The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

1.3 Research Objectives and Hypotheses
Objectives of the study
The overall objective of the study is to investigate farm-level social capital in marginal areas
and evaluate its effects on perceptions of soil erosion problems, soil conservation
investments, resource use patterns, and agricultural productivity.
The specific objectives are
• To study and characterize forms or attributes or elements or types of social capital;
• To investigate how “different forms” of social capital influence farm-level soil and
water conservation investments;
• To investigate whether there is a link between social capital, resource use, and
agricultural productivity; and
• To provide policy implications regarding social capital and soil conservation.
Hypotheses of the study
The following hypotheses were posed for testing.
• There are various elements of social capital, which have different and significant
effects on soil and water conservation.
• Social capital has a positive significant effect on resource use.
• Social capital has a positive significant effect on agricultural productivity.
2. Conceptual framework
In this section, we describe how we defined, conceptualized, measured, and applied different
measures of cooperative capacity; how these measures relate to the explanatory factors
hypothesized to affect cooperation, and the impact of these indicators on a variety of
outcomes observed at both the community and household level.
2.1 Definition of social capital
Social capital is a relatively new term in the lexicon of economists (Katz 2000) and a hotly
debated concept in modern sociology (Coleman 1990; Putnam 1993), though the role of
interpersonal relationships in human relations have long been recognized by social scientists
(Coleman 1988; Granovetter 1985). However, the concept has been seldom used in
economics (Fafchamps and Minten 1999; Barr 1997; Narayan and Pritchett 1996). This is
probably due to the diversity of definitions of what social capital is and is not at the
operational level (Krishna 2003; Fafchamps and Minten 1999),although there is a high
consistency in the definitions of social capital at the general level, including the forms and
dimensions it embraces (Narayan and Cassidy 2001).
Two possible meanings of social capital can be inferred from the literature. First, it
may be seen as a stock of trust and emotional attachment to a group or society that facilitates
the provision of public goods (Fukuyama 1995; Greif 1993; Coleman 1988; Putnam,
Leonardi, and Nanetti 1993). Second, it may be seen as an individual asset that generates
private benefits to a single individual or firm (Granovetter 1985; Montgomery 1991; Aoki
1984). Krishna (2003) argues that while the concept of social capital is valid universally, the
measure of social capital will vary by context, and it must be related in each case to aspects
of social relations that assist mutually beneficial collective action within that particular