Social Capital Formation in Community Development and …

Loading...

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Brief for GSDR 2015

Social Capital Formation in Community Development and Conservation
Interventions: Comparative Research in Indonesia
By Carol Warren (Murdoch University), Greg Acciaioli (University of Western Australia), Dirk Steenbergen
(Charles Darwin University), John McCarthy (Australian National University)*

Concepts of local civic participation, community
capacity building and social capital formation are
widely asserted to be of importance for democratic
good governance, economic development and
sustainable resource management (Bebbington et al.
2004; Woolcock 2010; Mansuri and Rao 2013).
This brief summarizes the results of comparative
investigations into participation and social capital
formation through village-level field studies across
several of Indonesia’s culturally and ecologically
diverse regions.

Introduction

aimed

community

development
at

The research project1 studied the processes and
and
outcomes
of
conservation programs
improving
participation and building capacity in villages with
different social and ecological assets. It assessed the
extent to which these approaches have contributed
to improved governance and more sustainably
managed environments over the decade and a half
since Indonesia began its dramatic program of
democratisation and decentralisation. This research
applied a mixed methods approach in 15 villages
across 9 Indonesian provinces2 where community-

* The views and opinions expressed are the authors’ and do
not represent those of the Secretariat of the United Nations.
Online publication or dissemination does not
imply
endorsement by the United Nations. Authors can be reached at
C.Warren@murdoch.edu.au.

1 This research was conducted as part of an Australian
Research Council funded project on ‘Social Capital,
Natural Resources and Local Governance in Indonesia’
(DP0880961). Project participants were Carol Warren,
Dirk Steenbergen, Jodie Goodman, Viviante Rambe and
Geoff Baker (Murdoch University); Greg Acciaioli
(University of Western Australia); Anton Lucas, Uzair
Fauzan,
(Flinders
University); and John McCarthy (Australian National
University).
2 The research covered by this brief included village
studies from the following Indonesian provinces: Aceh,
Bengkulu, West Kalimantan, West Nusa Tenggara,
Central Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, Bali, Maluku and
Papua. For a full report on the community development
component (PNPM), see McCarthy et al. 2014.

Johan Weintre

Jim Schiller,

based development and conservation interventions
had been introduced. It involved detailed random
sample surveys, interviews with key figures in local
government and non-government organizations,
and participant observation. The results are of
comparative policy
the
Indonesian case for improved understanding of the
practical relationships between capacity building
strategies and the community development and
conservation goals associated with applications of
social capital, participation, and empowerment
concepts.

significance beyond

Debates

and

development

Researchers concerned with sustainability of
community
conservation
initiatives have called for more attention to how
outcomes are affected by various forms and stocks
of ‘social capital’, suggesting this as a missing link
in the sustainable development agenda (Ostrom
1990, 2009; Pretty and Smith 2004; Woolcock
2010). Accumulated social capital from past
experience and capacity building interventions, it is
argued, can have a multiplier effect, facilitating the
forging of future collective action and common
interest solutions to local problems. High levels of
local participation should theoretically lead to better
informed decision-making, greater accountability,
and broad public ownership of equity and
sustainability goals (World Bank 2002; Bebbington
theoretical
et
assumptions
these
approaches remain contested (Harriss 2001; Li
2007; Saunders 2014). Critics have challenged
tendencies to sidestep structural questions of power
and inequality. Social capital itself may facilitate
transactions among particular interest groups, while
excluding other groups from access to resources.
Policy makers’ enthusiasm for the social capital
concept also sits uncomfortably with more complex
understandings of
interests and
identities that in varying degrees characterise all
communities. Community-based approaches
to
resource management cannot afford to ignore the
effects of political domination and exclusion (Li
2007; Cleaver 2012). Furthermore, narrowly
defined economic development objectives are often

and practical utility of

al. 2004). Nonetheless,

the multiple

the

at odds with conservation and sustainable resource
management goals (Warren and McCarthy 2009).

Findings

Our findings are indicative of many of the key
dilemmas facing the community based development
and conservation agendas, and are broadly
representative of the diverse outcomes reported for
common property resource management studies
elsewhere (Agrawal 2007; Saunders 2014). Our
research indicates that, compared with central
planning processes, the Indonesian community
empowerment and development program (PNPM)
was generally acknowledged by respondents to
offer an improved approach to planning and
infrastructure by establishing
delivering
mechanisms
increased participation. The
program also offered opportunities for adaptive
learning at the village level through an iterative
process of deliberation over successive years of
planning. However, despite economic benefits,
transfer of capacity building approaches to other
decision-making spheres, including critical local
environmental issues, were less evident (See Box
1).

local
for

Problems encountered in the Indonesian cases
derive from contradictions at the heart of the
community empowerment approach. Opportunities
for community decision-making through enhanced
participation,
transparency and accountability
involve lengthy and complicated planning and
implementation procedures with considerable
transaction and opportunity costs that constitute a
disincentive for involvement of the poor (see also
Cooke and Kothari 2001). The scope of deliberation
processes, which shape whose voices are heard, is
much narrower than the participatory framework
would suggest. The capacity of the resource-poor
and marginalized, especially women and other
disadvantaged groups,
to access benefits and
and
opportunities
conservation programs restricting access to natural
resources impose disproportionate burdens on the
poor (see also Brosius et al. 2005; Hutchison et al.
2014).

circumscribed,

remains

Box 1 – % of Respondent Households Reporting
Knowledge, Participation and Satisfaction in
Participatory Community Development and
Conservation Programs in 15 Indonesian Villages
National Community Development Program
(PNPM):

Knowledge/information (direct or indirect)
regarding PNPM
Direct participation in one or more of the five
stages of local involvement in the PNPM
program (information, proposal development,
implementation, monitoring, evaluation)
Satisfaction with the local implementation of
PNPM

Community-based Conservation Program3:
Knowledge/information (direct or indirect)
regarding community environmental program
Direct participation in community
environmental program
Satisfaction with implementation of
community environmental program

79%

42%

51%

48%

27%

38%

N = 647 households.

Source: Project survey data. See McCarthy et al. (2014) for
elaboration of PNPM survey results.

face a

Participatory approaches
fundamental
problem in dealing with established hierarchies, an
issue central to the social capital debate (Mosse
2010). On the one hand, participatory approaches
aim to build on constructive vertical as well as
horizontal networks and the capacities associated
with good leadership. On the other hand, they must
endeavour to avoid elite capture of decision-
making. It remains difficult to transcend this
inherent tension. While our study did find examples
of village leaders who had taken advantage of
opportunities to pursue activities of wide benefit to
their communities, we also encountered examples
of elite capture of project benefits by established
interests. Where
in
patronage networks that work against governance
approaches attempting
two-way
to
accountability, efforts to democratize access to

the poor are embedded

incorporate

3 These key community-based environmental programs
differed across village cases, and
included both
terrestrial and marine conservation programs focused on
local natural resource management issues.

2

benefits have proved difficult. In the absence of
structural transformation, community participation
processes
typically map onto existing power
relations. Conservation and development projects
provide new opportunities for some, but may
the marginalization of others where
increase
unequal power structures and vulnerability persist.

in

involvement

the study villages

Nevertheless, our survey results did show a roughly
the
proportionate degree of
Indonesian government’s community development
program (PNPM) across all socio-economic groups
within
(McCarthy et al.
2014:241). Although this says little about the
quality of participation of lower socio-economic
groups, it does indicate that the program has been a
stepping-stone
the role of
hitherto marginalized groups in decision-making.
Along with relatively high levels of satisfaction
(See Box 1), the survey responses on participation
suggest that defects in the Indonesian community
empowerment program (PNPM) and other similar
conservation
participatory
programs should be addressed by reforming and
building upon, rather than wholesale jettison of
such approaches.

development

increasing

towards

or

lessons from

to build on

indicating ways

the Indonesian
There are clear
research
local
experiences with these and other participatory and
capacity building approaches
(See Box 2).
Requirements for improvement include: reforming
socio-political structures through more thorough-
going democratization of the framework of local
government; improving the articulation between
formal government, civil society and intervention
projects; institutionalizing more effective checks
and balances across scales; providing enabling
conditions for inclusive governance (Hickey and
Mohan 2005; Fritzen 2007); planning longer time-
frames
institutional
development and fostering ‘institutional bricolage’
(Cleaver 2012) across projects and scales of
governance; and explicitly building sustainability
criteria into all local planning and development
interventions.

‘adaptive’

effective

for

Box 2 – Equitable and Sustainable Participatory
Community Interventions: Lessons Learned
• Sustainability

• Equity

• Cross-scale

democratization

• Resist

simplifications

• Time frames

Sustainability considerations do
not necessarily follow from
empowerment interventions;
Explicit, systematic
incorporation of sustainability
principles is needed.
Special attention is required to
provide resources to support
participation of marginalized
groups.
Elite control and capture remain
persistent concerns; Effective
participation and democratic
selection of representatives at all
levels of governance is required.
Applied design principles tend
to ignore contextual
complexities; Preparatory
attention to structural conditions
is essential.
Interventions require long time-
frames to enable adaptive
learning.

Source: Authors’ compilation based on project research

3

Pretty, J. and D. Smith (2004) Social capital in
biodiversity conservation and management,
Conservation Biology 18(3):631-38.

Putnam, R., with R. Leonardi, and R. Nanetti (1993)
Making Democracy Work, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Saunders, F.P. (2014) The promise of common pool
resource theory and the reality of commons projects,
International Journal of the Commons. 8 (2):636-57.

Warren, C. and J.F. McCarthy (eds) (2009) Community,
Environment and Local Governance in Indonesia:
Locating the Commonweal, London: Routledge.

Woolcock, M. (2010) The rise and routinization of social
capital, 1988–2008, Annual Review of Political Science,
13: 469–87.

World Bank (2002) Social Capital, Local Capacity, and
Government: Findings from the Second Indonesian
Local Level Institutions Study: Overview Report.
Washington: World Bank.

References

419-422.

Agrawal, A. (2007) Forests, governance, and
sustainability: common property theory and its
contributions, International Journal of the Commons.
1(1):111-36.

Bebbington, A., S. Guggenheim, E. Olson and M.
Woolcock (2004) Exploring social capital debates at the
World Bank, Journal of Development Studies, 40(5): 33–
64.

Bourdieu, P. (1990 [1980]) The Logic of Practice.
Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Brosius, P., A.Tsing, and C. Zerner, eds. (2005)
Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics
of Community Based Natural Resource Management.
New York: Altamira Press.

Cleaver, F. (2012) Development through Bricolage:
Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource
Management, London: Routledge.

Cooke, B. and U. Kothari (2001) Participation: The New
Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

Fritzen, S. A. (2007) Can the design of community-
driven development reduce the risk of elite capture?
Evidence from Indonesia, World Development 35
(8):1359-75.

Harriss, J. (2001) Depoliticizing Development: The
World Bank and Social Capital. London: Anthem Press.

Hickey, S. and G. Mohan (2004) Participation: From
Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches
to Participation in Development, London: Zed Books.

Hutchison, J., W. Hout, C. Hughes and R. Robison,
(2014) Political Economy and the Aid Industry in Asia.
Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Li, T.M. (2007) The Will to Improve: Governmentality,
Development, and the Practice of Politics, Durham:
Duke University Press.

Mansuri, G. and V. Rao (2013) Localizing Development:
Does Participation Work? Washington DC: The World
Bank.

McCarthy, J., D. Steenbergen, G. Acciaioli, G. Baker,
A. Lucas, V. Rambe, C. Warren (2014) ‘Dilemmas of
participation: the National Community Empowerment
Program (PNPM)’, in H. Hill, ed., Regional Dynamics
in Decentralized Indonesia. Indonesia Update Series,
Singapore: ISEAS.

Mosse, D. (2010) A relational approach to durable
poverty, inequality and power, Journal of Development
Studies, 46 (1):156–78.

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The
Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2009) A general framework for analysing
sustainability of social-ecological systems, Science 325:

4