Capital Influence the Adoption of Innovations among Small Farmers. International Food Policy Research Institute (IPFRI). IFPRI Discussion Paper 00761. April 2008. International Service for National Agricultural Research Division.
[14] Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social Capital: It’s Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 1998 24:1-24. Department of Sociology, Princeton University. Princeton, New Jersey.
[15] Prihtanti, Tinjung M., Dkk. 2014. Social Cultural Functions of Rice Farming Systems. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 4 (5) 2014. pp. 341-351. http://www.aessweb.com/pdf-files/4-390-AJARD- 4(5)2014-%20341-351.pdf. Diakses tanggal 16 April 2015 pukul 09.05
[16]Putnam, R. D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[17] Roy, Ranjan., Chan, Ngai Weng., Rainis, Ruslan. 2013. Development of an Empirical Model of Sustainable Rice Farming: A Case Study from Three Rice-Growing Ecosystem in Bangladesh. American-Eurasian Journal Agriculture and Environment Science. 13 (4): 449-460. ISSN 1818-6769. IDOSI Publication.
[18] Salman, Darmawan. 2012. Sosiologi Senyap dan Tarian Kompleksitas. Penerbit Inninawa, Makassar.
[19] Schroeder, Claudia., Zeller, Manfred., Abgoh-Noameshie, Afiavi R., 2013. Women, Social Capital and Collective Action-The Case of NERICA Rice Technology in Benin. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 52. No 4 :329-356. DLG-Verlag. Frankfurt.
[20] Syahyuti. 2008. The Role of Social Capital in Agricultural Trade. Agro Economic Forum Vol. 26 No 1. Pusat Sosial Ekonomi dan Kebijakan Pertanian. Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian. Kementrian Pertanian RI.
[21] Tatlonghari, Gerlie. 2012. Seed and Information Exchange through Social Networks: The Case of Rice Farmers of Indonesia and Lao DPR. Sociology Mind 2012 Vol.2 No.2 169-176. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperI D=18436. Diakses 12 Desember 2014 pukul 07.44
[22]Tuan, Le Anh., Cottrell, Alison., King, David. 2014. Changes in Social Capital of Collective Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Journal of Vietnamese Studies. Vol. 9 No. 2 Spring 2014. Pp. C1-C2. University of California Press.
[23]Woolcook, M. and Narayan, D. 2000. Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15 (2): 225- 249