MYRADA’S Capacity Building Intervention .... 387SAG Vision ChartThe above photographs depict that theWMA and SAG members have developed thecapacity to build vision for their members,group and village. The planning, facilitatesthem to act together for a common purpose,be it construction <strong>of</strong> village road, treeplantation, improving village school, cleaningcommon water tank and drainage, organisingawareness camps on health, legal and socialrelated issues, and lobbying for electricity.Again, capacity building and creation <strong>of</strong> socialcapital seem to be simultaneous moments. Itis not that first the capacity building takesplace, and once this process is over, thensocial capital is formed. Over the last twodecades, there has been a paradigm shift indevelopment as external change agents haverealised that capacity building is neitherbringing in new technology nor externalconsultants. As a result, MYRADA is investingdirectly in affinity groups as social capitaltools, which in turn interact with other factorsfurther enhancing social capital.Figure 3: Model Showing Reciprocal Relation Between Capacity Building and Social CapitalTool Factors OutcomeCBOsSocial CapitalScaling up <strong>of</strong> CBOsCapacity building interventionSocial CapitalCapacity building trainingNumber <strong>of</strong> stakeholders’ involvementDifferent levels <strong>of</strong> stakeholders’ involvementProcess <strong>of</strong> capacity buildingCreation <strong>of</strong> enabling environmentSocial CapitalJournal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rural</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, Vol. 31, No. 4, <strong>October</strong> - <strong>December</strong> : <strong>2012</strong>
388 Anita Singh and T. BabuAs illustrated in Figure 3, social capitalas an outcome depends on scaling up <strong>of</strong>CBOs and capacity building intervention.MYRADA’s capacity building interventionleverages the social capital encapsulated inaffinity groups to further enhance output(social capital). This enhanced output in turnfeeds back building more intra and inter-CBOtrust and greater involvement <strong>of</strong> communitystakeholders in enhancing and using theircapacity in new directions to forge new tiesand relationships facilitating collective action.The arrows and connecting lines thus depictthe reciprocal relationship between socialcapital and capacity building.Examining the forms <strong>of</strong> social capital,Grootaert and Bastelaer (2001) affirm thatstructural social capital is associated withsocial organisation (informal or formal), withroles people assume, networks, rules, andprocedures that guide specific behaviour. InMYRADA, the capacity building trainingfacilitates members’ development <strong>of</strong> norms,rules, and regulations for the functioning <strong>of</strong>their CBOs. Punctuality, discipline during themeeting and sanctions for non-complianceare more visible and external. Cognitive socialcapital (Uph<strong>of</strong>f, 2000) on the other hand,refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes,and beliefs; and therefore, is a moresubjective and intangible concept (cited inGrootaert & Bastelaer, 2001). Again,information sharing and repeated interactionamong individuals during CBO meetingsenhances trust, reduces uncertainty aboutrepayment behaviour, and in effect reducestransaction costs overall (Grootaert, 1998),thus creating social capital. This intangibletrust is also reflected in the successfulmanagement <strong>of</strong> CBO common fund andnatural resources by members <strong>of</strong> WatershedManagement Associations.Social capital whether driven bystructural social capital or cognitive, evolvesinto shared knowledge, understandings, andpatterns <strong>of</strong> interactions that members adoptin dealing within and among CBOs. As a result<strong>of</strong> institutional capacity building, CBOmembers are able to decide who should begiven loan, how much, for what period andwhat should be the punishment for delayedpayment, and are constantly learning to workbetter together and carry out and monitorroutine activities. This seems to be animportant component <strong>of</strong> social capitalbecause trust not just reduces transaction costbut also institutionalises behaviour,considered essential to be called capital.Again, Fafchamps and Minten (1999) arguethat social capital embodied in networks <strong>of</strong>trust has characteristics similar to otherfactors <strong>of</strong> production, such as physical capitaland labour, as it accumulates over time andimproves economic performance (cited inGrootaert & Bastelaer, 2001). Researchers<strong>of</strong> the institutional economics school too,consider social capital to be constructible asevidenced by MYRADA’s capacity buildingintervention which is deliberately influencingthe ‘stock’ <strong>of</strong> social capital.ConclusionThe purpose <strong>of</strong> this research was, onone hand to conduct an in-depth study oncapacity building intervention as a systemicprocess and on the other hand to study acase from Southern India, which is not wellrepresented in development literature. Thefindings suggest that MYRADA is leveragingsocial capital (affinity) <strong>of</strong> the poor, buildingtheir capacity, and simultaneously involvingall stakeholders <strong>of</strong> the community in theirdevelopment. Research has shown that withthe creation <strong>of</strong> CMRCs the agency is slowlymoving from exogenous to endogenouscapacity builders. This study has found thatMYRADA’s capacity building intervention goesbeyond training; it is creating an enablingenvironment for practising the skills learnt,and sharing information and best practices.Taken together, these results suggest that asJournal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Rural</strong> <strong>Development</strong>, Vol. 31, No. 4, <strong>October</strong> - <strong>December</strong> : <strong>2012</strong>