National Human Development eport 2009 Rhdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/bosnia_nhdr_2009_en_0.pdfT T...

...................................................................

THE TIES THAT BIND

Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina

National Human Development eport 2009R...................................................................

The Ties that Bind - National Human Development Report 26:Layout 1 28.10.2009 10:23 Page 1

UNDP is the UN's global development network, an organisation advocating for change and connecting countries to knowl-edge, experience and resources to help people build a better life. We are on the ground in 166 countries, working withthem on their own solutions to global and national development challenges. As they develop local capacity, they draw onthe people of UNDP and our wide range of partners.

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of UNDP.

Copyright © 2009by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 48 Maršala Tita, 71000, Sarajevo.

Supervisor: Armin Sirčo Lead author & team leader: Nicola Nixon Lead consultant: Anthony HeathChapter author: Stephanie RoelsContributors (in alphabetical order): Lucia Desigis, Miroslav Divčić, Hans Fridberg, Marija Ignjatović, Karla Koutkova

Peer reviewers (in alphabetical order): Alma Dedić, Marina Dimova, Amie Gaye, Maja Marjanović, Christine McNab, PaolaPagliani, Mirela Ibrahimagić, Marija Ignjatović, Susanne Milcher, Sara Nikolić, Renata Radeka, Arlett Stojanović

Printed by: Arch Design doo

ISBN: 978-92-95042-97-1

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme.


I have great pleasure in presenting to you UNDP’sflagship publication, the National Human Develop-ment Report for 2009. This report breaks new groundby examining, for the first time, the relationship be-tween social capital, social inclusion and human de-velopment in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

Despite the progress that has been made since theend of the 1992-1995 conflict in BiH, the country’ssocial fabric is still weakened and frayed. Levels of so-cial trust are very low. In contrast to what one mightassume – that levels of trust and social cohesionwould be increasing, as the conflict recedes into thepast – evidence suggests that over the past few yearstrust levels have been worsening. This low socialtrust manifests itself as a considerable developmentchallenge in BiH, in particular in light of the country’saspirations to join the European Union in the near fu-ture.

Social trust is something that binds societies to-gether and helps them function. It makes people’sinteractions with one another, and with institutionsand service providers, smoother and more efficient.A lack of trust, in contrast, has the tendency to makethose processes more laborious and fractious. To-gether with civic participation and norms of reci-procity, trust is a crucial component of social capital.They are the features of society that facilitate coop-eration between people that results in mutual ben-efit. The concept of social capital arises, therefore,from the assumption that relationships matter: thatunderstanding the different constellations of socialnetworks and the functioning of everyday social tiesis essential to interpreting – and ultimately interven-ing to change – broader social processes.

The report finds that BiH’s social fabric is charac-terised by fragmentation and segmentation ratherthan cohesion and solidarity. BiH has a web of lo-calised strong ties, based on strong family relations.Such strong ties do have their advantages. For exam-ple, they can provide support in times of need. Tothat extent, it is clear that in their immediate net-works people care and look out for each other to agreat extent in BiH.

Those with higher education have more diverse net-works, highlighting the importance of strengtheningthe education system in BiH and improving retentionlevels. Yet, for the benefit of broader society, a lotmore needs to be done to build broader, more inte-grative and wider-spanning ties, incorporating mem-bers of other communities, ethnicities, social classesand both genders.

Quite optimistically – and in contrast to commonperceptions of BiH – the report also observed thatpeople perceive the most friction in the country tobe between rich and poor and not different ethnicgroups. This complements the finding that the waris of much less significance to people’s lives now thanit was even three years ago and that, now, most peo-ple are simply trying to move on with their lives.

Very few people lack support networks – althoughthe problems of those without such networks maybe especially great in a society such as BiH, which islargely organised around tightly-knit local commu-nities. In a society so dominated by family and im-mediate ties, a lack of such ties makes life extremelydifficult. The report analyses levels of networkpoverty and notes with concern that the elderly inBiH are more likely to suffer from social isolation. This kind of isolation is an important component tokeep in mind when assessing forms of social exclu-sion.

Finally, the report delves into the positive and nega-tive effects of social capital for broader processes ofdemocratisation and social cohesion. The researchexamines membership of clubs, societies, organisa-tions and associations in BiH, or ‘associational life.’ Onthe positive side, civil society is observed as provid-ing the basis for more bridging and diverse social tiesand, as such, is more inclusive. Strengthening asso-ciational life in BiH would help to overcome some ofthe more significant social cleavages. In contrast, thereport also looks at the downside of a society sostrongly based on family networks and the potentialfor those networks to produce and reproduce in-equalities through nepotism, clientelism and crony-ism.

Foreword National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

3

Foreword


Social capital research – as this report shows – canimprove understanding of the obstacles that work toexclude and marginalise different social groups.State and entity governments in BiH are already pur-suing various strategies to address social exclusionin BiH, and the results presented here are intendedas a contribution to those efforts. It is hoped that thisreport will spark debate on the ways and means ofstrengthening associational life and reducing socialexclusion in BiH.

It is clear that building linkages between segmentedand homogenous networks is an enormous chal-

lenge for the country, not least given the context ofan ongoing political crisis and the impact of theglobal financial crisis. Improving social cohesion, inpart through the building of inclusive social capital,however, is essential for the future stability and pros-perity of the country.

Christine McNabUNDP Resident Representative

ForewordNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

4


Acknowledgements National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

5

We are deeply indebted to the many people whohave contributed in one way or another to makingthis report possible. We were enormously fortunateto have had input from representatives of the gov-ernment in BiH, its institutions, civil society organi-sations and academia both inside and outside thecountry. The drafting committee, which met regu-larly throughout the preparation of the report, com-prised representatives of the Directorate for Econo-mic Planning, the Federal Statistical Agency, the Sta-tistical Agency of the Republika Srpska, the HumanRights Centre of the University of Sarajevo and theAlumni Association of the Centre for PostgraduateStudies at the University of Sarajevo.

We are also extremely grateful to have benefitedthroughout the process from the intellectual guid-ance of Professor Anthony Heath of the Departmentof Sociology at Oxford University. Professor Heathguided the preparation of the questionnaire and theanalysis of the data, as well as authored sections ofthe report.

We also thank the many other individuals and organ-isations who provided invaluable input to this report.

All errors are our own.

UNDP BiH NHDR team: (in alphabetical order)Klelija Balta, Asja Čengić, Mersiha Ćurčić, Lucia De-sigis, Gyongyver Jakab, Dženan Kapetanović, KarlaKoutkova (UNV), Christine McNab, Amna Muhare-mović , Nicola Nixon, Stephanie Roels (UNV), Petervan Ruysseveldt, Eldar Sarajlić, Armin Sirčo, Tarik Za-imović.

Steering committee: (in alphabetical order) EminaAjkunić, Federal Office of Statistics; Ivan Barbalić,ACIPS; Faris Čengić, Federal Office of Statistics; En-vesa Hadžić-Kovač, UN RC Office; Enes Hadžiefendić,Federal Office of Statistics; Aida Hasić-Karabegović,

DEP; Sanel Huskić, ACIPS; Mirela Ibrahimagić, DEP;Radoslav Latinčić, RS Institute of Statistics; TatjanaLjubić, ACIPS; Ljerka Marić, DEP; Milka Miholjčić, RSInstitute of Statistics; Sara Nikolić, ACIPS; BogdanaRadić, RS Institute of Statistics; Mediha Skulić, FederalOffice of Statistics; Dejan Vanjek, ACIPS; Stela Vasić,Office of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers;Selma Zahirović, DEP; Lajla Zaimović, ACIPS; MiroslavŽivanović, Human Rights Centre, University of Sarajevo.

Final peer review: (in alphabetical order) AlmaDedić, UNDP; Marina Dimova, UNDP; Amie Gaye,HDRO; Maja Marjanović, UNDP; Christine McNab,UNRC BiH; Paola Pagliani, HDRO; Mirela Ibrahimagić,DEP; Marija Ignjatović, UNDP; Susanne Milcher, UNDPRBEC; Sara Nikolić, ACIPS; Renata Radeka, UNDP; Ar-lett Stojanović, UNDP.

Thanks also for their contribution or assistance:(in alphabetical order) Mehmed Agić, EducationBuilds BiH; Damir Ahmetović, UNDP, Jesse Bernstein,UNHCR BiH; Miodrag Bosić, LAG Doboj; Dino Djipa,Prism Research; Jasminka Džumhur, State Ombuds-man for Human Rights; Jovan Divjak, EducationBuilds BiH; Anna Gueorguieva, World Bank; PeterHåkansson, Lund University; Randy Hodson, OhioState University; Jugoslav Jevđić, Youth Communica-tion Center, Banja Luka; Nada Jovanović, Associationof Persons with Muscular Dystrophy, Doboj; HusnijaKamberović, Institute of History; Marina Katnić-Bakaršić, Faculty of Philosophy; Nermina Kodžaga,Vaša Prava; Snježana Kojić Hasanagić, Prism Re-search; Michaela Lednova, UNDP RBEC; BorislavMarić, Association of Mushroom Gatherers and Na-ture Lovers; Branislav Mikulić, Eurofound; AdisaPamuk, Oaza; Paula Pickering, College of William andMary; Scott Pohl, UNHCR BiH; Marija Prskalo,Mostimun; Robert Putnam, Harvard University; TomSander, Harvard University; Andrew Shipley, OxfordUniversity; Hjálmar Sigmarsson, UNIFEM BiH; GoranTinjić, the World Bank; Erwin Tiongsen, the World Bank.

Acknowledgements


6


Contents National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

7

Contents

11

23

33

45

57

FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACRONYMS

INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND

SOCIAL CAPITAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIAL INCLUSION

SOCIALTIES IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

VULNERABILITY NETWORK POVERTY

INCLUSIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL: ASSOCIATIONAL LIFE IN BiH

AND

,

AND

............................................ ...........................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................................................

THE DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................................

WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL? .................................................................... .......................................................................................

WHY SOCIAL CAPITAL RESEARCH FOR BiH? ..................................... ......................................................................................

SOCIAL CAPITAL RESEARCH FOR EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING .......... .................................................................

AIMS OF THE REPORT .....................................................................................................................................................................

KEY RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................................................

THEVALUE OF SOCIALTIES ...........................................................................................................................................................

MACRO, MESO AND MICRO SOCIAL TIES .................................... ............................................................................................

TYPES OF SOCIAL NETWORKS .....................................................................................................................................................

SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM A HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE ...................................................................................

PRIOR RESEARCH ON SOCIAL CAPITAL ......................................................... ...........................................................................

APPROACH ............................................................................................................. ..........................................................................

SOCIAL NETWORKS:TIESWITH FAMILY, NEIGHBOURS ANDTHEWIDER COMMUNITY .............. .............................

GENERALISED AND SPECIFICTRUST IN BiH .............................................................................................. ..............................

TRENDS OVERTIME IN GENERALISED AND SPECIFICTRUST ............................................................ .................................

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................................................

THE IMPACT OF NETWORK POVERTY ON MATERIAL DEPRIVATION ................................................................................

THE EXPERIENCE OF NETWORK POVERTY: FOCUS GROUP RESULTS ... ........................................................................

CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... .......................................................................

THE THIRD SECTOR: CIVIL SOCIETY AND NON-GOVER MENT ORGANISATIONS ...... ...............................................

VOLUNTEERING ...............................................................................................................................................................................

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION ...........................................................................................................................................................

CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................

. 3

5

9

13

. 17

. 18

. 19

20

22

25

. 25

27

28

. 30

. 31

. . 35

. 39

. 43

44

47

50

... 52

. 56

N . 60

65

68

70

CHAPTER 1:

CHAPTER 2:

CHAPTER 3:

CHAPTER 4:

CHAPTER 5:


ContentsNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

8

95

99

137

71

87

CHAPTER 6:

CHAPTER 7:

ANNEXES

EXCLUSIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL: ŠTELA AND PERSONAL CONNECTIONS

PERCEPTIONS OF ............................................................................................................................................................... 75

AND ACCESS TO SERVICES ............................................................................................................................................. 78

, BRIBERY, CORRUPTION AND EXCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 83

. 85

TELA

TELA

TELA

Š

Š

Š

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... .............................................................................

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

CASE STUDIES OF INCLUSIVE SOCIAL CAPITAL

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................

1. STRENGTHENING ASSOCIATIONAL LIFE .........................................................................................................................

2. A RESSING SOCIAL EXCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................

1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................

2. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDICES FOR BiH FOR 2008/9 ...........................................................................................

3. LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARYTABLES ........................................................................................

4. QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................................................................................

. 90

. 90

DD 91

..... 92

101

. 105

AND . 113

. 120


Acronyms National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

9

AcronymsBAM Bosnia and Herzegovina convertible mark, currency BD Brčko District BiH Bosnia and HerzegovinaCIS Commonwealth of Independent StatesCSO Civil Society OrganisationEC European CommissionEU European UnionFBiH Federation of Bosnia and HerzegovinaFYROM The Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaGDP Gross Domestic ProductGDI Gender Development IndexGEM Gender Empowerment MeasureHBS Household Budget SurveyHDI Human Development IndexHDR Human Development ReportHDRO Human Development Report OfficeHPI Human Poverty IndexIBHI Independent Bureau of Humanitarian IssuesIDP Internally Displaced PersonILO International Labour Organisation IMF International Monetary FundLFS Labour Force SurveyMDG Millennium Development GoalMZ Mjesna Zajednica (local community council)NHDR National Human Development ReportNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationsOECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentOHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsOHR Office of the High RepresentativeOSCE Organisation for Security and Cooperation in EuropeRS Republika SrpskaSAA Stabilisation and Association AgreementSEE South East EuropeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganisationUNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsUNICEF United Nations Children’s FundUSAID United States Agency for International Development WB World BankWHO World Health Organisation


10


11

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

1Introduction and background


12

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

1


In 2007, the United Nations Development Pro-gramme in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the sup-port of the Royal Netherlands Government, carriedout a wide-ranging assessment of the social and po-litical health of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). Pub-lished as The Silent Majority Speaks, the report wasone of the most comprehensive studies undertakenin the country since the end of the conflict in 1995.A striking result of this research was the ‘absoluteweakness of social bonds of trust, reciprocity and sol-idarity.’ 1 Social trust, the report found, is ‘virtuallynon-existent’ in BiH. This National Human Develop-ment Report (NHDR) sets out to explore this lack oftrust in more detail. It achieves this end by embed-ding social trust in the broader concept of social cap-ital and by thereby assessing the different facets anddimensions of social networks and relations in BiH.The research outlined in this report aims to providea much greater understanding of the ties that bindmembers of society together in BiH – informal famil-ial and local neighbourhood relations as well as for-mal associations, clubs and organisations. In analysingsocial ties, we look to make a key distinction be-tween those networks that provide the basis forgreater social inclusion and those that contribute toforms of discrimination, marginalisation and exclu-sion. In so doing, the report presents evidence on socialcapital and a series of resulting policy recommenda-tions that can provide the basis for improving the in-clusion of the most vulnerable, heightening socialcohesion and working towards the enhancement ofhuman development in BiH.

THE DEvELOPMENT CONTExT

The following section outlines some of the key as-pects of the political, economic and social context inBiH, based upon the most up-to-date, available data.In addition to providing illustrative background tothe rest of the report, this section looks in particularat those elements of BiH’s current situation in whichwe can see fragmentation, cleavage and division, as

these are the characteristics most relevant to a studywhich takes low social trust as its point of depar-ture.

The political situationFourteen years after the end of the 1992 – 1995 war,BiH has moved beyond the instability of the imme-diate post-conflict period (current political divisionsnotwithstanding) and entered a calmer period of de-velopment, with a future envisaged in the EuropeanUnion (EU). The country is officially a ‘potential can-didate’ for membership, and EU accession providesthe country with a clear direction for progress anddevelopment. A significant majority of the popula-tion sees the country’s future within the EU.2 In thisperiod of relative stability, the scope for muchneeded reforms is both vast and enormously chal-lenging. In recent years, there have been a numberof concrete signs of commitment to reform: the Part-nership for Peace agreement was signed with NATOin late 2006, and the Stabilisation and AssociationAgreement (SAA) was signed with the EuropeanCommission in June 2008.

Despite these positive signs, however, the pace of re-form in the country is agonisingly slow. Constitu-tional reform, although generally recognised ascrucial, remains a sensitive topic, in particular withregard to the direction this reform should take. Thecurrent constitutional structure, contained withinthe Dayton Agreement, is unnecessarily complex,unwieldy and expensive. Additionally, it provides fora decision-making structure which is inefficient andunaccountable. As such, it is unable to provide thebasis for efficient decision-making or reform thatwould enable the country to make more rapidprogress towards the EU. The European Commission(EC) delegation to BiH has requested that the coun-try establish ‘more functional and sustainable insti-tutional structures,’ 3 yet there has been no seriousattempt to amend or change the Constitution sincethe Parliamentary Assembly rejected a package ofconstitutional amendments in 2006.

Chapter 1 National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

13

Introduction and background

1 UNDP & ORI (2007).2 UNDP & ORI (2007). 71% of the respondents said they see the country’s future within the EU. 3 Commission of the European Community (2008).


Chapter 1National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

14

4 The discrimination permissible in the BiH Constitution is not only ethnically based, but territorially based as well. This means that onlySerbs from the RS, and not those from the FBiH, can be candidates for the Presidency, and Bosniacs and Croats from the Federation, but notthose that live in the RS. This is a violation of human rights and BiH is in direct violation of international law (of multiple conventions thecountry has ratified). European Commission for Democracy through Law (2005).5 European Commission for Democracy through Law (2005). 6 International Crisis Group (2009).7 Due to the concerns over the future stability (not just political) of BiH, the international community is still very much involved in the directgoverning and administration of the BiH state through the active offices of the OHR (with sweeping governing powers), whose closure hasbeen postponed. 8 Commission of the European Community (2008).9 BHAS (2008a).10 The Labour Force Survey 2008 defines unemployment in the following way: ‘the unemployed are persons of 15 years of age or older who:(a) in the reference period did not engage in any activities for which they received a salary or fee; (b) spent four weeks (the reference andthree preceding weeks) actively looking for employment or found a job and were about to start work in near future; (c) might start workduring two weeks following the reference week should they be offered employment.’ BHAS (2008a), p.12.11 BHAS (2008a). The unemployment rate among young people between 15-24 years old is 47.5%. 12 In 2006, the value of BiH’s exports rose by 36% and in 2007 by 15%. Agencija za Statistiku Bosne i Hercegovine (Agency for Statistics ofBosnia and Herzegovina) website, viewed 10 August 2009, <http://www.bhas.ba>.13 IMF (2009), p.9.

The political arena is structured by the DaytonAgreement. This agreement, which marked the endof the war in BiH, provided the country with a newconstitution in 1995 and aimed at accommodatingthe ‘three constituent peoples of BiH’ equally. Despiteits intended purpose, the Dayton Agreement cannow be seen as a source of division, so entrenchedin every aspect of the governing structure is thistripartite structure. The rotating presidency andcentral government are elected under proceduresthat demand a strict balance between the con-stituent peoples. The Constitution, for example,states that:

The Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall con-sist of three Members: one Bosniac and one Croat,each directly elected from the territory of the Federa-tion, and one Serb directly elected from the territoryof Republika Srpska.

The underlying logic of this constitutional structureis to provide the three constituent peoples with aguarantee of representation, while simultaneouslyencouraging cooperation on common issues of thestate. In contrast to its intention, this guarantee hasbeen utilised by the representatives of each ethnicgroup to assert their special status and turnedagainst the state. Furthermore the constitutionalstructure actively excludes ‘other’ minorities who arenot considered one of the three constituent peoplesand who are thereby ineligible for various politicaloffices.4 The construction of electorates and politicalinstitutions founded so firmly on ethnic identity hasbrought with it political participation and organisa-tion based along the same ethnic lines. Most of thepolitical parties in BiH are clustered around one ofthe three constituent groups, as it is simply the onlyway to achieve political power in a constitutionalmanner. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commissionargues that BiH’s constitution has entrenched ethnicdivisions and damaged the sense of community.5

This fragmentation is arguably the biggest roadblockto reform and progress in BiH.6 Achieving consensus

at the state level is very difficult; even proposalsmade with good intentions are treated with mistrust,and purely technical issues are infused with ‘nationalinterests.’ Concerns over future political stabilitymean that the closure of the Office of the High Rep-resentative (OHR) was again postponed in 2009.7 Thedriving force behind the few compromises that havebeen achieved has been the prospect of EU acces-sion. The current situation clearly militates againstthe production of a diverse and cohesive society orimproved levels of political, institutional or socialtrust in BiH.

The economic situationIn recent years, the economic situation in BiH hasbeen characterised by stable macroeconomic growth.The key source of stability has been the develop-ment of trade integration with the EU. This becamemore concrete with the signature of the SAA in June2008, together with an Interim Agreement focusingon trade and trade-related areas, which entered intoforce on 1 July 2008.8 Since 2000, GDP growth hasbeen stable, averaging around 6% per year. Althoughofficial unemployment rates remain high, the trendin the last few years has been one of improvement.The current rate of 23.4% (21.4% for men and 26.8%for women)9 is down from 29.0% in 2007 (26.7% formen and 32.9% for women), for example.10 Particu-larly disconcerting, however, is the fact that unem-ployment is approximately twice as high amongyoung people as among the population as a whole.11

As the impact of the international financial crisis isbeginning to be felt in BiH, however, the overall eco-nomic situation is taking a negative turn. Accordingto official statistics, economic performance indica-tors are weakening, levels of imports and exportsthat grew quite impressively during recent years12

have decreased dramatically, and commodity pricesand demand from EU markets and from the regionhave dropped. In 2008, registered growth was lower(5.5%)13 than the previous year, and the estimatedGDP for 2009 is expected to reflect the downturn ap-parent in the balance of payment.


This crisis has also contributed to declining ForeignDirect Investment (FDI) inflows and decreasing ex-ternal loans.16 Yet, providentially, monetary stabilityhas been ensured by the functioning of the CurrencyBoard that anchors the Convertible Mark (KM) to theEuro with a fixed exchange rate (1 Euro = 1.95583KM). The interest rate on credit is rising,17 however,

increasing the difficulties for investors and small andmedium enterprises (SMEs) in accessing credit. A fur-ther consequence has been the decrease of remit-tance income (sent by labour migrants and theDiaspora), which has been a source of critical supportto the balance of payments and topping up house-hold incomes.18 The impact of the financial crisis has


15

Key macroeconomic indicators for Bosnia and Herzegovina

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Nominal GDP (in billion KM)

Real GDP per capita (in KM)

Real GDP growth rate (%/year)

Current Account Balance (in % of GDP)

Average net wage (in KM)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table .1 1

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

24,552.0

6,388.0

5.5

-14.7

784.0

2008

2008

2008

2008

1st quarter 2009

Macroeconomic indicators 2007-2009

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Real GDP growth rate

Current Account Balance (in % of GDP)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table .1 2

......................................................................................................................

2008(est.)

5.5

-14.7

2009(proj.)

-3.0

-9.6

2007

6.8

-12.7

14

GDP growth rate in BiH, from 2001 – projection until 2014

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Figure 1.1

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

8

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

15

......................................................................................................................

14 IMF (2009), p.9.15 IMF (2009), p.9.16 UNDP & LSE (2009). 17 DEP (2009). 18 UNDP & LSE (2009).


highlighted the urgent need to harmonise economicand social protection policies and their administra-tion through more efficient cooperation at all gov-ernment levels. It has brought into stark relief thehindrance to economic reform that is posed by thecomplex institutional set-up in BiH.

FDI and entrepreneurship are also constrained by theunwieldy institutional structures in BiH. According tothe World Bank’s ‘Doing Business’ assessment, whichassesses the ease of doing business in a country ac-cording to a number of regulatory and fiscal indica-tors, BiH is ranked 119th of 181 countries. In Table 1.3we can see that BiH ranks lowest in the region ac-cording to this assessment: BiH’s global ranking is119, significantly lower than the next ranked SouthEast European (SEE) country, Croatia. Figure 1.2meanwhile, illustrates this weakness even morestarkly.

When one considers that each procedure most likelycosts money, we can see that ‘transaction costs’ inBiH are therefore very high. While obviously detri-mental to economic development, such high levels

of paperwork are also not necessarily surprising in acountry with such low levels of trust.

Poverty and social exclusionDespite steady economic growth during the pastdecade, poverty is still widespread, with almost onein five households (18.4%) living below the povertyline, and growth increasingly unequal.19 The most re-cent data, from the 2007 Household Budget Survey,shows a higher incidence of poverty for householdsin which the professional status of the householdhead is a pensioner (19.5%), unemployed or lookingfor work (23.4%), a homemaker (termed ‘housewife’)(25.5%), or a person with a disability (44.4%).20 A lowlevel of education also elevates the risk of poverty.The gender of the head of the household also im-pacts upon poverty levels: in contrast to commonpatterns elsewhere, ‘households headed by women are considerably less poor than those headed by

men, particularly in the FBiH.’ 21 The methodology ofthese assessments is based on household surveysand measures living standards through householdconsumption. Households are described as poor if


16

19 The Gini coefficient for BiH in 2007 was calculated at 0.401. UNDP (2007a), p.189, and for 2008 we have calculated it at 0.42. This shows anincrease in inequality. Given that the calculation for 2001 was 2.62, we can see a significant rise in inequality over the past seven years. UNDP(2008), p.282, table 15.20 BHAS (2007), p.59.21 BHAS (2007), p.26.

Croatia

Ease of doing business in BiH: regional comparison

Overall Global Rank

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table .1 3

......................................................................................................................

FYROM BiHAlbania

86 71 106 119

Figure 1.2 Ease of doing business: procedures by country (measured in days)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.....................................................................

0

...

...

...

200 400 600

Albania

FYROM

Croatia

BiH

......................................................................................................................

# of procedures required

to enforce a contract

# of days required to

enforce a contract

# of procedures required

to start a business

# of days required to

start a business



17

22 The relative general poverty line refers to the application of the European standard methodology. According to this methodology, povertyhas been defined as equivalent household consumption expenditure below a standard threshold that is annually set to 60% of the medianmonthly equivalised expenditure of the households. ‘...poverty is therefore defined in “relative” terms, depending on the distribution of theconsumption expenditure of the population. Poverty does not only constitute the lack of goods and services considered as essential, but isthe disadvantage situation certain households find themselves in when compared to others: the poor are those who have less.’ BHAS (2007),p.54. 23 BHAS (2007), p.55.24 BHAS (2007), Sarajevo p.69.25 UNDP (2007a).26 Field (2003), p.3.27 Field (2003), p.24. 28 EC-DGESE (2007), p.8.

BiH

FBiH

RS

Poverty trends in BiH

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table .1 4

......................................................................................................................

18.4

16.3

21.7

18.2

17.0

20.1

18.1

18.3

18.3

BiH

FBiH

RS

18.3

18.8

17.8

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Poor households in% Poor individuals in%2004 2007 2004 200723 24

the expenditure per household member falls belowa relative general poverty line,22 defined as the equiv-alent household consumption expenditure below astandard threshold set annually to 60% of the me-dian monthly equivalised expenditure of the house-hold (EU standard methodology). Over time, thesesurveys have resulted in the following measure-ments of poverty.

Social exclusion is a broader process than povertyand is characterised by a number of different barriersto full participation in society beyond material dep-rivation, such as physical barriers or prejudice anddiscrimination, resulting in the marginalisation ofparticular groups. The last comprehensive assess-ment of social exclusion undertaken in BiH was in theNHDR of 2007. In that report, exclusion was shownto be a pressing problem with more than 50% of thepopulation experiencing at least one form of exclu-sion. Twenty one percent of the population wasfound to experience extreme exclusion, while 47%was at risk of long-term exclusion. Particularly vul-nerable are groups such as minority returnees, theRoma, the elderly, youth, children and people withdisabilities. In addition, many levels of vulnerabilityare exacerbated when gender is taken into account.The report found that these groups not only have ahigher risk of income poverty and unemployment,but also far more difficulty accessing public servicesand participating in political life.25

With the above background in mind, this report isconcerned with the local and individual levels. Weare interested in how the macro-level impacts on theindividual in ways that may be exacerbated or miti-gated by people’s immediate social networks or, inother words, their social capital.

WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL?

The concept of social capital arises from the assump-tion that relationships matter, that the social net-works within which people participate and their every-day relations with one another are valuable. Thesenetworks, within which each individual is embedded(to greater or lesser extents), have value in two senses:

they provide the basis through which people are ableto pursue their individual goals and at the same timethey have the potential to provide the ‘glue’ that fa-cilitates greater social cohesion. As such, they pro-vide the foundation for building social cohesion26

through ‘building the trustworthiness within and ofthe social environment, opening channels for betterinformation flows, and setting norms that endorseparticular forms of behaviour that enhance ratherthan detract from social, economic and political in-teractions.’27 Social networks may be envisaged onthree levels: the micro-level of family and friends, themeso-level of the neighbourhood, workplace andlocal community and the macro-level of countries.28

Social capital may therefore be understood as: The socio-economic benefits for both individualsand communities which result from the everydayfunctioning of social networks.

Social networks operate to produce such effectsthrough:• Producing and maintaining norms of reciprocity.

Norms of reciprocity produce expectations that, inthe short or long term, kindness, services or favo-urs will be returned.

• Fostering trustworthiness in the social environ-ment. Initiatives or risks may be taken based on



18

29 Colletta & Cullen (2000). 30 World Bank (2003).31 World Bank (2003), p.8.32 Among these studies, two of the most significant were undertaken by the World Bank (2003) and Håkansson & Hargreaves (2004).33 World Bank (2003), p. 4.34 World Bank (2003), p.5.

the assumption that others will respond as ex-pected.

• Facilitating flows of information on available op-tions. Information passed within and between so-cial networks may increase knowledge of availablechoices, thereby widening individual horizons.

As such, social ties provide the bases for positive in-dividual and collective actions. The potential result-ing benefits that can flow from increased socialcapital include:

Social benefits:• Improved democratic structures and practices• Stronger and more diverse civil society• Improved economic development through better

cooperation and resulting reductions in transac-tion costs

• Greater levels of innovation through better flowsof information

• More human capital and better human resources• Greater social cohesion• Reduced levels of prejudice and discrimination

Individual benefits:• More choices and opportunities• Higher levels of trust and confidence• Higher levels of social, political, economic and cul-

tural participation and/or empowerment

As will be explored in more detail in the next chapter,the building of social capital can be foundational toimprovements in levels of human development,where the latter emphasises the enlarging of peo-ple’s choices and the optimising of their well-being.We can see social capital, therefore, as one of the ‘en-abling frameworks’ through which human capabili-ties can be expanded.

WHY SOCIAL CAPITAL RESEARCH FORBIH?

Despite the 14 years that have now passed since thesigning of the Dayton Agreement, the current stateof social relations in BiH may still be interpreted in apost-conflict context. In Violent Conflict and the Trans-formation of Social Capital, Colletta and Cullen makethe following observation on the effects of intra-state conflict:

...violent conflict within a state weakens its social fab-ric. It divides the population by undermining interper-

sonal and communal trust, destroying the norms andvalues that underlie cooperation and collective actionfor the common good, and increasing the likelihoodof communal strife. This damage to a nation's socialcapital - the norms, values, and social relations thatbond communities together, as well as the bridges be-tween communal groups (civil society) and the state -impedes the ability of either communal groups or thestate to recover after hostilities cease. Even if otherforms of capital are replenished, economic and socialdevelopment will be hindered unless social capitalstocks are restored.29

These effects are clearly apparent, today, in BiH. Theconflict produced widespread fragmentation of so-cial networks, in particular into more homogeneousnetworks.30 This fragmentation was likely hastened,after the war, by elements of the post-socialist tran-sition in which enterprises closed, unemploymentgrew and internal and external population move-ments continued.31 In the transition phase, then, so-cial relations tended to be characterised by incre-asing levels of group closure, most commonly basedon ethnically-defined (or confessional) identification,which reduce the possibility for cross-ethnic (orcross-confessional) social ties. While relative progresshas been made in terms of economic stability andgrowth, arguably the social sphere remains not onlyfragmented, but the points of cleavage have becomedeeper during the 14 years following the conclusionof the war.

A number of previous studies have highlighted socialtrust and/or the restrictive or homogenous nature ofsocial networks in BiH as an issue of concern.32

In 2003, the World Bank assessed social capital in BiHand argued that the ‘networks, norms and valuesthat enable people to act collectively to produce so-cial benefits’ are an ‘essential element of peace-build-ing, reconstruction, poverty reduction and sustainabledevelopment.’33 It was clear from this research that,despite having passed through the immediate post-war phase of physical reconstruction, the rebuildingof social ties constitutes a major challenge, one thatis essential for BiH’s future. The World Bank researchfocused on the levels of civic engagement and re-sulting collective action in relation to local govern-ment performance. Importantly, the authors high-lighted the significance of community-driven devel-opment for improving social and political stabilityand improving the quality of life in otherwise dividedcommunities.34


Picking up on a similar theme, in 2004, the BalkanAnalysis Group focused on trust in their report enti-tled ‘Trust in Transition.’ This study focused in partic-ular on general trust: ‘general trust’ is understood asthe belief that most people can be trusted ratherthan the belief that one must be careful or wary ofothers – it is something that we also explore in thecurrent report. Similarly to the World Bank study, theauthors highlighted the importance of improved so-cial capital for ‘prosperous and peaceful develop-ment’ in BiH.35 In addition to improving the qualityof democracy and the strength of social cohesion,Trust in Transition emphasised the economic costs oflow levels of social trust. The authors estimated thatthe low levels of general trust may be costing thecountry millions of KM per year as a result of highertransaction costs.36

Subsequent research, such as that undertaken byUNDP and Oxford Research International in 2007,again drew attention to the diminishing levels of so-cial trust.

In building upon this previous research, the presentreport reiterates the finding that BiH has an unusu-ally low level of social trust compared to other coun-tries in the region.37 Although this is analysed andexplained in more detail in the chapters to follow, asa baseline, it suggests immediately that policy-mak-ing in BiH should turn its attention to fostering thekinds of social capital that would contribute togreater social inclusion and cohesion.

Given the low levels of social trust, the fragmentationof the social sphere and high levels of social exclu-sion, the analysis of social capital in BiH is, therefore,opportune at the current time for three reasons:

• Firstly, attempts to foster the rebuilding of multi-ethnic and diverse communities would benefitgreatly from a more thorough understanding ofthe degradation of social solidarity.

• Secondly, social capital research involves theanalysis of both formal and informal networks. Interms of formal networks or associations, such re-search can shed valuable light on the functioningand effectiveness of civil society in BiH. At thesame time, informal social networks – comprisingfamily, relatives, friends, neighbours and acquain-tances – can have negative consequences for so-ciety at large, in particular where they encouragenepotistic and clientelist relations.

• Thirdly, while BiH has seen steady levels of eco-nomic growth in the past few years, the economicbenefits of this growth have been distributed un-equally. The concept of social capital provides aninnovative way of approaching poverty reductionthrough shifting the focus away from a deficit (ordiscriminatory) model of disadvantage in whichthe poor or excluded are seen as largely responsi-ble for their conditions. Instead, overcomingpoverty is understood to be, in part, as the over-coming of a lack of immediate support networksor network poverty.38

SOCIAL CAPITAL RESEARCH FOR EvIDENCE- BASED POLICYMAkING

A greater stock of inclusive social capital leads to bet-ter linkages between the micro-level of individual ex-perience and both the meso-level of institutions andassociations39 and the macro-level of policy-making.This potential for creating such linkages has thusmade social capital, as a conceptual framework,highly influential in the work of organisations suchas the OECD and the World Bank and governmentssuch as the British, Australian and Canadian. The Eu-ropean Commission is also among those who recog-nise the value of social capital analysis for policymaking, and they recently published a report on as-sessments of social capital in the EU and CandidateCountries.40

These agencies and governments have shown thatresearch on social capital can provide the basis forpolicy-making that responds to:

• The networks and social ties that are an importantingredient in an individual’s well-being and thatprovide a basis for achieving personal goals,

• The ways in which these linkages are crucial to anindividual’s ability to participate in social, politicaland economic activities, and

• The ways in which the functioning of networks candirectly contribute to the overall cohesiveness andsocio-economic development of a society.

The benefits emerging from a more explicit focus onsocial capital in social policies include inter alia:

• Assisting those at risk of social exclusion – bydefinition individuals and groups who experience


19

35 Håkansson & Hargreaves (2004).36 Håkansson & Hargreaves (2004) and Keefer & Knack (1997). 37 The result of our survey confirmed those of The Silent Majority Speaks, where the level of trust in BiH was shown to be one of the lowest inthe region. UNDP & ORI (2007).38 Field (2003), p.116.39 Field (2003), 2003, p.7. 40 EC-DGESE (2007).


social exclusion are likely to be cut off from thosesocial ties that would allow them to participatemore fully in the social economic and political lifeof their communities. The availability of certainkinds of social networks (or lack thereof ) can havea significant impact on policies aimed at address-ing the social and economic integration of individ-uals at risk of marginalisation, such as minorities,the unemployed, persons with disabilities, the eld-erly, Roma and other minorities, etc.41

• Promoting social cohesion at the communitylevel – emphasis is placed on finding the most ef-fective ways in which citizens, service deliveryagents, institutions and organisations interact andcreate linkages for developing sustainablechanges in the living conditions and well-being ofcommunity members. Social capital research fo-cuses on a more coordinated approach to servicedelivery, decision-making and problem solving,based on recognition of the role of formal and in-formal networks.42

The instruments available to governments to sup-port the development of positive social capital rangefrom gestures of political support to highly concreteforms of direct financial subsidies of associationallife.43

Social capital research can also provide an under-standing of where government policies already indi-rectly influence the creation of social ties, as withhousing, transport or education policies, or wherethey more directly have influence in promoting so-cial capital building activities, as in the provision ofsupport networks or the facilitation of public-privatepartnerships. By being mindful of the types of socialcapital that result from policy implementation, pol-icy-makers can also avoid strengthening existing ex-clusive ties and thereby stimulating cronyism orcorruption. Finally, governments can also be madeaware of where they may inadvertently undermineexisting sources of social capital.44

Policy-directed research on social capital in othercountries and contexts has identified numerousareas for positive intervention, such as the area of theurban planning of public spaces and meeting points,or financial, legal and taxation support to civil societyand voluntarism, or in the extension of the internetto disadvantaged areas. The recommendations thatflow from this kind of analysis lead directly to em-phasising the importance of mobilising local socialnetworks to foster social inclusion and improvehuman development. Social policies may conse-

quently work to create more opportunities for indi-viduals to participate fully in society.45

While there is certainly significant potential for policyinterventions to build or rebuild social capital, gov-ernments must also be mindful of the limits to whichthey can intervene in this area. There are many fea-tures of social capital – the spontaneity of networkcreation and the subjectivity involved in network dy-namics, for example – which are not open to externalintervention by governments, and to a large extentshould not be. Nevertheless, as we will see in Chapter7, the role of government can be to provide the en-abling environment for certain networks to flourish,while working to address the negative effects ofother kinds of social capital. By highlighting areaswhere government interventions are not likely tohave a significant impact, social capital research canalso contribute to the more efficient allocation ofscarce government resources.

AIMS OF THE REPORT

This report sets out to articulate the contours of so-cial ties and networks, both formal and informal, inBiH and their implications for the country’s socio-economic development. It begins by outlining theconceptual framework: the origins and scope of thenotion of social capital and the way in which socialcapital relates to economic development, human de-velopment and social inclusion, the last being theconceptual underpinning of the EU’s social policyagenda. With this background in mind, Chapter 3turns to analysing the overall trends and dimensionsof social networks in BiH today, the levels of socialtrust and forms of localised reciprocity. While Chap-ter 3 explores the strength and dynamics of the so-cial networks in which people are embedded,Chapter 4 turns to examine what happens whenpeople are left out of these networks, when peoplesuffer from ‘network poverty.’ Here, the results offocus group research are used to provide an illustra-tion of the difficulties faced by those whose net-works are weak and are consequently morevulnerable to social exclusion. From the perspectiveof social networks, a number of groups can be seenas particularly at risk, and in Chapter 4 we look at theexperiences of internally displaced persons (IDPs)and minority returnees in particular.

Having examined the strengths and weaknesses ofsocial networks and ties, the report then looks atidentifying the means through which the broader


20

41 Canadian Policy Research Initiative (2005). 42 Canadian Policy Research Initiative (2005).43 EC-DGESE (2007), p.10. 44 Field (2003), p.135.45 Canadian Policy Research Initiative (2005).


benefits of these networks may be better realisedand how the detrimental effects of certain networksmay be reduced. In the ensuing two chapters we ex-amine the scope for creating social capital that ismore ‘inclusive’ through the production of heteroge-neous and diverse networks, while identifying thepotential for reducing the impact of social networksand ties that are more ‘exclusive’ and thereby pro-duce and encourage the production of inequalities.As such, Chapter 5 looks in detail at civil society andpolitical participation, while Chapter 6 looks at theforms of nepotism and clientelism that result fromclosed networks.

The final chapter of the report, Chapter 7, based onthe results of the research and driven by a human de-velopment perspective, presents a series of policyrecommendations.

This report on social capital thus responds to a num-ber of aims. Firstly, it intends to encourage a greaterunderstanding of both human development and so-cial inclusion agendas and their importance forbuilding a more equitable future in BiH. It thereby in-tends to complement the government’s work on so-cial inclusion by demonstrating an additional dimen-sion from which social exclusion can be understood.Secondly, it endeavours to make a contribution toimproving the understanding of differing forms ofvulnerability and poverty in BiH, not only throughquantitative assessment but also through providinga voice to some of those who fall into more margin-alised categories. Finally, the report provides the ev-idence base for future policy-making in BiH, inparticular in the areas of civil society, voluntarismand social accountability.


21



22

kEY RESULTS

Characteristics of social capital in BiH• BiH is a society dominated by strong familial ties.• People are more likely to spend time with and trust their immediate social network of family, friends

and close friends. In this there are almost no differences across ethnicity, age, gender or entity.• The group that stands out most in terms of weaker social networks is minorities living in a majority area.• Only about 10% of people feel that most people can be trusted.• People believe the most significant level of social tension in the country is between rich and poor

(88%), followed by management and workers (86%) and then different ethnicities (79%). ..............................................................................................

Social networks matter • Those who have weaker social networks have fewer people to rely on for help, are more isolated and

have lower levels of trust.• Groups more likely to suffer from social isolation include IDPs, minority returnees, the elderly, women

in rural areas and people with lower education.• The elderly are most likely to be ‘network poor.’• People in the RS are more likely to suffer from network poverty than those in the FBiH.• Those who are network poor have lower levels of social capital and higher levels of material depriva-

tion...............................................................................................

Social networks and inclusion• The level of membership in associations in BiH is very low (17.5%); and even fewer (10.5%) describe

themselves as active members. • Associational membership increases with levels of education.• Almost twice as many men are members of associations as women.• Associational members appear to have more inclusive and diverse social networks.• Only 4.5% of respondents said they have done any volunteer work in the past 12 months, but signifi-

cant levels of ‘hidden voluntarism’ were found in high levels of altruistic, reciprocal behaviour...............................................................................................

Social networks and exclusion • The use of štela – personal and family connections – is widespread throughout all layers of society

and is present in most relationships between people and service providers in BiH.• 95% of survey respondents reported that having a ‘štela’ is always or sometimes useful for access to

basic social services.• 85.7% of people see personal connections as the only way to get a job, and most people use family

connections in their search for employment.• The use of štela not only limits access and produces inequalities within society, but also significantly

disempowers individuals. ..............................................................................................


23

2Social capital, human developmentand social inclusion

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


24

2

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................



25

Social capital, human developmentand social inclusion

46 Fukuyama (1991).47 ONS (2001), p.9. 48 Putnam (1996).49 Putnam (2001).50 Putnam (2007).

In order to assess the different aspects of social cap-ital in BiH, it is important to understand a little aboutthe origins and scope of the concept and the waysin which it has been utilised in recent literature, inparticular that related to development. In this chap-ter, we do just that, after which we look at the link-ages and overlaps between the concepts of socialcapital, human development and social inclusion.Here, we argue that social capital must be conceptu-alised in a particular way – according to its effects –in order to align it with these other two conceptualframeworks.

THE vALUE OF SOCIAL TIES

The notion that social ties have value has its originsin early sociological thought. Writing in the mid-19thcentury, Alexis de Tocqueville was impressed by thepropensity for voluntary civic associations in Amer-ica, describing it as an ‘art of association.’ To de Toc-queville, voluntary civic associations provided andaddressed the excessive individualism characteristicof modern life. In his advocacy of civic association,de Tocqueville highlighted the political function ofsocial ties: the way in which they contribute to thebetter functioning of democracy.46 The importanceof formal associations and their contribution to thequality of democratic processes is a theme taken upin much more recent literature on social ties, in par-ticular that of the American political scientist, RobertPutnam.

It is with Putnam’s groundbreaking study of tradi-tions of civic association in Italy that the concept ofsocial capital found a wide audience. Echoing de Toc-queville, in Making Democracy Work, Putnam identi-fied the ‘vibrancy of associational life’ as a ‘criticalcomponent in effective local government.’47 Bymeasuring levels of associational life and social andinstitutional trust, Putnam found that areas with low

social capital were governed by the most unsuccess-ful governments, with higher levels of corruptionand inefficiency. He therefore became concernedwith the decline of participation in politics, civic as-sociations, religious organisations, professional or-ganisations and trade unions, as well as – importantly– informal socialising.48

Throughout his work, Putnam has articulated a num-ber of definitions of social capital. In Bowling Alone,he explained that:

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects andhuman capital refers to the properties of individuals,social capital refers to connections among individuals– social networks and the norms of reciprocity andtrustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense so-cial capital is closely related to what some have called‘civic virtue.’ The difference is that ’social capital’ callsattention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerfulwhen embedded in a dense network of reciprocal so-cial relations. A society of many virtuous but isolatedindividuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.49

Most recently Putnam has favoured what he terms a‘lean and mean definition’ of social capital: ‘social net-works and the associated norms of reciprocity andtrustworthiness.’50 We draw on these definitions inwhat follows.

MACRO, MESO AND MICRO SOCIAL TIES

Putnam’s concept of social capital highlights thevalue of social networks to the functioning of demo-cracy at the macro level. From this perspective, thenature and function of social ties are studied accord-ing to the way in which they function (or not) to gen-erate trust and social cohesion within a given society.Where there are greater levels of social capital, thereis stronger social cohesion through higher levels of


participation and stronger social networks, all ofwhich contributes to more effective democraticpractices. Where there is a lack of social capital, onthe other hand, there is likely to be a retreat intosmall, isolated and homogenous networks, such asimmediate family networks, and a lack of cohesion.

There are a number of other theorists who have con-tributed to the thinking on how social capital maybe conceptualised and applied. Similarly to Putnam,Francis Fukuyama has also looked at the macro-levelbenefits of social capital. Fukuyama has explored therelative economic performance of different societiesaccording to the differing levels of trust within thosesocieties. As such, his work emphasises the impor-tance of social capital to economic development51

and he argues that the ‘economic function of socialcapital is to reduce the transaction costs associatedwith formal coordination mechanisms like contracts,hierarchies, bureaucratic rules, and the like.’52 Wherethere are low levels of trust, achieving coordinatedaction among groups of people is more difficult andinvolves ‘additional transaction costs of monitoring,negotiating, litigating and enforcing formal agree-ments.’53 Fukuyama, like Putnam, also highlights theimportance of social capital – manifested in a strongcivil society – to the functioning of modern liberaldemocracies.

The American sociologist, James Coleman, haslooked more at the meso-level manifestations of so-cial capital – he is more interested in groups, associ-ations, organisations and institutions and the waysin which their structures facilitate certain actions ofindividuals within that structure.54 For Coleman, so-cial capital boils down to the ability of people towork together in groups. Accordingly, he identifiesthree main elements of social capital – trust, networksof obligations and reciprocity, and information flows.

Another American sociologist, Mark Granovetter,meanwhile, has looked more at the benefits of cer-tain kinds of social networks for individuals, in par-ticular in terms of facilitating flows of information.55

Focusing on the micro level, he has looked at the wayin which individuals benefit from the flow of infor-mation through weak social ties, such as when find-ing employment. For Granovetter, social capital ismost effective when there are large numbers of weakties –acquaintanceships – that link social networks

to one another and provide the basis for transmittinginformation throughout the whole social structure.Through their ability to transmit informati-on, largenumbers of weak ties can allow for the better devel-opment of human resources and innovation.

As we can see, therefore, there are various differentdimensions of social capital. Putnam and Fukuyamatend to stress the macro level of governments andbroader collectivities. Coleman is more interested inthe meso-level and the functioning of social capitalwithin communities, in particular within the educa-tion system. Granovetter, finally, focuses more on themicro level of the individual and their immediate so-cial ties. While Putnam and Coleman’s emphases pro-vide us with the basis for interpreting the potentiallypositive results of differently generated social net-works, Granovetter’s provide us with the critical dis-tance for understanding where those networks strayinto the territory of nepotism, cronyism and clien-telism.

Each perspective may be utilised to identify the po-tential effects of certain kinds of social ties. These ef-fects may be felt within the community – throughenhancing democracy and social cohesion and en-couraging economic development – or by the indi-vidual – through broadening choices and opportu-nities, generating empowerment and improvinghuman development. Social capital may thereby beseen as an important resource for social, economic,political and human development. It is important tonote that in defining social capital as a ‘resource,’whether for individuals or collectives, the benefitsthat may be identified include, but go beyond, thefinancial (e.g. rising GDP or individual financial suc-cess). The potential for direct monetary profit is justone dimension of the potential manifestations of so-cial capital. The overall benefit of utilising the con-cept of social capital is the fact that it ‘shifts the focusof analysis from the behaviour of individual agentsto the patterns of relations between agents, socialunits and institutions.’56

Who benefits from social capital, however? It is quitecommon to suggest that the more social ties andnetworks the better – that social networks ‘are win-win relationships and that individual gains, interests,and profits are synonymous with group gains, inter-ests, and profits.’57 Clearly this is not the case: nepo-


26

51 Fukuyama (1996).52 Fukuyama (1991).53 Fukuyama (1991).54 Coleman (1988).55 Granovetter (1973), p.1360. 56 Schuller, Baron and Field (2000), p.35. Of course, as with any conceptual framework, the notion of social capital also has its detractors. The‘elasticity’ and fogginess of the term has been highlighted, for example. As the European Commission points out, social capital at times ‘re-mains a notoriously vague, ill-defined, and contested term.’ Yet, as the EC also point out, this ‘reflects the presence of a vital debate over thetheoretical meaning and practical importance of the concept’ EC-DGESE (2007), p.4. 57 DeFilippis (2001), p.800.


tism being the most obvious example. Instead, it isimportant to consider the way in which power is ne-gotiated differently by different individuals embed-ded in different networks. Rather than simply apossession of an individual or community, we concep-tualise social networks as a resource – that may beused in a variety of different ways, the results ofwhich are, overall, either positive or negative. Assuch, we distinguish clearly between inclusive andexclusive social capital58 and thus the differing impactof different kinds of networks and relations.

TYPES OF SOCIAL NETWORkS

Social networks are not, therefore, in and of them-selves a source of social good. Networks, throughtheir particular power dynamics, can exclude anddeny as significantly as they include and enable. Theycan produce division as much as foster cohesion.59

Thus, it is important to distinguish between differenttypes of social networks.

Three different kinds of social capital are commonlydistinguished according to the nature of the relation-ships they contain. These are;

1. Bonding social capital• Horizontal relationships – connecting people on

the basis of similarity;• Produced from kinship relationships,60 close friends

and neighbours, ethno-religious and ethnic groups;• Tends to be socially exclusive, reinforcing exclusive

identities and maintaining homogeneity amongmembers.61

Here, we may distinguish between two differentkinds of bonding networks relevant to the BiH con-text: familial networks based on kinship relations andethnically-based networks based on perceptions ofshared ethnic histories, experiences and identities.

2. Bridging social capital • Horizontal relationships – connecting people from

different backgrounds;• Produced from weaker relationships such as acquain-

tanceships, loose friendships and working relations;• Tends to be more inclusive through tending more

towards diversity and heterogeneity.

3. Linking social capital • Vertical relationships – connecting people with

dissimilar social standing and spanning power dif-ferentials;

• Produced from relations with people in positionsof power and/or authority, such as representativesof public and private institutions.

Each of these networks provides different outcomes,some negative and some positive.

In terms of positive outcomes, familial bonding net-works, for example, are useful to individuals wherethey provide a source of support in times of need.The results of our research show that people in BiHare very likely to turn to their families for support andassistance. Here, we see that individuals are likely tobe able to draw on such networks in times of crisis,such as ill-health or financial difficulties.

Similarly, bridging networks can facilitate betterflows of information, provide the basis for civic asso-ciations and, through encouraging greater diversity,enable better social cohesion. Acquaintanceshipsand membership of secondary associations are par-ticularly important sources of social solidarity andprovide the basis for a healthy and well-functioningcivil society.62

Finally, linking networks are also important. Theyallow for higher levels of political participation,through political empowerment, and reduce the po-tential for elitism, clientelism and concentrations ofpower within certain levels of the social strata.

Yet in each case these networks can also produce so-cially deleterious effects.

For example, while often being advantageous for in-dividuals, familial bonding networks have the poten-tial for negative consequences. A society that iscomposed of isolated and homogenous familial net-works is more likely, for example, to contain high lev-els of nepotism and corruption, where informationflows and norms of reciprocity are restricted withincertain networks. Within such networks, wherenorms of obligation or reciprocity restrict individualrights or freedoms (for example in extended familynetworks in which familial obligations mitigateagainst the reporting of domestic violence), the ram-ifications for the individual can also be extremelydamaging.

Similarly, where individuals rely on family networksfor care and support, the burden of these tasks maybe more often borne by the female members of thenetwork than the male members, thus reproducingunequal power relations within the family. Bondingnetworks based on notions of ethnic-identity, mean-


27

58 With thanks to Paula Pickering for bringing to our attention the distinction between inclusive and exclusive social capital.59 Field (2003), p.3. 60 The term ‘kinship’ generally refers to relationships built on family ties.61 Field (2003), p.32. 62 Field (2003), p.33.



28

63 Coleman (1988), pp.95-120.64 Allen (2000). See also Pickering (2007), p.112. 65 UNDP, HDRO website, viewed 30 July 2009, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev>.66 Ul Haq, M., HDRO website, viewed 30 July 2009, <http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev>.

while, have the potential to foster ethnic divisions,through enforcing norms that legitimise prejudiceand discrimination towards other groups.

Linking networks, through which individuals haveformal or informal associations with those in posi-tions of power, can also be a double-edged sword.Such networks, while containing the possibility of in-creasing individual political empowerment, also con-tain the danger of fostering clientelism and corruption,such as when these relationships are used to call infavours or inappropriately influence political deci-sion-making. It is with linking networks that the dis-tinction between relationships that are useful for anindividual yet detrimental to the society is most ap-parent.

There are also downsides to bridging capital. The im-portance of bridging networks is in their diversity.However, managing the dynamics of a diverse groupcan be difficult. Diversity itself can sometimes limitthe amount of common ground upon which com-munication is based or simply making it more time-consuming.

This may particularly be the case for large networksthat involve members from different countries whoare not able to meet regularly or who communicateelectronically, for example.

The type of network, therefore, does not necessarilytell us anything about the degree to which it mightbe a beneficial or detrimental network. As Colemanargues, social capital needs to be ‘defined by its func-tion.’63 Different types of social capital facilitate differ-ent actions within a social structure. Identifying thetype of actions being facilitated by a certain networkis essential – as we will see below – to interpretingsocial capital in the light of human development andsocial inclusion. To that extent, it is additionally help-ful to distinguish between inclusive and exclusive so-cial capital.

• Inclusive social capital may therefore be definedas the social capital created in social networks thatare open without restriction on the admission ofnew members and where new membership is en-couraged. Levels of diversity that result from suchnetworks should be considered in terms of gender,race and ethnicity, class, age and other relevant el-ements of difference.

• Exclusive social capital on the other hand maybe understood as the social capital created inclosed networks, where admission requires costly

activities by the non-member, or ‘is exclusivelybased on a non-acquirable social attribute such asrace, family membership, caste and so on, whichmakes the admission of new members difficult oreven impossible.’64

While bonding networks tend to lend themselves tobeing more exclusive and bridging, towards beingmore inclusive, it is important not to collapse theseterms, but to focus instead on the wider impact ofcertain kinds of networks in relation to the socialwhole. It then becomes possible to harness the fulladvantages of social capital. From a policy-makingperspective, the idea is therefore to look at the waysof ameliorating the negative effects of some formsof social networks, while simultaneously creatingmechanisms to stimulate the positive effects of oth-ers. This approach will be explored further below.

SOCIAL CAPITAL FROM A HUMAN DEvELOPMENT PERSPECTIvE

Human development, social inclusion…‘Human development’ is the foundational paradigmthat drives the work of UNDP. Work driven by humandevelopment aims to create:

...an environment in which people can develop theirfull potential and lead productive, creative lives in ac-cord with their needs and interests. … Developmentis thus about expanding the choices people have tolead lives that they value. And it is thus about muchmore than economic growth, which is only a means –if a very important one – of enlarging people’schoices.65

A human development approach aims to enlargechoices through building human capabilities, under-stood as ‘the range of thing that people can do or bein life.’ The expansion of choices can involve provid-ing ‘greater access to knowledge, better nutritionand health services, more secure livelihoods, securityagainst crime and physical violence, satisfying leisurehours, political and cultural freedoms, and a sense ofparticipation in community activities.’66

Social inclusion emerges from a different intellectuallineage than that of human development but sharessimilar concerns. The notion of social inclusion de-veloped within the context of the European Union’sefforts to alleviate poverty and unemployment andhas been most clearly elaborated in that context. So-cial inclusion aims to address social exclusion, de-fined as:



29

67 Council of the European Union (2004).68 Council of the European Union (2004).69 Townsend (1979), p.31.70 Rosenberg (2008).

...a process whereby certain individuals are pushed tothe edge of society and prevented from participatingfully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic compe-tencies and lifelong-learning opportunities, or as a re-sult of discrimination. This distances them from job,income and education opportunities as well as socialand community networks and activities. They have lit-tle access to power and decision-making bodies andthus often feeling powerless and unable to take con-trol over the decisions that affect their day-today lives.67

As a multidimensional phenomenon social exclusioninvolves deprivation in the economic, social, culturaland/or political arenas. Processes of social inclusiontherefore attempt to address these deprivations. TheEuropean Commission defines social inclusion as ‘aprocess which ensures that those at risk of povertyand social exclusion gain the opportunities and re-sources necessary to participate fully in economic,social and cultural life and to enjoy a standard of liv-ing and well-being that is considered normal in thesociety in which they live.’68 Here it is understood inrelative terms, but elsewhere the EC has also ex-pressed social inclusion in more absolute terms as an‘individual’s right to have a life associated with beinga member of a community.’69

An advantage of the concept of social exclusion/inclu-sion over an approach based on poverty and othermaterial deprivation is its focus on processes, i.e. thedynamics of the interaction between an individualand his or her social, legal, and economic environ-ment. Asking whether a person is able to participateequally in mainstream society leads to identifying anybarriers to participation. These barriers can be institu-tional (discrimination, lack of infrastructure or absenceof services, or, in the case of people with disabilities,can also be the physical accessibility of buildings orschools), in the community (prejudice, marginaliza-tion), or personal (lack of education, withdrawal, rejec-tion, or fears). Different population groups mayexperience different and overlapping vulnerabilitiesor face different barriers, which require differentstrategies to overcome them.70

Considered in relation to human development, theaffinities between the two concepts are clear. Bothaim to improve choices and opportunities throughcreating enabling environments. These environ-ments are constructed, in part, through the removalof barriers to participation and inclusion in commu-nities and societies. In the context of the EuropeanUnion, development and poverty reduction are un-derstood to go beyond economic development, andsocial inclusion is utilised to symbolise this extension– just as human development extends well beyondalleviating material deprivation.

… and social capitalImportantly for our purposes here, social capital –the networks and ties in which people participate –can be understood in relation to the frameworks ofboth social inclusion and human development, be-cause both of those frameworks place human well-being within a social context and preface theinteraction of the individual with the community andsociety as key to understanding their well-being.Here, the distinction we have made between inclu-sive and exclusive social capital outlined above is key.

Inclusive social capital – open networks that encour-age diverse membership – contributes to human de-velopment by increasing the choices and opportu-nities of the members of the community in whichthis social capital exists. Inclusive social capital pro-vides opportunities for the individual to develop ca-pabilities, and heightens freedom to choose. Incre-asing levels of social trust can also be seen as one ofthe elements in the provision of an enabling environ-ment for the expansion of opportunities that lies atthe heart of human development. The fostering ofinclusive networks militates against social exclusionby enabling greater participation from groups whowould otherwise be left out. Heterogeneous net-works, particularly when based on weak ties, havebeen shown to improve the flow of information insociety (Granovetter). As such, these networks havethe capacity to provide the basis for access to moreand better choices.

At the same time, however, social networks can alsoinfluence equity of access to services – jobs, for ex-ample – by permitting some and excluding others.As such, we take into account the importance ofidentifying and reducing exclusive social capital –closed networks that restrict access to others – whichhas the tendency to increase inequalities, restrict op-portunities and choices for some, reduce participa-tion and empowerment and reduce trust, both socialand institutional. Reducing the effects of these kindsof social network reduces inequalities and ensuresthat opportunities are spread more equally through-out society, thus contributing to human develop-ment and greater inclusion.

Social capital and economic development The kinds of social networks that are common withina society may also directly affect the economic de-velopment of that society. As with other forms ofcapital, social capital is productive; it makes possiblethe achievement of certain ends that without itwould not be possible. The trust element of socialcapital is perhaps the clearest illustration of its im-


portance to economic development. High levels oftrust – both within and across different groups – canhelp to reduce the costs of transactions betweenthose groups. Conversely, low levels of trust betweengroups can facilitate the construction of unnecessaryand cumbersome procedures and bureau- cracy,thus increasing transaction costs. By way of illustra-tion, it is perhaps not surprising to find in a societysuch as BiH with such low levels of social trust thatthere are such complex and lengthy procedures for,say, starting a business in BiH, which (as noted inChapter 1) takes on average 12 separate proceduresand 60 days to complete.71

Broad, diverse social networks, on the other hand,have other direct economic benefits. They can, forexample, also foster innovation better than closed,tightly bonded networks, because heterogeneousnetworks are much better at facilitating flows of in-formation. As such, they can serve as conduits fornew ideas and the uptake of new technologies, im-proving, for example, productivity. In addition to nu-merous indirect benefits for the economicdevelopment of a community, improving the levelsof social capital also, as illustrated briefly here, has di-rect economic benefits.

PRIOR RESEARCH ON SOCIAL CAPITAL

Before launching into an analysis of the research un-dertaken for this report, it is useful to briefly reflecton the results of similar research on social capital orsocial trust that has been undertaken since 2000. Asmentioned in Chapter 1, elements of social capital –trust, networks and reciprocity – have been the sub-ject of a number of studies in BiH. In addition to theWorld Bank’s Local Level Institutions and Social Capital(2002) and the Balkan Analysis Group’s Trust in Tran-sition (2004), there have been a few academic stud-ies, as well as the most recent report by the FriedrichEbert Foundation, in 2009,72 which focused specifi-cally on social trust. Below are some of the key find-ings of this prior research.

The World Bank’s 2002 study was interested to assessthe change in the dynamics of immediate social net-works before and after the war. The quantitative re-search measured the number of invitations intohomes of friends, neighbours, colleagues and familyin comparison to the number of invitations prior to

the war and assessed the levels of reciprocity withinsocial networks (financial aid, food and commoditydonations and neighbourhood cooperation in build-ing and repairing houses and public spaces) com-pared to before the war.73 The report found thatsocial capital had been very much affected by thewar, via a decline in informal socialising, in particularbetween different ethnic groups. In addition, theyfound that levels of socialising had declined muchmore among colleagues and neighbours, in particu-lar those of another ethnicity, than with relatives andclose friends.74

In terms of associational life, the qualitative compo-nent of the 2002 study found declining levels ofmembership in associations, of voluntarism, and oftrust in associations. We, too, have found very lowlevels of associational membership in our researchand almost non-existent levels of formal and organ-ised voluntarism.

The one significant change between the 2002 reportand our research undertaken in 2008 is that at theearlier time the key social cleavage was perceived tobe along ethnic lines, in particular between IDPs, re-turnees and locals, with the tension being over jobs,aid and access to welfare. To some degree, the dustseems to have settled a little more in the ensuingyears and, as we will see in Chapter 3, the most sig-nificant social tension is now perceived as being be-tween rich and poor, rather than between ethnicgroups.

In a detailed assessment of different kinds of trust, in2004, the Balkans Analysis Group published ‘Trust inTransition: Generalised Trust in Bosnia & Herzegov-ina.’ The report assessed different kinds of social andinstitutional trust and highlighted with concern a12% drop in trust levels in BiH since 1998.75 Althoughthe authors found that generalised trust in BiH wasvery low, by introducing alternative variables of ‘dif-ference,’ they were also able to show that these lowlevels were not exclusively related to ethnicity.76

Thus, the analysis in Trust in Transition went someway to ‘disproving the idea that individuals in Bosniaand Herzegovina harbour an intransigent distrust ofpeople of other ethnicities.’77 In our survey we repli-cated some of these measures of difference and pro-duced similar results.

Finally, in 2008, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation pub-


30

71 World Bank (2009). There is prior research linking low levels of social capital and lengthy and complex administrative procedure (see forexample Knack & Keefer (1997). More research would be required in BiH to make this link definitively, however, in particular given the legacyof the prior socialist system which was also highly bureaucratic. 72 Salaj (2009).73 World Bank ECSSD (2002), pp.9 – 33.74 World Bank ECSSD (2002), p.9. The study did not assess whether levels of mixed marriages had altered overtime.75 Håkansson and Hargreaves (2004), p.9.76 Håkansson and Hargreaves (2004), p.9.77 Håkansson and Hargreaves (2004), p.9.


lished a short report based on a survey of 1966 re-spondents. The research also looked at generalisedtrust, trust of different groups and social distance.Again, challenging the common emphasis on the‘three constituent peoples,’ the 2009 study also as-sessed the degree to which people are open to con-tact with other minorities, such as the Romaminority, and found that by far the highest levels ofprejudice were directed towards this group ratherthan towards other constituent peoples.

APPROACH

Considered within a conceptual framework of humandevelopment and social inclusion and in the light ofthe significant amount of research on the topic in re-cent years, social capital research has the potentialto provide insight into the divisions in BiH society aswell as the effects of marginalisation on excludedpopulations. It can thereby suggest a way forwardtowards addressing these divisions.

In what follows we aim to do precisely that. We drawupon the results of a comprehensive survey under-taken with a representative sample of 1623 respon-dents in November 2008. The survey assessed thenature of social ties, the level and type of reciprocalrelations, different forms of social trust, perceptions

of social tension, forms of associational membership,voluntarism and political participation.78 Throughoutthe process of analysis, all data was disaggregated by gender and assessed for significant differencesand inequalities and for notable or striking similari-ties. These are presented throughout the report.79 Inaddition, most of the data was disaggregated by age,ethnicity, education, urban/rural settlement, incomelevel and entity.

The survey was complemented by a series of focusgroups which looked in particular at excludedgroups, such as unemployed women, isolated eld-erly people, internally displaced persons and minor-ity returnees. Focus groups were also held withrepresentatives of civil society organisations in orderto understand more fully the difficulties faced withinthe third sector in BiH, as a crucial focus of this report.Finally, we have also striven to provide an illustrationof inclusive social capital through the case studiesthat appear at the conclusion of the report. Thesestudies, focusing on associations (formal or informal)demonstrate diverse and equitable networks thatmay provide models for policies and practices in thefuture. They aim, on a positive note, to provide ex-amples of autonomous, well-functioning, diversenetworks throughout the country that, we hope, canprovide inspiration for future policies, projects, pro-grammes and activities.


31

78 See more detailed methodology report in Annex 1.79 Where data is not presented as disaggregated by gender, this is because there was no significant difference between the responses ofmen and women.


32


33

3Social ties in Bosnia and Herzegovina

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


34

3

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


As we described in Chapter 2, social capital arisesfrom the nature of social relationships and can be de-fined as the norms of reciprocity and trust thatemerge when people are embedded in networks ofinter-connected social relationships. We also distin-guished in Chapter 2 between bonding, bridgingand linking social capital and we drew attention tothe potentially dual nature of social capital. Wenoted that social capital can be beneficial to thoseinvolved in the social network but it can also providebarriers to non-members, excluding them from thepotential benefits of membership. It can be a sourceof social solidarity and cohesion but also of nepotismand cronyism. Social ties are likely to be most bene-ficial for a society, if they bring together people fromall walks of life in a broadly-based web of affiliationsrather than socially fragmented or segmentedones.In the following sections of this chapter wedraw on these ideas to sketch out the patterns of so-cial ties in contemporary BiH. We then turn to thepatterns of trust, norms of reciprocity and social co-hesion that flow from these patterns.

SOCIAL NETWORkS: TIES WITH FAMILY,NEIGHBOURS AND THE WIDER COMMUNITY

In our 2008 survey we asked a number of questionson the nature of people’s social ties. One particularly

telling question asked how much contact respon-dents had with family or relatives, neighbours, closefriends, people of one’s own ethnicity, people ofother ethnicities and people of other ways of life. Wecan think of the first four types as representing differ-ent aspects of bonding social capital, while the fifthrepresents bridging social capital, and the final onecan be thought of as linking social capital. Table 3.1shows the resulting picture.

Table 3.1 and Figure 3.1 show a clear picture, withbonding social capital – ties with family, neighbours,close friends and people of one’s own ethnicity –much more prevalent than bridging or linking socialcapital involving people of other ethnicities or otherways of life.

There is a clear division, with around three-quartersof respondents seeing family, neighbours, closefriends or people of their own ethnicity a few timeseach week or almost every day, while the majorityseldom or never spend time with people of otherethnicities or ways of life.

However, much the strongest ties seem to be withfamily and close friends. We asked some additionalquestions about who one turns to in a variety of diffi-cult situations. These questions replicated some of


35

Social ties in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Spending time with family, neighbours and the wider community

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.1

Family/Relatives

Neighbours

Close friends

Own ethnicity

Other ethnicities

Different way of life

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Almosteveryday

A few timesa week

A few timeeach month

s Seldom Never Don't know /Don't wish to answer TotalIn %

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

72.4

31.7

27.8

44.6

11.6

7.9

13.1

33.7

46.1

30.5

15.8

13.4

9.6

17.5

17.4

16.0

20.8

20.3

4.1

13.8

4.9

6.3

35.1

39.3

0.3

2.0

2.1

0.7

12.6

12.3

0.4

1.1

1.7

1.7

4.1

6.8

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

......................................................................................................................

How often do you spend time with the following groups?


those asked in the Quality of Life80 surveys that hadbeen asked in other countries in the region. This cangive us a picture of the strength of these ties. As wecan see from Figures 3.2a to 3.2c, family overwhelm-ingly dominates the picture.

While the overwhelming predominance of family isperhaps the clearest single message from the figuresabove, it is also striking how few people responded

that they had no-one to turn to (or who did not knowwho to turn to). Only three percent said that theyhad no-one (or didn’t know who) to turn to whenthey were ill and only five percent when one neededsomeone to talk to. However, this figure rose tonearly twelve percent when we asked about accessto finance, which perhaps illustrates some of the lim-itations of this form of bonding social capital: thekind of help that these close ties can provide will de-


36

80 The Quality of Life Survey was undertaken by Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions,in all EU member states in 2003 and 2007 and measures living conditions and perceptions of quality of life. In 2007 the survey was expandedto include FYROM (TFYR), Croatia and Turkey. See http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/.

Figure 3.1 Often spending time with family, neighbours and the wider community

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

......................................................................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

...

...

...

...

...

Family/relatives Neighbours Close friends Own ethnicity Other ethnicitiesPeople with a diffe

rent way of life

-

Almost everyday

A few times a week

A few times each month

Figure 3.2 The strength of social ties

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

......................................................................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

...

...

...

...

...

Family Work colleague Close friends Neighbour Someone else Nobody

BiH

Croatia

Who do you turn to when you are ill and in need of help?Figure 3.2a

...90


pend on the resources available within the network,and in some respects, especially financial, these re-sources may be quite limited.81

It is interesting that the picture in BiH is not all thatdifferent from that found in recent research in Croa-tia, which also shows a predominance of strong tieswith family. We also found that these patterns ofstrong ties with family and a predominance of bond-ing social capital over bridging or linking social cap-ital were replicated in both the FBiH and the RS. Itwas more or less equally prevalent among Bosniacs,Croats and Serbs as well as among men and women.Table 3.3 illustrates the lack of difference betweenthe main groups in these respects.

Overall, then, the picture is a remarkably uniformone. There appears to be a common pattern of bon-

ding social capital and a relative lack of bridging orlinking social capital that is more or less pervasivethroughout all sections of BiH society. However,there are some modest differences which are worthnoting. Firstly, bridging and linking social capitalboth seem to be somewhat more prevalent amongurban than rural residents and among younger thanolder people. This suggests that the picture of BiHas a country dominated by strong familial ties is mostapplicable to older, rural generations and may per-haps change in the future, as the country urbanisesand new generations come of age.

Secondly, we can make a distinction between peoplewho live in areas where their ethnicity is in the ma-jority and those who are a minority in their area ofresidence. We also have a third category for peoplewho regard their area as ‘balanced’ between their


37

81 We draw on these particular questions in Chapter 4 for our discussion of network poverty.

PROVJERI U ONOM TEXTU SA GREŠKAMA JE LI TEXT OK

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Who do you turn to when you need to urgently raise 1000 KM?

60

80

40

20

0


own and another ethnicity. As we can see from Table3.4, people in a minority are much the most likely tohave bridging social capital (no doubt reflecting thegreater opportunities for meeting people of otherethnicities locally). But they were also clearly weakerwith respect to strong ties. We cannot be sure about

the causal processes involved in this. Possibly thepresence of strong ties with family means that youhave no need for bridging social ties, or alternativelythe availability of bridging ties makes one less relianton one’s family.


38

82 In Table 3.3 we combine the responses ‘almost every day’ and ‘a few times a week.’ 83 All data was weighted prior to being analysed, however, in the case of the data from Brčko District, the weight was removed, giving us alarger sample of those respondents – in this case n=118. This is the case for all results for Brčko that appear in this report. 84 This proportion is not strictly comparable with the results of the Trust in Transition survey since the response code was ‘other people youknow well’ rather than ‘close friends’ (Håkansson and Hargreaves (2004)).

Group similarities and differences: who one spends time with

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.3

All

Men

Women

FBiH

RS

Brčko

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Family Closefriends

NeighboursOw

ethnicityn Other

ethnicities NIn %

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

83

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Bosniac

Serb

Croat

Of localethnic majority

Of localethnic minority

Of ethnicallybalanced community

Urban

Rural

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Under 30

30 to 65

Over 60

72.2

73.2

71.2

71.7

72.8

80.5

70.7

73.2

76.7

73.1

56.4

81.0

68.5

75.0

81.5

72.5

64.0

67.2

75.6

68.0

62.5

74.2

67.8

62.7

74.4

65.0

68.4

59.7

66.8

53.0

77.8

51.2

69.4

76.4

76.1

75.6

76.5

71.0

84.6

67.8

72.6

84.3

70.5

78.6

51.2

78.2

71.5

79.5

78.4

75.5

75.5

29.1

31.3

26.9

30.0

27.9

26.2

28.1

26.1

32.5

25.5

47.0

49.6

33.5

25.8

30.9

30.2

26.1

24.0

23.2

24.8

25.7

22.7

6.8

23.8

22.7

24.6

22.7

29.9

31.1

30.5

19.1

30.6

24.3

18.3

1600

784

816

933

634

118

658

634

240

1334

131

111

686

914

367

758

457......................................................................................................................

82

Spending time with ... almost every day or a few times a week.

People with

different

way of life

a

75.4

74.4

76.4

77.0

72.2

86.5

77.6

72.8

75.9

75.8

65.4

84.0

75.3

75.5

74.0

79.7

68.7

Over-time comparison of who one spends time with (2003 and 2008)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.4

.......................................................................................................................

Family Close friends Neighbours Ownethnicity

Otherethnicities

% who spent timealmost every day or

at least fewtimes a week

N

91.4

75.4

61.9

72.2

75.4

67.2

60.4

76.1

30.4

29.1

1858

1600

......................................................................................................................

Trust in Transition 2003

NHDR data 2008

People witha differentway of life

25.7

24.0

84


We also have some (limited) data on trends over timein the extent of bridging, bonding and linking socialcapital. The same question (with some very minorwording differences) was asked in the 2003 studyTrust in Transition (discussed earlier in Chapter 1).

One always has to be careful when making compar-isons with studies conducted at different points oftime because of the potential differences in samplingmethodology, fieldwork practices and so on.85 How-ever, the picture in 2008 looks very similar to thatfrom five years earlier.

If anything, in 2003 the dominance of strong tieswith family over all the other sources of social capitalwas even more marked. Some of the differences maybe due to minor wording changes in the two surveys,but the weakness of bridging and linking social cap-ital is very evident in both surveys, with no sign ofchange over time.

Overall then we see that BiH can be characterised asa society built on strong ties, albeit ones primarilywith family, together with other locally-based tieswith friends and neighbours. It is not a society witha great deal of bridging or linking social capital. In-stead, BiH’s social fabric is characterised by fragmen-tation and segmentation rather than cohesion andsolidarity. It begins to look as though BiH has a webof localised strong ties rather than a broader andmore integrative pattern of weaker but wider-span-ning ties incorporating members of other communi-ties, ethnicities or social classes.

GENERALISED AND SPECIFIC TRUST IN BIH

Theorists of social capital anticipate that the patternof social ties will be reflected in patterns of socialtrust. The absence of broader webs of bridging andlinking ties leads us to expect that what has been


39

85 These are likely to be particularly problematic in BiH given the absence of a regular sampling frame or census for weighting and adjustingresults. 86 This is a rough comparison given the differences in methodology between our survey and that of the World Values Survey.

Generalised trust in BiH and other countries

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.5

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Most peoplecan be trusted

You can't be toocareful when dealing

with people

Don't know /Don't wantto answer

Total

Which statement do you agree with the most?

Sweden

Finland

USA

Great Britain

Bulgaria

Poland

Slovenia

Serbia

BiH

Peru

Turkey

Rwanda

Trinidad and Tabago

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

%

65.2

58.0

39.1

30.0

19.6

18.1

17.5

13.6

9.9

6.2

4.8

4.8

3.8

%

30.7

40.5

60.3

68.3

68.7

77.3

78.9

75.4

86.9

92.4

94.6

94.6

95.9

%

4.1

1.5

0.6

1.7

11.7

4.4

3.7

11.0

3.2

1.4

0.5

0.6

0.2

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

N

1003

1014

1249

1041

1001

1000

1037

1220

1600

1500

1346

1507

1002

Source: WVS 2005-08.86



40

87 Delhey and Newton, 2005, p. 323. 88 For this question we asked respondents whether they trust all, most, some or no people in each of the specified groups. We have combinedthe first two categories – all and most – in Table 3.6.

Specific trust in BiH

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.6

% Trusting all or most ofeach group

Family Closefriends

NeighboursOwn

ethnicityPeople with

different status

......................................................................................................................

Otherethnicities

82.7 61.1 33.5 21.3 8.7Total BiH 2008 11.0

called ‘generalised’ trust will be low in BiH, and thisis indeed what previous studies have found.

The standard question on ‘generalised trust’ that hasbeen asked over many years and in many differentcountries asks people: ‘generally speaking, wouldyou say that most people can be trusted, or you can’tbe too careful when dealing with people?’ Table 3.5shows that only 10% of our respondents agreed that‘most people can be trusted.’ For comparative pur-poses we have added in the table the correspondingfigures for a selection of other countries from theWorld Values Surveys for 2005-08, and from thesecomparisons we can see that the BiH figure is verylow compared with other European and Western so-cieties, although not actually the lowest.

As has been found in earlier research, the Nordiccountries such as Sweden and Finland have the high-est levels of generalised social trust, with nearly twothirds of the samples replying that most people canbe trusted. This figure falls to around one third inother western countries such as the USA and Britain,and it falls further to less than one fifth in formercommunist countries such as Poland and Bulgaria. BiHis then somewhat behind its neighbours, Sloveniaand Serbia, but is not as low as the least trusting cou-ntries like Rwanda, Turkey and Trinidad and Tobago.

In their analysis of earlier waves of the World ValuesSurvey, Delhey and Newton (2005) found that trusttended to be highest in the Nordic countries, whichthey attributed to the legacy of Protestant values.They also found that high trust was associated withwealthier and more egalitarian societies and withones characterised by better quality of government(as measured for example by the absence of corrup-tion). Conversely they found that ethnic divisionstended to decrease trust. It is important to note,however, that these patterns are not inevitable, andpoor and egalitarian societies might produce differ-ent results. Nevertheless, Delhey and Newton (2005)concluded:

An absence of ethnic cleavages is also important, pre-sumably because people of the same ethnic back-ground find it easier to trust one another. Wealthy andeconomically egalitarian societies are trusting soci-

eties, although wealth seems to matter more thanequality. Last, good government is an essential struc-tural basis of trust. Corruption-free and democraticgovernment seems to create an institutional structurein which individuals are able to act in a trustworthymanner and can reasonably expect that others willgenerally do the same.87

Looking at the other countries at the bottom of Table3.5, it also appears that countries with a recent his-tory of violent internal conflict or insurgencies haveespecially low levels of trust. In this sense the resultsfor BiH are by no means unexpected or exceptional.It could be argued that they are the natural outcomeof recent violence, continuing ethnic divisions, andineffective government. On the other hand, whilethese factors might well explain the patterns, theyclearly indicate that a continuing issue of low trust inBiH urgently needs to be tackled.

The question on generalised trust reported in Table3.5 does not provide the whole picture, however.When people answer this question on generalisedtrust, they are probably thinking of people whomthey don’t know well. When we distinguish who istrusted, we find a much more differentiated picture.In Table 3.6 we show the results when we distinguishwhat might be called levels of ‘specific’ or ‘particu-larised’ trust in family, friends, neighbours and so on,as opposed to ‘generalised’ trust.88

Here we see that 83% trust all or most members oftheir family, and 61 % trust close friends – muchhigher than the 10% for generalised trust. Specifictrust figures fall for neighbours and are quite low –only 21% – for one’s own ethnicity. They fall furtherto 11% and 9% for other ethnicities and people withother ways of life respectively, figures very similar tothe 10% for generalised trust. So, there is a high levelof trust in family and friends in BiH, middling levelsfor neighbours, while the low trust applies to peoplefrom ‘outside’ – non-family and non-neighbours.

These results closely parallel the ones shown earlierin Table 3.1, which documented patterns of socialties with these same groups. However, there is onenotable difference between the two tables – trust inone’s own ethnicity. Whereas respondents reported


spending a lot of time with members of their ownethnicity (which could well include members of theirfamily or local community) they did not express agreat deal of trust towards other members of theirethnicity. This tends to reinforce our interpretationthat trust in BiH is essentially localised and is basedon strong ties with family, friends and other mem-bers of the local community. It does not extend tostrong ties or trust with people outside one’s localcommunity, even with those of one’s own ethnicity.

In line with this interpretation, we also find a strongsense of belonging to one’s local area. 77% feel thatthey belong either very or fairly strongly to their im-mediate neighbourhood. This interpretation is con-firmed by Table 3.7, which reports some measures ofwhat we can term ‘experiential’ trust. We asked ourrespondents whether they agreed or not with eachof the following four statements:

‘Most people tell a lie, when they can benefit bydoing so.’‘If you drop your wallet or purse around here,someone will see it and return it to you.’

‘People are ready to use those they work with.’‘If you have a problem, there is usually someonewho can help you.’

Just under 90% or our respondents agreed (either toa large or to a small extent) that people will tell a liewhen they can benefit, indicating the same low levelof trust as in the generalised trust question. Butthere is markedly more confidence that peoplearound here (ie. in the local neighbourhood) will re-turn your wallet (33%), and very high levels of confi-dence that if you have a problem, there is usuallysomeone who can help you. As we saw earlier, that‘someone’ is usually family.

Low generalised trust is also reflected in the highperceived levels of tension between social groups.

We asked our respondents:

‘In all countries there sometimes exists tension be-tween social groups. In your opinion, how muchtension is there between each of the followinggroups in BiH?’


41

Experiential trust

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.7

Agreement with the followingstatements in %

Agreeto a large

extent

Agree toa smallextent

Disagree to asmall extent

Total

......................................................................................................................

D /D

on't knowon't want to

answer

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Disagree to alarge extent

Most people tell a lie, whenthey can benefit by doing so

If you drop your wallet/pursearound here, someone willreturn it to you

People will take advantage ofyou, when you work with them

If you have a problem, there isusually someone that can helpyou

49.4

6.3

34.1

34.0

39.0

27.0

48.5

49.5

4.4

34.1

7.8

8.9

1.3

23.4

1.4

2.1

5.8

9.2

8.2

5.6

100

100

100

100

Figure 3.3 Experiential trust: 'If you drop your wallet/purse around here,

someone will return it to you.'

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Agree

Disagree


We can see interesting parallels here with the pictureof lack of specific trust in people of other ethnicitiesand other ways of life. Table 3.6 showed that trust inpeople with other ways of life was even lower thanthat in people from another ethnicity. Table 3.8 sim-ilarly shows that the tensions perceived between richand poor (88% perceiving tension) and that betweenmanagement and workers (86%) are even higherthan the tension perceived between different eth-nicities (79%). In other words we should not charac-terise BiH as a society where the only major line of

cleavage is between the different nationalities andethnicities, in particular between the three con-stituent peoples. Other major fault lines in societyare between rich and poor and between manage-ment and the worker. Again, this finding parallels ourearlier findings about the weakness of integratingsocial ties even within ethnic groups.

Furthermore, as with patterns of social ties, thesepatterns hold to a very large extent ‘across the board’and apply to residents in the RS, as much as they do


42

The results are shown below in Table 3.8.

Perceive a lot or some tension between social groups

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.8

Richpoor

and Managementworkersand

Differentnationalities

ethnicitiesand

Oldyoungand Men womenand

87.9 85.6 78.6 77.5 67.7

......................................................................................................................

BiH

Urbanruraland

76.6

Group similarities and differences in levels of specific trust

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.9

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Family Closefriends

Neighbours Owethnicity

n Otherethnicities

People withdifferent

status

Gentrust

% Trusting all ormost

of each group

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

82.7

83.4

81.0

92.4

81.6

83.5

83.4

83.2

77.0

85.0

81.4

84.0

81.0

84.0

88.1

81.7

80.9

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

61.1

59.3

63.2

69.5

58.5

56.6

64.6

63.0

44.4

60.1

61.7

60.4

57.1

64.1

71.9

58.8

56.3

33.5

33.6

33.0

45.8

33.1

34.9

33.6

35.3

25.9

24.7

34.1

33.0

26.1

39.1

25.5

30.3

45.7

21.3

21.3

21.0

32.2

20.9

20.7

22.3

22.1

22.2

13.7

18.8

23.7

16.9

24.7

19.0

18.3

28.3

11.0

11.0

10.9

10.2

10.8

12.3

10.2

10.5

16.7

11.0

9.9

12.0

10.4

11.4

10.4

9.0

15.0

8.7

8.8

9.0

1.7

9.1

7.7

8.8

8.8

12.0

6.1

7.9

9.6

8.3

9.1

9.6

7.3

10.6

9.9

8.5

12.2

5.1

7.4

11.2

12.2

10.5

9.2

2.7

8.7

11.0

9.6

10.1

8.9

9.8

10.6

......................................................................................................................

Total BiH

F BiH

RS

Brčko (118)

Bosniac

Croat

Serb

Of local ethnic majority

Of local ethnic minority

Of ethnicallybalanced community

Men

Women

Urban

Rural

Under 30

30 to 65

Over 60


to those in the FBiH.89 They apply more or less equallyto Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs, to men and women,to young and old. These problems are shared through-out BiH and are not specific to one particular sectionof society. Table 3.9 shows the picture.

The one notable deviation from the general patterncomes, just as with the pattern of social ties reportedin Table 3.3, in the case of people who are a minorityin their local area. These individuals tend to havesubstantially lower levels of trust in friends andneighbours and, to some extent, in family too. Onthe other hand they have slightly higher levels oftrust than the typical citizen of BiH in members ofother ethnicities and of other ways of life. To be sure,these minority individuals are still not especiallytrusting of other ethnicities – only 17% say that theytrust all or most people from other ethnicities – so thatis still a pretty low level of trust. But it is still quite alot higher than among other sections of BiH society.

TRENDS OvER TIME IN GENERALISED ANDSPECIFIC TRUST

The question on generalised trust has been asked ona number of occasions in BiH over the last ten years.What one would hope to find is some evidence ofimprovement, as the war and its legacy have fadedinto the past. However, table 3.10 does not offer a

great deal of comfort. If anything the trend has beendownward. As mentioned, there are dangers in com-paring results from different surveys because of var-ious kinds of sampling problems and variations insampling methodology, so one should not perhapsread too much into the downward trend. The figureof 1998 does appear to be something of an outlier,although it is possible that it reflects a period of opti-mism immediately after the cessation of violence.From 2001 onwards, however, the figures have beenconsistently low. The picture of little real change or,if anything, a decline in trust is confirmed when welook at the responses to the questions on specifictrust, which were also asked in the 2003 study. Here,we see that for the five groups where comparisonscan be made the level of trust was slightly lower in2008 than it had been in 2003.

However, there is a much more optimistic picturewhen we turn to a question on the impact of the waron everyday life. Both in 2005 and 2008 respondentswere asked ‘How important to you personally is whathappened during the war, 1992 to 1995 – What im-pact does the war have on your everyday life?’ Thepossible answers were ‘very important, I’ll never for-get,’ ‘important but I have moved on with my life,’ ‘try-ing to forget it’ and ‘not important – has no impact.’Figure 3.4 shows the change over time. Here we dosee a major decline in the perceived importance ofthe war with a major shift of responses from ‘very im-


43

89 We must treat the figures for Brčko with considerable caution here because of the small sample size.

Generalised trust over time

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.10

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Which statement doyou agree

with the most?

Mostpeople canbe trusted

You can't be toocareful when dealing

with peopleSource

Total(sample size)

Don't know/don't wishto answer

Year of survey

1998

2001

2003

%

26.9

15.6

14.5

7.2

9.9

%

68.2

83.2

84.2

91.8

86.9

%

4.9

1.2

1.3

1.0

3.3

World Values Survey

World Values Survey

Balkan Analysis Group

UNDP / ORI

UNDP

%

100

100

100

100

100.......................................................................................................................

N

1200

1200

1857

3580

1600

2006

2008

Specific trust over time

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3.11

.......................................................................................................................

Closefriends

Neighbours Ownethnicity

Otherethnicities

% of people trustingall or most of thefollowing groups

84.9

82.7

......................................................................................................................

Total BiH 2003

Total BiH 2008

People witha different way

of lifeFamily

n/a

61.1

48.5

33.5

25.7

21.3

13.6

11.0

14.6

8.7


portant, I’ll never forget’ to ‘important but I havemoved on with my life.’ Moreover, our checks showedthat this change applied to all sections of BiH society- it occurred ‘across the board’ and was just as evidentin the RS as in the FBiH, among men as amongwomen, and so on. This is perhaps the most encour-aging evidence that we have yet seen in this chapterand suggests that the time is a good one for new ini-tiatives and developments that might serve to rebuildsocial capital and trust.

CONCLUSIONS

The key findings on social capital and trust in BiH areas follows:

• BiH is a society characterised by strong ties andbonding social capital with family and to a lesserextent with friends and neighbours. There is muchweaker bridging of linking social capital. BiH islargely a family-based, local society.

• In line with the pattern of social ties, BiH is a soci-ety characterised by very low generalised trust.This low trust applies to people of other ethnicitiesbut also to people of other ways of life and evento people of the same ethnicity who are not partof one’s immediate social circle.

• These patterns hold generally true across entities,ethnic groups, men and women, educational lev-els and so on. These are shared patterns. The lackof generalised trust and of bridging and bondingsocial capital is a shared problem.

• But some groups do stand out a bit more than oth-ers – in particular people who are in the minorityin their area.

• There has been little change over time in any ofthese patterns.

While this is in many ways a rather pessimistic pic-ture, it is important to remember that strong ties do

have their advantages – for example provision of so-cial support in times of need. Very few people lacksupport networks – although the problems of thosewithout such networks may be especially great in asociety such as BiH, which is largely organisedaround tightly-knit local communities. However,there may also be a downside to a strong-tie, locally-based society – the social exclusion of outsiders andrisks of nepotism, clientelism, cronyism or worse.

It is also important to recognise that the bonding so-cial capital is largely locally-based – there is consid-erable distrust of members of one’s own ethnicitywho are not members of these local communities. Inother words, the low generalised trust applies topeople from all ethnicities and walks of life one doesnot know personally. Furthermore, there are otherimportant social tensions in addition to those be-tween ethnicities in BiH. If anything there is evengreater distrust of people in other ways of life, andthere is even greater perceived tension between richand poor or management and worker.

So there are huge challenges ahead – but perhapsthe time is opportune, as the majority of people nowseem ready to move on from the war and to buildanew. The key challenge is to strengthen the bridg-ing and linking social capital without losing thestrengths that the family and community-basedbonding capital provides to its members. As Putnamhas emphasised, bridging and bonding capitalshould not be seen as mutually exclusive alterna-tives.

High levels of social support from family and com-munity can coexist with trust in ‘generalised’ others.Key ingredients in meeting this challenge are likelyto be the elimination of corruption, nepotism andcronyism and providing a much more level playingfield, so all members of BiH society can have fair ac-cess to efficiently-run services and resources.


44

Figure 3.4 Importance of the war on everyday life (2005 compared to 2008)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................

90

...................................................................................................................................

................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

0

...

...

2005

2008

Very important,

I’ll never forget

Important, but I have

moved on with my life

Not important,

it has n impact on meoTrying to forget it

90 The 2005 data are from UNDP (2005).


45

4Vulnerability network povertyand

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


46

4

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


INTRODUCTION

Looking at social networks from a social inclusionperspective means also looking at the impact of nothaving such solid networks around one, in a societywhere most people do. Who, in BiH, feel that theyhave few people around to rely on when times gettough? What are the consequences, in other words,of being ‘network poor’?

In this chapter we assess a number of characteristicsof network poverty in BiH, showing that a lack ofsupport networks links types of social capital with anumber of dimensions of vulnerability and social ex-clusion. Quantitative analysis of network povertyalso shows its relationship to low levels of social trust.The analysis of the data is followed by an examina-tion of the qualitative focus group research, which il-lustrates the experience of network poverty.

As we saw in Chapter 3, the results of our quantita-tive research suggest that immediate social networkscomprised of family, close friends and (often) neigh-bours are very strong in BiH. People tend to trustthose who are in these immediate networks, in par-ticular family and relatives, considerably more than

people they don’t know or people they consider dif-ferent from themselves. Indeed, only 4.4 % of thesample reported that they rarely or never spend timewith family.

The strength of these networks is also evident in theuses to which they are put. People use these net-works as a source of support in times of difficulty orhardship, and a lot of give and take tends to takeplace within them, rather than beyond them. Impor-tantly, these tendencies show very little variationacross gender, ethnicity, education, region/entity orincome levels, suggesting a general social tendencyin BiH as a whole. In addition to the strength of im-mediate familial networks, only 5.7 % of respondentssaid that they have no friends, and only 8.3 % thatthey seldom or never spend time with their friends.

Seeing family, friends and others regularly does notnecessarily mean that one feels one can rely on themin times of need. The ability to rely on one’s networksis an important facet of their ability to provide onewith social capital. In addition to being asked if andhow often they spend time with those around them,therefore, respondents of the survey were asked thefollowing question:


47

vulnerability and network poverty

Figure .4 1 Seldom or never spend time with… (% of total sample)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

2

4

6

8

10

0

...

...

...

Family or relatives Close friends Neighbours

...

...

12

14

4.4

8.3

14



48

91 Tonkiss (2003), p. 88.92 Perri 6 (1997), p. 25.93 Perri 6 (1997), p.26.

From whom would you get support in each of the following situations?

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 4.1

If ill and needing help

If needing advice

If feeling a bit depressed

If urgently needing1000 KM

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Family Workcolleague

Closefriend

Neighbour Someoneelse

Nobody %

.......................................................................................................................

87.9

74.4

62.2

72.9

0.6

2.0

1.8

1.7

3.9

16.6

26.3

10.2

3.6

2.4

3.7

2.4

0.8

0.8

1.1

1.1

1.8

1.8

2.2

6.8

100

100

100

100

......................................................................................................................

1.4

2.0

2.7

4.9

Don'tknow/Don't

wish toanswer

From whom would you get support in each of thefollowing situations? (For each situation, choosethe most important person)

If you needed help around the house when illIf you needed advice about a serious personal or fam-ily matterIf you were feeling a bit depressed and wantingsomeone to talk toIf you needed to urgently raise 1000 KM to face anemergency

Family memberWork colleagueClose friend Neighbour Someone else (specify)Nobody [Don’t know / Don’t wish to answer]

The question therefore assesses the degree to whichsocial networks are also support networks: providersof social capital. The results are presented in Table 4.1below.

In terms of having such a safety net, few of those in-terviewed stated that they would have nobody toturn to in each of these circumstances. Backing upwhat we found in Chapter 3, this measure also showsthat immediate networks in BiH are rather solid. Inother words, the majority of people appear to feelthat they have a solid support network around them.

Network povertyTo be ‘network poor’ is to be unable to draw on one’ssocial ties and networks when in need of help andassistance. It can be understood as ‘both the absenceand weakness of social networks’ – when there is no-body to turn to – and ‘the difficulty of accessing op-portunities or resources through these networks’91 –when one is excluded from flows of information or

opportunities available to others with stronger net-works.

The Network PoorThe network poor are individuals who do not havethe kind of social network configuration that ismost appropriate for the stage of the life coursethey have reached to enable them to thrive - wherethriving can be a matter of securing good health,securing emotional support and development ormaturity, securing work and income and statusand a high level of consumption, or simply pro-longing a life in reasonable comfort.92

At its most serious, network poverty can be or be-come ‘a major risk factor for, and in some cases per-haps even the principal cause of, poverty,unemployment, homelessness, ill-health and otherforms of misery.’93 It is important to note, however,that consideration of network poverty is not in-tended to obscure other forms of poverty, in partic-ular material deprivation, but instead to present an additional dimension to the understanding of socialexclusion and poverty, one that is often less under

stood or considered than material deprivation. Net-work poverty should therefore be considered as onedeterminant of poverty and social exclusion. Thosewho are network poor are much more likely to be so-cially isolated and excluded, to have difficulty mak-ing ends meet and to have worse health outcomesthan those who can turn to those around them forsupport, help and assistance.

In this chapter, our analysis proceeds from the resultsof the survey. Here, we look at who is more likely toexperience network poverty, what are the implica-tions for the network poor in terms of outcomes suchas health and education and employment and whatare the drivers of these forms of isolation.


Network poverty in BiHIn order to assess network poverty, we created a vari-able for ‘network poor’ from responses to the ques-tion above on immediate support networks. Thevariable separates those who say they have no-oneto turn to (or don’t know who they would turn to) ineach of the situations described. These are the peo-ple for whom there are gaps in their support network,and our variable identifies them as more networkpoor than the rest of the sample.94

Of our weighted sample of 1600, we found 190 re-spondents or 11.9% who may be considered net-work poor: those who not only may not spend timewithin a social network, but are also unable to derive

support from such a network. Breaking this groupdown by demographic characteristics, we found thatthe most significant correlation was with age. Almosthalf of those who are network poor are over 60 yearsof age and further analysis identifies age as a causalfactor in network poverty.95 Not surprisingly, giventhe age of the network poor, those exhibiting weakersupport networks are also more likely to have poorerhealth. They are, for example, roughly twice as likelyto report long-standing or chronic illness as the restof the population. The entity in which the respon-dent is living also related to network poverty, in ouranalysis, with almost twice as many network poor inthe RS as in the FBiH.96 Employment status was foundto be relevant, with the unemployed being signifi-


49

Figure .4 2 Vulnerability & lack of support when ill (in %)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

...

...

...

BiHLong-term

illIDPs

...

...

3

3.5

...

...

4

4.5

Minority

returneesElderly

Women in

rural areas

...

...

...

Figure 4.3 Network poverty, experiential trust and belonging

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.....................................................................

0

...

...

...

20 40 60

Network poor

Others

......................................................................................................................

Don’t feel they belong to the

immediate neighbourhood

Don’t believe there are usually people

around to help with problems

Don’t believe someone will return a

lost wallet or purse

Believe people will take advantage

of you

Believe people are likely to lie when

they can benefit from doing so

97

94 The validity of this measure was also assessed.95 The logistic regression to be found in Annex 3 shows that age is the most important factor influencing growth of network poverty. 96 The number of respondents in Brčko District for this assessment is too small to be significant. 97 The difference between the response rates for the code ‘don’t believe someone will return a lost wallet or purse’ were found to be highlysignificant in analysis of adjusted residuals.


cantly more likely to have weak support networksthan those who have a job. Women in rural areaswere also found to be more likely to be networkpoor, as were minority returnees and IDPs.

Network poverty, trust and belonging Network poverty also relates to low levels of trustand weaker feelings of belonging to the immediatecommunity. Figure 4.3 assesses the level of distrustamong the network poor.

Lower levels of trust and belonging are evident,therefore, among those who have weaker social net-works, attesting to the linkage between networks,belonging and trust. In Figure 4.3, we have comparedthe levels of ‘experiential trust’98 between those ofour sample who are network poor and those who donot fit into this category. Having a weaker supportnetwork relates to the likelihood of believing thatpeople will take advantage rather than act fairly andthat people are not generally trustworthy.

Notably, the most significant result in the Table 4.3shows a stronger belief, among the network poor,that a wallet or purse would not be returned if found.The wording of this question is important as it relatesto the sense of belonging to one’s immediate neigh-bourhood. It inquires about ‘people around here’ re-turning such property. While those identified asnetwork poor are clearly more distrustful on allcounts, it is particularly significant that, when the im-mediate neighbourhood is invoked, their suspicionis even more manifest (38.9% vs. 21.3%). In the lastrow of the table we see the general measure for a

sense of belonging, and, here, those who are net-work poor are more than twice as likely to feel theydo not belong to their immediate neighbourhood.

Those with weaker support networks around themalso express significantly lower levels of trust in fam-ily, relatives and close friends – those networks ofhighest frequency in BiH. This is shown in Figure 4.4below. When tested for significance, the results ofparticular note are the lower trust in family and rela-tives, the lower trust in close friends, and – interest-ingly – the slightly higher level of trust in one’sneighbours.

Finally, Figure 4.5 shows significant distinctions inthe levels of civic and political participation betweenthe network poor and others, demonstrating poten-tially lower levels of empowerment among the net-work poor.

THE IMPACT OF NETWORk POvERTY ON MATERIAL DEPRIvATION

We also assessed the relationship between networkpoverty and different levels of deprivation via ques-tions on material deprivation and standards of living.For example, the questionnaire contained the follow-ing question:

There are some things that many people cannotafford, even if they would like them. For each ofthe following things on this card, can I just checkwhether your household can afford it, if you want it?


50

98 By ‘experiential trust’ we mean trust that is based upon past experiences (one’s own or others) rather than a theoretical notion of trusting‘most people,’ which is what we see in the generalised trust measure.

Figure .4 4 Trust and network poverty: Trusting all or most...

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

0

...

...

Close friends

...

...

60

70

...

...

80

90

Family and relatives Own ethnicity

...

84.9

67

62.7

48.9

20.3

28.8

Network poor

Others


To keep your home adequately warm To pay for a week’s annual holiday away from home(not staying with relatives)To replace worn-out furniture A meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day,if wanted To buy new, rather than second-hand, clothes To have friends or family for a drink or meal at leastonce a monthYes, can afford it if wantedNo, cannot afford it[Don’t know / Don’t wish to answer]

Based on the responses to that question, we foundthat the network poor are almost twice as likely asothers to find it difficult to make ends meet on theirpresent income. In terms of standards of living, theyare significantly more likely to be struggling to affordmeals with meat, chicken or fish, to regularly affordnew clothes rather than reuse second hand gar-ments, to keep their homes adequately warm, to re-place worn out furniture and to afford a week’sholiday each year. Moreover, network poverty is verymuch related to not being able to have friends andfamily over.99


51

99 Here it is important to note that we have assessed the correlation between different variables, but we are not asserting a causal directionbetween the two – i.e. whether network poverty causes material deprivation or vice versa. Such an assertion would require further research. 100 Network poor are those who say they don’t have anyone to turn to, or don’t know whom to turn to, when ill, when in need of advice,when depressed, or when in need of a loan.101 The difference between the network poor and the rest of BiH for all of these response codes was found to be highly statistically significant.The table indicates those people who cannot afford to have friends or family for a drink or meal at least once a month.

Figure .4 5 Network poverty and participation

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

2

4

6

8

10

0

...

Active member of an

association

...

...

12

14

...

...

16

18

Member of one or more associations

(active or passive)

...

18.8

11.1 11.2

5.2

...20

Network poor

Others

Figure .4 6 Network poverty and material deprivation: Cannot afford...

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

100 101

...............................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

0

...

...

...

...

60

70

...80

Meals with meat,

chicken or fish

every second day

...

New clothesTo keep home

adequately warmTo have people

over once a month

A week’s annual

holiday

To replace worn

out furniture

...

...

...

Network poor

Others


Interestingly, we also found that those who live as aminority ethnic group in their community sufferfrom significantly higher levels of material depriva-tion on this scale than their majority neighbours. Thisis illustrated in Table 4.2.

The results of the assessment above suggest that thenetwork poor have low levels of social capital andhigher levels of material deprivation. Networkpoverty overlaps with other vulnerable categoriesand may therefore contribute to the likelihood of vul-nerability and social exclusion. The focus group re-search explored below also points to a strongrelationship between material deprivation andweaker social networks. Here, we see direct illustra-tions of frayed social ties and reduced feelings of be-longing, together with higher levels of deprivation,in particular where there is conflict over the distribu-tion of meagre resources.

THE ExPERIENCE OF NETWORk POvERTY:FOCUS GROUP RESULTS

A number of focus groups were carried out in orderto understand in more detail the confluence of socialties among groups particularly prone to networkpoverty.102 Below, we look in more detail at the re-sults of the discussions with minority returnees, in-ternally displaced persons (IDPs), and isolated elderlypersons. While there are a broader number of groupscommonly identified as vulnerable to social exclu-sion in BiH,103 here we focus in particular on threegroups who are specifically identified as networkpoor. In the results of these discussions we can seehigh levels of network poverty in many of the com-ments of participants. The low levels of social capitalamong respondents is conspicuous in low levels of

trust, weak social ties, internal group tensions, lackof cohesion and low levels of reciprocity. The resultsof other focus groups reflecting on aspects of inclu-sive and exclusive social capital are examined inChapters 5 and 6.

Residents of a collective centre for IDPs Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) represent one ofthe most vulnerable groups in BiH. There are cur-rently 124,593 IDPs registered in the country (67,536in the RS, 55,945 in the FBiH, and 1,112 in Brčko Dis-trict) or roughly 3.6% of the population.104 Amongthis group there is a high proportion of persons whoare physically disabled, chronically ill or sufferingfrom mental illness. A significant group is also theelderly without a source of income or family support,while roughly one third of the IDP population is fe-male-headed households.105 Many of those who areelderly do not have access to a pension. A recent re-port by Office of the United Nations High Commis-sioner for Refugees (UNHCR) highlighted the additionaldifficulties suffered by IDPs in maintaining their sta-tus:

According to the relevant laws in place in the coun-try... IDP status in BiH is contingent upon an individ-ual’s expressed wish to return and him/her takingspecific steps in that direction, including applying forreconstruction of their destroyed property. Thismeans that IDPs who have not expressed a will to re-turn generally do not qualify for IDP status and sup-port under IDP-related legislation, unless they havespecific protection or humanitarian concerns. Yet,even if IDPs have such concerns they may be deniedstatus in practice.106

In an interview with a representative of the NGO‘Your Rights’ (Vaša Prava)107 – a legal aid organisation


52

102 For more information on the focus group methodology, see Annex 1.103 UNDP (2007a).104 UNHCR figures are derived from data collected by the BiH Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees. The percentage of the population isbased on the estimated population in BHAS (2007): 3,447,156.105 UNHCR (2009a).106 UNHCR (2009a).107 Interview with Ms. Nermina Kodžaga, NGO Vaša Prava, 20th March 2009, BiH, N. Nixon and L. Desigis.

Standard of living: Percentage of those who cannot afford the following

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 4.2

.......................................................................................................................

% cannotafford

A week'sannualholiday

away fromhome

To replaceany worn-

outfurniture

A meal withmeat, chickenor fish everysecond day

......................................................................................................................

To have friends orfamily for a

drink or mealat least once a

month

.......................................................................................................................

New ratherthan second-

handclothes

All BiH



61.7

59.6

74.8

60.8

59.5

68.2

31.3

30.2

43.2

38.4

35.9

50.0

21.9

19.5

37.4

To keeptheir homeadequately

warm

13.6

12.3

19.1


that provides pro bono assistance to IDPs and minor-ity returnees, among others – the difficulties facedby IDPs in demonstrating their ‘will to return’ washighlighted. The documents required to demon-strate that will need to be produced on a regularbasis, the timeframe and cost of which varies frommunicipality to municipality. IDPs may therefore berequired to pay regular fees at frequent intervals forthis evidence in order to maintain their status, whichmany find difficult to afford.

Although exact figures do not exist, the Ministry ofHuman Rights and Refugees estimates that some8,000 IDPs currently reside in temporary collectiveaccommodation, some for more than 10 years, inwhat often amounts to the most basic and rudimen-tary of conditions.108 Notably, UNHCR emphasisesthe importance of the social networks that havebeen established in these centres, ‘developedamongst residents who have cohabitated for years,’which often provide the basis for mechanisms forcoping with the stress of their situation.

For the purpose of this research, a focus group washeld with collective centre residents in eastern Re-publika Srpska. The centre where the participantslive houses 23 displaced families, totalling some 50people. Most of the residents are displaced familiesfrom remote villages that were destroyed during thewar. Some were displaced after the war, from 1996onwards in immediate post-war population move-ments. Almost all are either elderly or suffering frommental illness.

The information gleaned from this focus group illus-trates well the depiction of their plight by UNHCRabove. Participants stressed the deplorable state oftheir living conditions; including superficial con-struction with leaking roofs, a lack of insulation,plumbing, or heating. When asked if they would liketo leave the centre and live elsewhere, participantsgenerally stated that they would like to live as theydid before the war, but they feared they were nolonger capable of living in a different context. The ad-ditional assistance they currently receive – with thepayment of bills and additional meals – also makesthem concerned that their income would not beenough to cover any new accommodation and livingcosts.

In addition to questions regarding the quality of theirliving conditions, we also inquired about the difficul-ties they face from the perspective of their social net-works or lack thereof. For example, respondents wereasked how often they spend time with or have con-tact with friends or relatives from elsewhere, whetherthere are people around to provide support if

needed, and the degree to which they have contactwith the community outside the centre. We also dis-cussed with them their ability to access services inthe local community.

The results of this discussion showed that the resi-dents of the centre exist in extreme levels of socialisolation. Visits by family and friends who live outsidethe town in which the centre is located are very un-common. Participants said that their isolation andlack of contact with others make them feel aban-doned and forgotten by the outside world:

Some people simply do not see me; they do not seemy children either. They do not want to see us. (Fe-male, collective centre resident, married, three chil-dren)

I do not know. I really do not know [if I get sick] whowould come to me. I know about people who were inbed for 10 days [before anyone noticed]. (Male, col-lective centre resident, pensioner, lives alone)

Their existence in the centre seems itself to be a bar-rier to maintaining social ties with friends and family,and the majority of those interviewed said they hadneither visited friends or relatives nor invited themto visit for years. Others expressed resentment to-wards family and friends for not visiting them in thecentre, exacerbating their sense of abandonment.Participants also stressed the weakness of their tieswith members of the immediate community:

I do not drink coffee and I do not spend time withanyone. I do not visit any of my neighbours and theydo not visit me either. (Male, collective centre resi-dent, disabled war veteran, employed, lives alone)

I simply do not want to burden anyone with my trou-bles. (Male, collective centre resident, disabled warveteran, employed, lives alone)

People keep to themselves. (Female, collective centreresident, widow, one child)

Poverty also contributes to the inability of collectivecentre residents to maintain social ties with friendsand family. Participants highlighted the cost of trav-elling, as well as the need to take gifts when they doso, which makes the trip additionally unaffordable:

I do not go anywhere much and not many peoplecome to see me. That is the reason. People say ’Whydon’t you come, come‘ but I do not go and they donot come to me either. I cannot afford it. People whogo ... must pay 10 KM, and, if you are visiting some-one, taking candies or something also costs you


53

108 Ministry for Human Rights and Refugees, PowerPoint Presentation, Roundtable: Return of refugees and DPs – reconstruction as a pre-condition to return, February 2008. Cited in UNHCR (2009b).


some money. At the end of the month you are shortof money; you wonder where it has gone. (Female,collective centre resident, married, three children)

The physical conditions in the particular centre inwhich the focus group participants reside are partic-ularly bleak. There are no common areas such askitchens or living rooms in which residents might so-cialise. As a result, the participants reported that, be-yond meeting and greeting their neighbours eachday, they rarely spend any time together. Their expla-nation for this was that ‘people are preoccupied withtheir own problems’ and they no longer have thestrength to even talk about their own plight, letalone listen to someone else’s. While they feel aban-doned by the outside world, they also feel powerlessto help one another. Participants reported spendingmost of their time on their own, within their ‘ownfour walls,’ simply trying to ‘kill another day’:

It is so embarrassing for us to say how badly we areliving. There are so many things, little things, basicthings.... (Female, collective centre resident, widow,unemployed, two children)

It happened at our place that people died and hardlyanyone noticed; they died in their rooms. (Male, col-lective centre resident, unemployed, lives alone)

Talking about the treatment they receive from thelocal authorities, the participants said they feel thatmunicipal authorities (as well as higher levels of gov-ernment) generally behave as if they did not exist.They reported drawing some interest only ahead ofelections, but stressing that promises given beforeelections are afterwards passed from one institu-tion/level of government to another and never even-tuate. Residents therefore exhibited a strong senseof disempowerment when it comes to dealings withthose in positions of power:

They all come ahead of elections, they give us flour,they give us macaroni, cooking oil, to get us to votefor them. They come with assistance, but not now,nobody comes now… I feel threatened. ...We askthem, but every time we ask they say: “We cannot doanything....” (Male, collective centre resident, pen-sioner, lives alone)

It is thus that this population feels marginalised, neg-lected and unrecognised. According to the focusgroup moderator, the participants also appeared tobe very depressed, not believing that their positionwill change but ‘accepting their destiny,’ ‘waiting for

something to happen’ and for ‘someone to remem-ber them.’ Their stories spoke strongly of feelings ofestrangement, alienation, depression and social dep-rivation. Not only do the residents experience socialexclusion emanating from multiple forms of depri-vation, including network poverty, but their humandevelopment is sorely curtailed by their current con-ditions.

Minority returneesA focus group was also held with representatives ofa small, isolated minority returnee community of ap-proximately 50 inhabitants in eastern Republika Srp-ska.109 ‘Minority returnees’ in BiH, as defined byUNHCR, are those who were displaced during thewar and have returned to the place from which theywere displaced, where they are now in a numericalminority in terms of their ethnic identity. The broadertrend in the process of return has been for people tomove back to a place in which their ethnicity is a ma-jority. Minority returnees therefore face significantadditional hurdles beyond the practical aspects ofreturning, settling and housing themselves. UNHCRresearch and field presence in the country has ob-served discrimination against returnees in employ-ment, pensions, health care and access to utilities,social protection and education. In addition, thosewho return permanently are more likely to be olderpersons and pensioners returning to rural areas.110

Younger IDPs tend to remain where they were dis-placed, as they are more likely to have settled andfound a job. These older returnees often have healthneeds, but limited financial resources for treatmentor medication. They also often face difficulties ac-cessing pensions and social protection, in particularif they live in rural areas. As such, minority returneestend to face multiple deprivations.111 Fortunately, onthe other hand, the security situation for minority re-turnees has improved in recent years and, in compar-ison with the immediate post-war years, physicalattacks on minority returnees have ‘subsided signifi-cantly’:112

When we are talking about return, regarding the se-curity situation there are no problems. Bosniacs andSerbs behave well towards each other. … I returneda year ago and nobody ever asks me why I re-turned… I have good relations with everyone. (Male,married, minority returnee)

In the context of this research, the intention of thefocus group with minority returnees was to glean abetter understanding of the integration process forminority returnees, in terms of how much they feel


54

109 We are indebted to the UNHCR office in Sarajevo for their support in helping with the arrangements for the focus groups with minorityreturnees and collective centre residents in eastern Republika Srpska.110 UNHCR (2009a).111 UNHCR (2009a). 112 UNHCR (2009a).


that they belong to their community, to what extentthey have established or re-established social net-works for support, the composition of those net-works, and the issues they face in accessing servicesin their local municipality.

Generally speaking, focus groups participants statedthat they were not satisfied with their living condi-tions and have faced numerous problems since theirreturn. Participants mentioned the inadequacy ofbasic needs such as housing (reconstructed), publicutility services, garbage collection and electricity andwater supply networks. Their dissatisfaction seemsto stem, in part, from their feeling that they havebeen manipulated by promises of financial and ma-terial assistance that have not materialised. This re-sentment seems to be compounded by the isolatedand poor conditions in which they live:

All I can tell you is that returnees are in a very difficultsituation. They are short of everything, from food toeverything else. People who live here are withouthouses, they live in apartments which are not theirsand as soon as the privatisation process begins theywill have to move out... (Male, married, unemployed,minority returnee)

I have five children, one daughter and four sons. Myhusband is unemployed; he is registered with the em-ployment service. We live in a devastated apartment.I have one grandchild, another one is on the way...(Female, married, five children, one grand-child,homemaker)

We have only one teacher and five different genera-tions share the same classroom. It is a mixed-ageclassroom, and it is very difficult for children to learnand work there... (Female, minority returnee, married,ten children, unemployed)

The level of dissatisfaction in the group appears tohave a negative impact upon the social ties withinthe community. As mentioned above, higher levelsof deprivation and vulnerability tend to correlatewith deterioration in the quality of social networks.As seen below, internal divisions among the groupmanifested themselves in quite vehement disputesover who has more right to external assistance. Com-petition over these resources has contributed to theemergence of high levels of mistrust within the com-munity which appear in relation to three key issuesof contention. The first relates to the competitionover who are the ‘true’ residents of the village and,therefore, by implication, have more right to assis-tance than others. The second has emerged betweenthose who are seen to have ‘really’ returned (who re-side in the town, send their children to local schools,etc) and ‘fictional’ returnees who have registered asreturnees, but have not taken up permanent resi-

dence. The third division emerges from the power re-lations within the community and separates thosewho ‘head’ the community (and therefore have thepower to distribute aid provided to the community)from the rest of the residents:

I remember once when 14 packages were delivered.The president of the local council and I unloadedthem and I asked who will be getting that aid. He toldme: ’We will distribute it when someone dies.’ A lot oftime has passed and at least three people have died,but nobody has gotten anything. What happenedwith those packages? They are gone! Where are they?Who got them? (Male, married, pensioner)

We do not need anything, we only need a good pres-ident of the local community council, because thisone was not elected; his appointment was a set-up.(Male, married, four children, four grand-children,employed)

The strength of these divisions and the vehemencewith which they were expressed suggests they areexpressions of deteriorated levels of social trust inthe village. Distrust among residents means that, al-though they live next to each other in a small, iso-lated community, and there is no overt conflictbetween residents, there is also very little by way ofattempts to be closer and to have deeper or moresupportive relationships. This lack of trust is com-pounded by the perception among respondents thatthey are not fully integrated into and do not entirelybelong to the wider municipal community.

What also emerged from the discussion with minor-ity returnees was the significance of family over andabove other ties. Those participants who live with ornear their family in the community stated that theycould rely on others for support for everyday things,as well as in exceptional or urgent situations. Thosewho felt more isolated and without support, mean-while, tended to be individual returnees. This distinc-tion was summed up by one participant:

It is mostly families that returned here, immediateand extended families. We help each other, so wemostly do not need help from our neighbours. (Fe-male, minority returnee, married, five children, onegrand-child, home-maker)

Other participants, however, who live alone or withelderly spouses, without other members of an imme-diate or extended family nearby, related experiencesthat suggested that they did not feel they had asafety net of any kind in the immediate vicinity. Assuch, some participants believe there is a lack of sol-idarity in the community and high levels of estrange-ment between people, due to residents being morefocused on their individual material interests. This


55


makes sense from the perspective that competitionover material resources contributes to the break-down or deterioration of social networks:

I came back, and I settled down, but nobody hadasked me if I needed help to carry things or with anythi-ng else. (Female, minority returnee, married, pensioner)

As far as people are concerned… you could die heretoday and nobody would help you. That is howthings function around here. If you need some help,you have to save from your pension for two monthsto have something to rely on... I have no reason tohope that anyone would help me. If I can pay forsomething from my pension, then it is easier, buteven in that case I have to beg people to help me formoney. (Male, minority returnee, married, pensioner)

In terms of the broader characteristics of networkpoverty, lower levels of political participation are ev-ident in the minority returnee focus group:

We all voted in elections. For whom and for what?Look what are they giving us in return, how are theypaying us back. If they believe that that is wise andgood, OK. There will be elections again, but this timewe will not vote. (Male, minority returnee, married,unemployed)

Minority returnees interviewed also expressed sig-nificant levels of distrust in politicians and leaders inthe immediate community and beyond. Their expe-rience also needs to be seen in the context of declin-ing interest in the returns issue, with less and lessgovernment intervention to speed-up integration.Low levels of participation are therefore obviouslynot caused by internal dynamics of a particular com-munity or network, but are reflective of the generalexclusion that these communities experience withregard to their elected representatives. In that sense,network poverty is likely both a cause and an effectof lower levels of political participation.

Isolated elderlyAs discussed earlier, age is a key factor in levels ofnetwork poverty. Age also has a significant inverserelationship with being an active member of an as-sociation. In other words, people over 60 are signifi-cantly less likely to be active members of an asso-ciation than those between 30 and 60 years andthose under 30 years.113 The discussions with a groupof marginalised elderly people therefore revealed anadditional aspect of network poverty relating to ac-cess, or lack thereof, to formal associations and civiclife. Participants in this group were chosen accordingto the following criteria: being over 60 years of age,utilising local soup kitchens for support and beinggenerally isolated without much contact with familyand close friends.

In this group, the discussion allowed us to exploresome of the obstacles to participation in associa-tional life faced by the poor and elderly. The first andmost obvious hurdle for the participants was mem-bership fees. The price, however small, can be pro-hibitive for the poorest and most vulnerable.

Participants reflected on their failure to join a club orassociation or their having cancelled membershipbecause they couldn’t afford the fee:

I used to be a member, but not anymore. You have topay 5 KM each month, and I was ill so I was not goingto those meetings, or, even if I went, I went once amonth, so there was no point in paying 5 KM. I preferbuying something to eat. (Female, isolated elderlypensioner, lives alone)

Reflecting on the state of civic life in BiH, the respon-dents of this focus group expressed their discontent.They expressed their nostalgia for the time beforethe war, when, they argued, there was more of acommunity spirit and more space in which to expe-rience civic life:

Before the war we had local community centres. Peo-ple would play chess there; it was fun. Those centresno longer exist Looks like people are preoccupiedwith their problems. (Male, married, isolated elderly,pensioner).

CONCLUSIONS

Network poverty is one dimension of poverty andsocial exclusion. As we have demonstrated, the ab-sence of a configuration of social ties is linked to aninability of individuals to thrive – in the sense of se-curing emotional or financial support, good health,well-being and a satisfactory income and standardof living. Those who suffer from network poverty aremore likely to be elderly, minority returnees, IDPs, thelower educated and women in rural areas. When con-sidering policies assisting these groups – the elderlyin particular – this dimension of their social exclusionshould therefore be taken into consideration.

In the next chapter we introduce, in more detail, thenotion of inclusive social capital, in particular in rela-tion to formal association membership, civil societyand voluntarism: those elements of social capitalthat are particularly beneficial. The need to buildstronger and more inclusive social capital is particu-lar relevant in light of the findings of this chapter inwhich, as we have seen, a number of groups in BiHsociety suffer not only from material deprivation butalso from network poverty.


56

113 See Chapter 5, in which we discuss the characteristics of association members.


57

5Inclusive social capital:associational life in BiH

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


58

5

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................



59

Inclusive social capital: associational life in BiH

114 UNDP (2007a), p. 134.115 LSE (2009). 116 LSE (2009).117 Cole, Epper and Kinzelbach (2008), p.13.118 Fukuyama (1991). 119 Interview with Husnija Kamberović, 18 February 2009, 13:00 – 14:30, Institute of History, Sarajevo, D. Kapetanović, & K. Koutkova.

The assessment in preceding chapters suggests thatimmediate social networks comprised of family,close friends and (sometimes) neighbours are veryimportant in BiH. People report that they rely mostlyon these bonding networks for their informal asso-ciations, networking, reciprocity and informationflows. Our research has also found that people whodo not have access to these types of networks arenetwork poor and therefore constitute a particularlyvulnerable group in BiH.

In this chapter, we turn to looking at the potential forinclusive social capital in BiH. Inclusive social capital,as explained in Chapter 2, can be defined as thoseforms of social capital that exist in social networksthat are open without restriction to the admission ofnew members and where new membership is en-couraged. Such networks are capable of more diver-sity than others. Here, we look at the most commonareas of potentially inclusive social capital in BiH –civil society and voluntarism – as well as other im-portant indicators of the potential for a more inclu-sive social sphere such as levels of political empower-ment and participation.

At the heart of questions about inclusion is the notionof free and open participation within civic life. This op-erates at a number of levels, from articulating a polit-ical voice and lobbying elected representatives tovoting, being a member of a civil society organisationor taking part in direct political action. Within a plural-istic democracy, public space is effectively an arena inwhich policy is developed, consulted over and deter-mined. It is within this space that different agents -civil society organisations, individuals, social move-ments and the state - interact. The extent and thequality of participation govern the level of inclusion.114

Civil society can be notoriously difficult to define andany definition has a tendency to become very broad.Here, we define civil society as ‘the arena of unco-erced collective action around shared interests, pur-

poses and values’115 distinct from the state, familyand market. Within civil society, one finds a ‘diversityof spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying intheir degree of formality, autonomy and power,’ in-cluding but not restricted to societies and organisa-tions such as ‘registered charities, development non-governmental organisations, community groups,women's organisations, faith-based organisations,professional associations, trades unions, self-helpgroups, social movements, business associations,coalitions and advocacy groups.’116

Civil society, ideally, therefore can encompass theway in which citizens associate in order to ’managetheir lives, voice opinions, pursue interests, exchangeinformation and mediate differences, creating rela-tionships and social institutions which are as diverseas the people that establish them.’117 A strong civilsociety sector can make a significant contribution tothe production of social capital, and, indeed, theo-rists of social capital such as Robert Putnam haveplaced significant emphasis on these kinds of organ-ised, formal networks for increasing the number, in-tensity, diversity and availability of social ties.118

Moreover, the impetus for many civil society organi-sations – driven by diverse social issues that oftenaim to address inequalities – makes them particularlywell placed to foster the greater inclusion of margin-alised groups. As such, civil society is both indicatorand example of inclusive social capital.

The potential for fostering civil society in BiH is tem-pered by the legacy of notions of civic involvementand associational life from the socialist period.119 Asa former republic of the Socialist Federal Republic ofYugoslavia, BiH has a strong history of associationalmembership, voting and community activity. Priorto the war, there were many associations in BiH anda lot of people participated in them. Yet the impetusfor these activities came largely from the govern-ment and, as such, they were top-down rather than



60

120 Sejfija (2008). 121 IBHI (2009), p.28.122 IBHI (2009), p.28.

bottom-up initiatives. In other words, some of theseforms of civic action were not necessarily the kind ofcollective actions in which citizens freely and volun-tarily associated in order to express shared interests,ideals and objectives.120 Although there are differingviews on the subject, the important aspect of civil so-ciety as uncoerced is not clearly the case in BiH’s pastexperience of this phenomenon.

During and after the 1992 to 1995 conflict many in-ternational organisations arrived in BiH, introducingthe term ‘non-governmental organisation.’ These or-ganisations often established local satellite organi-sations in the country. By performing social functions,providing extensive social services and independ-ently financing their operations, these organisationssometimes substituted for, rather than comple-mented, the government in executing its social re-sponsibilities. In addition, they were mostly donor-driven, rather than grass-root initiatives.

What is now generally understood as ‘civil society’ inBiH, therefore, is shaped by both the concepts of as-sociational life before the war and that which hasmanifested itself in the 14 years afterwards. Manifes-tations and levels of civic association and volun-tarism therefore need to be understood in thatcontext.

The results of our research on civil society, volun-tarism and political participation or inclusive socialcapital, outlined in more detail below, show thatwhile there are challenges, there is clearly scope inassociational life in BiH for both government and for-mal organisations to play a significant role instrengthening civil society, voluntarism and politicalparticipation. Here, we can see three different kindsof social networks that lend themselves towards in-clusive, diverse and bridging social capital. In theanalysis, we will look primarily at the levels of asso-ciational membership of our sample and the compo-sition of networks and friends as reported by thisgroup. This is complemented by material from thefocus groups.

THE THIRD SECTOR: CIvIL SOCIETY ANDNON-GOvERNMENT ORGANISATIONS

The civil society sector in BiH is governed by the Lawon Associations and Foundations (2001) which, for-mally at least, places no restrictions on the rights oforganisations. The sector itself is diverse and includesbusiness and employers associations, sports andleisure clubs, social service providers and religiousand political organisations.

Civil society in BiH: Legal frameworkand definitionsThe authority to regulate the status of associa-tions and foundations in BiH is with the entitiesand Brčko District. In the RS this is regulated bythe Law on Associations and Foundations (RSOfficial Gazette No. 52/01. October 17th, 2001)and in the FBiH by the Law on Associations andFoundations (FBiH Official Gazette No. 45/02,September 2002).

Although the term ‘non-governmental organi-sation’ (NGO) is generally recognised and com-monly used to describe the non-state/non-profit sector of civil society, it does not exist inBiH for the purpose of registration. Accordingly,an NGO can be registered either as an associa-tion or as a foundation. State and entity laws de-fine associations and foundations in the sameway (p. 12).

An Association is any form of voluntary associ-ation of physical and/or legal persons estab-lished in order to improve and accomplishcommon or public interest or goals, in accor-dance with the Constitution and the law, whodo not intend to gain profit.

A foundation is a legal person without its ownmembers, intended to manage specific prop-erty for the public benefit or for charitable pur-poses (p. 14).

Registered associations or foundations can ac-quire the status of a public benefit or charitableorganisation, entitling them to tax concessions,customs exemptions and other benefits (Article13 and 21, BiH Law).

(Legal Overview of the Non-State/Non-Profit Sec-tor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Working Paper ofthe UNCT in BiH No. 3, February 2007)

The number of registered (both international andlocal) non-government organisations has grown sig-nificantly in recent years. In 2004, the estimated totalnumber of active NGOs was 4,629 out of 9,095 offi-cially registered associations and foundations. Thatnumber has grown to an estimated 12,189 registeredNGOs in 2008.121 According to assessments done in2004, these organisations on average spent 57% oftheir time on service provision, 27% on advocacy and16% on other activities.122

In terms of government allocations, a survey under-taken by the Independent Bureau of Humanitarian



61

123 IBHI (2009), p.28.124 IBHI (2009), p.31.125 IBHI (2009), p.31.126 USAID (2009), pp. 73-79. 127 Statistics Norway (2007), Statistics Sweden (2003).

Figure .5 1 Levels of associational

membership

.....................................................

.....................................................

......................................................

...............................................................

...................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

20

40

0

17.8

82.2

...

...

...

...

60

80

...

...100

Member

of association

Non-member/Don’t know/

Don’t wish to answer

Issues (IBHI) in 2008 suggested that the funds allo-cated by governments at different levels for the non-government sector amounted to 0.55% of GDP (2007)(FBiH: 70,719,117 BAM and RS: 35,778,359 BAM).123

Recent assessment of the allocation of funds in 2008at different levels of government suggested the fol-lowing breakdown:

• 37.1% for sports organisations;• 14.7% for disabled veterans organisations;• 13.6% for organisations focusing on social service

provision or social protection;• 34.6% for other organisations.124

Allocations are considered to be low, in particularwhen sports associations are looked at separatelyfrom the other kinds of organisations. The transfer offunds generally takes place through small grants todifferent organisations, ‘without taking into accountwhether the amount allocated was sufficient for theimplementation of the proposed project.’125 Over-sight mechanisms are therefore just one of the weak-nesses in government funding to the sector. Inaddition, the mechanisms through which funding isallocated tend to lack clear and transparent processes,such as guidelines and criteria, and are thereforerather questionable.126

An assessment of the viability of the NGO sector in2008 by USAID suggested, however, that it is becom-ing increasingly sustainable in terms of a generalability to find and keep full-time employees and tocooperate with one another, in particular in terms ofuniting around particular issues. The biggest stum-bling block, according to the USAID report, however,is financial viability which remains the biggest hurdlefor the sector. This is made all the more difficult atthe moment, due to decreasing donor fundingwhich has ‘propelled competition among NGOs,with only the most competent remaining in op-eration.’

Local Action Groups (LAGs);Local Action Groups (LAGs) are a EuropeanUnion initiative, which aim to help rural commu-nities improve their economic prosperity andquality of life. They are an innovative part of theEU approach to rural development. They repre-sent a very useful networking mechanism to fa-cilitate cooperation between local government,local CSOs and local businesses.

Inspired by the EU model, LAGs have been initi-ated in 23 municipalities in BiH. Three of these

have been formally registered are operating in-dependently; in Doboj, Una-Sana Canton, and ina group of municipalities in North West Bosnia.

Through partnerships with international organ-isations, LAGs have been assisted in developingtheir capacities for identifying the needs of thecommunity, defining development priorities,drafting project proposals, improving partner-ship between the public and private sectors,and making sure that municipalities take appro-priate steps to measure the impact of servicedelivery partnerships, including obtaining feed-back from citizens. More LAGs are envisaged inthe future.

We now turn to an analysis of the results of the sur-vey that relate to the quality and quantity of associ-ational life in BiH.

Our survey data on civic engagement shows that lessthan one in five respondents is a member (active orinactive) of any kind of association. While it is difficultto find strictly comparable measures in other coun-tries, as an indication of how low this is we note thataround 80% of Norwegian citizens report that theyare members of an association, while in Sweden thenumber is around 90%.127

The low level of membership is a first indicator thatlevels of civic participation are weak in BiH. Overall,we found that fewer than one in five people in BiHsay that they are members of an association, teamand/or club of the types specified in the survey andlisted in Table 5.1. This is despite casting a wide net


with the definition of civil society, including a broadrange of organisations and associations. Of thisgroup, an even lower number, 10.5%, said they wereactive members. Our analysis of the data shows thatmembers of a political party or sports and leisuregroups together form the majority of those who areassociational members. Civic organisations such asinterest groups, unions, lobby networks and religiousorganisations all attract much smaller numbers ofmembers.

If we look in more detail at those who are membersof associations and where they live, the analysesyield some interesting results and give us some fur-ther insights into the general characteristics of civilsociety in BiH.

As shown in Figure 5.2, there are considerably moremembers of associations in urban than in rural areasand in what we termed the ‘centre’ (Sarajevo andBanja Luka, the two largest cities) rather than the ‘pe-riphery’ (the rest of the country). In other words, res-idents of urban areas, in particular in the two largestcities in the country, are one third more likely to bemembers of an association than residents elsewherein the country. This appears to be the key geograph-ical aspect of associational membership.

In terms of geographical differences, in contrast, thelikelihood of someone being a member of an asso-ciation was not affected by the entity in which theylive. In terms of other demographic characteristics ofassociation members, as Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show,


62

128 The lowest level in the BiH governmental structure.

Table 5.1

Centre (SJ and BL)

22.9


membership is affected by gender, ethnicity, age andeducation. Those respondents identifying them-selves primarily as Bosniac and Serb report almostequal levels of membership in associations (respec-tively 20.0% and 19.1%), whereas significantly fewerpeople identifying themselves as Croats are associa-tional members (7.5%). Associational membershipalso seems to correlate with age and education lev-els. Younger respondents (below 30) most frequentlyreported being a member of an association (21.8%)– as mentioned in Chapter 4 – whereas people above60 did so significantly less often (14.4%). This largerproportion of younger people who are members ofassociations bodes well for the future and may signala positive trend. At the same time, levels of associa-tional membership increase with levels of education,with more than twice as many people with highereducation being members of associations or organ-isations than those with low education. According toour analysis of the quantitative data, there is no cor-

relation between associational membership and in-come status. This is not to suggest that there are nodifferences. Clearly those in the very lowest incomecategories would have trouble paying membershipfees no matter how low.

Gender also impacts significantly on associationalmembership. Almost twice as many men are mem-bers of associations than women, a finding suggest-ing that the opportunities for membership arerestricted for women. While more research would beneeded in order to identify the exact causes of thisimbalance, it may perhaps stem from the large num-ber of associations in which men are more likely toparticipate, such as certain kinds of sports associa-tions, which probably outnumber those available forwomen.129

In order to assess the potentially beneficial contribu-tion of associational membership to inclusive social


63

129 Additional research on gender and leisure time might also suggest reasons for lower associational membership among women.

Figure .5 3 Likelihood of associational membership / gender, age and ethnicity

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

....................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

Male Bosniac Serb CroatFemale Below 30 30 to 60 Above 60

23.7

12.1

2019.1

7.5

21.8

17.9

14.4

Figure .5 4 Associational membership and education

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................................

................................................

...

...

...

...

...

5

10

0

...

...

15

20

25

No education Low education Mid education High education

30

35


capital in BiH, we also looked in more detail at thesocial networks of those who said they were mem-bers of associations. In this regard, we created a vari-able for those respondents who are a ‘member ofone or more associations’ and compared the compo-sition and diversity of their social networks with thegroup we termed ‘non-members of associations.’ Wewere interested to see whether our data would showwhether members of associations have more or lessdiverse social capital than others. Measures that wereused to assess this included whether or not respon-dents are likely to see people they know when theyleave the house each day (‘acquaintances’). We alsolooked at the degree to which respondents spendtime with people they consider different from them-selves and the degree of diversity in their immediatesocial networks.

When analysed in this way, the data showed that as-sociational members are likely to have significantlymore inclusive and diverse social capital than others.They are, for example, more likely to know the peo-ple they pass in the street each day. Their social net-works are also larger and more diverse. Of the activeassociational members, for example, 30.4% reportedhaving more than ten friends in comparison to 17.9%of the rest of sample (see Figure 5.5 below). Associa-tional members are also more likely to spend timewith people they consider different from themselvesand to have more diverse networks of friends and ac-quaintances. In this sense, it appears that membersof associations – and by extension, civil society – maywell correlate with having more bridging and diversesocial ties. As such, our data suggests that formal as-

sociational membership130 is related to inclusive so-cial capital and, fostered as such, it could overcomesome of the more significant social cleavages in BiHsociety.

In other words, despite the low levels of membershipoverall reported in the sample, the results seem tosuggest that those who do join organisations arebetter connected and have more diverse networks.

Focus groups with CSOsIn order to understand better the dynamics of civilsociety organisations in BiH, two focus groups wereheld with civil society representatives, one in BanjaLuka and one in Sarajevo. The criteria for the organ-isations were that they are non-profit, are involvedin the delivery of services or inclusion of vulnerablegroups and involve volunteers in their activities. Theobjective of this research was to better understandthe obstacles faced by civil society organisations inBiH that contribute to the low levels of membership,as well as the quality of cooperation and networkingamong organisations themselves and their relationswith governments and donors.

According to the participants, a number of factorsencourage these low levels of civic participation inthe country. Civil society representatives, firstly,pointed to a general lack of knowledge throughoutBiH about the non-governmental sector and its ac-tivities. Their comments suggest an overall lack ofunderstanding among the general population overthe role of civil society in contemporary democracy.Participants suggested that the concept itself is un-


64

130 Here we deal with general associational membership – we have discussed above the kinds of associations in which people are more andless likely to be involved. Obviously, not all kinds of associations would produce the basis for more inclusive social capital, and some kindswould clearly be more effective and/or exclusionary than others. Nevertheless, the results of the quantitative research do show a tendency,in general, for associational members to be involved in more diverse social networks.

Figure .5 5 Associational membership and diversity of social network (bridging capital)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Active association members

Other

.................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

Has friends of differentethnic backgrounds

Has friends with different

levels of education

Has more

than 10 friends

30.4

17.9

57.1

44.3

60.1

48.8


clear to many and that, generally, people are not par-ticularly well informed about the sector. Otherspointed to weaknesses within organisations them-selves. One respondent in Sarajevo suggested, for ex-ample, that BiH:

… lacks organisations that really engage people…that give people a sense that they are doing some-thing useful, that they are contributing to society-building and social justice. (CSO representative,Sarajevo)

The lack of civic engagement, according to focusgroup respondents, may also relate directly to thelack of social trust in BiH. According to respondents,a general mistrust of associations and organisationsresults in ‘many BiH citizens’ having a ‘very negativeopinion about civil society organisations’:

... on top of that [our society] suffers from a generallack of trust in anyone and anything and the wholeNGO sector in BiH has quite a bad image. The generalperception is that NGOs are just taking foreignmoney without ever making any substantial change.(CSO representative, Sarajevo).

Focus group participants also reflected on the pes-simism and apathy they encounter in their work:

I sometimes think about reasons for why people donot know, why they don’t care… because they arepreoccupied with their own problems and becausethey can only worry about their own livelihood. (CSOrepresentative, Banja Luka)

Finally, there are of course other, more prosaic, issuesfaced by CSOs in BiH. In addition to these issues of‘public awareness,’ focus group participants also facefinancial difficulties for their longer-term sustainability.The issue of civic participation was also raised inother focus groups undertaken as part of the re-search for this report, and it is interesting to contrastsome of the impressions gained here to those fromthe focus group with CSO representatives. For exam-ple, participation was raised in a focus group withyoung people most of whom had never been part ofan active civil society organisation.131 Participants ex-pressed views that questioned the independence ofCSOs, the degree to which they are under politicalinfluence and the degree to which they are able tocriticise governing structures without repercussions:

I believe that most non-governmental organisationsare not really non-governmental. (Male, seekingwork abroad, 24 years old)

Respondents in the focus group with unemployedwomen also articulated the concern that civil societyorganisations are often too political in nature. In ad-dition, the respondents expressed ambivalenceabout the value of voluntary work and civic member-ship for the purpose of finding a job:

I was a member of several non-governmental organ-isations, but I only worked in the non-governmentalsector. When you go to a job interview it looks reallygood, having all those skills, but still… (Female, un-employed, 21 years old).

vOLUNTEERING

Our survey on social capital also assessed levels ofvoluntarism in the country.132 We found that less thanone in 20 respondents said that they had volun-teered in the last year: only 4.5% of the sample statedthat they had done formal or organised voluntarywork during the previous 12 months.133 The ques-tioned asked respondents if they had done any workfreely, of their own choice and for which they did notreceive a regular wage. We gave the example of pro-viding services to children or elderly people, dissem-inating information or helping to organise a specialevent, fair or festival, in order to cover multiple as-pects and forms of voluntary work. We found that thelevel of formal and organised volunteering in BiH iseven lower than that of associational membership.

When we look at who formally volunteers in BiH, thesurvey data suggests that there is no difference inemployment status. Of the volunteers, roughly halfthe group are employed, and half are unemployed.Logistic regression analysis on the likelihood of for-mal volunteering in the last 12 months suggests thatas age increases, the likelihood that one has volun-teered in the last year decreases (Table A3.7 in Annex3). Civil society representatives participating in thequalitative focus group research indicated that al-though people of all ages participate, the majority oftheir volunteers are young people, i.e. university stu-dents and high school students. The survey dataanalysis also shows that rural residents are less likelythan urban residents to volunteer.134


65

131 Most participants are not and have never been active in any civil society organization or association. Others were members of some civicassociations, but have meanwhile left them and only one participant is still active in this way. 132 In terms of the legal framework for voluntarism in BiH, a Law on Voluntarism was recently passed in Republika Srpska. Similar laws arebeing drafted and discussed at the entity level in FBiH and at the state level.133 For our research purposes, people are considered volunteers if they regularly, often or rarely volunteered in the last year [Question V1,Response codes 2, 3, 4], i.e. if it appears that they volunteered at all in the last 12 months. 134 These data are, however, rather tentative since the sample of respondents who volunteered is so small (n=72) and further research isneeded to identify these trends more effectively. Regarding the logistic regressions, the model summary in Annex 3 expresses the extent towhich the set of chosen variables explain the occurrence of the given effect (i.e. volunteered in the last year), and the level of 11.9 % providessolid grounds of confidence in the suggested model.


Among those who reported having volunteered, themost common reasons cited were ‘doing somethinggood for the community’ and ‘socialising, enjoyingthe activity and spending free time.’ Notably, veryfew respondents in this group cited ‘getting a job’ asa reason for volunteering.

In interpreting these low levels, voluntarism, like civilsociety, also needs to be considered in terms of theway in which it has previously been understood inBiH. Voluntarism can be variously understood in anycontext. It can be perceived anywhere on a spectrumfrom formal, registered and recognised volunteer‘work’ with a formal organisation to a ‘voluntary’ spiritthat might involve any kind of unpaid ‘labour’ pro-vided to those outside one’s immediate social net-work (about which we also inquired in the questio-nnaire). Beyond this conceptual vagueness, the con-cept of voluntarism is also problematic in BiH in lightof its relationship with notions of unpaid work in thecountry’s pre-war past.

According to Professor Husnija Kamberović, Head ofthe Historical Institute at the University of Sarajevo,the notion of voluntarism suffers from an associationwith state-driven ‘working actions’ (‘radne akcije’),which were first introduced in the late 1940s in Yu-goslavia to accomplish large infrastructure projects.During the socialist period, citizens, mostly youth, re-ceived a call from the state to participate in these ac-tions. Moreover, schools organised summer campswith radne akcije for their pupils, including, for exam-ple, actions to clean riverbanks, assist the elderly andundertake other social activities.135 These large-scale,government organised actions are, for many people,

according to Kamberović, what first jumps to mindwhen they think of voluntarism, and their opinion ofvoluntarism is therefore coloured by their perspec-tive on the past system. In contrast, ideas of volun-teer work for young people to gain experience andimprove their future employment prospects, for ex-ample, are largely absent in BiH.

As such, the way in which the term is used now hasa tendency to be couched in negative connotations.For example, when the civil society focus group re-spondents were asked how they understand theterm voluntarism, they reported that it is often ‘be-lieved to be uncompensated’ and ‘confused with in-ternships’ or university apprenticeships. Moreover,the participants also noted that it is sometimes in-terpreted as a form of exploitation.

Furthermore, formal and organised voluntarism inBiH is hindered by the fact that there are few legal orinstitutional mechanisms in place to define, regulateand support those who wish to be involved in theformal voluntary sector. A ‘Law on Voluntarism’ wasadopted in the RS in 2008, however, which showssome improvement in this area. It defines ‘clearlywhat constitutes volunteer work in the non-profitand other sectors, alleviating previous obstacles re-garding the legal status of volunteers.’136 In the FBiHand Brčko District there is no similar legislation, asyet, although a similar law to that in the RS has beendrafted in the FBiH.137 The law in the RS shows sig-nificant progress in this area, although lack of aware-ness of it and its provisions, as well as of the diversebenefits of volunteering, are a considerable hurdleto the creation of an active and thriving civil societysector in BiH.

The NHDR survey aimed to assess the levels of organ-ised or formal volunteering in the country as some-thing that has the potential to stimulate theproduction of more diverse and open networks andso more inclusive social capital. However, if volun-tarism is understood more broadly, as, for example,’an expression of people’s willingness and capacityto freely help other and improve their society,’138 thenwe can see from other aspects of our data that thereare significant levels of altruistic behaviour within so-cial networks in BiH, not only among close friendsand family, but also within broader groups.

The survey inquired about levels of reciprocal behav-iour beyond immediate family and close friends. Wewere interested to know the frequency with whichpeople help each other out – beyond family – witheveryday activities. We asked:


66

135 Interview with Husnija Kamberović, 18 February 2009, Institute of History, Sarajevo, D. Kapetanović & K. Koutkova.136 Law on Voluntarism of the Republika Srpska, No 01-1219/08, 17 July 2008137 USAID (2009), pp. 73-79.138 Powell (2009), p.2.

Figure .5 6 Levels of voluntarism

.....................................................

.....................................................

.....................................................

.............................................................

...................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

20

40

0

...

...

...

...

60

80

...

...100

Did volunteer work

in the last 12 months

Did not do volunteer

work/Don’t know/

Don’t wish to answer


In the past three months, have you done any ofthese things, unpaid, for someone who was nota relative or close friend?

Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, shopping forgroceries or other routine household jobsBaby sitting or caring for children or someone who issick or frailWriting letters, translating, filling in forms, payingbills or transporting someoneHelping out with harvesting or constructionOther (specify)

YesNo[Don’t know / Don’t wish to answer]

According to the definition above, this might be un-derstood as a form of ‘hidden voluntarism’ – not or-ganised and formal, but still eliciting the kind ofaltruistic, helping-someone-out-spirit that we tendto associate with voluntarism. It is also a key compo-nent of the kind of reciprocal behaviour integral tosocial capital. Our results suggest that in BiH, in gen-eral, roughly one third of people are regularly pro-viding some kind of everyday assistance to someonewho is not a relative or a close friend. When brokendown by entity, location (urban or rural), gender orage, there were few differences in these levels.

These higher levels of ‘hidden voluntarism’ show thatthere may be potential within BiH society for greaterlevels of formal voluntarism.

Obstacles to volunteeringIn addition to measuring the levels of formal and hid-den voluntarism, our survey aimed to assess people’sperceptions of the obstacles to getting involved in

volunteering. By assessing why it is unpopular, wehope to provide the basis for more effective, tar-geted messages about the benefits of voluntarism.Figure 5.8 shows the most common obstacles cited.

The main reasons – according to general opinion – arethat people don’t have time, that it is unpaid and thatthere is a lack of information on volunteering in BiH.Quite a few people also suggested that there is notenough information about its benefits, which sug-gests a potential entry point for awareness-raising.

Based on the findings of our survey, we also askedthe participants in focus groups on civil societyabout levels of volunteering and the weaknesses inthis area. The majority of participants, in both Sara-

jevo and Banja Luka stated that they utilise volun-teers in their activities, making them very well placedto comment on this issue. The responses of partici-pants highlighted the benefits of volunteering to theindividual, the organisation and the wider society. Interms of hurdles to increasing levels of voluntarism,focus group representatives mentioned, amongother things, a lack of appropriate structures, a lackof incentives and insufficient funding as constitutingthe main ones:

Volunteering requires a very high level of altruism.Volunteers must be willing to accept that the com-munity will benefit more than they will from theirwork… (CSO representative, Sarajevo)

Participants highlighted the importance of an en-abling environment including legal recognition andinstitutionalisation of voluntarism in order both toencourage it and to provide rights to those who dovolunteer:


67

Figure .5 7 Formal voluntarism vs. 'hidden voluntarism'

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Formal volunteering Active associationalmembership

Unpaid help to

non-family

4.5

10.5

35.7


Also, through volunteer work people acquire someknowledge and experience which they cannot getthrough formal education… they would otherwisebe without any practical experience. That is why thelaw [on voluntarism in the RS] requires all those whoengage volunteers to issue them with a proof of theiractivity, specifically listing the activities in which theywere engaged, what kind of training they received,etc. (CSO representative, Banja Luka)

The difficulty of finding volunteers to get involved intheir activities was, of course, also noted:

We published a call for volunteers three or four times,the position includes the right to a paid meal andtransportation, or about 250 KM per month… onlya small number of people apply. (CSO representa-tive, Sarajevo)

Nevertheless, the significance of volunteering and itsutility elsewhere (for example, in terms of profes-sional development) was clearly evident to CSO rep-resentatives, some of whom have received expressionsof interest in such activities from young people out-side the country but not from within:

… It is a bit specific because about 90% of peoplewho call us to offer to volunteer are foreigners… yes,from abroad. Usually, they are aged between 20 and25 years, about to complete their studies, and theysee volunteering as an opportunity for professionaladvancement in the field in which they are being ed-ucated. (CSO representative, Sarajevo)

CSO participants therefore clearly see the benefits ofincreasing formal voluntarism in BiH, while being

mindful of the obstacles that are present at the cur-rent time.

POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Levels of participation in the political sphere are alsoan important indication of inclusive social capital. Po-litical participation is related to empowerment whichis an important ingredient in the kinds of collectiveactions that can be beneficial for society. Empower-ment is also a key element of human development.

As an indication of interest in politics, of our sampleof 1,554 respondents aged 18 and over, 88.9% statedthat they are registered to vote, and 77.1% said theyvoted in the October 2008 local elections. This is cer-tainly a significant proportion and indicative of ahigh degree of interest in democratic processes. Ofthis group, we can say that voter registration occursalmost equally across the entities, in both urban andrural areas and at all levels of income. As with manyother characteristics of social capital, there are fewdifferences along the cleavages usually associatedwith BiH’s social sphere. However, our analysis showsthat education levels do influence voter registrationbehaviour. For example, respondents with lower lev-els of education said they are registered significantlyless frequently than those with completed higher ed-ucation. In addition, there is a slight gender differ-ence in voter registration, as more men than womenof our sample said they were registered to vote.

Voter registration only goes so far in indicating levelsof participation and is, indeed, a rather passive indi-cation. Another measure of participation and em-


68

Figure .5 8 In your opinion, what is the main reason why many people do not

do voluntary work in BiH?

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................

............................................................................

0 5

Not having right skills or

knowledge

It is or can be exploitative labour

It is not effective /

doesn’t change anything

Not being asked to do volunteer

work

A lack of information on

opportunities for voluteering

Not having time

It is unpaid

...

...

...

...

...

10 15 20 25 30

...


powerment is the degree to which people contacttheir government representatives for various issues.Such a measure is common in assessments of socialcapital elsewhere and gives us an indication of thedegree to which people turn to their elected repre-sentatives to address issues or concerns. At the sametime it illustrates the level of confidence people havein their elected officials at different levels. It may also,conversely, provide a measure of how accessibleelected representatives are to their constituents.

Respondents of the survey were asked if they hadcontacted anyone in government, at any level andfor any issue during the last 12 months. Here, the re-sults were very low with roughly only one in eight re-spondents saying that they had contacted a gov-ernment official during the previous year. Those whohad contacted a government official – for any reason

– had done so almost exclusively at the local level.Considerably more people had contacted represen-tatives in municipal authorities or community organ-isations (‘Mjesna Zajednica’ or MZs) than at Cantonal,Entity or State levels. Most contact at the local levelwas related to people’s jobs, for ‘personal reasons’and for getting information.

Such contacts are difficult to assess in terms of theircapacity to encourage inclusive social capital, how-ever. The use of personal connections for personalgain, particularly by those in positions of authority,pervades BiH society, as we explore in the next chap-ter. As such, while on the one hand, the contactingof a political representative may represent a level ofempowerment, given the range of reasons for whichpeople use their political connections; it may notnecessarily be conducive to greater levels of equality.


69

Figure .5 9 Number of people contacting government officials in the last 12 months

(in % of entire sample)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

Entity

parliament

1.1 1.2

8.8

State

parliament

Cantonalparliament(FB H only)i

Local MZ

Board

Municipal authority /

local council

2.2

7.3

Figure .5 10 Proportion of men and women who contacted government representatives

in the previous 12 months

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

2

4

0

...

...

...

...

6

8

...

...

10

Contacted a member of the

Government (all categories)

12

14

16

18

20

Contacted a member of municipal

authority / local councilContacted a member of local

MZ board

Male

Female


As Figure 5.10 shows, there is a significant disparitybetween men and women with regard to the con-tacting of local authorities. Of those who contactedany level of government, two and a half times morewere men than women. This trend is evident also inthe levels at which most people contacted govern-ment representatives, municipal authorities andlocal MZ boards.

The inequalities in political participation and em-powerment between men and women have been anissue of note in BiH for quite some time. It is presentat all levels, from citizens contacting elected officialsto women’s representation in parliaments and polit-ical parties. In terms of party politics, there are veryfew women who are political leaders in BiH, andwomen constitute a minority in party bodies and or-gans. Few political parties have addressed issues ofgender inequalities in their official documents orprinciples. In the BiH Parliamentary Assembly, only 4of 42 representatives are female in the House of Rep-resentatives and only 2 of 15 delegates in the Houseof Peoples.139 For the current report, we have also cal-culated the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM).The GEM is a measure of agency in terms of the abil-ity of an individual to exert power and influence overhis/her situation and environment. The GEM is calcu-lated as a proportion of 1.0, where 1.0 representsideal empowerment. For BiH we calculated the GEMfor 2008 as 0.54, suggesting significant progress re-mains to be made in terms of improving levels of em-powerment of women in the country.

In terms of executive power, no women are repre-sented in ministerial positions on the Council of Min-isters in BiH, with only two as deputies and one as aministerial secretary.140 While there have been im-provements in the representation of women in certaininstitutions in recent years (for example, currently63% of judges are women and almost half of thenumber of prosecutors are women), institutional‘glass ceilings’ are still in evidence, in which the high-est positions of power and authority tend to be heldby men. This is the case with positions such as pres-idents of the court and chief prosecutors, of whomthere are almost twice as many men as women.141

Political participation levels in BiH were also a topicof discussion in focus groups. There, political partic-ipation was associated with the joining of a politicalparty in order to gain connections that can beutilised in exclusive ways. As such, the notion of po-litical participation in BiH has a tendency to havenegative connotations, rather than positive ones re-lating to empowerment. In this sense, it is associated

with the kinds of social networks that we will dealwith in the next chapter and that constitute exclusivesocial capital, the dynamics of which are illustratedhere by a focus group participant:

A few months ago a relative of mine completed fac-ulty in regular time. He could not find a job, and peo-ple advised him to join a political party. He did that,and soon after he was appointed the head of a mu-nicipal department. (Female, unemployed woman,student, 21 years old)

As such, focus group respondents suggested thatunless one belongs to the governing political party,it is not useful to participate politically. Furthermore,some respondents reported that political behaviouror contact with politicians was more useful for per-sonal purposes than to benefit the community.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our research show that initiativesaimed at stimulating the creation of diverse, hetero-geneous networks, or inclusive social capital need totake into account the historical legacies of associa-tional membership and voluntarism in order to beeffective. Civil society and voluntarism retain rem-nants of the past that affect the way in which theyare perceived and understood in the present. The so-cialist period involved a somewhat manufacturedand top-down approach to associational member-ship, which contributes to the current distrust ofsuch efforts. This needs to be taken into account indesigning measures to provide an enabling environ-ment for civil society. Greater civic and political par-ticipation would be most effectively supported, thissuggests, through assisting bottom-up initiatives.

At the same time, despite the low levels of official mem-bership or voluntarism, our research identified muchhigher levels of ‘hidden voluntarism.’ The presence ofsuch a widespread altruistic spirit illustrates the en-during strength and future potential of BiH society.

As indicated above, however, in particular in relationto access to positions of authority and power (linkingsocial capital) and the importance of reciprocal rela-tions, the fostering of social networks needs to takeinto account where and how certain social networkscan work in a detrimental way, excluding some, un-fairly privileging others and increasing inequalities.Such forms of social networks we have termed ‘ex-clusive social capital,’ and it is to the analysis of thisthat we turn in the next chapter.


70

139 Džumhur (2008). The presentation covers a range of facts and figures related to women’s political participation in government at all levelsin BiH. Some of data was updated by Klelija Balta, UNDP Gender Analyst with UNDP BiH.140 Džumhur (2008).141 A notable improvement, however, is the fact that the State Human Rights Ombudsperson is a woman.


71

6Exclusive social capital:štela and personal connections

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


72

6

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................



73

Exclusive social capital: štela and personal connections

142 Portes (1998), pp.1-24.

Informal social networks and ties form an importantresource for people to turn to in times of trouble orneed. Yet, when they amount to closed, elitist and ex-clusive networks, they may also be utilised in such away as to produce and reproduce inequalities. Incontrast to the previous chapter, this chapter exam-ines the negative side of social networks. Throughthe prism of ‘štela,’ the local colloquial term that con-veys a form of nepotism, often based on family rela-tions, it analyses the ways in which having certainconnections permits greater access to services in BiHin a way that contributes to social exclusion.

ŠTELA, (NA)ŠTELITI, IMATI ŠTELU(ŠTELA, TO PROvIDE A ŠTELA, TO HAvE A ŠTELA)

The noun štela and verbs šteliti and našteliti, as wellas imati štelu, are colloquial expressions. These wordstrace their origin from the German verb stellen, whichmeans 'to set up,' and in colloquial Bosnian (and, as faras I know in Croatian and Serbian), mean 'a set-up’ or'connection,’ so that the primary meaning of the Ger-man verb is used metaphorically. The word has beenpresent in colloquial speech since the time of social-ism. To say someone has a štela to get into universityor get a job means that s/he has a connection andthat the potential competition is 'a set up'. It can alsodenote the person who acts as a štela (for someone),i.e. a 'connection' ('He was my štela for a job/hospital/abank loan'). Even though the word štela and otherwords of the same origin have negative connotations,in colloquial terminology they can also have a playfulmeaning, e.g. 'get me a štela'(=set me up) – in the con-text of ‘get me an introduction to that guy.' The wordštela and its derivatives have a less negative connota-tion than the word ‘corruption’: they are 'softer' andmore connected to private than to public discourses,although increasingly common in public discourse.

Prof. Marina Katnić-Bakaršić, PhD, Faculty of Philosophy,University of Sarajevo.

Štela relates, then, to the intentional ‘setting up’ of asituation in which a personal connection can pro-duce a benefit that might not otherwise have beenreceived. The relationship of štela between two peo-ple acts as an unwritten contract of significant force

and involves an obligation that may, or may not, befinancial. Often deriving from immediate social ties,the prevalence of this phenomenon is an importantcomponent in our assessment of the use of socialnetworks in BiH.

The results of both our quantitative and qualitativeresearch show that the use of štela is widely spreadthroughout all layers of society and is present inmost relationships between people and serviceproviders in BiH. In the questionnaire the signifi-cance of štela in everyday life in BiH was assessed interms of the degree to which people believe that ac-cess to services is always or only possible on the basisof štela. Nearly all survey respondents believed theuse of štela is needed to obtain a large variety ofbasic services, including access to education, em-ployment and better quality health care. Accordingto most of those surveyed, štela can also be useful inobtaining official documents and fulfilling formalprocedures.

Two focus groups were held in order to delve moredeeply into the interactions that are involved in theuse of štela. Focus group research demonstrated theways in which this belief creates and enforces exclu-sive and closed networks, reducing opportunities forhuman development and acting as a disincentive tothe seeking of broader opportunities. The use ofštela, therefore, not only limits access and producesinequalities within society, but also significantly dis-empowers individuals. As such, we look at the resultsof both the survey and focus groups on štela as ahighly prevalent form of exclusive social capital inBiH, something that detracts from human develop-ment in the country.

Clientelism, nepotism and štelaAs noted earlier, social capital manifests itself in bothpositive and negative ways. In terms of negative dy-namics within social networks, these can involve, forinstance, a tendency to exclude outsiders, to lay ex-cessive claims on group members or to restrict theirfreedom of movement, speech or behaviour.142 For


example, strong, patriarchal networks may involvesignificant restrictions on the opportunities andchoices available to female members of a givengroup. Similarly, prejudice based on the perceivedsuperiority of one’s own ethnic, national or religiousgroup can prevent one from interacting with othersfrom a different background. While some socialgroups can be harmed by rivalry or violence withothers, otherwise seemingly innocuous groups mayalso have negative effects on their members, wherethose dynamics isolate the group from flows of in-formation, critical reflection and innovation.143

Štela, as described above, is a manifestation of neg-ative dynamics within social networks. It is by nomeans a phenomenon unique to BiH, and our reten-tion of the terminology of štela is only because thereis no term accurate enough in English to depict thenature of this relationship. There is however a num-ber of other terms and concepts that can be relatedto štela and that can assist us in understanding howthis term operates. Of these, clientelism and nepo-tism are particularly useful. Clientelism refers to aform of social organisation characterised by ‘patron-client’ relationships. Relatively powerful and rich ‘pa-trons’ promise to provide relatively powerless andpoor ‘clients’ with jobs, protection, infrastructure andother benefits in exchange for various forms of loy-alty. These relationships are typically exploitative,often resulting in the perpetual indebtedness of theclient.144 Thus, clientelist relationships are often cor-rupt and contribute to unequal power relations in agiven society. Nepotism – a much more commonterm – denotes those forms of favouritism that arebestowed upon family.

The concept of familism is also useful here. Familisticnetworks are characterised, according to Fukuyama,by strong relationships of trust towards family andclose friends.145 Familistic networks tend to exhibitlow levels of trust toward strangers and ‘others.’ Asdemonstrated in Chapter 3, these are the kinds ofgeneral characteristics common in social networksin BiH: very high levels of trust for family and low lev-els of trust towards ‘strangers.’ A vast majority of re-spondents to our survey stated that they trust theirfamily first and foremost, then their close friends andthen neighbours. Trust levels drop significantly afterthose three categories when it comes to others ‘notknown,’ be they of the same ethnicity, different eth-nicity or of a different way of life. Familistic relationsare particularly problematic due to the fact that thepersonal interests of the individual are subordinateto those of the family. Familism is closely linked tonepotism in the sense that it provides the basis for

the kind of patronage or favoritism that is shown tothose closest to oneself: first and foremost family andexpanding in concentric circles from there.

The local notion of štela articulates a form of nepo-tism that is related to clientelism; it involves patron-age relations based upon indebtedness which arebuilt, primarily but not exclusively, upon social con-nections made through family ties. As such we mightinterpret štela as a specific form of nepotism, withthe dynamics of clientelism and its roots in familism.

The use of štela in BiH relates directly to the assess-ment of micro-level social capital outlined in Chapter2. As suggested there, when diverse networks arecomposed of large numbers of weak ties, the rela-tionships between individuals can provide the basisfor improved flows of information contributing tothe development of human resources and innova-tion. As such, they can provide a positive contribu-tion to human development. When social networksare closed and ‘hunkered down,’ on the other hand,based on ties of perceived similarity, the individualbenefits – such as those based on štela – may notcontribute to the greater good, and, instead, thefunctioning of such networks is detrimental tohuman development.

The social dynamics emanating from the use of štelacreate and enforce closed and exclusive social net-works that benefit only the members of those net-works to the disadvantage of others. Where štelainteractions also involve financial payments that arerequired immediately, those who cannot afford topay are automatically excluded. Štela is therefore anon-merit-based means of negotiating institutionsand structures in BiH. The different usages of štela ineveryday language, as articulated in particular in theresults of the focus groups, suggest that it encom-passes a spectrum of behaviour from small favoursand forms of assistance to more blatant forms ofbribery and corruption. Indeed, at one end, štelabears a distinct resemblance to what elsewhere isdescribed – quite positively – as ‘networking,’ whileat the other the same term is used for the practice ofpaying bribes. In descriptions of štela in BiH, it in-volves the use of personal connections when en-rolling in higher education, seeking better qualityhealth care, getting a job or obtaining official docu-ments, contributing to making these services in-equitable. The absence of the use of transparent andmerit-based procedures in many of these areasmakes it very difficult for people not to seek anduse štela and increases the pressure on people todo so.


74

143 Fukuyama (2002), pp. 23-37.144 Lemarchand (1972), pp. 149-178.145 Fukuyama (2002), pp. 23-37.


PERCEPTIONS OF ŠTELA

In the questionnaire we asked both direct and indi-rect questions about the use of štela. The key ques-tion posed as an assessment of the general significa-nce of štela was:

In your opinion, how useful is it to have ‘štela’ forgetting a job, getting better healthcare, gettingaccess to education, getting access to authorities(such as police and the judiciary) and for gettinga visa?

In addition, we also indirectly assessed the role ofštela in finding a job by inquiring of respondents towhat degree their own job-seeking methods in-cluded asking ‘family members and relatives,’ ‘closefriends’ and ‘acquaintances,’ for example. Given thestubbornly high levels of unemployment in BiH andthe weaknesses in the Public Employment Services

this is an area in which the impact of štela is particu-larly detrimental. Respondents were also askedabout the degree to which they believe that it is nec-essary to pay bribes to gain access to health services.

The results for the importance of štela were quite as-tounding. Almost 95% of survey respondents re-ported that having a štela is always or sometimesuseful for getting jobs, visas, health services etc.Table 6.1, outlines these results. The highest resultwas for getting a job - 85.7% said it is always usefulfor that purpose. Very few people reported that štelais never useful.

Although almost everyone interviewed said that ac-cess to services was highly dependent on one’s socialconnections, the research did show some slight dif-ferences in the levels of responses among respon-dents of different age groups and across BiH admini-strative regions.


75

Usefulness of for getting ...štela

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.1

Štela is usefulfor getting…

Into schoolor

universityBetter health care A visa

......................................................................................................................

Access toservices

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Access toauthorities

Always useful

Sometimes useful

Occasionally useful

Never useful

80.1

10.7

2.2

2.0

4.9

79.4

12.8

2.8

1.3

3.7

76.9

14.1

3.1

1.4

4.5

75.1

14.4

4.6

1.5

4.4

74.6

13.4

4.0

2.1

5.8Don't know /Don't want to answer

A job

85.7

8.0

1.2

1.5

3.5

Figure 6.1 Belief that is always useful byštela entity/District Brčko

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................

.......................................................................

...

......................................................................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

...

...

...

...

...

A job Into school or

university

Better

health care

Access to

authorities

Access to

servicesA visa

FBiH RS Brčko90 ...


Generally speaking, younger people believe per-sonal connections to be more important for access-ing services than older people, suggesting adisturbing trend for the future, in particular given thelarge number of young people currently unem-ployed and the widespread perception that connec-tions are needed to get a job. When broken down byentity, the level of importance of štela appears to beroughly the same in the two entities; what was inter-esting, however, was the difference in Brčko district- an administrative region with a different institu-tional structure from the two entities. As Figure 6.1indicates, respondents in Brčko district appear to be-lieve considerably less in the utility of štela than isthe case in the two entities. The distinction betweenBrčko and the entities is something that might use-fully be pursued in further research.146 When brokendown to cantons in the FBiH and administrative re-gions in RS, there were also a few differences thatwere statistically significant.

Figure 6.2 below shows the perception that štela isalways useful, broken down by some of the regions inthe country and highlights the fact that in some places100% of respondents hold this perception. In this re-gard, the 88.8% response in Canton Sarajevo was sig-nificantly lower than in many other parts of the country.

The only other significant demographic characteris-tic of respondents that affected perceptions of štelain our analysis was employment status. Those who

identified themselves as unemployed were moreconvinced of the need to have a štela than those witha job. We look at the relationship between štela andjob-seeking methods in more detail below.

Focus group resultsIn addition to assessing the degree to which peoplebelieve that one’s social networks determine accessto services, we also held two focus groups to exploremore specifically what people think about the com-position of these networks and how they feel aboutusing štela. The focus groups were held in Banja Lukaand Sarajevo. Participants were recruited from arange of age, education and income groups andboth groups were gender balanced. A recruitmentquestionnaire was used in which different views ofštela were presented so that participants would havea range of perspectives. In both group discussions,participants were encouraged to share personal ex-periences of how they had used štela to gain some-thing useful. The benefits and risks of štela werediscussed, and the question of the ethics of this prac-tice was raised. In addition to these two groups onthe topic of štela, nepotism came up as a topic spon-taneously in focus groups on other topics, such as inthe discussions with isolated elderly people, unem-ployed women and young people who wish to workabroad. We also refer to those discussions below. Theresults of the focus groups allowed us to delve inmore detail into the dynamics of nepotism and clien-telism in BiH.


76

146 The figures for Brčko District should be treated with considerable caution because of the small sample size. 147 Note that some Cantons and administrative regions have been removed from the table because the number of respondents was toosmall to derive any statistically significant results. We have also added ‘always useful’ together with ‘sometimes useful,’ whence the significantlyhigher result from Brčko District than that mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Figure .26 Štela is always or sometimes useful, by region

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.................................................................................................................

....................................................................................

Sarajevo Canton

Doboj Region

Tuzla Canton

Herzegovina Neretva Canton

Bijeljina Region

Central Bosnia Canton

Zenica Doboj Canton

Prijedor Region

East Sarajevo Region

Banja Luka Region

Trebinje Region

Una Sana Canton

88.8

92.4

92.7

93.7

95.5

95.5

97.0

97.2

98.3

99.3

100

100

147


Overall, participants were adamant about the needfor štela in everyday life. They stressed the necessityof using or having štela in order to get almost any-thing done in public life. Moreover, participants invarious groups expressed concern at the lack oftransparency in many public sectors in BiH and thefrequent use of personal social connections to ma-noeuvre through the system. In fact, this qualitativestudy suggests that the perception that everybodyuses štela actually reinforces the practice. The follow-ing quotes illustrate the range of explanations peo-ple give for the necessity of štela:

It is considered normal ... It is as widespread as if itwere given by God, as if it has to be that way…Youhave to have connections; you have to pay for every-thing. For everything. Even to get your child startedin primary school, even for that you need to haveconnections. (Male, student, Banja Luka)

You can find about a million examples, a million: ac-cess to jobs, high-school acceptance, faculty enrol-ment, it is omnipresent. (Male, single, employed,Sarajevo)

[Personal connections] are needed in most cases andmost people in Bosnia claim that based on their ex-perience. I think that you cannot do anything, like se-curing a job, a place in the faculty, or, as you mentioned,a visa, if you do not have some connections (Female,employed, nurse, lives alone, Banja Luka)

Connections are used everywhere and for everything.Whatever you need these days, starting from thecleaning people in hospitals and on, you need con-nections for everything. (Male, employed, married,two children, Banja Luka)

Asked to explain the benefits derived from havingštela, respondents said that it allows one better orfaster access to services or to achieve benefits onewould otherwise not be entitled to. Participants didnot mention financial gain as a direct benefit of štela(apart from cases in which štela is used to reduce feesfor traffic violations). Nevertheless, beyond everydayindividual benefit, participants also indicated thelarger, pervasive nature of the phenomenon, sug-gesting that larger-scale transactions, such as ten-ders, privatisation contracts and large financial loans,

are also the result of the successful application ofštela.

In the group of ‘young people seeking work abroad,’participants expressed bitterness about the degreeto which personal connections are important in BiH.Participants reported situations in which they ortheir friends had found a job only through the appli-cation of bribes, connections or other reasons not re-lated to merit and qualifications:

I think that young people who complete school getgreatly disappointed when they start looking forwork… because all the better jobs are usually keptfor others who have strong connections and also, itis publicly known that jobs can be bought… I person-ally know people who took loans after they com-pleted school so that they could buy jobs althoughthey deserved to get them anyway having completedtheir studies. (Male, student, young person seekingwork abroad)

In the group with unemployed women, some partic-ipants reported that their lack of štela is the singlemost important obstacle in finding a job:

I have submitted hundreds of job applications, but Ihave never got a job. I have two diplomas, but I neverhad a chance at a job because I do not have neces-sary connections. (Female, unemployed, Sarajevo)

When considering how a štela is identified, partici-pants pointed to the importance of family relationsas the basis for creating a štela connection. Family re-lations can also be the basis of finding an intermedi-ary or family associate who acts as a štela. Onceconnections are one or more steps removed from di-rect family relations, the role of money seems to be-come more significant and replaces non-financial‘favours’:

Money replaces connections because if you go some-where, to some institution, if you do not know any-one there, you give money. (Male, student, Banja Luka)

Even if you have connections, it does not mean any-thing, unless you have money, a substantial amountof money. I have experienced it personally. (Male, em-ployed, married, Banja Luka)


77

Perceptions of the usefulness of by employment statusštela

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.2

......................................................................................................................

85.4

94.5

80.8

89.0

79.9

88.3

77.1

88.2

73.9

84.2

Štela always usefulfor getting - (in %)

Employed 76.1

86.0

A jobInto

school oruniversity

Betterhealth

care

Access toauthorities Access to services A visa

.......................................................................................................................

Unemployed


In that sense, having a connection may not precludethe need to also pay a bribe – it depends on how in-timate the personal connection is. Depending onthe institution, an intermediary may also be used:

It is usually done through someone else, never di-rectly. (Female, employed, pensioner, three children,one grand-child, Sarajevo)

Participants also highlighted the role of political par-ties, which, as we mentioned in Chapter 5, is seen tobe important in terms of building the basis for thekinds of personal connections needed for ‘gettingahead’:

I believe that politics leads to štela. BH institutions,everything begins with parties. Parties lead to štela.(Female, employed, Sarajevo)

We also asked the members of our focus group dis-cussions explicitly how they feel about the use ofštela – their own use and of those around them. Theresponses were generally quite resigned. Štela, theyargued, is a fact of life in BiH and there is no way toavoid it. They expressed resignation at how commonit is:

One simply becomes accustomed to it. (Male, pen-sioner, Sarajevo)

I would like to meet someone who resented winninga job or something else through the use of connec-tions. (Female, employed, two children, Banja Luka)

Štela is … we cannot do anything about it. You knowhow people say ‘you are judged by your accuser?’ Weknow that we cannot win regardless of our argu-ments, regardless of which court we turn to, regard-less of the evidence. (Female, employed, two children,Sarajevo)

I think that it is part of our life, people are so accus-tomed to it…to do whatever it takes…and it willnever change. (Female, employed, , Banja Luka)

The research undertaken for this report suggests,therefore, that štela is commonly understood as anunavoidable and entrenched fact of daily reality inBiH, one that is intertwined with the weaknesses ev-ident in the functioning of the country’s institutions.

Furthermore, our survey and focus group assess-ments clarify how štela significantly determines theways in which our respondents seek and get accessto jobs, health care and other services. In the absenceof the use of transparent practices, most respon-dents reported having sought employment, enrol-ment in education and access to authorities throughfriends, relatives and other connections.

ŠTELA AND ACCESS TO SERvICES

Access to employmentWhen asked what benefits štela is most useful for,getting a job received the highest number of posi-tive responses. This perception, as mentioned, waseven higher among those who identified themselvesas unemployed. Combined with the assessment ofdifferent methods people use for finding a job, thebelief in the importance of štela appears to act as adisincentive to those seeking a job. This is a signifi-cant finding that needs to be considered further. It isalarming in the context of a country in which unem-ployment constitutes one of the most pressing socialproblems and where the official levels of unemploy-ment have been consistently high.

Beyond asking directly about štela, our survey dataalso provides some insights into the lack of trans-parency in the employment sector by assessing thedifferent job-seeking methods people use. The as-sessment of štela above related to the perception ofthe use of personal connections for various benefits,while the assessments here look more at the in-prac-tice use of these connections for benefits such aslooking for jobs. We asked respondents whetherthey had used a range of different methods, both for-mal and informal. In the results, almost half of thosesurveyed said they had asked family, relatives, closefriends and acquaintances for employment oppor-tunities. Of this group, significantly fewer womenthan men said they applied these informal job-seek-ing methods. These findings suggest that fewerwomen than men are using personal connections toget a job. As a form of exclusive social capital, thepractice of štela in this sphere may therefore be ex-cluding more women than men.

Our analysis also shows a correlation between edu-cation levels and informal job-seeking methods,where those with the lowest education reported lesslikelihood of using personal connections when seek-ing employment (Table 6.4). While further researchwould be needed to understand this in more detail,it may perhaps be that those with lower educationhave less access to štela – in particular in the senseof personal connections to people in positions ofpower. Here, štela, education, employment and ex-clusion should be more deeply explored.

In terms of formal job-seeking methods, respon-dents were asked if they had used any of the follow-ing methods: contacting public employment servi-ces, employers or private employment agencies,looking at public advertisements, taking tests orexams or working as a volunteer. In terms of thesemore formal methods, almost all of the respondentsin Brčko reported having contacted the public em-ployment services at some point, as did three quar-


78


ters of those surveyed in RS and just over half ofthose in the FBiH. These differences are statisticallysignificant. Moreover, in rural areas, our respondentswere more likely than their urban counterparts tohave made use of the public employment services.We also asked those with a job how they had found

it, in order to assess the usefulness of various job-seeking methods. The results were that more thanone third said they had found their job through fam-ily, relatives, close friends and acquaintances. Here,we can see that the most common way of getting ajob is indeed, the use of informal personal connec-

tions. While only less than 25% of this group repor-ted that the public employment service had helpedthem find their job.

In terms of age, participants under 30 more fre-quently said they had found a job through personal

connections than other groups. While in terms of ed-ucation, although those with higher levels of educa-tion were most likely to say that they use informalmethods when looking for employment, our assess-ment shows that they are less likely to have foundtheir jobs through family, friends and acquaintances.


79

Informal job search methods by gender

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.3

......................................................................................................................

Which methods have you used when looking for a job? (in %)

Asked family, relatives, closefriends, acquaintances

M ne Wom ne

51.1 40.4

Job search methods by education level

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.4

......................................................................................................................

Which methods have you used when looking for a job? (in %)

Middle education High education

53.8 54.7

Low education

39.2

Asked family, relatives,close friends, acquaintances

Job search methods by entity

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.5

......................................................................................................................

Which methods have you used when looking for a job? (in %)ever

RS Brčko

75.7 90.1

FBiH

59.3

Contacted the publicemployment service

Methods used for finding current job

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.6

......................................................................................................................

Common informal methods

Asked family, relatives, close friendsand acquaintances

34.3

Common formal methods

Contacted the PublicEmployment Office

23.9

Other formal methods(looking in newspapers,

volunteering etc.)

16.3

How did you find your current job? (in %) n = 443


This contributes to our finding that the belief in per-sonal connections is very strong, but that it does notalways translate into concrete results.

Focus groups on job-seeking and štelaIn line with these findings, focus group respondentsalso tended to focus on the use of štela in the em-ployment sector, describing personal examples oftheir own and of those around them. The importanceof personal connections in securing employmentwas raised and discussed in all focus groups, reflect-ing an experience shared among people from arange of different backgrounds. The examples theyprovided extend from favours to the payment ofbribes and to what might even be described as in-formal ‘fees’ for securing employment.

Focus group discussants did, of course, express theirdiscontent with what they perceive as an inade-quately regulated and poorly controlled labour sec-tor.148 In particular, participants argued that gover-nments should concentrate on reducing corruptionin inspection services, which monitor and regulatethe work of businesses, so as to better prevent illegaland unregistered work. They also stated that hiringprocedures should be made more transparent to en-courage fair and transparent application processes.Others argued for strengthening the legal frame-work around employment practices:

Because there is no law - an exact legal provision pro-hibiting a company manager from hiring someonewithout a public job announcement – that helpsthem. They are free do to what they want. (Female,unemployed, Sarajevo)

This comment from a focus group participant sumsup the inequality produced by these practices, aswell as the negative effects they inevitably have onthe quality of the services that are provided. In thefollowing quote, the respondent is reflecting on theexperience of two family members, their ability to ac-cess employment in the health service, as well as theconcomitant effect on the quality of service pro-vided:

I have two cousins, they both studied medicine. Onegraduated some three years ago…Three or fouryears later he got a job, he is a real professional…theother cousin was also a good student but two yearsinto his studies the war broke out…he went [away]and he came back after the war. … He paid for adiploma. Money practically got him through the fac-ulty. He used to call the [director] and ask ‘What is theprice for such and such exam?’ ‘That much.’ He goesthere, gives the money … I always tell people ‘I would

not let him treat me no matter what.’ The one who[knows ] nothing is working, and the other onewaited for three or four years to get a job in a ruralcommunity health centre. That tells you everythingabout bribes and corruption. (Male, single, employed,Sarajevo)

In the following, another participant reflected on herexperiences of being openly asked to pay a bribe atan employment service.

I lost my job and when I asked people at the employ-ment service, ‘Now what? Can I apply for a pensionbased on my age and years of work?’ ‘You can try’,[they said]. But the man openly told me: ‘You willneed a few thousand marks, and it will not be paidback’… He openly told me I could try, but that I wouldnot get anything. Personal connections are generallyuseful…. but unless you can pay money, you have tohave a strong family connection. It is not a secret. Wehave some companies in town… people already callthem family companies. As soon as they graduatethey get jobs, while other people can apply a milliontimes and will never get the job. They can be good,regular students, but connections are still more im-portant. (Female, unemployed, Sarajevo)

Both components of our research, therefore, indicatethe overall lack of practices of transparency in em-ployment in BiH. This lack of transparency comesboth from the every-day practice of štela and, moreimportantly, from the lack of regulations to preventits usage. According to our findings, informal politicalconnections and covert financial transactions arecommon means of securing employment. The com-mon belief and perception that štela is essential forgetting a job may also cause people to avoid formaljob-seeking methods, such as registering at the offi-cial employment service or looking for job advertise-ments in the media. This clearly identifies an area ofpolicy-making that needs significant reform.

The practices that surround štela enforce the bound-aries of exclusive social networks, leaving out thosewithout the ‘right’ connections or without the meansto pay the correct bribe or, in some cases, both. In-deed, these ‘fees’ are often several times higher thanthe average BiH salary.

Weaknesses in the public employmentservicesConcerns about access to employment are addition-ally supported by other aspects of our quantitativeresearch. In the survey we asked respondents abouttheir perceptions of the quality of public services intheir local community. Respondents were asked to


80

148 Participants concluded that the government would have to give particular attention to this problem, if it wanted to improve access tojobs for people like them. They concluded that most of the responsibility for this lies with the (BiH) government.


identify whether they face a series of problems whenaccessing health, education, employment and socialassistance services, as well as whether they have orperceive problems with waste removal, housing,water supply, the issuing of official documents etc.In the results of the survey, the service perceived asmost problematic, by far, is the employment service.In Figure 6.3, we asked respondents about the qual-ity of basic services in their local community.

We also inquired about levels of corruption in the de-livery of services, and significant levels were identi-fied, in particular regarding the police and publicsecurity and employment, as Figure 6.4 illustratesbelow.

In addition, when we asked focus group participantsfor their opinion about the efforts of the Public Em-ployment Services to assist the unemployed, theiranswers were almost unanimously negative:

They do not offer anything. All they can help you withis registering as unemployed and getting health in-surance, and you must report with them regularly forhealth insurance. … It is simply… ’We are an institu-

tion…that registers you.’ But they will not find you ajob. They pretend to offer you some options …But arethey looking for jobs? They do not even call you to tellyou about new job openings. (Unemployed woman,45 years old)


81

Figure .6 3 Perception of low quality in basic services in the local community

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

...............................................................................

....................................................................................

Issuing official documents

Police and public security

Housing for IDPs and returnees

Water supply and sewage

Garbage collection a d street cleaningn

Education system

Public transport

Health services

Roads and bridges

Social assistance

Employment services

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

10 20 30 40 50 600

149

149 A full table outlining the answers to these questions can be found in Annex 3 (Table A3.12).

Figure .6 4 Corruption in services (in %)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................

...

...

...

...

...

2

4

0

...

...

...

...

6

8

...

...

10

Police and public

security

12

14

16

18

20

Employment

servicesEducation

system

Social

assistance

Health

services

Garbage collection

and street cleaning


This is obviously an issue of concern in a countrywhere the unemployment rate remains high. The dis-parity between men and women in terms of theirrate of activity in the labour market has remainedroughly the same, with men having an activity ratealmost double that of women.150

Generally, when asked about their experiences withfinding a job, focus group participants said BiH suf-fers from a lack of accessible employment opportu-nities, especially in rural areas and former industrialregions. The situation is particularly stark for vulner-able groups as we see in the observation below.

Concerning employment and basic things peopleneed for living, our life is so tough that we are in ur-gent need of some assistance… It would be good ifall these people here, all of them without discrimina-tion, were given a chance for normal employment sothat they could live from their earnings…. (Male, mi-nority returnee, married, three children, engaged inagriculture)

At the other end of the spectrum, young universitygraduates also face difficulties finding jobs in theirchosen field. A participant in the focus group ofyoung people who wish to work abroad describedher experience:

A friend of mine is also an economics graduate. Shehas been looking for a job for two and a half yearsbut without success. She cannot find a job in her pro-

fession. She is babysitting for her brother. (Female,unemployed women, 31 years old)

Štela and access to healthcareThe other key area in which focus group respondentsspontaneously raised concerns over access due tothe necessity for personal connections (or, in theirabsence, bribes) is access to health services. As withother parts of BiH’s social protection system, thehealth care system is highly decentralised, charac-terised by ineffective service delivery and signifi-cantly different outcomes for users depending uponwhere they live in the country. There is no Ministryof Health at the state level and the organisation, de-livery and financing of health care are the responsi-bility of the entity Ministries of Health. In 2007, 6.1%of GDP was allocated to the public health sectorwhich is mainly characterised by the provision ofhealth care on the basis of public insurance.151 Thereare thirteen social health insurance funds in BiH (onefund for each entity, one fund for each canton ofFBiH and one fund in Brčko District)152 but citizenscannot choose a health insurance fund or opt out ofan insurance fund.153

We also probed further into healthcare in the ques-tionnaire and asked a number of questions relatedto the quality of services provided. Some of thesequestions on access to health care are comparablewith other countries in as they derive from the Euro-pean Quality of Life Survey (QoL). The table belowshows some of those comparisons from QoL data for


82

150 BHAS (2008b), p. 25. 151 World Bank (2008).152 The Health Insurance Office (Zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje) website, viewed on 21 August 2009 <http://www.zzozzh.com/adresar.htm>,the Health Insurance Offices in the Federation of BiH (Zavodi za zdravstveno osiguranje u Bosni i Hercegovini) website,<http://www.for.com.ba>, The Fund for Health Insurance (Fond za zdravstveno osiguranje) website, <http://www.bdcentral.net/Members/zdravstvo/FondZdravstvenogOsiguranja/fond-zdravstvenogosiguranja?set_language=bs> and The Fund for Health Insurance of the Re-publika Srpska (Fond za zdravstveno osiguranje Republike srpske) website, http://www.zdravstvo-srpske.org, viewed on 21 August 2009153 In addition to the Health Insurance Fund, in FBiH, there is a Federal Reinsurance Fund and a Public Health Institute, with branches in eachof the 10 cantons. These offices finance together some services through so called ‘federal solidarity programmes’ (this is also called ‘tertiaryhealth care’). For this fund, each canton sets aside 9% of its revenues. Republika Srpska has a Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, whichsupervises the Health Insurance Fund plus the health care network and the public health institutes. 154 Accession wave of 2004 (Czech Republic, Cyprus, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia).155 Data on Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, the New Member States and the EU15 provided by the European Quality of Life Survey 2003, Eurofound,European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, <http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/>.

Percentage of respondents experiencing great difficulty in accessing healthcare

services

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 6.7

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

62.3

65.5

61.3

49.0

% of people finding

the following difficult

Cost of seeing a doctor

Delay in getting an appointment

Waiting time at doctor's surgery

Distance to treatment centre

BiH Turkey Bulgaria Romania Eu15

.......................................................................................................................

155Accession 2004Wave Member

States of the EU

154

.......................................................................................................................

33

30

30

28

34

41

34

41

29

15

25

15

15

14

15

6

8

11

11

4


2004 and illustrates the difficulties experienced byresidents of BiH in comparison with Turkey and EUmember states. The data was gathered quite a fewyears before our survey and prior to the two most re-cent waves of EU accession, hence the separation ofBulgaria and Romania and the 2004 accession wavemembers. Nevertheless, some of the differences inquality of services, in particular between BiH and theoriginal 15 EU member states, are stark. The resultsin Table 6.7 suggest that the cost of seeing a doctorin BiH is an obstacle almost eight times more oftenthan in the EU (15), and delays and waiting timescause problems for citizens around six times moreoften in BiH.

We also asked respondents whether they felt theiraccess to health services is impeded by either the ‘of-ficial’ or ‘unofficial’ costs of seeing a doctor. The ques-tion was phrased in this way in the hope of elicitingmore accurate information than if we had directlyasked respondents if they were concerned aboutpaying bribes to doctors. While other issues ratedhigher, such as delays in getting appointments andwaiting times, almost half of the survey respondents(47.2%) answered that, indeed, ‘unofficial’ additionalcosts make it difficult for them to access health serv-ices. In the RS more than one third of the respon-dents said they felt that those illicit charges made itdifficult to see a doctor, while in the FBiH the propor-tion was more than half: a relative difference of al-most 20% between the two entities.

The issue of access to health services and corruptionwas also raised in focus groups where participantsdiscussed their personal experiences:

The health system is a special case... I have a similarexample... I had to give money to find my husband aplace in hospital and his life depended on that. (Fe-male, employed, Sarajevo)

I can tell you about experience with hospitals, sur-geons. First you have to bribe a nurse and then youhave to bribe a doctor. First you give a little some-thing to the nurse. OK, she can be bribed with a bagof things, but doctors accept nothing less than an en-velope [with money] and in the end they treat you thesame as if you have given them nothing. They alwaystreat you the same, regardless of whether you givethem something or not. (Male, employed, skilledworker, married, two children, Banja Luka)

Other respondents spoke about the level of ‘addi-tional’ costs or tariffs required for certain medicalprocedures.

...they ask for 200 KM for gall bladder surgery. Actu-ally it was 200 KM before, now it is about five or sixhundred. (Female, unemployed, Sarajevo)

Finally, several people shared personal stories aboutthe use of personal connections in the education sys-tem. Mostly, these practices were from tertiary edu-cation, but some also gave examples of having paidfor good grades in secondary school:

I have a friend. His father took care that he was ac-cepted to the faculty, so that the cost of his educationwould be covered from the budget. Without connec-tions he could not have been financed from thebudget. (Male, student, Banja Luka)

ŠTELA, BRIBERY, CORRUPTION AND ExCLUSION

In focus group discussions, while disquiet was cer-tainly expressed at the widespread practice of štelaby some participants, in particular in relation to get-ting a job or better health care, generally speaking,the discussions did not spontaneously link the prac-tice with or call it corruption. When probed however,interesting debates ensued and a variety of opinionswere expressed. Discussants spoke about variousforms of ‘exchanges,’ and debated whether they ac-tually constituted bribes or were mere gifts of grati-tude. Some participants believed that money andgifts should both and always be understood as cor-ruption, whereas others argued that this judgmentis contextual and depends on the reason and pur-pose of giving money or gifts, on the value of the ar-ticle involved and on the moment at which thisexchange occurs. For example, some participantsseparated those articles given to entice a person toact as štela and items intended to skirt official re-quirements and/or entitlements one does not (yet)meet. Examples of these different interpretations aregiven below:

A bribe is when they quote a price and tell you thatyou can get such and such a service at such and sucha price. Štela is a personal matter. If someone asks meto find a job for their child and if they get me a pres-ent of their own will for having helped with that,without me asking for it, that does not count. (Male,employed, university ree, Sarajevo)

I do not know how can you separate connectionsfrom corruption? How to separate the two? How cansomeone use connections and not be corrupt? It doesnot matter if they will give money or a present; thatis irrelevant. (Female, employed, Banja Luka)

If someone incompetent gets it then it is corrup-tion… it is pure corruption. If we both satisfy the cri-teria and I am accepted because I have connections,it is just good fortune. (Male, employed, Banja Luka)It is a little… inconvenient to beg people for some-


83


thing ... (but) once you reach your goal you feel suc-cessful regardless of how you reached it (Female, em-ployed, Banja Luka)

A further distinction was made between ‘freely offer-ing’ money or a gift and ‘being asked to givemoney/gifts.’ Some participants suggested a distinc-tion should be drawn over the price and small ges-tures of thanks should be distinguished from bribes.Generally speaking, however, most respondentsagreed that, as long as it is not too expensive, theyfeel quite comfortable using and applying štela in itsmany forms when presented with the opportunityto do so. In relation to the timing of giving money orgifts, a number of respondents suggested that tim-ing matters and that a gift (promised and/or given)beforehand should be understood as corruption,whereas a gift after the service had been providedwas just politeness. Overall, however, there was con-siderable discussion over where the distinctionshould lie.

This is perhaps not surprising in light of previous re-search undertaken by Transparency International. Intheir 2004 report, they looked into the willingness ofpeople to pay bribes if asked to do so by employeesof various institutions. In their research from 2002and 2004, the services for which people are mostwilling to pay additional ‘fees’ are to get a job and toget better medical services, which, via a slightly dif-ferent means is exactly what we have found. In dis-cussions with focus group members, štela is clearly

something that is frustrating to many. Commentsand observations emphasised the fact that for thosewho do not wish to participate in the system of štelathere are few, if any, alternatives. They expressed de-spondency at attempts to access services withoutthe use of štela. This was particularly the case in thefocus group with young people who would like toleave BiH, and, for some, it seems, štela itself consti-tutes a reason to leave.

After that I was looking for work and people openlyasked me for money when I was submitting job ap-plications. I am disappointed, and I want to leavehere again. (Female, young person seeking workabroad, unemployed, 26 years old)

As such, štela should be understood as a push factorfor youth migration and something that is likely tobe directly contributing to the ‘brain drain’ in BiH.These findings highlight the urgency with which thisissue needs to be tackled.

Finally, participants were also asked how they be-lieve the practice of štela in BiH might be reduced.Generally speaking, they felt that the practices willremain common as long as BiH does not have a faireconomy and the government fails to implementand enforce relevant existing laws and regulations:

We would like it [to change], it should be possible, butit is not. It is impossible for one reason. You cannotreduce it, you cannot, when your economy is not


84

156 Table reproduced from Transparency International (2004).

Figure .6 5 Willingness to pay a bribe to institutions (Transparency International, 2004)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

156

...........................................................................

................................................................................

To get a better mark for your child in school

To win a case in court

To get a public utility (phone, electricity, water)

To exercise the right to alternative accommodation

To pay lower taxes

To avoid paying customs duties

To exercise the right to return of property

To avoid paying fine for traffic violation

To get better medical services

To get a job for yourself (or somebody else)

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

10 155 20 25 35 4530 400

Would you pay a bribe if you are asked to do so by the person employed in the above institution?


functioning, and everyone needs a job. (Male, skilledworker, Banja Luka)

We must make sure that the law is respected. That isthe only way. But to have laws which are the samefor everyone, not laws that serve particular interestsand exclude some people. (Male, employed, BanjaLuka)

Discussants alluded to weaknesses in institutionaltransparency, the absence of the rule of law, consti-tutional problems and slow economic development.Others also suggested that the extent of these prac-tices is a result of negative transitions and can be ex-plained to some extent by the war, the post-war andtransitional period and the effects that it has had onthe country’s overall development. The clear mes-sage, however, was that one has to participate in thesystem of štela, or one will simply be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The research outlined above paints a rather trou-bling picture of the extent and use of personal con-nections in accessing services in BiH. It is importantto point out that the grey areas existing between‘networking’ and nepotism/clientelism are also ap-parent in many countries and the line where favoursstop and corruption starts is not one that can be nec-essarily identified easily in any context. BiH is notunique by any means in this sense. What is signifi-cant, however, is the scope of the phenomenon. In

BiH it appears to pervade so entirely so many insti-tutions. As such, it is the degree to which štela acts asa disincentive, to which it reduces the quality of serv-ices, to which it blocks access to services and towhich it encourages corruption in a kind of snow-balleffect that is of such concern.

The policy recommendations that emanate fromsuch findings, outlined in more detail in Chapter 7,emphasise the need for greater transparency and ac-countability in all services, as well as better imple-mentation of the laws that regulate access toservices and perhaps in some areas also legal re-forms. As one of the focus group respondents sug-gests, regarding employment:

First of all, employers must be controlled in someway; through inspections. They should not be al-lowed to hire their relatives or friends or friends’friends. There has to be some control. Such behaviourand such people should be sanctioned. That is notappropriate behaviour. Jobs should be given to thepeople who deserve them. I think that it has to beeradicated. (Female, unemployed women, student)

Importantly, however, such an approach also re-quires, perhaps as a prerequisite, a broader debateon and awareness-raising of what constitutes cor-ruption and what constitutes conflict of interest.These are the areas we will explore in greater detailin the final chapter, Chapter 7, in which we concludeand provide a series of recommendations that em-anate directly from the findings of our research.


85


86


87

7Conclusions and policyrecommendations

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


88

7

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................

...................................................................................


This report set out to examine in more depth thevery low levels of social trust in BiH that have beenidentified in previous research. Generally speaking,very few people in BiH, in comparison to other coun-tries feel that most people can be trusted. Who istrusted and why? What do people imagine whenthey are asked the general trust question?

These considerations led us to look in more detailnot only at who people feel they can trust in theireveryday lives – whether family members, relations,neighbours, close friends, people of their own eth-nicity etc – but also the kinds of social networks inwhich they are embedded. We inquired into people’ssense of belonging in their immediate neighbour-hood, the number and kinds of friends they have andthe composition of their acquaintance networks,with the aim of better understanding trust – as an el-ement of social capital – in the broader context ofthe manifold different forms of social ties in BiH.

As a result of this analysis we have been able to pro-duce a detailed depiction of mainstream social net-works, through the quantitative survey and the socialnetworks of those who are more vulnerable to socialexclusion, through focus groups. This emphasisarises from our approach: the analysis of social capi-tal through a lens of human development, with anemphasis on the understanding of the multiple lev-els of disadvantage that contribute to social exclu-sion.

As we saw in Chapter 3, BiH can be characterised asa society built on strong ties, albeit ones primarilywith family, together with other locally-based tieswith friends and neighbours. It is therefore a societyof very strong immediate networks, albeit not onewith a great deal of bridging or linking social capital.Social networks in BiH are therefore characterised bywebs of localised strong ties rather than a broaderand more integrative pattern of weaker but wider-spanning ties incorporating members of other com-munities, ethnicities or social classes. In contrast tothe overall low level of general trust, levels of specifictrust are actually quite high in BiH when it comes tofamily and immediate close friends.

Having examined in some detail these networks, inChapter 4, we turned to look at what experiencescharacterise the lives of those who do not have suchnetworks. Utilising both quantitative and qualitativedata, we mapped the experience of ‘networkpoverty’ as a key element of social exclusion, in par-ticular in a society with such intense family ties.These two chapters established our assessment ofthe general characteristics of social capital in BiH andthe key ingredients of trust, networks and reciprocity.

The ensuing two chapters – 5 and 6 – prepare theground for the policy recommendations that arecontained in this concluding chapter. Chapter 5posed the question of what forms of social capitalcontribute to social inclusion and by extension –through producing the basis for greater opportuni-ties and choices for individuals – to greater levels ofhuman development. Our assessment of inclusivesocial capital highlighted the importance of fosteringthe kind of open and diverse networks that are madepossible through a flourishing civil society, that in-volves voluntarism and through greater civic and po-litical participation in general. These observationsform the basis of some of the recommendationsbelow.

While certain kinds of social networks can be verybeneficial, clearly other kinds of social networks – inparticular when they are closed, inward looking andrestrictive of flows of information – have highly detri-mental effects, whether political, social or economic.In Chapter 6, therefore, we looked at a particularmanifestation of nepotism and clientelism in BiH so-ciety, one that tends to occur in societies with strongfamily-based social networks, namely štela. By usingštela, their personal connections, people circumventprocesses and procedures in employment, health-care and education. Not only does the use of štela re-duce trust but it erodes the potential for accountableand transparent practices that would stimulate moreconfidence not only in BiH society but in its institu-tions as well. The research in this chapter providesthe basis for propositions for alleviating some of themore harmful effects of štela in the relationship be-tween citizens and institutions in BiH.


89

Conclusions and policy recommendations


The following section outlines a series of recommen-dations for governments, civil society organisationsand the media, as the three key actors who can facil-itate developments in this area in BiH. In so doing,we hope to have provided compelling evidence forwhy certain policies should be changed, adapted orcreated and then implemented, for the long-termbenefit of BiH.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Drawing upon the results of our research, the follow-ing recommendations are divided into the followingtwo broad themes for further action: StrengtheningAssociational Life and Addressing Social Exclusion.The recommendations are built around the dual aimof building inclusive social capital while reducing theeffects of exclusive social capital. They are addressedto: • state, entity and cantonal governments, • municipal authorities, • civil society organisations and participants and • media.

1.Strengthening associational lifeThrough our research we have made a number ofobservations about the nature of associational life inBiH. First and foremost we saw the low level of asso-ciational membership with fewer than one in fivepeople being a member of any kind of club, associa-tion, organisation, trade union, political party etc.Previous research on social capital has demonstratedthe correlation between a high degree of associa-tional involvement and stronger and more transpar-ent democratic practices.157 In a country in which thesocial fabric is so segmented, associations and clubscan provide neutral fora in which different groupscan come together and have contact, potentiallybuilding more diverse and varied networks. They arealso very important for providing the space for weakties through which information and innovation maybe channelled. Associations and clubs, in and ofthemselves, are therefore very important. This is alsoevident in our research. We found that membershipcorrelates with having more bridging and diverse so-cial ties and that, fostered as such; it could contributeto social cohesion in BiH. In addition, we found a sig-nificant gender imbalance in terms of associationalmembership in BiH. Men, we found, are much morelikely to be members of associations than women.We suggest that more research is needed to under-stand the causes of this inequality.

BiH would greatly benefit from a more vibrant, activeand diverse associational life than is currently pres-

ent. Encouraging greater involvement of citizens inassociational life in BiH is an important ingredient instimulating more inclusive social capital and to ad-dressing the high degree of social segmentation anddivision. It would also go a long way to improvinghuman development in the country. A greater num-ber of people involved in organisations – whetherthey be sports, hobbies or philanthropic – will helpto build intermediate connections between other-wise isolated groups. Importantly, our research high-lighted the negative legacy of the previous socialistsystem when it comes to top-down interventions inassociational life. Governments in BiH must thereforebe mindful of the legacy of the past in which associ-ational life was structured in a top-down manner.The role of governments in fostering social capitalshould be through the creation of enabling environ-ments that encourage and sustain bottom-up initia-tives and that remove obstacles to the forming ofbridging and linking relationships and networks. Ourresearch also showed that this historical legacy hasa negative impact on the way in which voluntarismis understood and on the willingness of citizens tobe involved in formal volunteering activities.

Establishing good communication channels be-tween civil society and different levels of govern-ment is a common theme in many best practicemodels of sustainable civil society. As a potentialcandidate country, BiH should be mindful of the factthat most EU countries and the official candidatecountries have specific legislation or programmesthat ensure dialogue and interaction between civilsociety and government.158 These mechanisms are avery important factor in assisting the developmentof civil society and facilitating more fruitful cooper-ation with government. A more integrated approachto building a well-functioning and sustainable civilsociety is therefore also highly recommended in BiH.Good examples of frameworks for cooperation in-clude the Croatian program for cooperation and theEstonian Civil Society development concept.

Finally, our research dealt in detail with a key com-ponent of a healthy civil society – voluntarism – anddemonstrated the very low number of people regu-larly involved in such work. To facilitate more volun-tarism in BiH, more work needs to be done oncreating a framework that would provide due recog-nition to volunteers for their work and raise aware-ness of the benefits – both individual and social – ofvoluntarism. Our research has also shown, for exam-ple, that although there is some understanding ofthe benefits of voluntarism for the community, thereis little awareness of the benefits that voluntarismcan provide in terms of employment experience, job-


90

157 Putnam (1994). 158 Bullain and Tofstisova (2004), pp. 3-15.


seeking skills and contributing to individual careerpaths (see Chapter 5). Moreover, in the context ofthis report, voluntarism contributes directly to thecreation of diverse social networks or bridging socialcapital by bringing together people from differentbackgrounds who would perhaps not otherwisemeet in a forum in which something constructive isbeing done. As such, voluntarism can make a directcontribution to the creation of inclusive social capitaland to improving social trust.

2. Addressing social exclusionOur research tackled the issue of social exclusionfrom two angles: network poverty and štela. As wesaw in Chapter 4, some groups are more likely thanothers to be vulnerable to network poverty. Thesegroups include the elderly, minority returnees, IDPs,the lower educated and women in rural areas. Giventhe strength of familial ties in BiH and the degree towhich people turn to family in times of trouble, asdemonstrated in Chapter 3, anyone who has no fam-ily to rely upon in BiH is more likely to suffer from so-cial isolation in a way that may also translate intomaterial deprivation. We showed that the absenceof a configuration of social ties is linked to an inabilityof individuals to thrive – in the sense of securingemotional or financial support, good health, well-being and a satisfactory income and standard of living.

Access to high quality, equitable services is of partic-ular priority for all those who are socially excluded,whether through lack of access to support networksor for other reasons. At the same time, policies ad-dressing social inclusion should consider the dimen-sion of network poverty: where fragile networksexist, they should not be damaged by policy inter-

ventions. At the very least, this should involve as-sessing activities of the social protection and em-ployment systems to make sure that they do theminimal amount of harm to existing social networks.Other policies, such as public transport, should takeinto account the particular networks being sustainedby particular services so as not to damage those net-works in any adjustment to service delivery. Thesame goes for policies relating to the provision ofpublic spaces and community fora.

In addressing network poverty, development shouldalso look at ways of enabling people to build widerranges and kinds of social capital, by providing themwith legitimate and affordable alternatives to familysupport systems in particular.

The other component of social exclusion we ad-dressed in this report was the exclusion that resultsfrom the use of štela, or what we described as exclu-sive social capital. Our research has also demon-strated, quite dramatically, the degree to whichequitable access to services is hampered by the useof personal connections to manoeuvre around legit-imate means of access. Personal connections or štela,we found, are used for access to basic services suchas education, health and employment, as an alterna-tive to what otherwise should be transparent, merit-based processes. These practices heighten suspicionand resentment and thereby contribute to the lowlevels of social trust in BiH. As our research showed,the use of štela is of particular concern in the area ofemployment, suggesting a need for more attentionto transparent employment practices that encour-age merit-based selection. As a result, the use of štelaby others tends to put people off applying for jobs.


91

Recommendations to governments for fostering an enabling environment for associational life• Strengthen coordination with civil society organisations• Improve and develop the legislative framework for voluntarism..............................................................................................

Recommendations to municipal authorities for contributing to improve the quality of civil societyat the local level• Improve mechanisms for the distribution of funds to organisations at the local level including through

the use of clear, relevant and equitable (including gender sensitive) criteria for applications• Make public facilities (such as sports facilities, youth centres, meeting places etc.) available for use by

CSOs at free or favourable rates..............................................................................................

Recommendations to civil society organisations for improving the quality of associational life• Lead by example to dispel the negative image of Civil Society Organisations in BiH• Create umbrella organisations that can represent Civil Society in different fora• Actively target women for membership in associations and/or make the activities of associations more

amenable to women..............................................................................................

Recommendations to the media for the promotion of the concept of civil society in BiH • Report on successful civil society initiatives throughout the country• Raise awareness of the benefits of formal voluntarism


Discussions with the State Human Rights Ombud-sperson159 highlighted the fact that the institutionalstructures in BiH (in particular in the FBiH with theadditional Cantonal layer of government) in them-selves encourage corruption and štela, providing fur-ther weight for the need for institutional restructu-ring and, eventually, constitutional reform.

Finally, in terms of bottom-up measures, ‘social ac-countability’ mechanisms would be very useful inBiH for working towards mitigating the effects ofštela. Social accountability mechanisms rely on civicengagement, in which citizens and/ or civil society

organisations participate directly or indirectly toexact accountability. These can make a contributionto building broader and more diverse networks aswell as contributing to improved levels of politicalparticipation and empowerment. Initiatives such asparticipatory budgeting, administrative reform acts,social audits, citizen report cards and communityscore cards all involve citizens in the oversight ofgovernment and can therefore be considered socialaccountability initiatives. These not only have thebenefit of making processes more participatory, butare also clearly means of building more inclusive so-cial capital.


92

159 Jasminka Džumhur, State Human Rights Ombudsman, interview of 10 July 2009, N. Nixon and K. Koutkova.

Recommendations to governments for addressing the exclusion of the most vulnerable • Ensure the production of high-quality state and entity social inclusion strategies and policies and in-

volve civil society in their production and implementation• Take into account network poverty when devising policies on social inclusion • Address the situation of the most vulnerable, in particular IDPs remaining in collective centres• Implement more inclusive and gender-sensitive education policies• Improve level of transition from primary school to secondary school among students and strengthen

retention levels in high school

..............................................................................................

Recommendations to municipal authorities for addressing social exclusion at the local level • Improve mechanisms for identifying vulnerable groups and groups at risk of exclusion in local com-

munities• Strengthen equitable service delivery, in particular social services

..............................................................................................

Recommendations to civil society organisations for improving equitable access to services • Work with governments and local authorities to improve the quality of services that specifically target

vulnerable groups• Coordinate with other organisations working in similar fields to improve collaboration and thereby

the quality of services provided• Undertake and encourage the use of social accountability mechanisms in particular with regard to

the provision of health and education services

..............................................................................................

Recommendations to the media for improving the general public’s understanding of social ex-clusion and inequality • Improve knowledge and understanding of the processes of social exclusion and the obstacles faced

by excluded groups in BiH• Raise awareness of the plight of the most vulnerable in BiH• Improve skills in and undertake more in-depth investigative reporting• Improve knowledge and understanding and raise public awareness, of the notion of ‘conflict of inter-

est’


CONCLUSIONS

This report has sketched some of the key character-istics of social capital in BiH. Immediate social tiesand networks comprised of family, close friends andneighbours are very strong in BiH. Our researchfound that people not only spend a good deal oftime within these networks but that they derive con-siderable support from them. To that extent, peopleclearly take care of one another in BiH.

These immediate networks, however, are quite iso-lated, we found, and the social fabric in BiH is frag-mented and lacking in a spirit of wider solidarity. Thebroader social fabric is characterised by low socialtrust, low trust of ‘strangers,’ and a high reliance onhomogenous networks that lack diversity and stiflethe flow of information. It is a context in which it isdifficult for civil society to thrive. Moreover, nepotismand clientelism clearly pervade institutions in a way

that excludes many from access to services and im-pedes the realisation of basic human rights and thatis detrimental to human development.

This report and the recommendations outlinedabove aim to provide the basis for addressing someof those weaknesses in the hope that the countrywill move towards improved human development.

Movement in the directions suggested would alsosee the country head in the direction of fulfilling oneof the key EU accession criteria, that of ensuring the‘stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, therule of law, human rights and respect for and protec-tion of minorities.’ Building linkages between seg-mented, homogenous social networks in BiH willtake time, but is essential for the future of the coun-try and its stability as it progresses towards the Eu-ropean Union.


93


94


During the preparation of the NHDR we came acrossa number of organisations, associations and projectsthat, we felt, provided excellent examples of inclu-sive social capital in BiH. The organisations presentedbelow have created networks that are diverse interms of ethnicity, gender, age, employment statusand many other things, as well as, often, also crossingthe urban-rural divide. In each case, the activitiesthey undertake contribute in one way or another to the

local community in which they are situated throughcontributing to economic development, local knowl-edge, the protection of local environments, over-coming divisions, greater levels of voluntarism,protection of the local environment or improved so-cial cohesion. These examples can serve as role mod-els and demonstrate the potential for a vibrant civilsociety that has the capacity to overcome bound-aries and build stronger more diverse social ties.

Case Studies of Inclusive Social CapitalNational Human Development Report 2009

Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

95

Case studies of inclusive social capital

160 Based on an interview with Borislav Marić, President of the Association of Mushroom Pickers and Nature Lovers, 24 June 2009, MrkonjićGrad, RS, BiH. K. Koutkova and H. Fridberg. 161 Based on an interview with Jugoslav Jevđić, President of the Youth Communication Center, 26 May 2009, Sarajevo, BiH. K. Koutkova andH. Fridberg.

The Association of Mushroom Gather-ers and Nature Lovers160

In the last couple of years, the town of Mrkonjić Grad,just south of Banja Luka has gained a reputation formushrooms. Since 2003, through the work of the As-sociation of Mushroom Gatherers and Nature Lovers,the town has come to symbolise not only mushroomsbut the enthusiasm and passion of the pastime ofmushroom gathering.

The main goal of the organisation is to collect andshare knowledge on various kinds of mushrooms, yetthe list of the organisation’s activities goes far beyondthat. In 2008, the association took charge of the estab-lishment of a mycological reservation on Mount Lisina,close to the town. In the 60 hectares of the reservationapproximately five hundred kinds of mushroom canbe found. As the Association President, Borislav Marićexplains, protecting mushrooms is an important partof preserving the local ecology, and their most recentcampaign, ‘SOS for Lisina,’ involves a set of activitiesaimed at environmental protection. The association’sactivities also involve two projects that directly in-crease tourism in the Lisina area: a system of GPS-tracking which marks water sources, settlements andmushroom-rich areas in the forest, including separatekinds of mushrooms; and the development of a de-tailed tourist map with a guidebook on how to enjoyand preserve the natural surroundings. The pinnacleof the association’s yearly activities is the ‘MushroomDays,’ held annually since 2004 in the last weekend ofSeptember. Some three hundred visitors togetherwith more than a thousand pupils from all over thecountry converge on Mrkonjić Grad for a festival ofmushroom-gathering, education and exhibitions.

Through a shared interest, these activities connect en-thusiasts from all parts of BiH and beyond. The 335members come from all parts of the country – fromboth Entities, from rural and urban areas and frommany ethnic backgrounds. A significant number arefrom outside BiH: from the immediate region, otherparts of Europe or as far away as the USA. Members’ages range from 16 to 75, and both men and womenparticipate.

In terms of sustainability, the association attains someof its funding from the local municipality, which cov-ers about 30% of their costs. The rest comes from theirincome generation activities. When asked about plansfor future, the priorities for Marić are clear – the first isto finish the informative signage on the paths onMount Lisina, which will be integrated into the re-gional network of Greenways. Beyond that, his dreamis to set up a House of Mushrooms that will provideinformation on mushroom species and nature protec-tion.

The Mushroom Association demonstrates both therelevance and the potential of associational member-ship to serve as an actor of positive change in society,which brings people together on an issue of commoninterest in a way that benefits both the individuals in-volved and the broader community.

The Youth Communication Center(OkC)161

The Youth Communication Center (OKC) is one of theforemost proponents of volunteerism in BiH and theirinvolvement in recent legislative reform, that saw a


Case Studies of Inclusive Social CapitalNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

96

162 Based on an interview with Jovan Divjak, President of Education Builds BiH, 25 May 2009, Sarajevo, BiH, K. Koutkova.163 Based on interviews with Adisa Pamuk, President of Oaza, 25 May 2009, Sarajevo, BiH, and with Nada Jovanović, President of APMD PrintShop, 23 June 2009, K. Koutkova and H. Fridberg.

law on voluntarism passed in the RS, is just the tip ofthe iceberg of their activities. The OKC was founded in1997 in Banja Luka by a small group of university stu-dents who were tired of the pessimism, apathy andnationalist rhetoric that dominated public life. Theysaw a need for a forum where young people could dis-cuss the issues that actually concerned them: educa-tion, employment, mobility, gender etc., things thatare common concerns of young people everywhereregardless of their background.

The enormous interest that young people have shownin the centre and its activities since then really showsthat the OKC hit a nerve and stimulated the creationof a number of activities. A non-profit radio station,Radio Balkan, was established, which currently has anaudience of up to 20,000 young listeners. Today, thelist of the OKC’s activities includes a psycho-social as-sistance programme for vulnerable youth, languageclasses, promotion of student councils in schools allover the country, assistance to student groups andyoung NGO entrepreneurs and advocacy of a varietyof youth issues, to mention just a few. In addition, theOKC Banja Luka is cooperating with similar organisa-tions in the FBiH and contributing to efforts in theFBiH for a similar volunteerism law to that which nowexists in the RS.

The most impressive activity of the organisation is theextensive and diverse network of volunteers that con-tribute to society in and around Banja Luka. Jugoslavsays they have registered more than 871 volunteers(197 men and 674 women, 530 secondary school stu-dents, 150 secondary school graduates, 291 universitystudents and 16 university graduates), many placed inpublic institutions, ranging from retirement homes tokindergartens, and in 16 cooperating NGO’s. Othersare involved in international exchange programmesorganised in cooperation with the OKC’s partners. Po-tential volunteers are matched with their beneficiariesaccording to both interest and skills for maximised im-pact, and volunteers are (thanks to the new law on vol-unteerism) properly recognised for their efforts.

Not only is the scale of the OKCs activities impressive,but also their enthusiasm, care and dedication. TheOKC, acting as an informal National Volunteer Centre,continues to build local volunteer structures in BiHand thus exemplifies the potential that volunteerismhas in BiH, in particular among young people, broughttogether in a common philanthropic pursuit, gainingexperience and a sense of social awareness.

Education Builds BiH162

Established in 1994, Education Builds BiH providesstipends to students of secondary schools and univer-sities to help them complete their education. Theyprovide a monthly allowance to scholarship holdersaged between 14 and 27 throughout the country. Themain target group for these fellowships is under-priv-ileged children whose parents were killed in the 1992-95 conflict. In addition, Education Builds BiH supportsparticularly talented children, children with disabilities

and children of national minorities, such as membersof the Roma community. Scholarship holders are alsoencouraged to undertake civic activities and to giveback to their community. The organisation also runsextra-curricular activities, such as seminars on humanrights.

The organisation is sustained through individual andinstitutional donations, volunteer staff (often formerscholarship holders) and the selling of publicationsand calendars.

When asked about problems the organisation faces,the organisation’s director, Jovan Divjak, points to thelack of legislation that would allow for tax exemptionsfor philanthropic organisations which means that Ed-ucation Builds BiH must pay VAT. If that law waschanged, he argues, many more children could besupported by the programme.

Education Builds BiH, through its emphasis on bring-ing together children of different backgrounds and as-sisting the most vulnerable to have broader and moreoptimistic horizons, is an example of a sustainable andphilanthropic entrepreneurship that can help in ad-dressing social exclusion and in building socially in-clusive networks, providing a more positive future forBiH.

The Oaza Café and the APMD PrintShop:163 Greater inclusion for personswith disabilitiesThe Oaza Association in Sarajevo and the Associationof Persons with Muscular Dystrophy in Doboj are ex-amples of social enterprises that work to improve thelives of persons with disabilities. Oaza, the Sarajevo-based Centre for Persons with Special Needs, wasformed in 1960 as an organisation of parents of chil-dren with disabilities. Today, it provides a daily art ac-tivity centre for forty clients of all ages. This year,inspired by its partner organisation in Sweden, Oazais opening a café, the Sretni kutak or Happy Corner,which will directly engage some of its clients as staff,as a means of furthering not only their social but alsotheir economic inclusion.

The Association of Persons with Muscular Dystrophyin Doboj, meanwhile, is also involved in economic ac-tivities to benefit their membership. They run a printshop, set up in 1997, that employs some of its mem-bers, providing them with not only an income but alsomore independence and dignity. The shop is a suc-cessful and financially viable operation, success whichcomes largely from the persistence and motivation ofits employees.

The biggest hurdle in their work, according to the twodirectors, Adisa Pamuk of Oaza and Nada Jovanović ofAPMD, is tackling the prejudice towards persons withdisabilities that is still persistent in BiH society. Theylook forward to the adoption of the Law on the Em-ployment of Persons with Disabilities, which would


Case Studies of Inclusive Social CapitalNational Human Development Report 2009

Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

97

164 Based on an interview with Miodrag Bosić, LAG Doboj-Maglaj, 23 June 2009, Doboj, BiH. K. Koutkova and H. Fridberg.165 Based on an interview with Marija Prskalo, Project Manager of Mostimun, 18 May 2009, Mostar, BiH. K. Koutkova and H. Fridberg.166 Based on an interview with Hidajat Hasanović, Enez Suljić, Katarina and Zoran Petrović, Milk Road Project, June 2009, Srebrenica, BiH, L.Desigis.167 As a consistent amount of farmers the beneficiaries join the program, the calculation of the improved families income represents and es-timation. At the beginning 119 families were selected to participate to this project. In 2008 this number had grown to 314. in 2009, 176 fam-ilies are involved. Based on an interview with UNDP project officers, 4 May 2009, Srebrenica and Bratunac municipalities, L. Desigis.168 The estimated unemployment rate in 2007 was between 60 and 70 %. See: Rij van, C 2008, ‘The milk road to development and reconcil-iation: A case study of the dairy supply chain in Srebrenica,’ UNDP Srebrenica.

significantly contribute to their ability to run a socialenterprise. Both social enterprises aim at benefittingnot only the marginalised groups, but society at large.Such enterprises represent the first sparks of hope forpersons with disabilities, who have long been ex-cluded from BiH society.

LAGs: Social capital for local economicdevelopment in the Doboj-Maglaj region164

Not far from the centre of the town of Doboj, in north-ern BiH, is a recently restored 15th century fortress,containing an open air stage, a playground, a café, asouvenir shop and a small zoo. The fortress is the cen-tre piece of the Tourism Development Strategy ofDoboj’s Local Action Group (LAG). LAGs are informalnetworks set up between local authorities, civil societyorganisations and the business sector that were initi-ated through the UNDPs SUTRA Programme (Sustain-able Transfer to Return Related Authorities). Thepurpose of LAGs is to organise members of a particu-lar community to decide together what projectswould benefit the development of their community.They set priorities, select projects and monitor theirimplementation, as well as mobilise the necessaryfunding. One of the major benefits is the fact thatLAGs are thereby able to mobilise a wide and diversenetwork of actors to focus their discussion on whatmatters to their community and its future. In this way,LAGs are an excellent example of inclusive social cap-ital at work.

LAGs have been started in a number of different re-gions in the country. The most successful one so farhas been the one around Doboj, founded in 2007,which spans the old frontline, including the munici-pality of Doboj in the Republika Srpska and the neigh-bouring municipality of Maglaj in the FBiH. So far ithas 13 members including the Mayor of Maglaj, thepresident of the Doboj assembly and representativesof local NGOs and business. Today, cooperationamong LAG members works very well and in additionto tourism development, strategies for rural develop-ment and environmental protection have also beendeveloped for the two municipalities.

The LAG has successfully expanded the local commu-nities’ own capacity to plan and implement economicdevelopment projects, which is something that will beextremely valuable for the region as BiH edges closerto the EU. Experience from other candidate countrieshas shown that many rural areas lack the capacity to‘absorb’ the extensive EU funds that become availablefor rural development. With a well-functioning LAGand with many more visitors enjoying the views fromfortress, Doboj and Maglaj municipalities will be wellprepared when that eventuates.

Mostimun: New friendships in a divided city165

In April 2009, A Model United Nations (MUN) confer-ence was held successfully for the first time in BiH, inthe divided city of Mostar. According to Marija Prskalo,who was involved in organising the event, it has hada significant impact on bridging the divide betweenyoung university students from the Bosniac and Croatmajority parts of the city.

The event was organised by a self-motivated team ofenergetic and enthusiastic students from the city’stwo universities: the Croat-majority University ofMostar and the Bosniac-majority "Džemal Bijedić" Uni-versity. The event was hosted by Mostar City Council.The three-day conference brought together not onlystudents from all over Mostar, but also from 17 othercountries (including Australia, Israel, Singapore andSwaziland), and provided a forum to debate and bet-ter understand current global as well as regional prob-lems. Participants imitated the workings of theSecurity Council, the Human Rights Council and theECOSOC. Venues were deliberately chosen all overMostar, so locals as well as international participantscould get the sense of the town in its entirety.

Although the conference only lasted three days, it isclear that some of the friendships and networks thatit produced will last a lot longer. Already it hasspawned the creation of a joint debating club be-tween the two universities, something previously un-thinkable. In addition, a local organisation has beeninitiated with the aim of networking with similar MUNclubs all over the world, sending participants to MUN’sabroad, and, with the experience they now have, startorganising the MOSTIMUN conference in Mostar onannual basis.

The Srebrenica Milk Road Project166

Launched in 2005, the Srebrenica Milk Road Project isa dairy development programme financed by theDutch government through UNDP. Its aim is to in-crease commercial dairy production and improve theeconomic situation of more than 150 families residentin the Srebrenica region who have been involved inthe project.167

This region of BiH, composed of the municipalities ofSrebrenica, Milići and Bratunac, is particularly chal-lenging in terms of local economic development.Weak governing organisations, devastated infrastruc-ture, a lack of economic opportunities and an ex-tremely high unemployment rate168 are just the mostvisible consequences of the war. These factors con-tribute to the low rate of return in the region. The ‘MilkRoad Project’ therefore aimed to build upon the exist-ing strengths of the area and to stimulate private sec-


Case Studies of Inclusive Social CapitalNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

98

169 MCCs were established in key locations that are easily accessible by a sufficient number of farmers thereby creating catchment areas forthe dairy processor. MCCs are usually owned by a large farmer or one of the dairy processors. A MCC dairy association was also establishedfollowing a participatory process in order to provide technical assistance and association development. See also: United Nations Develop-ment Programme 2004, ‘Dairy Cattle Sub-sector Development project in the Srebrenica Region Project Document,’ September 2004, UNDP,Srebrenica.170 In October 2008, milk production rose to 1.6 million litres and calculated income was 2.3 times GDP per capita and 22% above the averagesalary in the Republika Srpska).

tor development so as to provide a solid economicreason for return, by increasing production, introduc-ing schematised feeding practices and improvingbreed and stall management.

The key role in the project has been played by farmerswho organised themselves into producer groups com-posed of 70% Bosniac returnees and 30% Serb resi-dents. Technical assistance for dairy productionmanagement was provided to the farmers, as weremanagement trainings for the administration of cap-ital assets such as cows and milking equipment. Eachproducer group was linked to a local milk collectioncentre (MCC) established at the beginning of the proj-ect, together with a milk collection route.169 In addi-tion to the practical role of allowing farmers to depositmilk products, the MCCs also simply brought farmerstogether in a forum in which they would meet, so-

cialise and exchange useful information. The mainachievement of the project was therefore the signifi-cantly increased efficiency and profitability of localmilk production.170 That, however, had also been theaim. What was unexpected was the degree to whichthe famers began to draw upon and benefit from newinformal networks. Through their involvement in theproject, many of the beneficiaries also began to shareequipment, help each other out, share informationand some became friends. Beyond the positive con-sequences for individuals and for the local economy,the additional result has been the improved reintegra-tion of returnees to the area through the building ofnetworks of reciprocity and trust. In this sense thespill-over of social development effects is evident, asbetter social ties and even friendship based on trustamong the participants become a solid basis for thefuture economic development of the area.


99


100


ANNEx 1: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The results presented in this report are based on amethodology that combines quantitative and qual-itative research techniques. The quantitative compo-nent is based on a survey conducted by PrismResearch in November 2008. The questionnaire wasprepared in the preceding months by the NHDRDraft Team, in consultation with the external com-mittee, and was administered by Prism by face-to-face interviews. A total of 1623 interviews wereconducted with a representative sample of citizensof BiH. The dataset collected was then comple-mented by a series of focus group discussions. Inwhat follows, we describe the survey methodologyand quantitative research procedures used, as wellas the additional qualitative research.

Development of the QuestionnaireThe questionnaire was designed by the NHDR team,overseen by Professor Anthony Heath. Questionswere taken verbatim or adapted from previous re-search on social capital in BiH, such as the WorldBank’s Local Level Institutions and Social CapitalStudy survey (2002) and Trust in Transition (2004), toallow over-time comparisons. We were also verykindly provided with questions by Robert Putnamand Tom Sander of Harvard University, which theyhave used in their work as key measures of socialcapital. In order to make some regional comparisons,questions were used from the Eurofound Quality ofLife survey, carried out previously throughout the EUand in candidate countries, including Croatia andMacedonia (FYROM). Finally, some questions wereadapted from the UK Office for National Statistics’‘Social Capital Question Bank’ (http://www.ons.gov.uk).The aim was to utilise as many questions as possiblethat would allow for regional or over-time analysis.

Survey Implementation MethodologyIn implementing the survey, the face-to-face inter-view method was utilized and the interviewers wereinstructed according to specific guidelines to utilisethe Random Walk Technique. The Last Birthday Tech-nique was used in the selection of the individualhousehold members above 15 years of age with

whom interviews were conducted. Interviewers readout the questions and the range of possible (coded)responses, presented the 'show cards,' or, in the caseof open-ended questions, read only the question.The interviewer held the questionnaire throughoutthe interview and marked in respondent answers.The following table presents an overview of the re-search methodology used in the current study:

Sampling methodology and procedures On the basis of probability sampling, a random strat-ified sample representative of the current populationin BiH was selected. The sample frame was the list ofall settlements, organized by size (number of inhab-itants) and/or type (urban, rural) and smallest admin-istrative units - municipalities. In BiH, there is alongstanding problem with accurate and reliabledata on population parameters, as the last censuswas conducted in 1991. A particular problem isposed by estimates relating to ethnic majority andethnic minority populations within each of the threeethnic-majority areas. For this, Prism Research usedits own estimates based on a number of differentsources, a description of which follows:

• For the estimate of the numbers of citizens of BiHresident in urban areas (municipal centres) or ruralareas (villages), we used estimates from the data-base of resident voters that is maintained, by the

Annexes National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

101

Annexes

.......................................................

Respondent Profile

Sampling Universe

Sample Size

InterviewingMethodology

Recruiting Methodologyfor Households

Recruiting Methodologyfor Respondents

Questionnaire

....................................................

....................................................

METHODOLOGICAL

ASPECTS

....................................................

....................................................

....................................................

Citizens of BiH over15 years of age

Households in the FBiH,RS, and Brčko District

1623 interviews withcitizens of BiH

Face-to-face interviews(in-home survey)

Random Walk Technique

Last Birthday Technique

Elaborated by UNDP andadapted by Prism Research

....................................................

.......................................................


Permanent Election Commission. According to thenumber of registered voters in BiH (aged 18+years), over 85% of citizens are registered to vote.We consider this the most reliable source of infor-mation on the number of inhabitants in urban andrural areas in the country.

• For estimates of population structure by age andgender, we used the results of our own surveys, to-gether with projections and extrapolations result-ing from the World Bank Living StandardsMeasurement Survey and Household Budget Sur-vey studies (where over 80 000 respondent house-holds in census areas all over the BiH are listed).These estimates are in line with projections basedon the BiH Agency of Statistics data.

Primary sampling units (PSU), Secondaryunits (SSU) and Sampling points A total sample of 1600 respondents was determined.The master sample was constructed for the territoryof BiH. This master sample is based on a selection ofmunicipalities as primary sampling units (PSU) andsettlements as secondary sampling units (SSU). It isconsidered that the population estimates of munic-ipalities are reasonably accurate for BiH. To avoid theerror involved in sampling smaller areas (unitssmaller than municipalities, like settlements), withvery uncertain population estimates, municipalitieswere used as the base unit for the master sample.The first step in creating the master sample for BiHwas therefore to group all municipalities into a firststratum – major geographic regions. The initial sam-ple was proportionally divided into three units:

• Federation of BiH – 60% of all interviews• Republika Srpska – 38% of all interviews• Brčko District – 2% of all interviews

The sample for the FBiH was further divided propor-tionally into regions where either Croats or Bosniacsare a numerical majority. The Republika Srpska wastreated as a region with Serbs in the numerical ma-jority. In this way representativeness was achievedfor BiH, the entities and the ethnic-majority areas. Foreach of the three ethnic majority areas, a number ofregional units were allocated.

• For Croat majority areas in the FBiH: The samplewas divided into five regional units where Croatsare the majority: Posavina Canton, Central BosniaCanton, Herzegovina-Neretva Canton; WesternHerzegovina Canton; and Canton 10.

• For Bosniac majority areas in the FBiH: The samplewas divided into five regional units where Bosniacsare the majority: Una-Sana Canton, Tuzla Canton;Zenica-Doboj and Central Bosnia Cantons, Herze-govina-Neretva Canton; and Sarajevo-GoraždeCanton.

• For the RS as a Serb majority area: The sample isdivided into five regional units, namely North-West (Banja Luka); North (Doboj); North-East (Bi-jeljina); East (Pale); and South-East (Trebinje).

• Brčko District was treated as a separate region.

Each regional unit received a number of blocks pro-portional to its population size. The municipalitieswithin each region were categorized by size intothree groups: large municipalities or regional cen-tres, medium municipalities and small municipalities.Within each region, at least three municipalities wererandomly selected for each of these groups. The min-imum number of municipalities in the sample was51 + Brčko District (max. 70 or over 50% of all munic-ipalities in BiH). This provided adequate coverage ofBiH and its parts. Approximately 57% of the inter-views for each municipality were assigned to villagesand 43% to municipal centres and urban areas.Within each municipality the allocated number ofsampling blocks was proportionally assigned in thefollowing way:

• By the relative size of population in the given mu-nicipality living in settlements of different sizes.

• By the relative size of the population of variousethnicities living in the given municipality.

Data analysis Analysis of the data was carried out during the firsthalf of 2009. The analysis was undertaken using aweight that improved its representativeness, thus re-ducing the sample size to 1600 respondents. It is forthis reason that the number of respondents appearsin the analysis as 1600 and not 1623. All results of thequantitative analysis were checked for their statisti-cal significance and rated accordingly. In analyzingand discussing the results, therefore, what we focuson in the narrative are those results found to be par-ticularly statistically significant. The method used tothis end was a chi-square test, where we paid partic-ular attention to adjusted residuals (adjusted resid-uals refer to the standard z distribution).

Additionally, logistic regressions (see Annex 3) wererun on the results in order to assess the relationshipbetween several of the phenomena being examined.

The results of the analysis were disaggregated bygender, age, ethnicity, place and type of settlement,types of education and income level. Education andincome level were subdivided into three sub-cate-gories: low, middle and high. For education this divi-sion was as follows: Low education level includesthose who have completed at least 1-7/8 grades ofElementary School or completed Elementary School;mid-level education refers to people who have com-pleted Secondary School (2-3 or 4 years) or havecompleted High School; and higher level education

AnnexesNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

102


includes respondents who have completed Univer-sity education or postgraduate degrees (M.A., PhD).Reported household income levels were also dividedinto three categories to facilitate analysis. Low in-come refers to reported monthly income of no morethan 300 KM, middle income includes respondentswith between 300 and 900 KM per month and highincome means more than 900 KM per month. This di-vision has been used as a working definition andshould not be interpreted as a poverty line. Since 1January, 2002, the BiH currency, the ConvertibleMark (KM), has been tied to the Euro; at an exchangerate of 1 EUR = 1.955830 KM or 1KM = 0.511292 EUR.171

Focus Groups The quantitative research component was comple-mented by focus groups discussions. Selection of tar-get groups and locations was done in collaborationwith Prism Research and, in the case of CollectiveCentres and Minority Returnees, with UNHCR. Selec-tion of groups and topics was guided by the princi-ple of identifying a set of problems raised but notfully answered by the NHDR Survey and by the prin-ciple of social inclusion, meaning that we were par-ticularly interested to speak to representatives ofvulnerable and potentially network poor groups. Onthe basis of consultations with the external steeringcommittee, we considered three categories: (1) Mar-ginalized groups among which we expected higherlevels of network poverty (minority returnees, resi-dents in collective centres, isolated elderly people),

(2) Groups at risk of social exclusion and networkpoverty (unemployed women, young people wish-ing to work abroad), and (3) Groups that can reporton examples of both inclusive and exclusive socialcapital in BiH (Civil Society representatives, citizenswho have experience of štela). A total of nine (9)focus group discussions were organized with the abo-ve mentioned seven target groups (see Table A1.1).

Participants with specific socio-demographic char-acteristics were recruited for all group discussionswith the exception of the discussion with represen-tatives of Civil Society (see Table A1.2).

Participants in the first two groups (minority re-turnees and residents of collective centres) were re-cruited with the assistance of the UNHCR.Participants in group discussions with unemployedwomen, older isolated persons, young people wish-ing to work abroad and citizens who have had expe-rience of štela were recruited by Prism Researchrecruiters/interviewers relying on recruitment meth-ods traditional for this kind of projects. A specialeliminatory questionnaire (recruitment question-naire) with filter questions was used for recruitingparticipants. Additional participants were recruitedas needed using the ‘snowball method.’ Use of thequestionnaire was mandatory in these cases, as well.

The nature of the focus group discussion was ex-plained to participants in order to prepare them for


103

171 Annual Report of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2008 (Godisnji izvjestaj Centralne Banke BiH, 2008), p. 50, viewed 1 Sep-tember 2009, viewed on 12 August 2009, <http://www.cbbh.ba/files/godisnji_izvjestaji/2008/cbbh_annual_report_2008_bs.pdf>.

Specification of focus group discussions

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A1.1

1. Minority returnees

2 Residents of collectivecentres

.

3 Unemployed women.

4 Isolated older population.

6 Citizens who haveexperience of

.

štela

7 CSO representatives.

Total

Target groupsLocations, dates and times of interviews

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

9Total

Višegrad

20/02/2009

11:00-12:30

1

Srebrenica

20/02/2009

14:30-16:00

1

Sarajevo

23/02/2009

15:00-16:30

23/02/2009

11:00-12:30

2

Banja Luka

25/02/2009

13:00-14:30

25/02/2009

13:00-14:30

26/02/2009

11:00-12:30

3

Mostar

30/02/2009

11:00-12:30

30/02/2009

13:30-15:00

2

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

5. Young people wishing

to work abroad


the discussion. They were also assured of confiden-tiality and that their names would not be mentionedanywhere in the report. Research results should beconsidered only as an indicator of the views of theparticipants and not necessarily of BiH citizens more

broadly. The groups were facilitated by a well-trainedand experienced Prism Research moderator usingDiscussion Guides, developed by UNDP and finalizedin close cooperation between UNDP and Prism Re-search.


104

Overview of criteria for Focus Group formation

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A1 2.

Basic criteria

Returnees

.......................................................................................................................

Minority returnees

Gender

Mixed

Education

Mixed

Age

Mixed

Basic criteria

Resident of collective centers

.......................................................................................................................

Resident of collective centers

......................................................................................................................

Gender

Mixed

Education

Mixed

Age

Mixed

Unemployed woman

Basic criteria

Unemployed woman looking for work

.......................................................................................................................

Family situated

Mixed; in relation tonumber of young

Education

Mixed

Age

18-64 years

Isolated older persons

Basic criteria

Persons who are using soup kitchen and who areisolated from/without family and close friends

.......................................................................................................................

Gender

Mixed

Age

Over 60 years of age

Young people wishing to work abroad

Basic criteria

Young people considering looking for work abroador who have sometimes tried to find workabroad

.......................................................................................................................

Employment status

Mixed

Education

Mixed

Age

18-35 years

Citizens who have had experience with use of personal connections/štela

Basic criteria

Persons who have sometimes used personalconnections/ and persons who report nothaving had such experience

štela

.......................................................................................................................

Income range

Mixed

Education

Mixed

Age

18-64 years

children


ANNEx 2: HUMAN DEvELOPMENT INDICES FOR BIH FOR 2008/9

Human Development Trends in BiH In the following section we look at the latest calcu-lations of the Human Development Indices (HDI) forBosnia and Herzegovina. These indices – the HumanDevelopment Index, the Human Poverty Index, theGender Development Index and the Gender Empow-erment Measure – provide, from different perspec-tives, composite indices that measure differentaspects of development and deprivation.

The HDI is used to measure a country’s basic level ofdevelopment. It combines normalised measures oflife expectancy, literacy and education, and standardof living. In terms of the HDI, BiH has been makingsteady progress since 2002. Our calculation of the

Human Development Index for 2008 comes to0.814. This shows considerable improvement sincethe 2004 calculation, which put the HDI at 0.804 andso saw BiH enter the group of countries with highhuman development for the first time, with an HDIof over 0.800. In 2004, the breakdown of the HDI toentity level showed significant differences betweenthe two, with the FBiH scoring significantly higherthan the RS. Unfortunately, due to the current un-availability of data, it was not possible to disaggre-gate the index by entity for the current report. Ittherefore remains to be seen, when further data be-come available in the future, whether this differencebetween the entities has continued. In terms of BiH’sglobal position with regard to human development,Table 2.1 provides an indication of the country’s po-sition. Here, we can see that BiH’s position has im-proved.


105

172 Note that this table represents a rough estimate since the differing methodologies, combined with the different years of assessment,make the level of comparability between these different data quite weak.173 According to most available data, much of which is from 2006.

Figure A2.1 Human Development in BiH from 2002 to 2008

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.......................................................

NHDR 2003 NHDR 2004 NHDR 2008

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

.............................................................................................

0.780

0.785

0.790

0.795

0.800

0.805

0.810

0.815

0.820Human Development

Index

0.793

0.804

0.814

...

...

Human Development Index - Rankings

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2 1.

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

Country (2006 data)

0.968

0.968

0.967

......................................................................................................................

64

65

67

75

68

69

73

177

178

179

0.822

0.821

0.817

0.802

0.808

0.807

0.806

0.814

0.361

0.352

0.329

1

2

3

Iceland

Norway

Canada

Montenegro

Serbia

Belarus

Bosnia and Herzegovina (2006)

FYROM

Albania

Russian Federation

Democratic Republic of Congo

Central African Republic

Sierra Leone

Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008 NHDR calculation)

HDI Global ranking

172

173

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................

...........................................................................................................................................................


There are two versions of the Human Poverty Index:HPI-1 which is calculated for developing countriesand HPI-2 which is calculated for developed coun-tries. Given that the HPI-2 is calculated for the OECDcountries, Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS, itis what we have calculated for BiH. HPI-2 measurespoverty and exclusion according to longevity, in-

come poverty, literacy and long-term unemploy-ment. According to our calculations the HPI-2 for BiHis 16.12.174

Since 1995, Human Development Reports have alsoused two measures to highlight the status of womenin development. The first – the Gender-related De-


106

174 Due to the significant differences in the data available for previous calculations of the HPIs, comparisons to prior years are not possible.175 UNDP (2008). ‘Table 4: Human and income poverty: OECD countries, Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS.’ <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_Table_4.pdf>.

Human Poverty Index 2

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2 2.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Country

6.3

6.8

8.1

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

16

17

18

19

14.8

15.4

16.0

16.12

29.8

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

1

2

3

Sweden

Norway

Netherlands

United Kingdom

United States

Ireland

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Italy

H I-2P Global ranking

......................................................................................................................

175

Gender-related Development Index (GDI) value

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2 3.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.815

0814

0.812

0.801

0.798

0.797

0.795

0.763

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.839

0.823

0.820

49

50

51

52

53

54

58

59

60

63

78

GDI RANK 2005

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Country

Cuba

Bulgaria

Mexico

Bosnia and He zegovina (2008)r

Tonga

Romania

Russian Federation

Brazil

Albania

FYR MO

Turkey

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................


velopment Index (GDI) - ‘measures achievement inthe same basic capabilities as the HDI does, but takesnote of inequality in achievement between womenand men.’176 Like the HDI, the GDI is calculated as aproportion of 1.0. The GDI becomes lower when ei-ther the achievement levels of both women and menin a given country are reduced or the disparity be-tween the levels of women and men increases. Thedisparity between men and women’s human devel-opment can also be seen in the difference betweenthe country’s HDI and its GDI.

The assessment of the GDI in BiH at three points ofassessment in the past 6 years shows significant im-provement. As demonstrated in the graph below,our calculation of the GDI is 0.815.

This GDI sees BiH rank 56 out of 156 countries inwhich the calculation has recently been made. Thecountries with the highest GDIs are Iceland and Aus-

tralia, while the lowest are Sierra Leone, Chad andNiger. Slovenia, Croatia and Bulgaria have higher GDIcalculations than BiH while Romania and Macedonia(FYROM) have lower ones.

The second of these two measures – the GenderEmpowerment Measure (GEM) is a measure ofagency – that is the ability of an individual to exertpower and influence over his or her situation and en-vironment. It therefore ‘evaluates progress in advanc-ing women's standing in political and economic fora.It examines the extent to which women and men areable to actively participate in economic and politicallife and take part in decision-making. While the GDIfocuses on expansion of capabilities, the GEM is con-cerned with the use of those capabilities to take ad-vantage of the opportunities of life.’177 The GEM forBiH for 2008 is 0.54. GEM is calculated as a propor-tion of 1.0; a calculation of 1.0 represents ideal em-powerment.


107

176 UNDP (2009). 177 UNDP (2009).

Figure 2A2. GDI Measures in BiH Over Time

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

...........................................


.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.76

0.77

0.78

0.79

0.80

0.81

0.82

Gender-related Development Index - GDI

0.782

0.801

0.815

...

...

Figure 3A2. Gender Empowerment Measure Over Time

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

...........................................


.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................0.56

0.54

0.52

0.50

0.48

0.46

0.44

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)

0.476

0.496

0.54

...

...



108

178 UNDP (2009).

Calculations & Data Sources

Gender Empowerment Measure - Rankings

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2 4.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Country

0.925

0.915

0.892

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

32

37

38

63

65

72

80

107

108

0.644

0.625

0.622

0.522

0.544

0.54

0.526

0.500

0.283

0.136

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

1

2

3

Sweden

Norway

Finland

FYR MO

Slovenia

Croatia

Moldova

Russian Federation

Bosnia and Herzegovina (2008)

China

Romania

Egypt

Yemen

.......................................................................................................................

GEM Global ranking

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Table A2.4 shows some comparative results based on the most recent available calculations of GEM fromelsewhere.178

Human Development Index

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.5

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Country

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Life expectancy at birth - year

Adult literacy rate - %

Combined all education level enrolment ratio - %

GDP per capita - PPP US $

Life Expectancy Index

Education Index

GDP Index

Human Development Index (HDI)

.......................................................................................................................

NHDR

2003

74.1

96.70

68.00

$ 6 250,

0.818

0.871

0.690

0.793

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

74.3

97.10

69.00

$ 7 230,

0.822

0.877

0.714

0.804

74.43

96.70

74.78

$ 7 611,

0.824

0.894

0.723

0.814

IndicatorNHDR

2004

NHDR

2008



109

Sources and comments

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.6

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Country

Life expectancy at birth - years

Adult literacy rate

Combined all education levelenrolment ratio -%

GDP per capita - PPP US$

Comment

.......................................................................................................................

Source

NHDR team, estimate

UNDATA 2006-2007

NHDR team, estimate

Based on mortality tables for 2006

in 'Population estimates of BiH

Arjan Gjonça, 2007 (unpublished).

,

Indicator

Based on: estimate of age structure

of population for 2006 in

'Population estimates of BiH and

number of enrolled pupils and

students, BHAS: Education statistics

'

GDP per capita=7 611 $,

1

2

3

4

International Monetary

Fund, World Economic

Outlook Database,

April 2009......................................................................................................................

Figure A2.4 HDI (main indicators)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Life expectancy at birth - year Adult literacy rate - % Combined all education level enrolment ratio - %

74.10 74.30 74.43

96.70 97.10 96.70

68.00 69.0074.78




110

Sources and Comments

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.8

Country

Probably of not surviving aboveage 60, %

Adult literacy rate

People living belowthe income poverty line, %

Long-term unemployment, %

CommentSource

NHDR team, estimate

UN data 2006-2007

Household Budget Survey 2008

Based on mortality tables for

2006 in 'Population estimates

of BiH', Arjan Gjonça, 2007

(unpublished).

Indicator

Based on Labour Force

Survey 2008NHDR team, estimate

1

2

3

4

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Human Poverty Index (HPI-2)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.7

Probably of not surviving above age 60, % P1

Adult illiteracy rate, % P2

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Indicator

......................................................................................................................

13.50

2.90

17.8

13.7

13.88

.......................................................................................................................

People living below the income poverty line, % P3

Long-term unemployment, % P4


HPI = {1/4 (P +P +P +P ) }, where a is 3

(according to the standard)

1 2 3 4

12.68

3.30

18.6

20.22

16.12

13.60

3.30

18.4

12.3

13.86

1

2

3

4

1a

Gender Development Index......................................................................................................................

Table A2.9

Indicators

......................................................................................................................

3 843 00, ,

1 838 550, ,

2 004 450, ,

0.521

0.479

74.30

77.00

72.00

97.1

94.40

99.00

69.00

0.707

0.678

28 858 209, ,

7 230,

Population total

Female population Nf

Male Population Nm

Female share nf

Male share nm

Average life expectancy at birth

Female

Male

Adult literacy rate

Female

Male

Combined enrolment rate

Female

Male

Total GDP PPP USD (000)

GDP per capita PPP $

NHDR 2004 NHDR 2008NHDR 2003

3 832 099, ,

2 000 356, ,

1 831 743, ,

0.522

0.478

74.10

76.80

71.40

96.7

91.10

98.40

68.00

72.200

65.100

23 950 246, ,

6 250,

3 497 686, ,

1 856 901, ,

1 640 784, ,

0.531

0.469

74.43

77.90

70.96

96.7

94.40

99.00

74.78

0.666

0.828

30 389 00, ,

7 611,

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

2

1

3

4

5

6



111

Source and Comments s

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.10

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

NHDR team, estimate

NHDR team, estimate

UN date 2006 - 2007

NHDR team, estimate

NHDR team, estimate

International Monetary Fund,World Economic Outlook

Database, April 2009

1

2

3

4

5

6

Source CommentIndicator

.......................................................................................................................

Population

Average life expectancy at birth

Adult literacy rate

Combined all education level

enrolment ratio - %

Based on 'Population estimates of

BiH', Arjan Gjonça, 2007 (unpublished).

Female and male share ofeconomically active population

GDP per capita - PPP US $

Based on mortality tables for

2006 in 'Population estimates

of BiH', Arjan Gjonça, 2007

(unpublished).

Based on estimates of age and gender

structure of the BiH population for 2006

presented in the 'Population estimates of

BiH' report; number of enrolled pupils

and students by gender; BHAS:

Education statistics

Based on Labour Force Survey 2008

GDP per capita=7 611 $,

.......................................................................................................................

GDI Calculation

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.11

Country NHDR2004

NHDR2008

NHDR2003

0.38

0.62

0.822

0.815

0.911

0.722

0.848

0.984

0.651

0.873

0.86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Life Expectancy Index

Female I Lf = (77 9-27 5) / (87 5 - 27 5), , , ,

Male I Lm = (70 96 - 22 5) / (82 5 - 22 5), , , ,

Life Expectancy Equality Index

IEDL

Education Index

Female literacy index Ilf

Female Enrolment index I fk

Female education index

Male literacy index

Male enro ment indexl

Male education index

Education equality index

IEDE

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.4

0.6

0.825

0 825.

0.944

0.707

0.865

0.99

0.678

0.886

0.875

0.37

0.63

0.840

0.808

0.944

0.666

0.851

0.990

0.828

0.936

0.889

Female share of economically active

population (Eaf )

Male share of economically active

population (Eam)

0.818 0.825 0.824

Income dimension index

Salary ratio Wf/Wm 0.75

0.315

0.685

0.75

0.333

0.667

0.75

0.308

0.692

Female share of generation income

Male share of generated income

Estimate income per capita

Female total income 7 543 342, , 9 509 111, , 9 364 510, ,



112

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2.12

Gender Empowerment Measure

Gender Empowerment Measure

Female share of population

Female share of parliamentary positions

Male share of population

Male share of parliamentary positions

Female share of managerial positions

Male share of managerial positions

Female share of professional and scientific positions

Male share of professional and scientific positions

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.5309

0.2082

0.4691

0.7918

0.2257

0.7743

0.3897

0.6103

Indicators

Parliamentary representation

Economic participation

Wom n’s estimated earned incomee

Men’s estimated earned income

5,043

12,814

Earned income PPP USD

0.54

1

2

3

Source and Comments s

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A2 3.1

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Websites of the Parliament of BiH,Parliament of FBiH and NationalAssembly of Republi a Srpskak

Estimated 0.75

NHDR team, estimate

Household Budget Survey 2008

1

2

3

4

Source CommentIndicator

.......................................................................................................................

Parliamentary representation

Economic participation

Earned income PPP U $S

Share of managers, professional

and scientific positions by gender

Ratio of total number of female

represent in all parliaments

(entities, state) and total number

of parliamentary seats

atives

In absence of reliable data,

a fixed ratio of 0.75 is used

According to the methodology

for GDI calculation

......................................................................................................................

9

10

11

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Female GDP per capita

Male total income

Male GDP per capita

3 771,

16 408 754, ,

8 958,

4 744,

19 341 546, ,

10 520,

5 043,

21 024 490, ,

12 814,

Index GDP

Female IGDPf=(log GDPf-log100)/(log 40.000-log 100)

Male IGDPm=(log GDPm-log100)/(log 40.000-log 100)

0.606

0.75

0.644

0.777

0.675

0.810

Income equality index

0.667IEDGDP 0.702 0.732

Gender-related development index

GDI 0.782 0.801 0.815



113

ANNEx 3: LOGISTIC REGRESSIONS & SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

Logistic RegressionsA series of logistic regressions was carried out inorder to control for the significance of selected inde-pendent variables (e.g. age, ethnicity, income) andtheir impact on a given dependent variable (e.g. net-work poverty) in comparison to all other remainingvariables. In the results shown below, the most sig-nificant results are characterized by levels approach-ing 0.000 (sig.). Values in the first column (B) showthe impact of the individual independent variable:the higher the value, the bigger the influence. Minusvalues indicate a decrease, while plus values indicategrowth in the dependent variable.

Each of the regression coefficients describes the sizeof the contribution of that independent variable. Apositive regression coefficient means that that vari-able increases the probability of the outcome (value1 of the dependent variable), while a negative re-

gression coefficient means that the variable de-creases the probability of that outcome. A large re-gression coefficient means that the variable stronglyinfluences the probability of that outcome, while anear-zero regression coefficient means that that vari-able has little influence on the probability of thatoutcome.

Logistic regression is often used for purposes of iden-tifying differences between different values of onevariable regarding the influence of those values onthe dependent variable. The following tables relateto or support various points made throughout thetext.

Of the more significant results, we found that age isa driver of network poverty. Respondents over theage of 65 are more likely to be members of the ‘net-work poor’ group. Logistic regressions also demon-strated the lack of impact of ethnic identity onnetwork poverty (for Serbs b=0.728 and for Bosniacsb=0.670 ).

Binary logistic regressions of trust in family and trust in other ethnicities

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.1

Constant

F BiH

RS

Brčko

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B s.e. B s.e.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

1.19

0

-0.82

1.49

0Bosniac

0.38

0.24

0.95

0.001

.001

NS

-2.33

0

0.05

0

-0.23

0.45

0.27

0.60

.001

NS

.05

Trust in other ethnicitiesTrust in Family

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

0.26

0.82

-0.36

0.21

0

0.25

0

0.23

0

-0.53

-0.54

0

0.09

0.21

0.04

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Serb

Croat



Of ethnically balan-ced community

Men

Women

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Urban

Rural

Under 30

30 to 60

Over 60

Low education

Middle education

High education

R square

0.22

0.26

0.24

0.30

0.14

0.15

0.19

0.22

0.17

0.22

NS

001

NS

NS

NS

NS

.01

.01

NS

NS

0.13

0.06

0.39

-0.12

0

0.19

0

0.08

0

-0.23

0.23

0

-0.52

-0.20

0.01

0.29

0.25

0.27

0.35

0.17

0.18

0.22

0.23

0.22

0.27

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

.05

NS

0 0

.......................................................................................................................



114

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 2A3.

Constant

F BiH

RS

Brčko

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B s.e. B s.e.

.......................................................................................................................

Bosniac.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Serb

Croat

Majority


Of ethnicallybalancedcommunity

Men

Women

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Urban

Rural

Under 30

30 to 60

Over 60

Low education

Middle education

High education

R square

Linear regressions of the two dimensions of trust

Family and neighbourhood

dimension

Own and other ethnicity

dimension

-0.20 0.14 NS NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

.001

-0.00 1.36

0.01

NS0.09-0.11

0.09

0.18 0.5-0.37

0

NS

NS

NS

NS -0.17 0.06

0.08

.01

-0.11NS

0.01

.001

.01

.01

.001 0.05

- 0.19

0.02

0.02

0.09

0.26

0.09

0.10

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.07

.05

.05

0.09

0.18

0.08

0.09

0.09

0.10

0.05

0.05

0.06

0.06

0.08

0.07

0

-0.20

0.45

0 0

- .300 0.08 .0010.12

0.29

0 0

0.31

-0.07

0 0

0

0

0.06

0

0.16

0

-0.23

-0.20

0 0

-0.04

0.01

0.03 0.03

The table below shows that having diverse friends and trust positively affects one’s sense of belonging to acommunity.

Logistic regression on sense of belonging

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3A3.

Not a member

Member of an association

Has acquaintances of different gender

Has acquaintances with differentlevels of education

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B S.E. df Sig.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Wald Exp(B)

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 3A3.

B S.E. df Sig.Wald Exp(B)

Sense of belonging

0

-.384

.298

.488

.236

.254

.134

2.646

1

1

1

1.380

13.168

.104

.240

.000

.681

1.347

1.629

.......................................................................................................................

Has a diverse group of friends .505 .141 112.757 .000 1.657



115

Logistic regression on age, entity, ethnicity and network poverty

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 4A3.

Constant

Other

Croat

Serb

Bosniac

Brčko

RS

FBiH

40+

31-39

Below 31.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B S.E. df Sig.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.241

.998

.684

.078

.539

-.606

-3.140

-1.377

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Wald Exp(B)

24.491

.528

19.777

7.662

6.479

.628

9.574

.075

5.149

1.472

181.790

.000

.468

.000

.022

.011

.428

.144

.785

.023

.225

.000

1.273

2.713

1.981

.546

1.082

1.715

.252

.043

Network poor

.332

.224

.269

.764

287

.238

1.135

.233

2

1

1

2

1

1

6

1

1

1

1

Logistic regression on ethnicity and network poverty

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 5A3.

Bosniac

Serb

Croat

Constant

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B S.E. df Sig.

.......................................................................................................................

.728

.670

-2.454

......................................................................................................................

Wald Exp(B)

17.055

15.969

8.212

288.989

.000

.000

.004

.000

2.070

1.954

.086

Ethnicity and network poverty

.182

.234

.144

2

1

1

1

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Has no friends

Trusts family and relatives

Is in an ethnic majority

Of ethnically balanced community

Constant


.651

-.1.234

-.236

-1.226

.024

.150

.239

.246

.198

.271

1

1

2

1

1

1

18.719

26.754

38.185

.925

38.148

.008

.000

.000

.000

.336

.000

.929

1.918

.291

.789

.293

1.024

B S.E. df Sig.Wald Exp(B)B S.E. df Sig.Wald Exp(B)

Sense of belonging



116

Logistic regression on volunteering

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.6

Below 30

30-60

60+

Rural

FBiH

RS

Brčko

Bosniac

Serb

Croat

Female

Constant

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B S.E. df Sig.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

-.717

-1.473

-1.153

-1.602

-1.250

1.220

-.057

-.533

-1.651

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Wald Exp(B)

13.484

6.305

11.486

15.833

11.523

11.375

.719

7.597

7.130

.018

3.794

37.935

.001

.012

.001

.000

.003

.001

.397

.022

.008

.892

.051

.000

.488

.229

.316

.201

.287

3.388

.587

.945

.192

Volunteering

.286

.435

.290

.475

1.474

.457

.421

.274

.268

2

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

Note, with regards to the table below, the codes to question V1 ‘how often have you volunteered in the lastyear’; ‘regularly’, ‘often’ and ‘rarely’ were taken as ‘volunteered in the last year’, while response codes ‘not once’,‘don’t know’ and ‘don’t want to answer’ were left out.

Logistic regression on the likelihood of having a job

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.7

Rural

Of local ethnic majority (ref )

Of ethnically balanced community


Male (ref )

Female

Spend time with people with differenteducational backgrounds (1)

Spend time with friends (1)

Returned (1)

Constant

Ever looked for a job (1)

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

B S.E. df Sig.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

-.674

-.202

-.944

-.600

.458

.731

-.483

1.373

-1.526

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Wald Exp(B)

31.818

14.661

.733

14.318

25.767

14.293

9.657

10.331

130.496

36.814

.000

.001

.392

.000

.000

.000

.002

.001

.000

.000

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

.119

.235

.249

.118

.121

.235

.150

.120

.251

.510

.817

.389

.549

1.581

2.077

.617

3.948

.218


Gender and employment

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.8a

.......................................................................................................................

Female

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Total

Has a job

Total

.00

1.00

Count

% within Gender

Adjusted Residual

Count

% within Gender

Adjusted Residual

Count

% within Gender

Male

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

465

59.3%

-6.9

319

40.7%

6.9

784

100.0%

616

75.5%

6.9

200

24.5%

-6.9

816

100.0%

1081

67.6%

519

32.4%

1600

100.0%

Gender

......................................................................................................................

Gender and employment

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 8bA3.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

ValueAsymp. Sig

(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

df

1

1

1

1

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

47.757

47.021

48.051

47.727

1600

Chi square test Exact Sig.(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

Continuity Correction

Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association

N of Valid Cases

.000

......................................................................................................................

b

a

Gender and employment in age below 60

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 9A3.

.......................................................................................................................

Female

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Total

Has a job

Total

.00

1.00

Count

% within Gender

Adjusted Residual

Count

% within Gender

Adjusted Residual

Count

% within Gender

Male

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

244

45.3%

-7.6

295

54.7%

7.6

539

100.0%

379

67.9%

7.6

179

32.1%

-7.6

558

100.0%

623

56.8%

474

43.2%

1097

100.0%

Gender

......................................................................................................................


117



118

Gender and employment in age below 60

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table 10A3.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

ValueAsymp. Sig

(2-sided)Exact Sig.(2-sided)

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

df

1

1

1

1

.000

.000

.000

.000

.000

57.330

56.411

57.836

5 2787.

1097

Chi square test Exact Sig.(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

Continuity Correction

Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association

N of Valid Cases

.000

......................................................................................................................

a

b

Perceived problems in provision of the following public services inmunicipalities

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.12

.......................................................................................................................

in %Low

qualityHigh

pricesPoor

infrastructure Discrimination

......................................................................................................................

Corruption

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................


Employment services

Police public securityand

Health services

Education system

Housing for IDPs returneesand

Roads bridgesand

Social assistance

Public transport

Water supply sewageand

Garbage collectionstreet cleaning

and

17.3

50.2

19.4

33.1

26.8

24.9

36.4

38.3

27.6

26.1

26.5

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

11.0

0.6

0.6

12.9

6.3

0.8

1.1

1.6

14.6

2.8

1.6

1.9

3.1

0.9

3.6

3.1

3.8

22.6

3.1

8.0

8.6

4.2

4.0

11.2

18.3

5.6

9.7

3.4

1.5

7.1

1.5

1.9

2.2

2.7

3.1

3.2

1.9

1.5

4.8

0.4

4.1

0.5

1.2

1.0

Supplementary Tables

Figure 3 11A . Calculation of the Gini Coefficient for BiH

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Cumulative % of Households

Cu

mu

lati

ve%

of

E q. i

nc o

me

Lorenc curve

Perfect

equality

Gini = 0.42

00

0.5 1

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

.........................................

.........................................

.........................................

.........................................

.........................................

.........................................

......................................

....................................

....................................

....................................

....................................

....................................

......................................................................................................................



119

Main problems in provision of services by entity

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A3.13

.......................................................................................................................

Perceived low quality of services

......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................


Employment services

Police public securityand

Health services

Education system

Housing for IDPs returneesand

Roads bridgesand

Social assistance

Public transport

Water supply sewageand

Garbage collectionstreet cleaning

and

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

17.3

50.2

19.4

33.1

26.8

24.9

36.4

38.3

27.6

26.1

26.5

19.1

49.7

25.0

35.3

34.4

28.9

42.3

33.0

42.1

26.8

31.7 19.2

25.9

20.9

34.4

28.9

19.7

16.2

30.6

11.8

52.8

15.1

All BiH F BiH RS

Importance of various factors impeding access to medical services

......................................................................................................................

......................................................................................................................

Table A 143.

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

Distanceto doctor

Delay in

getting

appointment

Waiting

time

Official

cost

Unofficial

cost

Difficultydue

to ethnicbackground

Length ofwaiting foradditional

tests

In % (very difficult

plus a little

difficult)

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

49.0

52.2

43.5

74.4

48.9

50.4

49.1

44.2

53.5

34.5

47.5

63.4

30.6

62.7

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................

65.5

67.9

61.5

74.6

65.2

68.5

66.1

62.4

68.5

53.7

65.6

75.2

58.3

71.1

61.3

64.8

55.8

73.7

60.5

67.2

62.9

57.5

65.0

48.9

62.5

69.8

54.7

66.3

62.3

63.3

60.3

72.1

61.6

65.7

66.3

59.7

64.8

46.8

64.4

71.9

54.6

68.3

47.2

54.6

35.3

67.8

46.9

50.3

49.5

45.9

48.5

38.4

47.7

53.6

39.7

52.9

35.0

41.1

24.9

40.7

34.1

46.2

33.0

32.5

37.3

27.6

34.3

42.1

26.4

41.5

57.9

63.8

48.2

48.1

56.4

64.7

67.5

61.2

54.4

46.2

58.0

67.8

51.7

62.5......................................................................................................................

All BiH

F BiH

RS

Brčko (118)

Of local ethnic

majority

Of ethnically

balanced

community

Men

Women

Urban

Rural

Under 30

30 to 65

Over 60

Of local ethnic

minority



120

ANNEx 4: QUESTIONNAIRE

NHDR Questionnaire: Social Capital in BiHFinal Fieldwork version

Implemented November 2008

DM1 We are interested in finding out more about people’s relations with one another in BiH.

To begin with, can you please tell me how many CLOSE FRIENDS you have these days, if any? Theseare people you feel at ease with, can talk to about private matters, or call on for help. Would you saythat you have no close friends, one or two, three to five, six to ten, or more than that?

None1-23-56-10More

DM2 Of these close friends you just described, how many of them:

Are SerbAre CroatAre BosniacAre of mixed parentageAre another ethnicityAre maleAre femaleLive outside BiHDidn’t complete secondary schoolHave a university degreeDon’t know [do not read]Don’t wish to answer [do not read]

AllMost SomeFew None

DM3 Now, thinking about your acquaintances. By acquaintances I mean people who you know by nameand have perhaps had coffee with or talked to at some point, but are not your close friends. Whenyou go out of the house during the day are you likely to run into these acquaintances?

Yes, alwaysYes, nearly alwaysYes, sometimesNo, not oftenNo, never

DM4 Thinking about acquaintances you run into during the day – what proportion of your acquaintancesare:

SerbCroatBosniacOf mixed parentageAnother ethnicityMaleFemaleLive outside BiH Didn’t complete secondary schoolHave a university degreeDon’t know [do not read]Don’t wish to answer [do not read]



121

All MostSomeFewNone

DM5 How often do you spend time with…

Family/relativesNeighboursClose friendsPeople of your own ethnicityPeople of other ethnicitiesPeople who lead a different life than you (different profession, different value system, financial/social status,rural/urban environment, etc.)Other (please specify)

Almost everydayA few times a weekA few times each monthSeldomNeverDon’t know [do not read]Don’t wish to answer [do not read]

DM6 In the past three months, how many times have you invited the following people into your home forlunch, dinner, coffee or a similar occasion?

Family/relativesNeighboursWork colleagues Close friendsPeople of your own ethnicityPeople of other ethnicitiesPeople who lead a different life than you (different profession, different value system, financial/social status,rural/urban environment, etc)Other (please specify)

Almost everydayA few times a weekA few times each monthSeldomNeverDon’t know [do not read]Don’t wish to answer [do not read]

DM7 On average, how often do you have contact by phone, email, or by post with friends or family whodon’t live in BiH?

Almost everydayA few times a weekA few times each monthSeldomNeverI do not have any friends or family abroadDon’t knowDon’t wish to answer

R1 In the last three months, have you done any of these things, unpaid, for a relative or a close friend?

Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, shopping for groceries, or other routine household jobsBabysitting, caring for children or someone who is sick or frailWriting letters, translating, filling in forms, paying bills, transporting someoneHelping out with harvesting or constructionOther (specify)



122

YesNoDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

R2 In the past three months, have you done any of these things, unpaid, for someone who was NOT arelative or close friend?

Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, shopping for groceries, or other routine household jobsBabysitting, caring for children or someone who is sick or frailWriting letters, translating, filling in forms, paying bills, transporting someoneHelping out with harvesting or constructionOther (specify)


R3 In the past three months, have you received unpaid help with any of the following from a relative orclose friend?

Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, shopping for groceries, or other routine household jobsBabysitting, caring for your children or help when you are sick or frailWith written letters, translating, filling in forms, paying bills, getting transportation from someoneHelp with harvesting or constructionOther (specify)


R4 In the past three months, have you received unpaid help with any of the following from someonewho is NOT a relative or close friend?

Cooking, cleaning, laundry, gardening, shopping for groceries, or other routine household jobsBabysitting or caring for your child or when you are sick or frailWith written letters, translating, filling in forms, paying bills, getting transportation from someoneHelp with harvesting or constructionOther (specify)


R5 In the past three months, how often did you give or lend money to any of the following people?

Family/relativesWork colleaguesNeighboursClose friendsOther (please specify)

Almost everydayA few times a weekA few times each monthSeldomNeverDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]



123

R6 In the past three months how often did you get or borrow money from any of the following people?

Family/relativesWork colleaguesNeighboursClose friendsOther (please specify)

Almost everydayA few times a weekA few times each monthSeldomNeverDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

R7 From whom would you get support in each of the following situations?For each situation, choose the most important person.If you needed help around the house when illIf you needed advice about a serious personal or family matterIf you were feeling a bit depressed and wanting someone to talk toIf you needed to urgently raise 1000 KM to face an emergency

Family memberWork colleagueClose friend Neighbour Someone else (specify)Nobody Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

T1 Which statement do you agree with most:

a) ‘Most people can be trusted’b) ‘You can’t be too careful when dealing with people’

Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

T2 People have different opinions about different groups of people. Do you think you can trust: All, Most,Some, No people in the following groups:

Family / relativesNeighboursClose friendsPeople of your own ethnicityPeople of other ethnicitiesPeople who lead a different life than you (different profession, different value system, financial/social status,rural/urban environment etc).

Trust allTrust mostTrust someTrust noneDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

T3 We would like to make a few statements and would like you to say whether you in general agree ordisagree:

‘Most people tell a lie, when they can benefit by doing so’‘If you drop your wallet or purse around here, someone will see it and return it to you’‘People are ready to use those they work with’‘If you have a problem, there is usually someone who can help you’



124

Agree to a large extentAgree to a small extentDisagree to a small extentDisagree to a large extent


E1 We are interested in knowing how people view themselves in terms of ethnicity. Firstly, can you tellme which of the following you identify with most?

BosniacSerbCroatOther (specify)None


E2 Ask this question ONLY if response was one of first three responses above: Bosniac, Serb, CroatWhich of these statements best describes how you regard yourself?

XX, not Bosnian & HerzegovinianMore XX than Bosnian & HerzegovinianEqually XX and Bosnian & HerzegovinianMore Bosnian & Herzegovinian than XXBosnian & Herzegovinian, not XXDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

E3 What is your religion? If you do not wish to say, please tell me so.

Roman Catholic Christian Orthodox Other Christian Muslim Jewish Atheist Other Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

E4 Apart from weddings, funerals and other important religious events (e.g. Bajram, Christmas, Easteror other specific holy days), how often do you attend religious services?

More than once a weekOnce a weekOnce or twice a monthA few times a yearOnce a yearLess than once a yearNeverDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

S1 In the neighbourhood where you live now, is your national/ethnic group in the majority or a minorityor is there a balance?

Majority Minority Balance Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]



125

S2 How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood?Very stronglyFairly stronglyNot very stronglyNot at all stronglyDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

S3 How important to you personally is what happened during the war, 1992 to 1995 – What impact doesthe war have on your everyday life?

Very important, I’ll never forget it.Important, but I have moved on with my life.I am trying to forget it.It is not important to me, and has no impact on me whatsoever.Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

S4 In all countries there sometimes exists tension between social groups. In your opinion, how muchtension is there between each of the following groups in BiH?

Poor and rich peopleManagement and workersMen and womenOld people and young peoplePeople from urban and rural areasDifferent national and ethnic groups

A lot of tensionSome tensionNo tensionDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

F1 Are you a member (active or inactive) of any associations, teams or clubs of the following type:

A sports, arts, music, folkloric, youth or other leisure groupA political party or labour unionA professional, business or entrepreneurial association A religious charity organization/associationA women’s, citizens, student, pensioners or environmental associationA service or social welfare organizationA veteran’s association, veteran war invalids’ association, or civilian victims of war associationAn IDP association or returnee associationA Mjesna Zajednica boardAny other club or group that meets regularly

Yes, activeYes, inactiveNoDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

F1a If yesWhat is the name of that group

……………………………………………………….

vP1 Are you currently registered to vote?




126

vP2 If registered to voteDid you vote in the local elections on October 5th?

Yes NoDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

vP3 If voted in local electionsWhich party or independent candidate did you vote for? [don’t read - use show card or hand respon-dent list and ask them to mark the party]

Narodna Bošnjačka strankaPokret za promjene BiHZavičajni socijaldemokrati - Mile MirčetaPenzionerska stranka RS i Narodna demokratska strankaNezavisna demokratska strankaKongresna narodna stranka zaštite prava boraca i građanaSNSD - Milorad DodikDemokrati BiHSDSNarodna stranka Radom za boljitakDNSHrvatska stranka prava BiH Đapić-JurišićSrpska radikalna stranka RSStranka za BiHSocijalistička partijaHrvatska narodna zajednicaSDPBosansko-hercegovačka stranka pravaHDZ 1990Naša strankaSrpska radikalna stranka dr. Vojislav ŠešeljEvropska ekološka stranka E-5Liberalno-demokratska stranka BiH – LDSSDAZeleni BiHBOSSGrađanska demokratska stranka BiHSDU BiHPDP RSDSS - Demokratska stranka SrpskeNova snaga Srpske prof.dr. Petar KunićBiH slobodni demokratiDemokratska stranka invalida BiHStranka penzionera/umirovljenika BiHPokret mladih BiHBosansko-podrinjska narodna strankaHDZ BiHBPS Sefer HalilovićDemokratska narodna zajednica BiH DNZ BiHDemokratski pokret SrpskeOther Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

vP4 Now, thinking about your involvement in politics and local affairs. During the last year have you con-tacted any of the people listed on the card?

Member of the State Parliament Member of the Entity ParliamentMember of the Cantonal ParliamentMember of the Municipal AuthorityMember of the Local Community BoardSome other elected official



127


vP5 If yesWhat were the reasons you contacted that/those person/people?

As part of my jobTo apply for a permit/license/other documentsTo complain about a serviceTo complain about a decisionTo share information/raise awareness on an issueTo get informationTo complain about a decisionFor personal reasonsFor another reason (specify)__________________Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

vP6 Was the person that you contacted any of the following? (Circle all responses)

AcquaintanceNeighbourClose friendFamily member/relativeI did not know the person(s) I contactedDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

v1 In the last year, did you do any volunteer work with an organization, association or religious group,that is work you did freely, of your own choice, and did not receive a regular wage for? For example,this might include providing services to children or elderly people, disseminating information, help-ing to organize a special event, fair or festival.

Not onceRarely (a couple of times)Often (at least once a month)Regularly (a few times a month)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

v2 If yesWhat is the main benefit you derive from doing volunteer work?

Socializing, enjoying the activity, spending free timeDoing something good for the communityBuilding self esteem Gaining work experienceLearning new skills and/or knowledgeNetworking with influential peopleGetting a jobNot anyOtherDon't knowDon't wish to answer

v3 In your opinion, what is the main reason why more people do not do voluntary work in BiH?

Not having the timeNot been asked to do volunteer workNot having right skills/knowledgeVolunteering is unpaidVolunteering is not effective / doesn't change anythingPressure from the community not to volunteerVolunteering is exploitative Lack of information about the opportunity for volunteering in certain organizations



128

Other (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D20a Are you currently employed


D20 How did you find your current job?

Contacted the public employment officeContacted a private employment agencyContacted employers directlyAsked family members and relatives about jobsAsked close friends about jobsAsked acquaintances about jobsLooked at advertisements in newspapers, on internet etcPlaced advertisements in newspapers, on internet etcTook a test, interview or examination to get a jobWorked as a volunteer Any other method (specify)No answerDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

J1 Are you currently looking for a job (even if you already have one)?


J2 For how long have you been searching for a job?

________ (years) _________(months)

J3 If noWhat is the main reason you are not searching for a job?

I am satisfied with my current job

Have found a job that will start soonWaiting to be recalled to work on an old jobBelieve that no work is availableToo hard/far to travel to where there is workLooking after children, incapacitated adults, elderly personsOther personal and family reasonsAm a student or traineeAm retiredOwn illness or disabilityOther sources of incomeOther reasons (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

J4a Have you ever looked for a job?




129

J4 Which of the following methods do/did you use when you are/were looking for employment?

Contacted the public employment officeContacted a private employment agencyContacted employers directlyAsked family members and relatives about jobsAsked close friends about jobsAsked acquaintances about jobsLooked at advertisements in newspapers, on internet etcPlaced advertisements in newspapers, on internet etcTook a test, interview or examination to get a jobWorked as a volunteerAny other method (specify)Don’t knowDon’t wish to answer

Yes, used No, did not useDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

J5 Have you ever considered working abroad?

YesNo


J6 Have you ever attempted to find a job abroad?

Yes No


J7 In your opinion, how useful is it to have štela for…?

Getting a jobGetting a visaGetting access to the authorities (e.g. police, judges)Getting access to services (e.g. registry, registrations)Getting better health careEnrolling in school or university

Always usefulSometimes usefulOccasionally usefulNever usefulDon’t knowDon’t wish to answerDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

A1 On the last occasion you needed to see a doctor or medical specialist, to what extent did each of thefollowing factors make it difficult for you to do so?

Distance to doctor’s office/ hospital/ medical centreDelay in getting appointment Waiting time to see doctor on day of appointmentOfficial cost of seeing the doctor Unofficial cost of seeing the doctor (e.g. bribes, presents)Inability to see the doctor I would like to see because of my ethnic backgroundLength of wait for certain additional tests and specialist examinations



130

Very difficult A little difficultNot difficult at all(Not applicable/ never needed to see doctor)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

A2 Do you have health insurance?

Yes NoDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

A3 If no: Why don’t you have health insurance?

I am working without a contractI cannot afford itMy employer does not provide itI do not qualifyOther (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

A4 If yes: Where does you health insurance coverage come from?

Provided by/through another family memberProvided through your employerProvided by a government programmePurchased directly from a private insurerOther (specify)

AE1 Have you received any education or training in the last four weeks?


AE2 Since leaving school have you done any further training courses?


AE3 If yes: What kind of course is/was it? (If more than one, then tell us about the most important coursethat you took)

General educationComputer courseLanguage courseTraining course related to professionCultural or hobby-related courseOtherCan’t rememberDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

AE4 If attended post-school course(s)How did you find out about the course(s) you took?

Looked at advertisements in newspapers, on internet etcFrom family members and relatives From close friends



131

From acquaintances Any other method (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

L1 In your municipality, what is the main problem in relation to the provision of following public serv-ices?

Health servicesEducation systemPublic transportRoads and bridgesSocial assistance (e.g. receipt of unemployment benefit/pension)Employment servicePolice services and public securityGarbage collection and street cleaningHousing for IDPs and returneesWater supply and sewageIssuing of official documents

Does not exist at allLow qualityHigh pricesPoor condition of infrastructureCorruption (bribes, private connections)Discrimination (some citizens are not treated equally due to their ethnicity, gender, political affiliations,social background, etc.)Generally there are no problemsOther (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

L3 About how much time in total does it take you to get to and from work or school using your usualmode of transportation?

__________ minutes

Not applicable to respondent

D1 GenderMale Female

D2 Please tell me in which year you were born?

Year ________

Do not read:Does not wish to answer

D3 What is your marital status?

Single (never married) MarriedLiving with partner Separated/Divorced Widowed Refused [Do not read]

D4 In general, would you say your health is…

ExcellentVery goodGoodFair



132

PoorDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D5 Do you have any long-standing illness or disability that limits your activities in any way? By long-standing, I mean anything that has troubled you over a period of time or that is likely to affect youfor a period of time.


D6 Roughly how many years have you lived in this neighbourhood?

__________ Years


D7 Were you displaced during the 1992-1995 conflict? By displaced I mean fleeing or leaving your hometo avoid violence.

Yes No Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D8 When you were displaced, where did you go?

Within this BiH EntityTo another Entity within BiHWithin the territory of the former Yugoslavia Abroad, outside of the territory of the former Yugoslavia No answer [do not read]

D9 Have you returned to live in the village/neighbourhood where you were originally displaced from ornot?

Returned Not returnedDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D10 Are you registered as an Internally Displaced Person?


D11 Could you please tell me the highest level of education that you have completed?

No education1 - 3 grades of Elementary School4 – 7/8 grades of Elementary SchoolCompleted Elementary SchoolCompleted Secondary School 2-3 yrsCompleted Secondary School 4 yrsCompleted High SchoolCompleted University EducationPostgraduate Degree (MA, PhD)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]



133

D12 How old were you when you completed full-time education?

______________


D13 What is the main reason you stopped school/university at that level?

Found a jobLack of documentationGot married / Started a family Wasn’t interested in continuingDidn’t pass the entry exam / didn’t do well enoughUnable to afford (fees, transport)Distance from schoolNeeded to work for incomeBelieve my education is sufficientOther (specify)Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D14 Which of the following best describes your current employment status?

Employed full-time (regular not casual employment) Employed part-time (regular not casual employment) Employed casually (whenever there is an opportunity for employment; not part-time) Self-employed (own-account/private business) Unemployed Retired Looking after the home (homemaker) Unable to work (disabled, etc.) Am student / traineeOther (specify) ________________________Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D15 If employed, unemployed, looking after home, retiredWhich of the following describes the position you hold/held in your current or last main job?

Owner/Joint owner with employees/EmployerManagerFarmer on own agricultural holding with employeesUnpaid assisting family memberOwner/Joint owner without employees/Self-employedFarmer on own agricultural holding without employeesWorking for employerNot applicable to member of household/Has never worked [Don’t read]Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D16 If employed, unemployed, looking after home, retiredIn which of the following areas are/were you employed in your current or last main job?

Civil service State-owned enterprise Private sector enterprise Civil Society OrganisationLocal governmentInternational organisation International companyProducer- or service-cooperativeWork in someone else’s home Own-account worker/self employed (as before)



134


D17 If employed, unemployed, looking after home, retiredWhich of the following best describes your occupation in your current or last main job?

Traditional professional occupations, such as: medical doctor, accountant, solicitor, civil/mechanical engineer(usually with a full professional qualification)

Senior managers or administrators, such as: finance manager, chief executive (usually responsible for plan-ning, organising, and co-ordinating work and for finance)Middle or junior managers, such as: office manager, bank manager, shop manager or owner (who employsstaff), restaurant manager or owner (who employs staff), police or army officer (sergeant or above)New professional occupations, such as: teacher, nurse, physiotherapist, social worker, software designerFarmer with own land (leased, profit sharing or owned) Clerical and intermediate occupations, such as: secretary, personal assistant, clerical worker, office clerkTechnical and skilled craft occupations, such as: motor mechanic, fitter, inspector, plumber, printer, toolmaker, electrician, train driverSemi-routine manual and service occupations, such as: postal worker, machine operator, security guard,army soldier below sergeant, caretaker, sales assistantRoutine manual and service occupations, such as: cleaner, porter, packer, messenger, labourer, waiter/wait-ress, bar staffFarm worker without own land Other Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D18 If employedDo you have an indefinite or definite work contract?

Yes, definiteYes, indefiniteNoDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D19 If currently unemployedAre you registered at the Employment Office?


D20 How many people live in this household including you?Lodgers and guests are included so long as they have been in the household for at least 6 monthsand wash their laundry and/or eat with the family

______________


D21 Into which of the following brackets does your monthly net household income fall?

No incomeLess than 100 KMBetween 101 – 300 KM Between 301 – 500 KMBetween 501 – 700 KMBetween 701 – 900 KMBetween 901 – 1100 KMBetween 1101 – 1300 KMBetween 1301 – 1500 KMBetween 1501 – 2000 KM



135

Between 2001 – 2500 KMBetween 2500 – 3000 KM More than 3000 KMDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D22 Which of the following are sources of income for this household? Please mention all sources thatapply

Earnings from employment Earnings from self-employment Selling food we produce PensionUnemployment benefit Invalidity/sickness or disabled benefit(s)Other state benefitInterest from savings or investments Student grant/bursary or loans Remittance from family/friends in BiH Remittance from family/friends abroad Bartering goods and services (not involving money) Other (specify)______________________________Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D23 Which source of income is most important for this household?By most important I mean the one which contributes most to this household

Earnings from employment Earnings from self-employment Selling food we produce Pension Unemployment benefit Invalidity/sickness or disabled benefit(s)Other state benefit or credit Interest from savings or investments Student grant/bursary or loans Remittance from family/friends in BiH Remittance from family/friends abroad Bartering goods and services (not involving money) Other Don’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D24 Which of the descriptions on this card comes closest to how you feel about your household’s incomenowadays?

Living comfortably on present incomeCoping on present incomeFinding it difficult on present income Finding it very difficult on present incomeDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

D25 Which of the following best describes your accommodation

Own without mortgage (i.e. without any loans)Own with mortgageTenant, paying rent to private landlordTenant, paying rent in social/voluntary/municipal housingAccommodation is provided rent freeOtherDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]



136

D26 There are some things that many people cannot afford, even if they would like them. For each of thefollowing things on this card, can I just check whether your household can afford it if you want it?

Yes, can afford if wantNo, cannot afford itDon’t know [Don’t read]Don’t wish to answer [Don’t read]

Keeping your home adequately warm Paying for a week’s annual holiday away from home (not staying with relatives)Replacing worn-out furniture A meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day, if wanted Buying new, rather than second-hand, clothes Having friends or family for a drink or meal at least once a month

D27 Are there any children living in your household?


D27a If yes, how many? _________________________


Bibliography National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

137

Bibliography Allen, K. 2000. ‘Social Capital within the Urban Small-firm sector in Developing Countries: A Form of Modern Organizationor a Reason for Economic Backwardness.’ Presented at Constituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in theNew Millennium, the Eighth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Bloomington,IN. Viewed 30 July 2009. <http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/archive/00001006/>.

BHAS, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federal Institute of Statistics, the Republic Institute of Statisticsof the Republic of Srpska. 2008a. Labour Force Survey 2008. Sarajevo.

BHAS, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2008b. Thematic Bulletin 2008. Sarajevo.

BHAS, Agency for Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2007. The BiH Household Budget Survey 2007: Poverty and livingconditions. Sarajevo.

Bruegel, I. 2006. ‘Social Capital, Diversity and Education Policy.’ Families & Social Capital ESRC Research Group London SouthBank University. August 2006. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/families/publications/SCDiversi-tyEdu28.8.06.pdf>.

Bullain, N. and R. Tofstisova. 2004. A Comparative Analysis of European Policies and Practices of NGO – Government Coop-eration, Final Report. European Center for Not-for-Profit Law.

Canadian Policy Research Initiative. 2005. Social Capital as a Public Policy Tool: Project Report. Viewed 10 August 2009.<http://www.policyresearch.gc.ca/doclib/SC_Synthesis_E.pdf>.

Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 2008. Annual Report. (Godisnji izvjestaj Centralne Banke BiH, 2008). Viewed 1September 2009, viewed on 12 August 2009, <http://www.cbbh.ba/files/godisnji_izvjestaji/2008/cbbh_annual_re-port_2008_bs.pdf>.

Cole, E., Epper, E. and K. Kinzelbach. 2008. Public Oversight of the Security Sector: a Handbook for Civil Society Organizations.United Nations Development Programme, Bratislava. Available at UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre. <http://europeandcis.undp.org/home/list/publications>.

Coleman, J. 1988. ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.’ The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94.

Colletta, N. and J. Cullen. 2000. Violent Conflict and the Transformation of Social Capital: Lessons from Cambodia, Rwanda,Guatemala, and Somalia. The World Bank, Washington D.C. Viewed 10 August 2009. < http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ex-ternal/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2000/08/14/000094946_00072405363423/Rendered/PDF/multi_page.pdf>.

Commission of the European Community. 2008. Bosnia and Herzegovina 2008 Progress Report. Commission staff workingdocument, SEC(2008) 2693 final. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/press_corner/key-docu-ments/reports_nov_2008/bosnia_herzegovina_progress_report_en.pdf>.

Council of the European Union. 2004. Joint Report by the Commission and the Council on Social Inclusion, 5 March 2004.Viewed 30 July 2009. <http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/final_joint_inclusion_report_2003_en.pdf>.

DeFilippis, J. 2001. ‘The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.’ Housing Policy Development. Vol. 12, No. 4.

Delhey, J. and K. Newton. 2005. ‘Predicting Cross-national Levels of Social Trust: Global Pattern or Nordic Exceptionalism’ inEuropean Sociological Review, Vol.21, No.4, 311-327.

DEP, Bosnia and Herzegovina Council of Ministers Directorate for Economic Planning. 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina Eco-nomic Trends: Annual Report 2008. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://www.dep.gov.ba/dwnld/BIHET_2008_eng.pdf>.


BibliographyNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

138

Džumhur, J. 2008. ‘A Survey of Political Participation of Women in BiH.’ Presented at the UNDP BiH Roundtable on Womenand Governance, Sarajevo, 11 November 2008. Viewed 05 August 2009. <http://europeandcis.undp.org/gender/show/50222692-F203-1EE9-B9DE8F45C7E87E83>.

EC-DGESE, European Commission Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. 2007. SocialCohesion, Trust and Participation: Social Capital, Social Policy and Social Cohesion in the European Union and CandidateCountries - 2007. Monitoring Report prepared by the European Observatory on the Social Situation. Viewed 10 August2009,<http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/docs/social_situation/2007_mon_rep_soc_cap.pdf>.

Eurofound, the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Quality of Life Survey. Viewed20 August 2009. <http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/>.European Commission for Democracy through Law (The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission). 2005. Opinion on theconstitutional situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the powers of the High Representative. CLD-AD (2005) 004. Viewed10 August 2009. <http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL-AD(2005)004-e.pdf>.

EU, European Union. 2009. Civil Society: Contributions to the development of the strategy on establishment of an enablingenvironment for civil society development in Bosnia & Herzegovina. Sarajevo.

Field, J. 2003. Social Capital. Routledge, London.

Fukuyama, F. 2002. ‘Social Capital and Development: the Coming Agenda.’ SAIS Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1 (winter-spring), pp.23-37.

Fukuyama, F. 1996. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. Free Press, New York.

Fukuyama, F. 1991. ‘Social Capital and Civil Society.’ IMF Conference on Second Generation Reforms. Viewed 30 July 2009.Retrieved from <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm>.

Granovetter, M. S. 1973.‘The Strength of Weak Ties.’ The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 6.

Håkansson, P. and S. Hargreaves. 2004. Trust in Transition: Generalised Trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Balkans AnalysisGroup, Sarajevo. Viewed 30 July 2009. <http://www.balkansanalysis.org/reports/trust-in-transition.pdf>.

IBHI, Independent Bureau for Humanitarian Issues. 2009. 118 Million Steps to Cooperation, Government allocations for theNon-Governmental sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 2008. Sarajevo.

ILO and CoE, International Labour Organisation and Council of Europe (CoE). 2009. Employment Policy Review, Bosnia &Herzegovina. Council of Europe. Viewed 20 August 2009. <http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/budapest/download/empl/crep_bosnia.pdf>.

International Crisis Group. 2009. Bosnia’s Incomplete Transition: Between Dayton and Europe. International Crisis GroupEurope Report N 198. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5978>.

International Monetary Fund. 2009. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Request for Stand-by Arrangement. IMF Country Report No.09/226, July 2009. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2009/cr09226.pdf>.

Kadić, D. 2009. Civil Society in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Trialog, Brussels.

Keefer, P. and S. Knack. 1997. ‘Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross country investigation.’ The QuarterlyJournal of Economics, Vol. 112, pp. 1251-88.

Lemarchand, R. and K. Legg. 1972. ‘Political Clientelism and Development: A Preliminary Analysis.’ Comparative Politics, Vol.4, No. 2 (January), pp. 149-178.

LSE, London School of Economics, Centre for Civil Society website, Introduction, ‘What is Civil Society?’. Viewed 15 July2009. <http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/CCS/what_is_civil_society.htm>.

Milcher, S. and A. Ivanov. 2008. ‘Human Development Insights.’ HDR Network, Issue 16. Viewed 30 July 2009.<http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdinsights_jan2008.pdf>.

ONS, United Kingdom Office of National Statistics, 2001, ‘Social Capital: A review of the literature,’ Social Analysis and Re-porting Division.

Perri 6. 1997. Escaping Poverty: From safety nets to networks of opportunity. Demos, London. Viewed 03 August 2009.

Pickering, P. 2007. Peacebuilding in the Balkans: The View from the Groundfloor. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.


Bibliography National Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and Herzegovina THE TIES THAT BIND

139

Portes, A. 1998. ‘Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Society.’ Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp.1-24.

Powell, S. (forthcoming). Volunteerism in Southeastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States: its contri-bution to development. Promente Social Research, Sarajevo.

Putnam, R. D. 2007. ‘E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,’ The 2006 Johan Skytte PrizeLecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30.

Putnam, R. D. 2001. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Putnam, R. D. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ. Rij van, C. 2008. The milk road to development and reconciliation: A case study of the dairy supply chain in Srebrenica.UNDP Srebrenica.

Rosenberg, D. 2008. Regional Human Development Report draft project document. United Nations Development Pro-gramme, RBEC, Bratislava.

Salaj, B. 2009. Socijalno povjerenje u Bosni i Hercegovini / Sozialer Zusammenhalt in Bosnien und Herzegowina. FriedrichEbert Stiftung, Sarajevo. Viewed 30 July 2009. Retrieved from the Digital Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Library.

Schuller, T., Baron, S. and J. Field. 2000. ‘Social Capital: A Review and Critique’ in Baron, S., Field, J. and T. Schuller (eds.), SocialCapital, critical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Sejfija, I. 2008. Historical Preconditions and Current Development of Civil Associations in BiH. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Sara-jevo. Viewed 30 July 2009. Retrieved from the Digital Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Library.

Statistics Norway. 2007. ‘Survey of level of living, Organisation activity: Many members, fewer active.’ Viewed on 31 August2009. <http://www.ssb.no/orgakt_en/>.

Statistics Sweden, (Vogel, J. Amnå, E., Munck, I. and L. Häll). 2003. ‘Associational life in Sweden: General Welfare, SocialCapital, Training in Democracy.’ Stockholm.

Tonkiss, F. 2003. ‘Trust, Social Capital and Economy,’ in Tonkiss et al. (eds), Trust and Civil Society. Palgrave, Hampshire.

Townsend, P. 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

Transparency International. 2007. National Integrity System Study, Bosnia & Herzegovina. Viewed 13 August 2009.<http://www.ti-bih.org/documents/20-02-2007/National_Integrity_System_Study_2007.pdf>.

Transparency International. 2004. 2004 Corruption Perceptions Index. Transparency International, Berlin. Viewed 05 August2009. <http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi>.

Ul Haq, M. on United Nations Development Programme Human Development Report Office website. Viewed 30 July 2009.<http://hdr.undp.org/en/humandev>.UN, United Nations in Bosnia and Herzegovina Country Team. 2008. Bosnia and Herzegovina: Common Country Assessment.United Nations, Sarajevo.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2009. Human Development Report 2009. ‘Measuring inequality: Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM).’ UNDP, New York. Viewed 30 July 2009.<http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/gdi_gem>.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2008. Human Development Report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change:Human solidarity in a divided world. UNDP, New York. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Complete.pdf>.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2007a. 2007 National Human Development Report on Social Inclusion.UNDP, Sarajevo.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2007b. Pension Reform and Social Protection Systems in Bosnia andHerzegovina. UNDP, Sarajevo.

UNDP & ORI, United Nations Development Programme & Oxford Research International. 2007. The Silent Majority Speaks.UNDP, Sarajevo.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2005. Early Warning System: Transitional Justice. UNDP, Sarajevo.

UNDP, United Nations Development Programme. 2004. ‘Dairy Cattle Sub-sector Development project in the Srebrenica Re-gion Project Document.’ September 2004. UNDP, Srebrenica.


BibliographyNational Human Development Report 2009Social Capital in Bosnia and HerzegovinaTHE TIES THAT BIND

140

UNDP & LSE, United Nations Development Programme & London School of Economics and Political Science. 2009. ‘The re-gional impact of the global economic crisis’ in Development in Transition No.13. Viewed 10 August 2009. <http://www.de-velopmentandtransition.net/uploads/issuesAttachments/25/DT.13_English_FINAL.pdf>.

UNHCR, The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2009a. Internally Displaced Persons and Re-turnees in Bosnia and Herzegovina. UNHCR Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo.

UNHCR, The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2009b. Displaced People in Collective Centresin Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Search for Durable Solutions Continues. Sarajevo (forthcoming).USAID, United States Agency for International Development. 2009. 2008 NGO Sustainability Index: for Central and EasternEurope and Eurasia, 12th Edition, June 2009. USAID Bureau for Europe and Eurasia, Office of Democracy, Governance andSocial Transition. Viewed on 05 August 2009. <http://198.76.84.6/locations/europe_eurasia/dem_gov/ngoindex/2008/bosnia_herzegovina.pdf>.

World Bank. 2009. Doing Business: Measuring Business Regulations. Viewed 30 July 2009. http://www.doingbusiness.org/Documents/FullReport/2009/DB_2009_English.pdf.

World Bank. 2002a. Local Level Institutions and Social Capital Study, Vol. 1. World Bank, Sarajevo.

World Bank, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Working Paper. 2002b. Bosnia & Herzegovina: LocalLevel Institutions and Social Capital Study: Findings and Recommendations, Vol. 2. June 2002.

Žeravčić, G. 2008. Analysis of Institutional Cooperation between Governmental and Non-Governmental Sectors in BiH. Kro-nauer Consulting, Sarajevo. Appendix 1, ‘Agreement on Cooperation between the Council of Ministers of BiH and the Non-Governmental sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina.’ Viewed 20 August 2009. <http://www.europa.ba/files/docs/publications/en/analiza-en.pdf>.


Date post:	19-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times