Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Social Capital Governance in Community-Based
Cooperatives of South Africa
Lizl Steynberg and Jan Grundling
With the drive to decrease poverty and unemployment in South Africa
since the establishment of the first democratic government in 1994, there
has been an increased interest in cooperatives to provide employment,
social development and community care. This research attempted to
provide baseline information on social capital governance in South African
community-based cooperatives. The research was based on a survey
design involving 62 community-based cooperatives in South Africa. Data
was compiled by means of a structured questionnaire focusing on the
governance aspects of social capital beliefs and values. The results
revealed that a high importance was attached to the Ubuntu African
humanism belief indicative of a still alive ancient worldview of intense
humanness of caring, sharing, respect, compassion and associated values
which offer a solid foundation for the establishment of family, village or
tribal cooperatives. An area of concern is that the expressed importance
of values achieved higher ratings than the way in which these values are
lived within cooperatives.
This may erode trust levels in these
cooperatives the essential element for cooperative sustainability. This
could be resolved by means of education, active conversations to promote
understanding and all inclusive cooperative practices.
JEL Codes: Management: Entrepreneurship
1. Introduction
Across different types of economies, people around the world have found various ways
to cooperate in the production and distribution of goods and services. Worldwide, some
800 million people are members of cooperatives, and it is estimated that cooperatives
employ about 100 million people (dti, 2006). According to the United Nations, the
income of approximately 3 billion people, or nearly half of the world‟s population, was
secured through cooperatives (ICA, 2006).
South Africa has a long history of agricultural cooperatives extending back to 1824.
These were developed predominantly within the white farming areas and typically
developed a top down management structure. More recently, attempts were made to
improve wealth creation and development within impoverished communities by
encouraging entrepreneurship, innovation and community development.

Lizl Steynberg, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Tshwane University of Technology,
South Africa. PO Box 680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa, Tel: +27-12-382-4849, E-mail:
steynbergl@tut.ac.za

Jan Petrus Grundling, Department of Management and Entrepreneurship, Tshwane University of
Technology, South Africa. PO Box 680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa, Tel: +27-12-382-5583, E-mail:
grundlingjp@tut.ac.za
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
The South African government has recognised cooperatives as “an important avenue
for collective advancement of sustainable livelihoods at community level” (Davies,
2006:3) and encouraged cooperative development to simultaneously grow
entrepreneurship, innovation and community development. As such the South African
governmental structures such as the Department of Trade and Industry (dti), Small
Enterprise Development Agency (SEDA), Umsombomvu Youth Fund, the National
Development Agency (NDA), the micro Agricultural Finance Scheme of South Africa
(MAFISO) and the South African Micro-Finance Apex Fund (SAMAF) have attempted to
launch small scale cooperatives amongst impoverished communities.
Few of these attempts have been successful and many resulted in top down
management styles, a lack of accountability, financial losses and a loss of direction.
Statistics in 2010 revealed the seriousness of the situation in that 22 030 cooperatives
registered in South Africa, only 2 644 are operational (Ndumo, 2010). According to
2012 statistics 54 461 cooperatives were registered and was the statistics of operational
cooperatives not available (Ndumo, 2012). However, it must be acknowledged that
many unregistered cooperatives operate successfully.
2. Brief Historical View of South African Cooperatives
In South Africa, with the exception of the large agricultural cooperatives, the cooperative
movement remains largely underdeveloped. The cooperative movement began in all
earnest after the end of the Anglo-Boer war in 1902 when the agricultural sector in the
former Boer Republics of the Free State and Transvaal came to a complete standstill
due the British Scorched Earth Policy. This policy set the stage for the establishment of
the first cooperatives. The then South African government supported attempts to
establish cooperatives in the Transvaal, the Cape Province, the Free State and Natal.
The primary aim of the agricultural cooperatives was to market farmer produce and
procure inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and live stock. With the establishment of the
Land Bank in 1912 as well as the introduction of the Cooperative Act in 1922,
agricultural cooperatives were strengthened.
The 1940s marked an era during which the country strived to improve the buying power
of consumers through cooperatives led by the Ekonomiese Volkskongres (Economic
People‟s Congress) of the Afrikaner National Movement. By 1948 approximately 275
consumer cooperatives were established (SEDA, 2006). Due to retrenchments and
increased unemployment in the 1980s, worker cooperatives were initiated which led to
the starting up of new enterprises, which built on local initiatives between non-profit
organizations, government departments and cooperative movements. The worker
cooperatives were mainly started by the Democratic Movement in South Africa, namely
the trade unions, churches, and community organizations. In 1981 for example, the
Cape Credit Union League in association with the Roman Catholic Church was formed
with the primary aim to start and support credit cooperatives. According to the National
Stokvel Association of South Africa, it is estimated that a total of 800 000 stokvels
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
(buying clubs), burial societies and credit schemes exist in South Africa, totalling a
membership of 8.25 million (ECI Africa, 2003).
1994 when the first democratic government of South Africa came into existence also
marked the establishment of the first village cooperatives and the first village financial
services cooperatives. These new cooperative movements focused primarily on the
establishment of village-owned and family-driven cooperatives in various economic
sectors such as agriculture; credit; retail; work, social services and housing; and
operation and production related cooperatives. Data released by the Department of
Trade and Industry (dti) in 2006, indicated that the existence of 2,437 cooperatives in
South Africa. Statistics by Ndumo (2012) indicated that 54,461 cooperatives were
registered in South Africa, but that the majority of these registered cooperatives were
either not operational, made extreme financial losses or experienced loss of direction. It
may be speculated that a causing factor for lack of direction may lay in the status of
social capital in these new cooperatives.
By design a cooperative is a network organization supposes to have more social capital
than any other business organization. It is formed with a motivation of mutual benefit
and the expectation of collective actions amongst members. As such cooperatives are
dependent on social capital. The importance of social capital in successful cooperatives
is well illustrated in the British, German, and Italian models of cooperatives. Where
membership was amongst others opened to members of good character, good
cooperative governance principles, common needs and goals, strong bonds of
solidarity, deep religious/philosophical values, trust and leadership (Huss, 1928;
Freundlich, 1998; Thompson, 2003).
3. Theoretical Considerations on Social Capital
The creation of social capital requires the involvement of people in terms of intentions
and actions as well as the collective internalisation of all the externalities inherent in the
formation of a social structure (Chou, 2006) to benefit all those who are part of the
social capital formation structure on aspects relating to feelings of membership, feelings
of influence, integration of needs and emotional connections, collective efficacy and the
accomplishment of goals (Chewar, McCrikard & Carrol, 2005). As such it is an asset
available to individuals or collective actors that could contribute to business
performance (Maurer & Ebers, 2006; Hu & Kronelliussen, 1997).
Putman (2000:19) defined social capital as consisting of social networking among
individuals and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness, implying that social capital
is a vital component within a cooperative to ensure coordinated and cooperative actions
(Beem, 1999; Woolcock, 2001; Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003; Grafton, 2007; Smith,
2007) by participating in associational activities (Chou, 2006). The viewpoint of Groen
et al. (2002) corresponds with the above definition as they explain social capital as a
community of people in which diverse members of an organization are tied together and
their ability to interact with others. This viewpoint is further extended by Chewar,
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
McCrikard and Carrol (2005) who view social capital as managing real elements of
social identities in a business or how the personal self relate to the social environment
in which the person operates. This could for example, imply the extent to which the
belief system of members in a cooperative corresponds with one another.
Revising the essential characteristics of social capital through the viewpoints of Field
(2003), Putman (1993, 2000), Beem (1999), Woolcock (2001), Smith (2007), Daniel,
Schwier and McCall (2003), Coleman (1994), Paxton (1999), and Acevedo (2007) it is
clear that social capital can be defined in terms of a:



Content dimension – This include intangible substances like goodwill, fellowship,
sympathy, trust and love that exist within a social structure;
Structural dimension – This involves networks, ties and connections within a
social structure that provides solidarity and protection to the members; and
A governance dimension – This represents social organization to allow members
in the social structure to cooperate based upon set norms and sanctions, a
shared set of values and beliefs, virtues and expectations, applying democratic
practices and the trust that exist between members also known as bonding social
capital.
It can therefore be concluded that:
 social capital represents features of social organization and associational life
that can either be positive or negative depending on the circumstances;
 social capital accumulates stock from which spawns certain benefits because of
social network management;
 social capital can be analysed in terms of its content, structural and governance
dimensions; and
 social capital functions as a resource to encourage or inhibit certain actions
within a social structure.
In this paper, the focus of investigation will be on the governance aspects of social
capital in South African cooperatives as it relates to beliefs and values.
4. Purpose
The purpose of this paper will be to explore the status of social capital governance in
South African cooperatives to propose recommendations on how social capital could be
enhanced to improve cooperative success.
5. Research Design and Methods
Use was made of a survey design method to study an estimated 500 functioning
cooperative population in South Africa. From this population a sample of 62
cooperatives were selected according to the convenience sampling technique. The
collection of the empirical data was done by means of a five-point Likert scale structured
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
questionnaire focusing only on the governance aspects of social capital as it relates to
beliefs and values in cooperatives. The Cronbach‟s Alpha was performed to calculate
internal consistency of the measuring instrument. Due to the fact that in the case of
some cooperatives, the respondents could only speak the indigenous languages, two
fieldworkers were employed to assist with interpretations. Of the 62 cooperatives
selected, 32 cooperatives were defined as successful, whilst 30 as unsuccessful in
terms of sales, activity level, and production. For the purpose of this paper, only
descriptive statistics are presented in terms of graphs, central values, and discrepancy
of data.
6. Findings
The first interpretation dealt with the effect that different beliefs had on trust and
cooperation in a South African cooperative. The three beliefs that generated the
highest motivation for trust and cooperation were Ubuntu ( =4.65), trust yourself
( =4.61) and create your own future by interacting with others ( =4.50). On these
same questions, the consensus amongst respondents was also high as indicated by
relative small standard deviations of 0.89, 0.93, and 1.00 respectively. The respondents
reported only a fair amount of trust in others. This could be a cause for concern as
various researchers like Maxwell (1998), Benjamin (2007), Borzaga and Spear (2004)
and Fukuyama (1995) indicated that trust between members is the foundation on which
a successful cooperative is built. It is interesting to note that the African concept
„Ubuntu‟ received a higher mean evaluation as a trust influencing factor than the
religious beliefs held by respondents. The lower frequency percentages of 58.1% (n=36)
for the effect of religious belief and 32.3% (n=20) for “you cannot trust anyone in the
modern world” indicated that respondents were still probable fairly trusting (Figure 1 and
Table 1).
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Figure 1: The Basis of Belief within Social Capital
10% (N=6) 15% (N=9) 11% (N=7)
No trust
32% (N=20)
32% (N=20)
5% (N=3) 2% (N=1) 3% (N=2) 19% (N=12)
Own future
71% (N=44)
3% (N=2) 1% (N=1) 7% (N=4) 8% (N=5)
Trust
81% (N=50)
3% (N=2) 2% (N=1) 3% (N=2) 11% (N=7)
Ubuntu
81% (N=50)
3% (N=2) 10% (N=6) 8% (N=5)
21% (N=13)
Religious belief
58% (N=36%)
0%
Mean
Variance
Std. Dev.
Skewness
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Table 1: The Basis of Belief within Social Capital
Religious
Trust
Ubuntu
Own future
belief
yourself
4.210
4.645
4.613
4.500
1.316
0.790
0.864
1.008
1.147
0.889
0.930
1.004
-1.370
-2.989
-2.682
-2.460
90%
100%
No trust in
anyone
3.629
1.778
1.333
-0.694
The second interpretation dealt with the importance of expressed values versus how
these values are lived within cooperatives, whilst the mean scores in both categories
achieved relatively high scores the extent to which the values were lived on all
categories were lower than the importance attached to these values. This implies that
the living values do not meet the expectations of its members. The value that achieved
the highest mean score for both the stated ( =4.90) and living ( =4.65) values were
fairness and justice within cooperative membership, followed by solidarity (standing
together) between members of the cooperative for both the stated ( =4.89) and living
( =4.58) values. On both statements the consensus between respondents slightly
deteriorated for the category living values.
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Table 2: Cooperative Values
Stated
( 1)
Living
( 2)
4.76
4.48
0.28
0.53
0.86
Number
of paired
responses
(N)
62
4.74
4.57
0.17
0.70
0.86
62
4.77
4.52
0.25
0.58
1.04
62
4.90
4.65
0.25
0.30
0.77
62
4.89
4.58
0.31
0.37
0.84
62
4.79
4.44
0.35
0.63
0.95
62
4.89
4.47
0.42
0.37
1.04
62
4.60
4.21
0.39
0.86
1.10
62
Mean (
Statement
Self help within the
cooperative
Self responsibility within the
cooperative
Equality within the
cooperative
Fairness and justice within
cooperative membership
Solidarity (standing
together) between members
of the cooperative
Openness between
members of the cooperative
Honesty between the
members of the cooperative
Social responsibility towards
the surrounding community
Standard
Deviation (s)
)
1-
2
Stated
(s)
Living
(s)
The greatest deviation between the stated values and the living vales occurred on the
following statements: honesty between the members of the cooperative ( 1- 2=0.42),
social responsibility towards the surrounding community ( 1- 2=0.39), and openness
between members of the cooperative ( 1- 2=0.35). In all of the above statements the
respondents expressed a higher expectation in values than what materialized in the
actual operations of the cooperatives which could result in a feelings of mistrust, that the
cooperatives should contribute more to the surrounding community and that greater
transparency between members should be promoted. Unless the discrepancies
between what members regard as good values and the living values are reduced, it
remains problematic whether cooperatives in South Africa will truly be able to develop a
shared set of values which is a building block for trust (Beem, 1999). These findings
are also supported by the Feng (2013) that investigated the role of township enterprises
on local economic development (Table 2).
7. Conclusion and Recommendations
The high importance attached to the Ubuntu African humanism belief which implies “I
am a person through other persons” is indicative of a still alive ancient African worldview
based on the values of intense humanness of caring, sharing, respect, compassion and
associated values, ensuring a happy and qualitative communal way of life (Broodryk,
2006). This spells good for the establishment and running of a cooperative in South
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Africa as the “we” (inclusiveness and communal) is considered to be more important
than the “I” concept of exclusiveness. However, the concept “Ubuntu” also have
downside implications such as that respect for elders implying a hierarchy in decisionmaking by showing respect for authority, irrespective of whether one agrees or not with
their viewpoint may cause problems in the proper running of a cooperative. Further, as
the Ubuntu philosophy suggests that self motivation should make provision for others
such as relatives, could result in nepotism, a decrease in quality delivery and constrain
open membership of cooperatives. However it might provide an opportunity for the
establishment of small family, village or tribal cooperatives. The fact that the results
revealed that the respondents in general were trusting each other combined with trust in
oneself provides a solid foundation on which to build small cooperatives which could
serve as a vehicle for job creation to enhance livelihoods and reduce poverty especially
in the rural area of South Africa. However, as indicated by Woolcock (2001) trust may
best be seen as a consequence of social capital over time. This indicates that trust
must be built up over time with interaction of members. Once the social capital has
been enhanced, Beem‟s (1999:20) comments become relevant when he suggests that
trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad
fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and
expectations within society as a whole. Acevedo (2007:1), when talking of the
institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society‟s
social interactions suggested that social capital was the glue that holds them together.
McClelland‟s motivational need of association reinforces this suggesting that
association tends to increase motivation (De Vos, 2011). From this it must be
understood that if democratic control and open membership is to underpin the
cooperative, it must develop with the social capital over time. Coady (1939)
emphasised that this process might take years, but it must develop as a “bottom-up”
process. The cooperative group should interact and be taught about successful
cooperatives until they ask “Would it be possible for us to do the same?”
Within the cooperative, social capital is a key component as it encourages people to
work together, to share values and thoughts with each. Field (2003:30) illustrates the
importance of social capital with a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville which stated that “in
their political associations the Americans, of all conditions, minds, and ages, daily
acquire a general taste for association and grow accustomed to the use of it. There
they meet together in large numbers, they converse, they listen to one another, and
they are mutually stimulated to all sorts of understandings. They afterwards transfer to
civil life the notions they have thus acquired and make them subservient to a thousand
purposes” (de Tocqueville, 1932). It must be emphasised that this process must take
place in the training period before the cooperative is established. Outcomes generally
include improved relationships, fellowship, sympathy and a commitment to one another.
Field (2003:47) has suggested that it acts as a counterweight to economic and social
disadvantage. It is said to enhance educational achievement and economic growth
(Putman, 2000). It also enables people to identify common interests and increases
shared commitment (Daniel, Schwier & McCalla, 2003). Putman (2000) even suggests
that where trusts and social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods and
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
even nations prosper. Beem (1999:20) reinforces this concept in suggesting that trust
between individuals becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad fabric of
social institutions, ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and
expectations within society as a whole.
One way to build social capital is by means of education. Fukuyama (2000:128)
suggested this when he stated the most direct way for the state to generate social
capital is through education, which helps people build social skills and engage in shared
norms and rules. The negative effects of social capital within cooperatives should be
avoided. These result in the exclusion of groups of individuals from certain activities.
They can also stultify individual thinking or inhibiting the development of new ideas
(Smith, 2007). Another detrimental effect can be seen in nepotism causing a loss of
efficiency and profitability.
If members consider themselves to be outsiders, their loss of identity utility may result in
other demands to compensate for this loss such as higher wages. This emphasises the
need for all members to be involved in the running of the cooperative.
References
Acevedo, M 2007, Network capital: An expression of social capital in the network
society. The Journal of Community Informatics, 3(2), [online] Available at: http:cijournal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/267/317 [Accessed 28 March 2008].
Beem, C 1999, The necessity of politics. Reclaiming American public life. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Benjamin, M 2007, Cooperatives act and labour law, Cape Town: Cheadie Thompson
and Haysom Inc. Attorneys.
Borzaga, C and Spear, R 2004, Trends and challenges for co-operatives and social
enterprises in developed and transition countries. ISSAN: Fondazione Cariplo.
Broodryk, J 2006, Ubuntu life – coping skills from Africa. Randburg, South Africa:
Knowres Publishing (Pty) Ltd.
Chewar, CM, McCrikard, DS and Carrol, JM 2005, Analyzing the social capital value
chain in community network interfaces, Internet Research, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.262280.
Chou, YK 2006, Three simple models of social capital and economic growth.
Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 35, pp.889-912.
The
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Coady, MM 1939, Masters of their own destiny. Antagonish, Nova Scotia: Formac
Publishing Company, Ltd.
Coleman, JC 1994, Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press.
Daniel, B, Schwier, RA and McCalla, G 2003, Social capital in virtual learning
communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of
Learning and Technology, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.113-139.
Davies, R 2006, Accelerated shared growth in South Africa, implications and
opportunities for small business, [online] Available at: http://www.anc.org.za/
ancdocs/speeches/2006/sp0412.html [Accessed 29 June 2012].
De Tocqueville, A 1932, Social capital. S.I. s.n. Vol. 2, No. 7. Publisher not available.
De Vos, SA 2011, A Developmental Model for Cooperatives in South Africa,
Unpublished MTech Dissertation, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria.
Department of Trade and Industry (dti) 2006, What is a co-operative? [online] Available
at: http://www.seda.org.za [Accessed 30 April 2006].
ECI Africa 2003, Third tier banking report: A review of the capacity, lesions learned and
way forward for member-based financial institutions in South Africa, FinMark Trust.
Feng, X 2013, The Impact of Township Enterprises on Local Economic Development,
Unpublished MTech Dissertation, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria.
Field, J 2003, Social capital, London: Routledge.
Freundlich, F 1998, Mondragön cooperative corporation (MCC), [online] Available at:
http://www.clcr.org/publications/html/Mondragön%20paper%20by%freundlich1198.
htm [Accessed 14 March 2008].
Fukuyama, F 1995, Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity, New York:
Free Press.
Fukuyama, F 2000, Social capital and civil society, IMP working paper, International
Monetary Fund, Washington D.C.
Grafton, RQ 2007, Social capital: A policy perspective, [online] Available at:
www.quentin.grafton@anu.edu.au [Accessed 3 April 2008].
Groen, AJ, De Weerd-Nederhof, PC, Kerssens-Van Drongelen, IC, Badoux, RAJ and
Olthuis, GPH 2002, Creating and justifying research and development value:
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
scope, scale, skill and social networking of R&D, Creativity and Innovation
Management, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.2-15.
Hu, Y and Kornelliussen, T 1997, The effects of personal ties and reciprocity on the
performance of small firms in horizontal strategic alliances, Scandinavian Journal
of Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.159-173.
Huss, B 1928, Peoples bank or use and value of cooperative credit for African natives,
Natal: Mariann Hill.
ICA (International Co-Operative Alliance) 2006, What is a co-operative? [online]
Available at: http://www.guava.xeriom.net/~gmitchell/coop/index.html [Accessed 24
April 2006].
Maurer, I and Ebers, M 2006, Dynamics of social capital and their performance
implications: Lessons from biotechnology start-ups, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 52, pp.262-292.
Maxwell, JC 1998, The 21 irrefutable laws of leadership, Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers.
Ndumo, J 2010, Agricultural policies and strategies: The state of cooperatives after the
enactment of the Cooperative Act 14 of 2005: An overview, Consultative Workshop
on Agricultural Cooperatives, Johannesburg, South Africa 18-19 June 2010.
Ndumo, J 2012, Status of co-operative support and development in South Africa, 21
February 2012, Portfolio Committee on Economic Development, Cape Town,
[online] Available at: http://www.thedti.gov.za/parliament/co-ops_support_inSA.pdf
[Accessed 9 April 2013].
Paxton, P 1999, Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator
assessment, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 105, No. 1, pp.88-127.
Phillips, R 1953, Economic nature of the cooperative association, Journal of Farm
Economics, Vol. 35, pp.74-87.
Putman, RD 1993, Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Putman, RD 2000, Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community,
New York, N.Y.: Simon & Schuster.
SEDA (Small Enterprise Development Agency) 2006, How co-operatives have
developed in South Africa, [online] Available at: http://www.brain.org.za [Accessed
1 April 2006].
Proceedings of 8th Annual London Business Research Conference
Imperial College, London, UK, 8 - 9 July, 2013, ISBN: 978-1-922069-28-3
Smith, MK 2007, Social capital, [online] Available at: http://www.infed.org/biblio/
social_capital.htm [Accessed 5 April 2008].
Thompson, DJ 2003, Clustering co-op development, [online] Available at: http://www.
cooperativegrocer.coop/articles/index.php?id=483 [Accessed 23 August 2006].
Woolcock, M 2001, The place of social capital in understanding social and economic
outcomes, Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Vol. 2, pp.11-17.