Social capital and voluntary activity: giving and sharing in Maori and non-Maori society.

• Author: Robinson, David Maurice

Abstract

This paper provides a definition of social capital, suggests how social capital is formed and used, and introduces a framework for understanding the concept in Maori terms. Extracts from case studies illustrate some of the community relations and networks that are drawn upon in the Maori community to activate their social capital. The proposition that engaging in voluntary activity is an essential aspect of social capital leads to consideration of the way in which such activity is viewed in Pakeha and Maori terms, conceptualised as a distinction between giving (European concept of volunteering) and sharing (Maori concept of cultural obligation). Giving, sharing, duty and reciprocity are put forward as ways in which people behave, and volunteering is placed alongside public service, governance and unpaid work as illustrations of ways in which voluntary activity is described. A model is presented for illustrating the relations between values, structures (forms of community associations) and the state/legal environment in which they operate. It is argued that in developing policy attention needs to be paid to the terms on which different actors in society engage, and to ensure that the positions of different groups are recognised and that they are included on their own terms.

INTRODUCTION

This paper considers voluntary activity from Maori and non-Maori perspectives, within a framework that is being developed to understand social capital in New Zealand and the factors that contribute to it. In this framework we suggest that one key indicator of social capital may be the degree of "giving", which shows the levels of commitment within a community.

The overall framework that we are developing for the understanding of social capital is predicated on the assumption that the "whole story" about social capital is the story of the social setting or context in which actors give and receive. This context includes actors' knowledge of each other's interests and resources, the opportunities that exist for exchange (including unilateral transfers) and the inducements and disincentives associated with norms of giving. Thus to understand the nature of social capital we need to understand the rules governing direct giving, or unilateral transfers, and the rules for those exchanges that take the form of sharing, where the benefit from that giving is shared within the community to which the "giver" belongs. Our discussion explores the mix of interests, resources and norms that "generate" these actions and the fit between an activity and the environment in which it occurs.

In our programme on social capital, supported by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, we initially focused on the value of voluntary organisations in providing spaces for the creation and expression of social capital. Subsequent discussion has led us to emphasise the behaviour (community communication and discussion) that helps create social capital and social cohesion rather than the organisational forms which best nurture it (generally presented as voluntary or nonprofit organisations). We suggest that building social capital requires:

* active and knowledgeable citizens -- actors;

* a rich network of voluntary associations -- agency; and

* forums for public deliberation -- opportunity.

The form of social-capital-intensive relations and networks is important and thus our framework focuses on understanding the terms on which people interact. In addition to acknowledging factors such as the presence of networks of voluntary activity, we need to understand the nature of relationships within and between sectors rather than regard them as discrete arenas.

All systems (organisations, communities or societies) contain the core features of social capital in so far as they operate with a set of norms and values, they have ways of sanctioning activities, and a degree of knowledge and information is available. The issue is how to release or activate this potential for collective well-being. To understand this requires understanding the rules of engagement in a system. This may suggest why some people are excluded from active participation in society while others dominate.

A DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital refers to the collection of resources to which an individual or a group has access through their membership in an ongoing network of mutual acquaintance. Features of this social structure, such as relationships, norms and social trust, help develop coordination and cooperation for common benefit.

In our definition of social capital, the term "resources" includes status, attention, knowledge and opportunities to participate and communicate. It does not only refer to connections that provide access to physical resources and information.

An essential feature of our definition is that social capital provides "a capacity to associate for mutual benefit or common purpose". In investigating forms of voluntary activity we are also exploring how this "capacity to associate" is created or restricted.

Social capital is often realised through involvement in forms of voluntary association, and this association provides opportunities to communicate and to ascertain the interests and mandate of others. Networks and relationships enable the flow and exchange of information; they provide "spaces" in which communication can take place. When systems are rich in social capital, access to information is widened and this enables views and knowledge to be shared.

The actual nature of the resources that an individual, group or system has access to, their criteria for membership, and the form that networks take, will vary among different groups and cultures.

THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL FORMATION

In general, although social capital can be increased through investment in the actions that help create it, it does not decrease through use. Use of social capital adds to the stock through carrying out actions that are integral to its creation (networking, communication, cooperative support, etc.).

In our case study of the development of a rural community's drug treatment programme working on a Maori kaupapa model, we have observed that there is something of a "quid pro quo" aspect to the draw-down of social capital. What has been taken has also been replaced and added to by the interaction of the parties: existing relationships are reaffirmed, new experiences are encountered and another dimension of the relationship is established.

However, social capital can be diminished through attitudes and behaviour that restrict access to its core aspects. That is, untrustworthy behaviour by public and private organisations, restrictions on the freedom of operation of voluntary associations, the removal or limitation of spaces for deliberation and networking, non-reciprocal relationships (such as directive, non-negotiated contracts) and not recognising the status of marginalised groups. These lead to reduced knowledge of others' interests, limit the development of emerging norms and restrict the exchange of information.

Social capital is not something that is produced and consumed without trace; it is not a transitory process. There must be some meaningful accumulated stocks of social capital resources in a community or system to justify the use of the term capital.

SOCIAL CAPITAL IN A MAORI CONTEXT

In defining the core characteristics of social capital in a Maori context, it is useful to compare this with a European perspective on social capital. Robert Putnam (2000), for example, emphasises the role of community organisations, or "networks of civic engagement", in providing the opportunity for interaction that builds "networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit". Other social scientists, such as North (1990, quoted in World Bank Social Capital Initiative 1999), include functional relations and structures such as the political regime or the legal and judicial system in their definition of social capital. This approach focuses attention on networks that are created outside the family through a wide range of community associations (see Bowling Alone (Putnam 2000) for a detailed analysis of changes in participation in these forms of association in the United States) and it conceptually separates family from community.

In contrast, the Maori concept of family (whanau) moves seamlessly from the immediate family to the wider family network (hapu) and the tribe (iwi), where the (extended) family becomes the community and the community is made up of the (extended) family. Social capital is created through networks and relationships that are within all of these expressions of "family" (or community). Thus, in the Maori context, the distinction between cultural and social capital disappears. Cultural capital is an important aspect of social capital and social capital is an expression of cultural capital in practice. Social capital is based on and grows from the norms, values, networks and ways of operating that are the core of cultural capital.

A Maori concept of social capital emphasises the following elements:

* Extended family relationships are the basis for all other relationships. The whanau is the nucleus of all things. Maori community values and norms come from traditional values that are rooted in the whanau.

* It is essential to have knowledge of, and to know one's place in, Maori society, which is multi-dimensional, covering the geographical place to which one belongs as well as a place within the hierarchy of whanau, hapu and iwi where one belongs.

* Relationships in Maori society develop around informal association rather than formal organisations. The connectedness that is derived from this association is an intended consequence of whanau and iwi relations. The nature of this social capital may not be articulated but its value is understood.

* The holistic, integrating nature of relationships and networks are...