Partnerships, Networks, Social Capital & Rural Development
Tom Van RensburgIDARI
NUI, Galway02/06/06
This project is financed by the EC FP5
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
Partnerships, Networks and Social Capital
Literature Bonding capital Bridging capital
Study Objectives Organisational efficacy Network and Private and Public Goods
Modelling Social Network Analysis – UCINET
Strength of ties (information, discussion) Cross sectional data
Regression analysis (Logit, Tobit) - Stata
Partnerships, Social Networks and Social Capital
Methodology Single Postal survey – network members
Social Networks Analysis Survey Cross Sectional survey
Four countries – ROI, NI, Lithuania, Estonia Sample sizes – 25 – 65 respondents per network
This project is financed by the EC FP5
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Methodology
Cliques Relations Structural differences in social capital
This project is financed by the EC FP5
A B
C D
A B
C D
Network 1 Network 2
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
This project is financed by the EC FP5
TieMHT (UK) WUC (ROI)
Information 12.1 9
Discussion 21.9 14
Socializing 6.6 8.9
TieLGF (LT) FAO( LT)
Information 10.1 11.3
Discussion 12.1 8.3
Socializing 15.6 16.0
Mean number of ties (centrality measures) of each member by group
Information, discussion sharing in MHT and LGF
Social relations in WUC Strong discussion ties in
LGF
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
This project is financed by the EC FP5
Network CharacteristicsMHT WUC
Information Isolates 0 14
Information Mode 8 1
Information Median 21.9 14
Discussion Isolates 0 0
Discussion Mode 14 3
Discussion Median 19 11.5
Socializing Isolates 1 1
Socializing Mode 8 4
Socializing Median 5 6
Evaluate number of isolates
MHT, more highly on SK measures of information sharing and discussion
WUC has more isolates
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
Network diagrams (each member as a node on a graph) A tie is shown as a line indicating two nodes MHT has a denser network structure on discussion than
WUC
MHT WUC
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
This project is financed by the EC FP5
Min. SizeRelation MHT WUC
5 Discussion 367 217
8 Discussion 258 194
10 Discussion 116 110
5 Information 160 79
8 Information 0 8
10 Information 0 0
5 Socializing 18 78
8 Socializing 0 4
10 Socializing 0 0
Number of cliques in each network
MHT has more discussion cliques
WUC more socialising cliques
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
Length of membership, time spent on organisational activities
Relationship between information centrality and time committed to organisational activities
Positive relationship between time committed and information centrality measures for MHT and WUC (Hrs per week)
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results
<2 mths 2-3 mths 3-6 mths 6 -12 mths 1-2years >2 years
timeinv
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
Me
an
in
foc
en
tra
lity
<2 mths 2-3 mths 3-6 mths 6 -12 mths 1-2years >2 years
timeinv
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Me
an
Dis
cu
ss
Ce
ntr
ali
ty
1-2 years 2-4 years 4-7 years 7-9 years >10 years
timeinv
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Me
an
dis
cu
ss
ce
ntr
ality
FAO LGF
1-2 years 2-4 years 4-7 years 7-9 years >10 years
length of time involved with the lgf
0.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
Mea
n in
foc
en
tra
lity
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results - Behaviour
FAO
LGF
strongly disagree
disagree middling agree strongly agree
dont know
The LGF is successful
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
middling agree strongly agree Dont KnowThe organisation is successful
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
Mea
n i
nfo
cen
tral
ity
Individuals who exchange more information are more likely to agree that the organisation is successful
Members of both organisations have become more aware about environmental issues
Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Conclusions
MHT and LGF have higher bonding capital for information and discussion sharing WUC and FAO have higher bonding capital for socialisation outside the organisation Positive relationship between the social capital measures and the amount of effort that
members put into their organization for all groups. Networks appear to be successful and the majority of members seem to think quite highly of
them. Positive relationships between opinions of success and the social capital measures for all
the networks. Appears to be a relationship between bonding social capital and the effectiveness and
commitment of partnership members as would be predicted by Putnam’s theory. Difficult to tell at this stage to tell whether the social capital was produced by the efficacy
of the partnership or the social capital contributed to the efficacy. In this sense causation cannot be proved, but Putnam’s theory would suggest the latter is the
case. In any event it appears that rural partnerships have greater impact as the levels of social capital within them rise.
Two important goals for the WUC were to reduce conflict between landowners and recreationists and to enhance environmental awareness.