Disaster and Disability in Bangladesh - Behinderung und Dritte Welt

A RTIKELthat relationships matter and are valuable intheir own right and because they may lead toother benefits (social, economic and/or political).Despite the disagreement on the exactmeaning of the term, definitions have not beenshortcoming. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu(1986: 248) defined social capital as “the aggregateof the actual or potential resourceswhich are linked to the possession of a durablenetwork of more or less institutionalized relationshipsof mutual acquaintance or recognition”.In this case, the formation of social networksis not a natural process (hence requiringinvestment in its own right through the formationof group relations), is not necessarilyharmless or egalitarian, but is instead an attributeof well-positioned elites, utilised to maintaintheir position and/or advance their interests.In this case, social capital is intimatelybound to power. Another contributor to theevolving social capital debate was Coleman(1994: 302) who defined social capital by itsfunction: “It is not a single entity, but a varietyof different entities, having two characteristicsin common: they all consist of some aspect of asocial structure, and they facilitate certain actionsfor individuals who are within the structure.”The major impetus for the promotion ofsocial capital came from its most vociferousproponent, Robert Putnam (1993: 35), who describedsocial capital as the “features of socialorganisation, such as networks, norms, andtrust that facilitate coordination and cooperationfor mutual benefit”. Social capital in thisview facilitates coordination and cooperationfor the mutual benefit of the members of theassociation, a process involving largely horizontalsocial groups such as associations, clubs andvoluntary agencies that bring individuals togetherto pursue one or more objectives inwhich they have a common interest (e.g. farmerorganisations). The World Bank drawing on Putnam’swork, recently emerged as a major proponentof social capital, shifting the attention ofthe concept towards the majority world, and oftenadopting a prescriptive stance in its applicationto poverty reduction. It defines social capitalas “the institutions, relationships and normsthat shape the quality of a society’s social interactions...Socialcapital is not just the sum of theinstitutions which underpin society- it is the gluethat holds them together” (1999: 2).It is important to note that there are differenttypes of social capital and Woolcock (2001) distinguishesbetween three. The first type, calledbonding social capital refers to the ties betweenpeople in similar situations e.g. family members,close friends and neighbours. The second,bridging social capital refers to more distantconnections of people in similar situations, suchas friendships and work colleagues; while thethird type, known as linking social capital refersto vertical relationships with those in positionsof power.In this paper, social capital is understood as“the norms and social relations embedded inthe social structures of society that enable peopleto co-ordinate action and to achieve desiredgoals” (Narayan 1999: 6). This definitionusefully provides a broad conceptualisation ofsocial relations (hence including networks, associations,both formal and informal and at micro,meso and macro levels), and the wordnorms allows a focus on the local context andrelationships emerging from the ground. Thisalso provides for more relative (as opposed toabsolute) understandings against which individualattitudes and behaviours are positioned andunderstood. Therefore, it draws attention to thefact that contexts are multiple, varied and heterogeneous,and that consequently one needsto engage with the different socio-economicand cultural aspects, as opposed to generalisingfrom one context to another.Social Capital - Insights andContributions to the Disability andDevelopment DebateThe major epistemological attraction of socialcapital in a development sector preoccupiedwith economic growth and numbers, hinges ontwo factors: first of all, like the concept of socialexclusion, it is at least in theory relational; andthe word capital implies that these social relationshipsare both valuable in their own right aswell as in enabling access to other benefits.These two perspectives are discussed below.Unprecedented Attention to SocialRelationshipsWhile other types of capital have long been acknowledgedin development (human, natural,financial and physical), what clearly emerges isthat these have invariably resided in and havebeen the exclusive property of the individual,and which are only a partial source of economicgrowth. As Portes (1998: 7) in fact notes:“...whereas economic capital is in people’sbank accounts and human capital is in theirheads, social capital inheres in the structure oftheir relationships. To possess social capital, aperson must be related to others, and it is theseothers, not himself, who are the actual sourceof his or her advantage.”Furthermore, social capital in the same veinZeitschrift Behinderung und Dritte Welt 1/20105