Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 2(2): 110-113, 2010
ISSN: 2041-3246
© M axwell Scientific Organization, 2010
Submitted Date: January 07, 2010
Accepted Date: January 21, 2010
Published Date: March 10, 2010
The Social Capacity to Develop a Community
B. Saheb Zadeh, Nobaya A hmad, S. Norazizan Syed Abdullah and Haslinda Abdullah
Departm ent of Social and Developm ent Sciences, Faculty Human Ecology,
University Putra M alaysia, Selangor, M alaysia
Abstract: The basic purpose of the research is to assess the concept of social ca pital, com mun ity development
and relationship that exist between them. A com mun ity is constituted by the relationsh ips in w hich p eople
interact on an everyday basis. In order for people of the same community to have shared norms, values and
interests, they need to have the capacity to come together, share, relate, and talk about their norms, values and
interests. This capacity is social capital. Social ca pital is the m eans by w hich individu al of comm unity
interrelate together. Community development is the process by which the efforts of the people themselves are
united to improve the quality and q uantity of life of the com mun ity. The main issue of this pap er is “group of
people with the high stock of social capital is charac terized by trust, norms, values and interests that lead to
development of the community and then enable to reso lve its problems.” This paper is theoretical in nature and
the review is based on secondary materials. Findings show in any community, it is necessary that there be social
trust, norms, and networks that people can draw upon to community development to solve their common
problems.
Key w ords: Comm unity development, network, norm, value, social capital, trust
INTRODUCTION
The main objective of the study is to deliberate a
com mun ity with high indexes of social capital like
cooperation, trust, reciprocity, networks, norms and
values will be empowered to resolve its problems based
on commu nity development. This study discuss about
social capital and community development. Social capital
which is slowly eroding in the contex t of contemp orary
com mun ity needs to be revived and revisited as
foundation for com mun ity developm ent.
RESULTS
The increasing popularity of social capital theories
led to a new focus in com mun ity developm ent in the last
decade. This new interest was spurred largely by the w ork
of Putnam (1995) and Coleman (1988) in (Frisch and
Servon, 2006). The social capital concept has been seen
to increase in use within current community development
circles. In international development, the term is already
well used: for exam ple, W orld B ank opera tes a w ebsite
for those interested in understanding and applying social
capital for sustainable so cial and econ omic deve lopm ent.
Recent work of Saege rt et al. (2001) has discussed the
relevance of social capital to com mun ity developm ent in
the developed world. And yet, an appreciation of the
diversity of community development approaches is
fundamental to understanding the relevance and
implications of social capital concepts (Wakefield and
Poland, 20 05).
There is considerable evidence that high levels of
social capital may well be a prerequisite for the process of
recon ciliation between the ecological, the social and
econ omic imperatives as discussed by Putnam (1993) and
W orld Bank (2006). As mentioned by Portes (1998) social
capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by
virtue of membership in social netw orks or other social
structures. Many analysts have emp hasized the centrality
of two factors to social capital: trust and social networks
as stated by Portes (1998 ), Putnam (1993) and Fukuyama
(1995) .Whereby homogeneous networks built upon tight
local bonds, ex clude segments of the community and
create barriers to change and innovation as mentioned by
Zacharak is and Flora (2005) ; Newm an and Dale (2005)
or as stated by Garguilo and Benassi (2000) whereby the
normative environment created by cohesive networks
creates an inertia that restricts potential opportunities
through structural hole connections (Edwards and Onyx,
2007).
Using Bourdieu’s analysis, these studies show that
communities or groups possessing many strong bonds
culturally reproduce old power structures that control and
maintain the status quo, isolating segments of the
com mun ity or restricting connections with other groups to
inhibit change . Others have found that strong local ties are
fundamental for the de velop men t of entrepreneursh ip
in local rural communities in Scotland as stated by
Corresponding Author: B. Saheb Zadeh, Department of Social and Development Sciences, Faculty Human Ecology, University
Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
110
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 2(2): 110-113, 2010
Jack (2005). Therefore it is important to consider the
purpose and outcomes of different ties within their
individual contexts. In regard to the function of the tie,
bonds serve a different purpose in progressive
communities (Edwards and Onyx, 2007). Commun ity
development is based on the agreement of more than two
individuals to work together for a common goal, on
collective action. Community development needs social
capital needs the trust, needs the equity provided by the
rights and needs the willingness to work tog ether.
Comm unity deve lopment, like social capital, is built on
relationships, relationships between individuals [bonding],
between groups [banding] and between movements
[mobilizing] (Prasetyo, 20 02).
Comm unity development combines the idea of
com mun ity with development. Community development
relies on interaction between people and joint action,
rather than individual activity as stated by Flora and Flora
(1993). Development is a process that increases choices.
Development involves change, improvement and
vitality–a directed attempt to improve participation,
flexibility, equity, attitudes, the function of institutions
and the quality of life. As stated by Shaffer (1989) it is the
creation of wealth–wealth meanin g the things people
value, not just dollars (Cavaye, 2007). Putting the two
terms together–community developme nt–m eans that a
com mun ity itself engages in a process aimed at improving
the social, economic and environmental situation of the
community. The comm unity itself takes action and
participates together. It is through this action that the
com mun ity beco mes more vital, not just economically but
as a strong functioning com mun ity in itself. Comm unity
development impro ves the ability o f com mun ities to
collectively make better decisions about the use of
resources such as infrastructure, labor and knowledge.
Some key descriptions of community development that
can be summarized from the various authors mentioned
earlier are as follows:
According to Schneider (2006), there are several
actions that strategically use different forms of social
capital and could fa cilitate community development
activities:
As a group: Community development is a group of
people in a community reaching a decision to initiate a
social action process to change their economic, social,
cultural and environme ntal situation.
Social capital is p robably the foundation that is
missing in many studies on community development and
new approaches in the studies of community development
must consider social capital as an element to be
considered. Social capital has become an organizing
concept in the social sciences, but it has not been
embraced uniformly across all disciplines (Frisch and
Servon, 2006). Social capital is the sum of the resources,
actual or virtual, that accrues to an individual or a group
by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and
recognition as stated by Bourdieu and W acquan t (1992).
Social capital can be und erstood quite simply as networks
of social relations characterized by norms of trust and
reciprocity. The essence of social capital is quality social
relations (Bullen, 2007).
People and organizations: Identify people and
organizations in local neighborhoods that already serve as
bridging agents, or have the potential to build bridges
among closed networks, and engage these individuals and
institutions in expanding closed so cial cap ital and
beginning strategies to build bridging social capital w ithin
these communities and between the community and city
wide resources.
Netwo rks: Identify closed social capital netw orks w ithin
targeted commun ities and work with these netw orks to
clarify available resou rces.
Local cultural patterns: Pay careful attention to local
cultural patterns that indicate establishe d com mun ity
strategies, respecting these cues when developing
initiatives, com mun ity developm ent staff working with
local groups sh ould be particularly careful to identify
cultural patterns that distinguish insiders and outsiders,
avoiding behaviors or messages that could alienate key
constituenc ies.
Local agents: Rely on local bridging agents to foster
multicultural bridging social capital among residents and
those participating in specific community development
initiatives.
Modeling and mentoring: Use modeling, mentoring,
communities of practice, technical assistance, and other
methods that simultaneously build bridging social and
cultural capital to build capacity in local organizations.
DISCUSSION
W ork together: For com munity developm ent to occur,
people in a community must believe working together can
make a difference and organize to address their shared
need s collectively.
Unite: Community development is a process where
people are united with those of governmental authorities
to improve the economic, social and cultural conditions of
communities and communities are integrated into the life
of the nation enabling them to contribute fully to national
progress.
111
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 2(2): 110-113, 2010
Social capital is generally conceptualized in one of
two ways. The first focuses on the benefits that
individuals accrue from m emb ership in social networks or
from contacts, whereas the second conceptualization
focuses on individual relationships of trust that facilitate
reciprocal exchange (B eard, 2007). A co ncurrently
developed theory of social capital came from the French
sociologist Pierre Bourdieu used of the term social capital
as an explicit attempt to understand the production of
classes and class divisions. C olem an de fined d ifferent se ts
of actions, outcomes, and relationships as social capital.
Social capital is therefore not a mechanism, a thing, or an
outcome, but simultaneously any or all of them
(De Filippis, 2001). The current popularity of social
capital can be traced to Putnam (1993) text making
democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. In this
book, social capital was defined as the networks, norms,
and social trust that facilitate cooperation for mutual
benefit. He asserts that soc ieties with high levels of
interpersonal trust, prosocial norms, and interpersonal
networks that em phasize rec iprocity are more likely to
experience positive economic, political, and social
development than those lacking these characteristics. He
sugg ests that when individuals develop conn ections with
each other (how ever w eak), these link ages help to
prom ote prosocial behaviors and attitudes (e.g., sharing,
trust) (Wakefield and Poland, 20 05). Social capital can be
considered as a set of social relations o f which a sin gle
subject (for instance, an entrepreneur or a worker) or a
collective subject (either private or public) can make use
at any g iven m ome nt (Trigilia, 2001). Social capital is
recognized as the glue that keeps society together
(whether it is positive or negative). Social capital has been
recognized as:
Trust, cooperation and reciprocity: As stated by
Fukuyama, he gives particular emphasis to the ideas that
our motivation is based on reciprocity of behavior
(Prasetyo, 2002).
Comm unity development is one field that has begun
to conn ect soc ial capital explicitly with its work of
Perkins, Hughey and Speer; Flora and Allen; Bridger and
Alter, and Agnitsch, Flora and Ryan (Frisch and Servon,
2006). According to Ravitz, community development
began as the active involvement of people at the level of
the local co mm unity in resisting or supporting some cause
or issues that interests them. M any com mun ity
development efforts are essen tially efforts to help
com mun ity residents understand what is happening and
recognize some of the choices they face in order to
achieve the future community they desire as mentioned by
Shafer. Hence, com mun ity developm ent is the capacity of
people to wo rk collectively in addressing their common
interests (Bullen, 200 7). Putnam and his arguments have
rapidly become central to the research and practice of
com mun ity development in the United States. Mu ch work
in community development is broadly accep ting Putnam ’s
argumen ts abou t the importanc e of social cap ital,
understood as voluntary associations and civic trust, in
the promotion of economic growth and prosp erity
(Prase tyo, 20 02).
CONCLUSION
Social capital is a prereq uisite for comm unity
development proce sses. W ithout so cial capital,
com mun ity development processes co uld not operate. If
there is strong level of social capital amongst of
individuals of community, we will expect to fulfill the
process of community developmen t as well as it is
possible. W here there are high levels of social capital
people will feel they are part of the community and feel
useful and be able to make a real contribution to the
community. They not only w ill participa te in comm unity
networks, but also will help together for the common
good. Community development processes will be much
easier to develop with high levels of social capital than
with low levels of social capital. Community development
is based on the agreem ent of individu als to work together
to improve the cond itions of comm unity life. If there is
no or low social capital in the community, it will not be
possible for those people to work together for the
common good. There would be no com mun ity
developm ent, when people would not trust each other, and
there will not be any reciprocal relationships.
Norm s, networks and values: As stated by Putnam,
which are based on the conventional sociological concepts
of shared behavior patterns, relationships with others and
shared belief systems, respectively. He believes that these
three contribute to a higher level of trust and interaction
(Prase tyo, 2002).
Bonding, bridging and linking: As stated by Woolcock,
where bonding is perceived as the relationships between
individuals internal to a grou p; Brid ging is the horizontal
relationships betw een g roups, while linking is the term
used to describe vertical or d iagon al relationships with
other groups or movements. Closed or bonding, bridging,
and linking are three kinds of social capital. The term
closed social capital is used to indicate social capital
networks among homogenous groups of individuals or
institutions such as race and class-based groups
(Schneide r, 2006 ).
REFERENCES
Beard, V.A., 2007. Household contributions to
commun ity development in Indonesia. J. World Dev.,
35(4): 607.
112
Curr. Res. J. Soc. Sci., 2(2): 110-113, 2010
Bourdieu, P. and L.J.D. Wacquant, 1992. An Invitation to
Reflexive Sociology, In: Bullen, P. (E d.),
Commun ity Development Models and Language.
2007. pp: 6-7. Retrieved from: www .mapl.com.Au/
ideas/blog2.htm.
Bullen, P., 2007. Community Development Models and
Language. pp: 6-7. Retrieved from: www.mapl.com.
Au/ideas/blog2.htm.
Cavaye, J., 200 7. U nde rstand ing Co mm unity
Develop men t. pp: 3. Retrieved from: www.
communitydevelopment. com.au.
Coleman, J., 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of
Human Capital, In: Frisch M. and L.J. Servon, (Eds.),
CDCs and the Changing Context for Urban
Comm unity Development: A Review of the Field and
the Environm ent, Comm unity Development. 2006. J.
Comm. Dev. Soc., 37(4): 95.
De Filippis, J., 2001 . The myth of social capital in
com mun ity deve lopm ent. J. Hous. Policy Debate,
12(4): 783 .
Edwa rds, M. and J. Onyx, 2007. Social capital and
sustain ability in a comm unity u nder threat. J. Local
Environ., 12(1): 18.
Flora, C.B . and J.L. Flora, 1993. Entrepreneurial Social
Infrastructure: A Necessary Ingredient, In: Cavaye,
J.(Ed.), Understanding C omm unity D evelo pme nt.
2007. pp: 3. www .communitydevelopment.com.au.
Frisch, M. and L .J. Servon, 2006. CDC s and the changing
context for urban com mun ity developm ent: A review
of the field and the environment, com mun ity
development. J. Comm. Dev. Soc., 37(4): 95.
Fukuyama, F., 1995. Trust: The Social Virtues and the
Creation of Prosperity, In: Edwards, M. and J. Onyx
(Eds.), Social Capital and Sustainability in a
Community Threat. 2007. J. Local En viron., 12(1):
18.
Garguilo, M. and M . Benassi, 2000. Trapped in Your
Own Net? N etwork Cohesion, Structural Holes, and
the Adaptation of Social C apital, In: Edwards, M .
and J. Onyx (Eds.), Social Capital and Sustainability
in a Comm unity Threat. 2007. J. Local E nviron.,
12(1): 18.
Jack, S.L., 2005. The Role, Use and Activation of Strong
and W eak Netw ork Ties: A Qualitative Analysis. In:
Edwa rds, M . and J. Onyx (Eds.), Social Capital and
Sustainability in a Comm unity Threat. 2007. J. Local
Environ., 12(1): 18.
Newm an, L. and A. Dale, 2005. The R ole of A gency in
Sustainable Local Community Development, In:
Edwa rds, M. an d J. Ony x (Eds.), Social Capital and
Sustainability in a Comm unity Threat. 2007. J. Local
Environ., 12(1): 18.
Portes, A., 1998. Social capital: Its Orig ins and
Applications in Modern Sociology, In: Edwards, M.
and J. Onyx (Eds.), Social Capital and S ustainability
in a Co mm unity T hreat. 2007. J. Local Environ.,
12(1):18.
Prasetyo, J., 2002.Unpacking the Jargon Civil Society,
Social Capital and Community Development. pp:
3-7. From: www .fdc.org.au.
Putnam, R., 1993. Making Democracy W ork: Civic
Traditions in Modern Italy, In: Edwards, M. and J.
Onyx (Eds.), Social Capital and Sustainability in a
Comm unity Threat.2007. J. Local Environ., 12(1):
18.
Putnam, R., 1995. Bowling Alone, America’s Declining
Social Capital, In: Frisch, M . and L.J. Servon (Eds.),
CDCs and the Changing Context for Urban
Comm unity Development: A Review of the Field and
the Environm ent, Comm unity D evelo pme nt. 2006. J.
Comm. Dev. Soc., 37(4): 95.
Saegert, S., Thompson and W arren, 2001. Social Capital
and Poor Communities, In: Wakefield, S.E.L. and B.
Poland (Eds.), Family, friend or foe? Critical
Reflections on the Re levance and Role of Social
Capital in He alth Pro motion and Comm unity
Development. 2005. J. Soc. Sci. and Med., 60:
2819-2832.
Schneider, J.A., 2006. Social capital, community, and
economic development. The J. McDonald Williams
Institute, pp: 10, 40.
Shaffer, R.E., 1989 . Com mun ity Eco nom ics, Economic
Structure and Change in Smaller Communities. In:
Cavaye, J. (Ed.), U nderstanding Comm unity
De velop men t. 2007. Retrieved from: www.
communitydevelopment. com.au. pp: 3.
Trigilia, C., 2001. Social capital and loc al developm ent.
Eur. J. Soc. Theory, 4(4): 7.
W akefield, S.E.L. and B. Poland, 2005. Family, friend or
foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of
social capital in health promotion and co mm unity
development. J. Soc. Sci. Med., 60: 2819-2832.
W orld Ban k., 2006. Social Capital and Sustainability in a
Comm unity Threat. Edwards, M. and J. Onyx, (Eds.),
2007. J. Local Environ., 12(1): 18. Retrieved from:
ww w.w orldbank.org/po verty/scapital/index.htm
Zacharakis, J. and J. Flora, 2005. Riverside: A Case Study
of Social Capital and Cultural Reproduction and
Their Relationship to Leadership Development, In:
Edwa rds, M. and J. Onyx, (Eds.), Social Capital and
Sustainability in a Comm unity T hreat. 2007. J. Local
Environ., 12(1): 18.
113