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

Table 4.8: Indicators of collective action: Monetary and time contributions to
development
Contri-bution Responses Machakos Taita-Taveta Combined
Level
Frequency % Frequency % Frequency %
Within village Some or a lot 142 88.8 114 70.8 256 79.8
over time Very little or
nothing
18 11.3 47 29.2 65 20.2
Total 160 100.0 161 100.0 321 100.0
Compared with More 17 10.7 25 15.6 42 13.2
other villages The same 110 69.2 79 49.4 189 18.9
Less 32 20.1 56 35.0 88 88
Total 159 100.0 160 100.0 319 100.0
Source: Field survey, 2003
The extent of social cohesion and inclusion is an important outcome of the presence
or absence of social capital. Inclusion is assessed in the context of access to important
services, such as education, health, and justice. Exclusion can lead to conflict and even
violence. Consequently, the level of sociability can be judged by the perceptions of the
respondents regarding the level of conflict and violence within the community. The result of
the survey on social cohesion and inclusion perceptions are presented in Table 4.9.
In the table, various factors that would enhance or promote cohesion are presented,
namely education, wealth or status of households or individuals, the size of landholdings
(which would also be an indicator of wealth, in some instances), social status, gender, age
(for example, differences between the youth and the elderly), and the settlement status of an
individual or household.
From the results, indicators of social cohesion and inclusion range from a feeling of
social unity and togetherness within the community to specific experiences of exclusion.
Respondents in Taita-Taveta held the view that indicators such as education, wealth, and
landholding tend to widen the gap between community members. Consequently, it would be
expected that social cohesion and inclusion would lead to wider variation in the access to
such services as education, health, and justice. Further, since the perception of the extent of
social cohesion and inclusion is an important positive effect of the presence of social
outcomes in the community, one would expect social capital levels to be comparatively less
in Taita-Taveta than in Machakos. In general, the perception of social cohesion and inclusion
is higher in Machakos than in Taita-Taveta for all key indicators considered. However, when
the respondents from the two districts are combined, the relevance of the indicators as
sources of noncohesion and exclusion is muted.