Lincoln University Digital Dissertation - Lincoln University Research ...

2.4.3 Social and cultural capital
Despite definitions describing the importance of other assets, during the
1990’s, efforts to operationalise sustainable development have been led
largely by ‘Western’ ecological economists utilising Capital Theory (Loomis,
2000). This conceptual work has largely ignored indigenous peoples’ efforts to
achieve self-determination and embark on development initiatives of their
own.
Loomis (2000) argues that ‘grassroots’, indigenous initiatives which draw on
residual stocks of social/cultural capital for their impetus, provide useful
insights into problems of conceiving and operationalising ‘sustainable
development’. The Economist (March 1, 1997; cited in Loomis, 2000)
commented that economists and policy makers seem to have rediscovered
that institutions, social relationships and culture matter in development.
Furthermore, Putnam (1994) published a study of the historic relationship
between economic development and civil institutions in various regions of
Italy. He concluded that while economists do not predict the strength of civil
society, the converse appears to be the case: “a region’s chances of
achieving socioeconomic development [depend] less on its socioeconomic
endowments than on its civic endowments” (Putman, 1994: 157).
Sustainable development for Maori therefore relies on sustaining and
enhancing the social/cultural capital. In defining the core characteristics of
social/cultural capital in a Maori context, it is necessary to first conceptualise
contemporary appreciations of just what social and cultural assets
encompass. Cahn (2006) effectively illustrates the respective social and
cultural components and the overlap between these in Figure 2.
19