Of goats and groups: A study on social capital in development projects

Agriculture and Human Values18: 71–84, 2001.© 2001Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Of goats and groups: A study on social capital in development projects?

Nicoline de HaanDepartment of Rural Sociology, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA

Accepted in revised form January 15, 2000

Abstract. More and more development projects are using group or community approaches to disseminate tech-nology and resources. It is believed that using such an approach will provide a safety net as well as social controlto ensure the sustainability of the technology and resource. However, little is known of the exact process andsocial networks that are mobilized and used in using such an approach. Particular attention is devoted in thepaper to gender differences and the concept of social capital for analyzing social networks. Cases and the analysiswere drawn from Heifer Project International’s efforts to disseminate improved goat breeds through a villagegroup process in Tanzania. An examination of these case studies shows that internal processes are crucial inunderstanding technology transfer. In all groups, a person’s social capital did determine whether a member got agoat, and a person’s ability to access and manage information also played an important role. Of all the groups, themost successful and sustainable had a history of interaction and were involved within several projects in whichthe members met each other in different arenas.

Key words: Gender, Goats, Heifer Project International, Social capital, Social networks, Tanzania, Technologytransfer

Abbreviations: ELCT – Evangelical Lutheran Church of Tanzania; HPI – Heifer Project International; LITI– Livestock Training Institute; NGO – non-governmental organization; SCAPA – Soil Conservation andAgroforestry Project of Arusha; SR-CRSP – Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Programme

Nicoline de Haan holds a Master’s degree in development sociology from the Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity, The Netherlands. This paper is the representation of the preliminary results of a dissertation projectdone by her through the Department of Rural Sociology at the University of Missouri. Her dissertation,Stockingrural livelihoods: Social capital, goat projects, and development in Tanzania, looked in depth at the four casestudies presented in this paper. Nicoline’s previous work has concentrated on farmers’ perception of interventionon various scales, whether it is technology transfer or processes like eco-tourism.

Introduction

The most important survival strategy for farmers in theworld is to gain access to resources, whether natural,financial, or technical. This paper examines farmers’ability to access and appropriate resources throughtheir social networks. Because of the increased pres-sure on farmers in a globalized world, social networksare becoming a resource that has not been fully utilizedby farmers or even understood by academics. This isespecially true when looking at women farmers andtheir access to resources.

This paper and research were undertaken becausecertain non-governmental organizations (NGOs) andresearch programs in East Africa were interested in? Paper presented at the Seventh International Symposium

on Society and Resource Management, University of Missouriin Columbia, Missouri, May 27–31, 1998.

examining and evaluating the role social networkscan play in disseminating technology through groupand community approaches. Though many devel-opment projects are presently using this approach(McCormack et al., 1986), there is little knowledgeregarding the specific processes involved, and nocritical assessment of these projects has been under-taken.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the rolesocial capital plays within group-based technologytransfer and how it is beneficial for women. Thepaper starts by examining the rationale behind thesudden interest of development projects in workingwith groups and social networks. In this paper, therole social capital can play for women and technologytransfer will become clear. The research findings arepresented as a case study of an NGO, Heifer ProjectInternational (HPI), which uses a group approach to

72 NICOLINE DE HAAN

disseminate goats among marginalized farmers. HPI’sTanzania program provided four groups, which werestudied in detail. This approach allowed the researchto look at social capital within a practical context.The paper ends with a re-examination of the conceptof social capital and its usage in helping farmers tooperate in an increasingly globalized world.

Grouping networks

In the past, the individual and his/her household stoodcentral in development projects. A project was evalu-ated on whether or not the farmer adopted a specifictechnology or whether he/she increased his/her yielddue to new technology. This understanding of theworld is and was grounded in the common beliefthat modernization separates people from their socialnetworks (Granovetter, 1985). It naturally followedthat most development aid, except for infrastructureprojects, was given and evaluated on an individualhousehold basis.

With the move away from linear and deterministicdevelopment patterns towards diversity and grass rootsapproaches, the individualistic approach to technologytransfer has been challenged and a more holisticapproach has been gaining ground. Characteristics ofthis holistic approach include more disciplines, butmore importantly, more diverse actors, and also largeractors such as communities and villages. In varyingdegrees, all of these actors determine not only whethera farmer will adopt a technology, but also how theprocess of technology transfer will develop.

These actors and their interaction form the basisof understanding a group approach to technologytransfer, and also an individual’s approach to hisor her survival strategy. For instance, in previousSmall Ruminants Collaborative Research SupportProgram (SR-CRSP) research of a Bolivian peasantcommunity in the Andes, the presence of networksallowed families with different levels of wealth accessto similar amounts of land (Cala and Jette, 1994;Markowitz and Jette, 1994). In the same research,existence of strong social networks also resulted in theconstruction of facilities, irrigation systems, and tapwater in the community, reducing risk and improvingthe quality of life for the whole community. Becauseof this, the SR-CRSP program in Kenya based theintroduction of the Kenya Dual Purpose Goat ona community approach. It was believed that socialnetworks facilitate access to resources in situationswhere markets do not function efficiently (de Haan etal., 1996).

But what are the intrinsic reasons for developmentprojects to use a group approach towards develop-

ment? There are various reasons. They all stem fromthe fact that countries and their cultures have differentsystems by which resources are appropriated and redis-tributed, and that each of these systems is still couchedin terms of social contexts and, more explicitly, interms of social networks. Most social networks arefound within groups, where the interaction betweenpeople is higher and where the distribution channelsare fairer. Therefore, groups are able to provide twovery simple things for development projects:socialcontrolandsocial capital.

Social capital has become a very popular conceptwithin both sociology and economics. As Narayan andPrichett (1996: 2) point out “social capital while notall things to all people is many things to many people.”The classical theorists have a different approachto social capital. Bourdieu views social capital asembedded within other resources in society, such aswithin cultural and financial capital. Thus, socialcapital is “the aggregate of the actual or potentialresources which are linked to possession of a durablenetwork of institutionalized relationships of mutualacquaintance and recognition – or in other words, tomembership in a group – which provides each memberwith the backing of the collectively owned capital, a‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the varioussenses of the word” (Bourdieu, 1986: 248–249). Incontrast, Coleman (1988) takes a more rational choiceapproach and views social capital as something thatan individual has access to and that she/he worksto cultivate and use. For this to work, there mustbe trusting relationships among individuals who haveobligations within the groups. This is in contrast toPutnam, who views these networks at a societal level.He highlights the importance of networks becausethey create a sense of generalized reciprocity, whichbuilds trust, and which in turn “lubricates social life”(Putnam, 1993). This enables people to work togetherand thus achieve more.

In group approaches, social capital and socialcontrol have several benefits. They are able to providechannels for distributing information that are notregulated or initiated by outside interventions. Thesechannels are often more useful because people trustthem more and because farmers, among themselves,will formulate the message so that they will be ableto understand the messages better. Working throughgroups also allows one to reach more people witha single technology, expending the same amount ofeffort as with helping one farmer. Groups are also ableto supply a monitoring and evaluation function that inthe past has been done by people outside of the project.By allowing the groups to undertake the monitoringand evaluation functions themselves, the groups areable to integrate the problems and the solution into the

OF GOATS AND GROUPS: A STUDY ON SOCIAL CAPITAL IN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 73

process, and thus they become the process and reaptheir own benefits from it.

Each of these points is the strongest in groupsthat already exist, in other words, in groups wherenetworks of communication and a sense of trust havealready been established. People who know eachother are more willing to respect each other’s opin-ions, making it easier for new ideas to be introduced.However, the most important aspect of adopting agroup approach is that farmers usually receive theirresources from the various social networks to whichthey belong. Therefore, it would make more sense towork with and through the networks, than to deny theirexistence and tout them as impediments to develop-ment. It then becomes very important to look at howpeople manipulate their social networks and use theirsocial capital.

Women and networks

Women are often viewed as resource poor farmersbecause, in many cases, they have little, if any, accessto financial, natural, or technical resources. This isone of the reasons women’s groups have becomeimportant. Women’s groups enable women to accessresources that otherwise would have been out of theirreach. The main benefit is that by doing things in acooperative manner, women are more powerful andcan gain access to the few resources that are available.However, women’s groups are only stronger if theyhave social networks and if they have trust in eachother. In a research project conducted on a beekeepergroup in Mexico, it became clear that the amount andthe density of relations were very important factorsin determining the amount of activities the groupcould undertake (Villareal, 1994). Groups give womena legitimized and institutionalized context throughwhich they can work. It means that women can worktogether and help each other. Groups enable womento pool and to distribute resources through a rotatingcredit scheme or by helping a fellow farmer constructa goat shed, or even with something as basic asproviding childcare while the woman is at the market.

Not only do groups provide strength in numbers,they also enable women to attain information andto build other social networks outside the group toemploy for other purposes, such as shared interestsor shared responsibilities. For women, groups haveprovided a functional means of accessing resourceslegitimately.

Technology and networks

So why are groups important to technology transfer?Groups provide a forum by which the farmer does nothave to assume the risk of a technology individually.While the technology is being tested on his/her farm,the farmer will be able to turn to the group for helpif needed. Farmer-to-farmer dissemination seems to bemore successful in general, especially for technologytransfer. It provides a forum through which farmerscan help each other by discussing the advantages anddisadvantages of the technology.

An indirect benefit of working within groups is thatmembers are able to select within their own ranks thepeople that are most likely to accept and to be willingto assume the risk of the technology. By doing this,they can test the technology under local conditions.It is almost universal that people will not choose thepoorest members to try out a new technology, therebygiving the technology a chance for survival. Groupsare also able to help with the initial investment of thetechnology. For instance, if the technology requires aninsecticide pump, an individual farmer might not beable to afford it but the group might be able to pool itsresources to acquire one.

Both for technology and for women, groups are ameans to help beneficiaries profit from development.Therefore, it is crucial to understand what goes onin the groups. In other words, on what basis doesa group form; how does a group access resources;how does a group redistribute resources internally; dothe relationships a person has in the group determinehis/her access to resources; what types of networks areimportant, etc.? These are all very important questionswhose answers can help us understand the potential forgroups as a successful development tool.

Case study: Heifer Project International and goats

The theoretical discussion indicates that it would beinteresting to examine how social capital actually func-tions in a practical case. In doing so, it is hoped thata better understanding of the role social capital playsin groups can be gained, as well as an understandingof how social capital facilitates technology transferand how women negotiate the transition into a globalsociety. Therefore, a ten-month research project wasundertaken in Tanzania with Heifer Project Interna-tional, examining the way HPI distributed goats amongresource poor farmers.

74 NICOLINE DE HAAN

Heifer Project International

Because social capital and its functioning were tobe deemed so important in understanding a group-based approach to technology transfer, a case studywas chosen with a community-based effort in whichgroups formed the main means of dissemination. HPIwas able to supply this. Heifer Project International isan American NGO, with over 50 years of experiencein providing livestock and related technical assist-ance in over 110 developing countries. HPI focuseson “providing low-income small-holders with trainingand dairy animals through a popular in-kind loancontract with the family.” The HIP contract requiresthe family to pay back two (cattle) or three (goats)offspring to new families in target areas managedby local NGO project holders (Kinsey, 1994). Thisapproach is grounded in the notion that getting acommunity involved will provide the necessary mech-anisms of social control and social support to enablethe project’s success.

In this case, the technology to be transferred isa new breed of goats, the Sannen and Toggenburg.These breeds are not indigenous to the research area,however they are known to give significantly higheramounts of milk than indigenous breeds. The distri-bution of the goats to the farmers is done through apass-on system that Heifer Project International haspopularized. The HPI model requires a community toform a group of interested members who create theirown laws and by-laws. Once the group has reachedthis stage, it can apply to HPI for assistance in theform of institution building and livestock (Akker andShumaker, 1996). The group itself decides who getsthe initial animals. These initial farmers may becomefull owners of their animals from HPI once they have“passed-on” an offspring (passed-on the gift). Thesystem works as a type of pyramid. Within this tech-nology transfer, much emphasis is placed on networkand institution building. The logic is that the farmerswith animals will be pressured by the other membersof the group to take good care of the animals, so thatother members will be assured a pass-on. By workingwithin existing groups, it is believed that there areenough social networks in the group to ensure thepass-on, resulting in a pyramid-shaped pass-on withan increasingly broader base.

HPI Tanzania has a policy of requiring bothhusband and wife to sign the contract. This meansthat HPI does not actively seek women to be includedin their projects because women are never the soleowners of the animal. However, this does not mean thatthey do not encourage women to apply for the animals,or that they do not make an effort to include women inthe training and dissemination practices.

HPI only accepts groups that have a history ofcollaboration and only works with groups with asponsor in the form of a cooperative or a church. Theseare all mechanisms put in place to ensure the sustain-ability and the continuation of the project, howevereach mechanism also requires a certain number ofsocial networks to be in place and that people trusteach other.

The HPI model of technology transfer reliesheavily on the groups created for the pass-ons, andthus on the social capital within the groups as wellas outside the group. Inside the groups, farmers guideand control each other; they have to be sure that theycan ask other members for help to take care of theanimals. It is this sort of exchange that is the basis ofboth Putnam’s and Coleman’s notion of social capital.Outside the group, farmers need to know about theproject in order to be able to apply for the animaldonations. This model is more in line with Putnam’sapproach to social capital, which looks at the extern-ally created networks to appropriate resources. For thisresearch, the HPI model was used to examine the waysin which social capital functions within groups.

Goats

Once the project context was identified, it becameclear very quickly that the distribution of goats ratherthan cows or camels would be the most interestinganimal to study. There were several reasons for this.Goats are often seen by development projects as beingthe perfect animal to alleviate poverty; they are smallenough to generate enough benefits, without being toodemanding on resources. For the researcher, one ofthe main appeals was that goats are often touted as awoman’s animal. Along with other small stock suchas sheep and poultry, goats are primarily under thedecision domain of women (Valdivia, 2000). Women,if not completely in charge of the animals, have beenfound to be involved with the reproductive activ-ities of the animal, as well as with animal products.Some studies show that women in the Arumeru districtperform 70% of the animal husbandry work (Angen,1993).

The most useful, and therefore the most beneficial,product for women is goat’s milk. Through their milk,goats supply some of the family’s essential proteins.This, in turn, reduces the strain on the householdbudget by helping with the welfare expenditures of thehousehold, such as health and education. The goat, inother words, is small enough to be a “non-threat” tomen, but is able to assist women substantially withinthe household.


Figure 1. Pass on system: Village with a group of 10 or more farmers. Each villager gets 1 female goat and is supposed to pass on 3female goats to another member of the group. Heifer Project International’s approach to dissemination of goats.

Methodology

The research consisted of several related thrusts. Thefirst was to examine how a group works with the intro-duction of the goat. The question was how does agroup function and is it able to transform the resourcesneeded to integrate the goat and its attendant tech-nology into the community. Second, how do peoplewithin the group, and among themselves, access andappropriate resources, such as information, medicine,or even project staff recognition? In understandinghow people use their own social capital to gain accessto information regarding the intervention, it becomesinteresting to see who actually benefits from the inter-vention. And lastly, the pragmatic question to beaddressed was what can we learn about the particularstrategies and uses of social capital within groups thatwill help development projects in the future, as well as,the groups themselves.

These thrusts were implemented by taking fourHPI goat groups in Tanzania, and using them as casestudies. A case study approach was used becauseit was felt that this would allow the research to beconducted in a natural setting so that social actionsand structures would not be divorced from their socialcontext. Secondly, case studies allow for several voicesto speak at the same time, which is important whenexamining groups. And lastly, because case studiesprovide dimensions of time and history to socialsettings, they examine continuity and changes. Thisaspect becomes a very important one in groups thatare trying to integrate an intervention into their socialstructure.

First, the goat groups in the Arumeru/Hai district of

Tanzania were surveyed, interviewing four membersper group. From these different groups, four groupswere selected in the villages of Nambala, Karangai,Samaki Maini, and Ivaeny (consisting of Wanri andMae) on whom to concentrate. The research wasconducted through participant observations and inter-views. The interviews were unstructured and tendedto concentrate on the goat as point of entry, withquestions such as: How does the goat get passed-on?What are the criteria for the pass-on? How did thegroup organize itself? How did the group appropriateresources? How did the group delegate responsibility?Each of these questions provides information on thesocial capital aspect within the group, but also outsidethe group.

The on-site research took place from September1997 through April 1998. While on-site, one hundredfarmers were interviewed as well as ten project people,and a life history of several members of the groups wasconstructed. What follows are the preliminary observa-tions of this research. The observations are framed interms of what they reveal about the following: socialcapital within technology transfer, women, groups,and Heifer Project International. It is hoped that in thefuture the case studies will be able to stand on theirown, providing the necessary information for futureresearch and policy.

Tanzania

The research was done in the Arumeru and Haidistricts of Tanzania. By choosing Tanzania as arenafor the case studies, an extra dimension was added

76 NICOLINE DE HAAN

to the research. Tanzania is interesting because of itshistory with collective action in the form ofujamaa(familyhood), when people were forced to live andwork in collective villages (Lele, 1975).1 This has hada lasting effect on many of the social institutions. Mostimportantly is the power that is still maintained in mostvillages by the village committees. Duringujamaathe village committee decided everything, and it stilldoes to a degree. This gave the research an importantvariable to consider when looking at concepts such associal capital and social networks.

But more importantly, the selection of Tanzaniawas based on it having the largest single HPI programin the world (Kinsey, 1994). This meant much couldbe learned from HPI’s approach in working withcommunities. Another interesting aspect was that HPITanzania worked with, and still works closely with, theMinistry of Agriculture and the regional and districtlivestock officers. All three were reasons to select HPITanzania as the project with which to work.

In Tanzania, the research concentrated on goatgroups in the Arumeru and Hai districts, both inNorthern Tanzania. Together with the KilimanjaroRegion, this is one of the richest areas in Tanzania. Mt.Meru, the fifth largest mountain in Africa, reaching5,000 meters above sea level, dominates the Arumerudistrict. Mt. Kilimanjaro, the largest mountain inAfrica, dominates the Hai district. The soils on bothslopes are volcanic and considered to be highly-to-medium fertile. There is a bimodal rain pattern, withtwo wet seasons separated by two dry seasons. Theshort, hot, and dry period occurs between January andmid-March followed by the “long rains” that occurfrom mid-March to May. From June to October thereis a long, cool season and then “short rains” occurbetween September and December (Carlsson, 1996).

Because it is located on the slopes of two veryfertile mountains, and because it enjoys a favor-able tropical climate, the region produces most ofTanzania’s main cash crop, coffee. The dominantactivity in the area is agriculture, mainly practiced onmixed farms. Most farmers, being smallholders, preferto diversify their risk and have one plot of land in thehighlands with coffee and bananas and have anotherplot of land in the lowlands with maize and beans. Tosupplement their income and their diet, most farmershave some livestock, which due to scarcity of land, isstall-fed and usually is of an upgrade breed of cattle orsmall stock.

The population pressure is intense in this region,especially in the coffee and banana belt. Most ofthe population has settled in this fertile belt. A 1988population census revealed that the Arumeru districthad a population of 321,835. The average householdsize was 5.3 and it had a population density of 109

people per square kilometer, which is higher than theaverage 29 people per square kilometer in the restof Tanzania. According to the 1988 census, the Haidistrict had a population of 196,901, and a lowerdensity of 89 people per square kilometer.

There is an acute land shortage, leading to seasonaland permanent migration to the lowlands (Carlsson,1996). It is also leading to dissension in families andvillages because farmers are unable to inherit viableplots of land for farming. Therefore, both on theslopes of Mt. Meru and Mt. Kilimanjaro, farmers arelooking for alternative survival strategies. HPI playsan important role in these survival strategies becauseit supplies crossbred, genetically improved livestockto the areas, which have higher yields and can bestall-fed, thereby reducing the pressure on the land.

The four case studies

Each of the four case studies has a very differenthistory, and a different set of networks that broughtthem together. The first group that was researched wasthe Pendaneni women’s group. It is based in Karangai,a small village of about 550 households on the plainsof the slopes of Mt. Meru. It is the only real women’sgroup within the four case studies. The group startedin 1993 with about 15 members, and as of 1998 had 45members. Its origin as a functioning group stems froma development project set up by the Catholic churchthat encouraged a group of women to get togetherin order to access resources more easily. The groupstarted with a project on trees and chickens. Unfortu-nately, the chickens died and the members decided toabandon the project, causing many women to leave thegroup. Since then, the group started an agroforestryproject that seems to be doing well with its nurseryand it is even selling seedlings. The women applied forcows and goats through Heifer Project International.Since joining HPI, the group has grown bigger andit has had to negotiate several issues, one leading toits division into subsections. The group meets everyTuesday to help each other with the land.

The second group on the slopes of Mt. Meru workson a soil conservation and agroforestry project in thesmall village of Nambala. The small village is locatedon the old road from Arusha to Moshi, with closecontacts to the regional agricultural center north of thevillage. The Nambala group is a group of farmers thatcame together to work on soil and water conservation,because Soil Conservation and Agroforestry Project ofArusha (SCAPA) encouraged them to start workingwith contours and land rehabilitation. Consequently,the members started to produce so much fodder, thatwith the help of SCAPA, they approached HPI in


1996 and requested animals that would eat the fodder.Because the interaction of the individuals in the groupis limited to the one time activity of constructingcontours on one’s land, the individuals have not beenable to foster many sustainable networks with othergroup members. The absence of a strong group ethoshas given one farmer the power to dominate the group,which has resulted in a feeling of a lack of belongingamong other farmers.

The two other groups are located on the slopesof Mt. Kilimanjaro. Samaki Maini is an old villagewith clans that go back seven generations. There aresome 650 households in the village. In contrast tothe two other groups, it is a group that is completelydominated by the village committee and by the clansin the area. In 1987, an HPI supervisor approachedthe village, and asked the village whether it would beinterested in the passing-on gift scheme. The selec-tion of the farmers went through the village committeewho placed it in the hands of some specific memberswithin certain clans. Therefore, from the beginning,members outside the clans felt disconnected from thegroup process. Apart from living in the same villageand getting a goat, there seemed to be little incentivefor the members to meet each other.

The last group selected for the case study is a groupthat was born out of the church and the church’s closerelations with the Evangelical Lutheran Church ofTanzania (ELCT), an entity that has collaborated withHPI. The Ivaeny goat group is interesting because it isthe only case in which the church approached specificfarmers to become members of the group. Most of themembers chosen for this group were widowed females,and often rich ones. They all seem to have a relation-ship with the church. The women do not do any otheractivity together as a group.

Finding social capital in the field: Observations

Each group used their social networks in a differentway to access the goats. In Nambala, one person usedhis social capital to gain access to the group, and wasable to organize the distribution of goats so that theycould all be found in his sub-village. In Samaki Maini,social capital was not active in that it was not beingused to create new relationships. Instead, it was basedon an age-old clan system. In Karangai, a consciouseffort was made to apply controls, both social andinstitutional, so that the pass-on system would survive.In Ivaeny, social capital was not used to gain accessto the goats. The church received the goat because theparishioners had social capital invested in the church.

These conclusions are in the case histories told bythe members of the group. Though the importance

of diversity has been stressed throughout the theoret-ical section and is illustrated in the case studies, thereare still some important themes that cut across eachgroup. These themes need to be discussed becausethey present the factors that could lead to a greaterunderstanding of social capital, groups, developmentprojects, and technology transfer in the future.

Social capitaldoesdetermine who gets the goat

In accordance with HPI Tanzania policy, all of the goatgroups in this research project were based on a previ-ously existing group. This was done so that the peoplein the group could provide a safety net for the rest ofthe members, and could apply social control to ensurefair distribution of the goats. In this research, socialcapital appeared to be most instrumental in gettinginformation, and even in getting the goat, rather thanin supporting the actual survival of the group. In otherwords, social capital was used to access the goat ratherthan to hold the group together. This was the casewithin each of the groups.

Of all the groups, only Karangai members wereconcerned with maintaining the group and its activ-ities. In part, this was due to the group’s history andhow it selected its future members. The groups witha history of activities were more likely to continuewith group activities, whereas the groups who onlycame together for the goats were only concerned withgoats and did not consider the group process to beof any importance. In groups where members wereidentified ahead of time, it was easier to apply socialcontrol because people knew the recipients. However,in groups where the recipient base was extensive, suchas that of a village, it was impossible to apply socialcontrol. At times, the recipient would not know whothe pass-on farmers were, indicating that the socialcapital was mainly used to gain access to the animal.The women’s group was able to maintain the mostcontrol over the groupper seand use the social capitalconstructively.

In other words, social capital was primarily usedto gain access to the goats rather than to maintainconnections with the group or to allow internal or evenexternal control of the farmers. Most farmers inter-viewed knew more about the people in charge of thegroups than they knew about other members. Severalmembers indicated that they did not see the value ofbeing part of the group once they had received a goat.

This means that social capital is used mainly asa tool to access resources, and not as one to imple-ment social control and a sense of community. Insteadof enhancing and creating social capital, the goatscreated situations in which people already neededsocial capital to be part of the group, and where they

78 NICOLINE DE HAAN

needed to “spend” some of their social capital to getthe goat.

Where is the social capital

The interesting aspect of social capital research comesout in its actor-defined nature, which allows themembers to define social capital. In each of the casesstudied, the “source” of social capital was different.The word “source” is used because the origin ofthe social capital could be very diverse. The moststraightforward case was Samaki Maini, where theclan largely determined the social networks throughwhich one acquired the goat. In Ivaeny, social capitalrested with those who maintained important relation-ships with the church, particularly widows. For thePendaneni women’s group, the social capital was inthe relationships the women had formed over the years,but also depended upon the religion one practiced.In Nambala, social capital was geographically deter-mined, depending on which sub-village you lived.However, this was again linked closely to the mostinfluential member of the group who made sure thatmost of the farms were close to his house. Thediversity in sources shows that a project that embracesembeddedness allows for very different processes tobecome important, ones that might otherwise not havebeen accessed if a blueprint had been followed.

The action is in the application and distribution

Accessing social networks and using social capitalwithin the goat groups occurs mainly at the point ofapplication for the goat and the distribution of thegoat. This is where the interface occurs, and wheremembers are able to gain access to the goat. It is wherethe farmers have to re-order their social relations tosee whether their social networks give them access toinformation about the goat project, and where they alsohave to decide whether they would be willing to usetheir social networks to apply for the goat.

The initial mobilization of networks within thecommunity is in the application process. To launchthe application process, each group was required tohave access to relationships outside of the village.For two groups, Karangai and Nambala, it meantactively seeking outside relationships. Nambala wasable to benefit from its close relationship with Life-stock Training Institute (LIT) and SCAPA. Karangaiwas lucky to have had some interactions with theCatholic church, which had given them access to infor-mation such as the HPI program. The other two groupswere equally dependent on their external relationships,although they did not have to mobilize themselvesto receive the goats; they were lucky enough to beapproached by others. In both cases, the choice of

the villages was based on personal connection withexternal networks.

At the individual level, the choice of the nextanimal recipient was where relationships among thevillagers and group members played a crucial role.At one level, it was not always the direct personalrelationship between the recipient and the committeemember or village leader that determined the selectionprocedure; often, it was a farmer’s relationship withthe village that was the crucial element. Among themembers of all four groups, the implicit condition forreceiving a goat was that of knowing the person andhis family relations. Groups, in most cases, would notagree to give a goat to an outsider. Established relation-ships within the village were a very important selectioncriterion. In discussing applicants, the family situationwas a primary criterion because the implication wasthat it indicated to the members whether the farmerwould be able to take care of the goat or whetherhe was worthy of one. The applicant’s family situ-ation also indicated to the villagers when a family wasin trouble and could benefit from a goat. When anapplicant’s family was in trouble, committees wouldgive these applicants high priority and give goats tothem.

This does not imply that personal relationshipsamong members do not make a difference. As eachcase study illustrates, there is always room for farmersto enhance their position in the selection procedureshould they be willing and able. The best example ofthis is the woman in Samaki Maini who stated thatshe had asked a member whether she could get a goat,and in return he had promised her that he would dowhat he could. But, selection can be as complicated asthe case in Ivaeny where most of the group membershad a long established relationship with the church,which enabled them to gain, access to the goats. InSamaki Maini, there were rumors that it was evenpossible to bribe the committee members, althoughthese were unconfirmed rumors and not presented ascommon practice. The most common means for peopleto enhance their own position was to get involved withthe committee or to play a role within the group.

Information, gatekeepers, and supervisors

One of the most important manifestations of socialcapital in the pass-on system is the usage of knowl-edge. In both the application and distribution phases,access to information enabled people to act. Informa-tion was used by leaders in all of the villages. Anexample of this is the role that the village committeeplayed in the process.

In the past, each village had a committee headedby a development officer with district-level connec-


tions in charge of the development of the village.However, this meant that one person, with the helpof the village committee, would be in charge of alldevelopment and would have access to all resources.Although this is not the case anymore, the vestigesstill remain and all development has to go through thevillage committee. Thus, a lot of the information ischanged by the village committee. In Nambala andSamaki Maini, the information on the goat distributionwas supposedly delivered through the village office,which passed it on to the villagers in village meetings,or through the church. However, in many cases peopleonly heard about it through their own networks, oras they put it, “they heard it on the road.” Therefore,either the village committee was being selective indisseminating the information, or the village meetingswere not accessible to all people, due to labor or timeconstraints. Consequently, some people felt excludedand were dissatisfied, which sometimes resulted inanger towards the members. In Samaki Maini, wherethe dissemination was village-based, it quickly becameclear that the information, as well as the goat itselfwere not being given to the whole village, but onlyto a select few. It was interesting to note that inSamaki Maini, the select few with the goats also hadconnections with the village leaders and were usuallymembers of one of the four clans that dominated thegoat project.

Another arena in which information played animportant role was in the arena of supervisor interac-tions. The supervisor is the main source of informationon the technicalities of the group process and the actualtechnology. For the case studies, the supervisor forNambala and Karangai did not play a very importantrole, in part because he depended on other people andstructures to take care of the groups. In Samaki Mainiand Ivaeny, the supervisor played a significant, thoughdiminishing role. However, he was instrumental inestablishing the system and in selecting the first benefi-ciaries. In Samaki Maini, the woman involved with allthe women’s projects in the village took over the groupat the beginning, causing the group members not tochallenge the system once it was in place. It also meantthat the supervisor could manipulate the information tohis or her own benefit. In these groups, this was not acommon problem.

The influence that the supervisor, other gate-keepers, or the village committee have should not beunderestimated when trying to disseminate technologyon a group basis. One of the purposes of disseminatinginformation to groups or to communities is to facil-itate access to it by the entire community. In reality,the people with access to the information in the fourgroups did not disseminate it widely. Not only didthey exclude other people, but they also made the

excluded feel disgruntled, which worked against thesystem instead of strengthening it.

Age matters

The groups vary in age, which has implication forthe role of social capital in groups. At the time ofthe research (1997–1998), the Nambala group wasthe youngest, with barely a year of involvement withthe goats and only two years with SCAPA. The nextyoungest was the Karangai group, which was formedin 1993 and received goats in 1996. The Ivaeny groupreceived the goats in 1992. The Samaki Maini group isthe oldest group, receiving its first goats in 1990.

The case studies show that the most importantimplication regarding age is that the relationships inthe older groups are well defined, whereas in theyounger groups they are still in flux. The powerproblem in the Nambala group clearly illustrates this.There were discussions about restructuring the powerrelationships within the group by forcing the currentchairman out of the group, and reorganizing manage-ment of the group. This is in contrast to the Ivaenygroup, in which everyone had accepted the close andmutually beneficial relationship that the group leaderhad built up with the church, so no one questioned.For the younger group, this means there is still consid-erable room for exercising influence in the system.

Another example of this intricate relationshipbetween age and structure is in the Karangai group.Though the group only recently received the goats, ithad a history of experience with other projects. Themembers knew what they could expect of each other,and trusted each other. This meant that they couldapply pressure on farmers to pass on the goats, and thuslet more people benefit from the distribution system.

Different cultures

It was not only the difference in the age of the groupthat determined the way social capital was used in thegroup, but the culture also played a role. There is astriking contrast in culture between the two villages onthe slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro and those on the plains.The Samaki Maini and Ivaeny villages both share along history of clan involvement of a single tribe. Thishas resulted in very clear, and often traditional rela-tionships within the communities. This also influencedthe distribution of goods within the community. As aresult, the distribution of the goats followed acceptedsocial networks that no one challenged.

In contrast, the villages of Nambala and Karangaihave only been settled in the last 50 years, and theyhave been settled by various tribes. Thus, there was nodominant tradition in the villages, leading to a muchmore dynamic village. This can, in part, be attributed

80 NICOLINE DE HAAN

to the fact that people were still trying to establish rela-tionships among themselves. Long and Long (1992:23) believed they were still attempting to understandeach other and create a common world. As part ofthis process, people are also more likely to challengedecisions made, and the villagers are more likely torevert to rules and structural controls that are moretransparent at times.

The culture of the communities also influencedanother asset of social capital, the type of relation-ships maintained outside of the community. BecauseIvaeny is an old community, it has learned how to bringdevelopment to the village through its relationshipswith villagers who have left the area temporarily. Thecommunity understands how to use these networks,including how to invite HPI to the area. Even thoughNambala and Karangai are younger villages, they arestill able to access more networks because of familymembers that remain in the areas they left.

Tanzania and ujamaa

The use of social capital as a means of barter ratherthan as a means of social control may lie in Tanzania’spast. Tanzania, with its history ofujamaa, has under-gone an atypical development course compared toother African countries (Lele, 1975). During thisresearch, it became clear thatujamaahas had a majoreffect on how Tanzanian farmers work with groupsand within groups. It came as a surprise to me thatpeople in Tanzania were less civic-minded than onewould assume for a country founded on the conceptof traditional cooperation. However, previous researchin Tanzania confirmed this lack of social cohesion(Barkan, 1994).

It can be argued that this hesitancy to work ingroups, collectives, or associations is a reaction toujamaa, which forced people to work collectively, andconstrained individuals in their own development. Thisis contrary to Nyerere’s conceptualization ofujamaa,the idea of building up social networks and trust amongeach other. Farmers in Tanzania seemed to fear anysort of collective action, making it very difficult tofoster groups and collective action. The HPI groupsalso had to deal with this problem. This has specialimplications for the HPI groups given that part of thetechnology is dependent upon collaboration and thesharing of networks. For the case studies, this meantthat the social capital and individual emphasis centeredon acquiring the animal and that very little was done onmaintaining the system once the goat was obtained.

Self-selection and risk

The previous paragraphs illustrate how people usedsocial capital in ways not envisioned by HPI. However,

the groups also used social capital in a way thatbenefited the sustainability of the project. Farmers ineach group believed that the goat should be given tosomeone who would be able to take care of them.They all seemed to understand and even emphasize theimportance of the ability to take care of the goat andthe risk involved. The goats that HPI distributed wereassociated with a degree of risk because they were anew breed, not yet acclimated for the area. Therefore,the best management scheme was not yet known. Thishad implications. For instance, a better-fed goat willalways produce more milk and yield better offspring.

HPI had established an important self-selectionprocess. The management of a goat requires resources.To ensure that people had these resources, eachmember was asked to build abanda2 for his goat. Thisrequired a major investment on the part of the recip-ient. However, it was assumed that if he or she hadthe money and resources to build abanda, he or shewould also be able to take care of the goat. Moreover,the banda proved to be important factor for the healthof the goats.

By allowing the farmers, albeit through thecommittee, to decide on the distribution of the nextgeneration, a certain control was established. It was theknowledge that people gained through these networksthat allowed them to judge whether a farmer would beable to take care of the goat, and thus whether or nothe or she would jeopardize the project. This providedthe groups with a mechanism that would cultivategroup sustainability as well as weed out abusers of thesystem.

Women groups: Purpose and sustainability

Of the four groups in the study, only one was awomen’s group by definition, Karangai, though Ivaenywasde factoalso a women’s group. Of all the groups, itwas interesting to note that the two groups dominatedby women were more civic-minded and had greatersolidarity. This was most evident in the Pendaneniwomen’s group, as illustrated by the amount of infor-mation each member had on other members in thegroup. Each member of the Pendaneni group couldidentify the other members in the group for activ-ities such as meetings. In the other groups, it wasonly the steering committee that had this information,which would safeguard and divulge information whenit would benefit them. Because the women knew eachother better, they were able to check and confirm theinformation, or they would at least know where to goto for the information.

What seemed most important for the groups’degree of cohesion was a common purpose. Though


none of the groups actually came together on theirown, (even the women’s groups were formed becausethere were some benefits from outside sources ofbeing a group), the group with the most motivationwas the women’s group. The main reason for thishigh degree of cohesion was the group’s joint engage-ment in various activities; the group also had a vestedinterest in the goat activity. They also saw each otherin several arenas and were able to control each other byasking questions and talking about the goats, makingit easier for the farmers to pressure others to cooperatethrough norms and values. In the women’s group,there was definitely a greater sense of inclusion andenclosure among the farmers. In other groups, thegoats did not seem to serve a sufficient motivation tokeep the group together. This was clear in the widowgroup in Ivaeny, as well as the other Mt. Kilimanjarogroup. Nambala did seem to fare a little better, but thatwas because the members would come together to talkabout the various conservation techniques they weretesting.

When asked whether there were any other benefits,most of the women said that the groups enabled themto learn, and, in some instances provided support. Thissort of benefit is not easily quantifiable, however it isimportant because it gave the women another resourceinto which they could tap. For the Ivaeny widows, thegoats served as a resource that they would otherwisenot have been able to access. However, it was unfor-tunate that within the group the resources were tightlycontrolled by one of the widows, who also happenedto be the daughter of one of the old traditional chiefsin the area.

Theoretically, groups are also viewed as a means offostering new relationships to diversify the networksa farmer can use as a safety net. Unfortunately, thisdid not happen in this women’s group. Furthermore,the women did not seem to benefit from the externalrelations that some members of the group had. Thewomen still seemed to direct all of their concerns tothe village pastor and seemed to get their informa-tion from the village pastor. This pastor functionedas patron and mentor of the group, meaning that allcontacts to the outside world went through him. Yet,the group process was able to cement and strengthensome relationships that had already existed.

Arenas of interaction

Access to a variety of arenas of interaction was alsoimportant in the working of the groups. Groups, thatdepended only on the informational seminars to bringpeople together, proved not to be very cohesive. Thiswas because the people were not able to create trust

or networks in the short time they spent together.Instead, groups that had more forms of interactionwere more cohesive and had a higher chance of pass-ons. Spatial distance was also an issue for the groups.In the women’s group, all the members lived withineasy walking distance of each other. When membersfrom another village wanted to join, they were toldthey could not because it would be too far for themto meet. In another group on Mt. Kilimanjaro, themembers lived so far apart from each other that theywould only meet each other in the meetings or bychance at the market. So, there was little, if any otherinteraction between the farmers. This also meant thatthe group had very little chance to pressure each other,through formal or informal measures.

According to the theory on social capital, the factthat people have various arenas in which they meeteach other improves the effect that the group can haveon an individual. Often the role of church and reli-gion are mentioned in this connection, believing thatmembers of the same congregation will influence eachother and will see each other at church and otherchurch-related functions. This research showed thatreligion was not an arena in which people of the samegroup met each other very often. The Ivaeny group,whose membership was based on the Lutheran church,was one of the most inactive groups and its social cohe-sion was poor. However, it was interesting to note thatNambala, which had a decent level of interaction, wasalso the group that was able to incorporate the highestnumber of religions. For many of the members in thisgroup, building social capital was still a requisite, andtherefore the farmers were still testing each other’slimits. Therefore, the group carefully selected thetypes of activities they organized. It also meant thatthe people in the group would check up on each othermore regularly.

Cohesion and face-to-face interaction seemed to bevery important factors for the women’s group. At onepoint the women’s group decided to split into sub-groups, otherwise the groups would be too dispersedfor the members to meet each other regularly. Also, itwould be too difficult for the people to coordinate witheach other. So, it was decided that the women woulddivide into four sections that would meet weekly,and then the whole group would meet monthly. Thishad the interesting effect of dividing the group alongthe lines of religion, which might not be effectivein the long-run because one of the four groups wasthreatening to become too overbearing.

On a practical level: Lessons learned

On a very practical level, the case studies broughtforward several lessons that would be of use to

82 NICOLINE DE HAAN

future practitioners. Though embracing flexibilitywhen establishing the groups is important and canwork as shown in the women’s group, it also createsthe opportunity for misuse of power. The groups needto be guarded against that. Two methods for doingthis came forth out of the research. One, enhance theleadership training and ensure that all members areidentified so that they can challenge the power struc-ture if needed. By working with existing groups, it isimplicit that the group has a viable internal structure.However, this might not always be the case, as three ofthe four case studies showed. This means that the threegroups would probably have benefited from leadershiptraining. Two, identify the members who are going tobe involved early in the process. This would mean thatthe members would have had a vested interest in theprocess and in the people, thereby enhancing the rolethat social control can play.

The benefit of working within a diverse setting isthat it does provide certain structures that enhance thesustainability of the group. An example of this is theself-selection that people applied, through the groupsbut also through the building of thebanda. Both mech-anisms ensured that only recipients selected would bethose who were able to take care of the goats.

Discussion: Social capital adapted

The purpose of the research was to gain an under-standing of what is involved in projects that are framedusing a community approach, and in the process togain insight into how groups help with technologytransfer and with improving the position of women.Though it is difficult to make sweeping statements inan intricate situation such as this one, the HPI casestudy revealed some very interesting aspects of socialcapital, gender, and technology transfer.

Technology networked

The case study illustrated that information is one ofthe most important facets in trying to get people tounderstand and adopt a new technology such as a newgoat breed. If people do not get the information, thenthey get disconnected from the project and they areunwilling to participate fully. People will only joingroups to see whether or not they can gain all thebenefits, but they are not willing to pay for them byhelping other farmers with the technology through theexchange of experiences on how best to care for thegoat.

On the other hand, social capital was veryimportant in choosing the member who would bewilling and able to accept the new technology of the

goat. This function should not be underestimated. Byletting the group select its own members, the groupwill also set up its own criteria as to who is mostlikely to succeed; such criteria are often more real-istic and sustainable than any criteria an outside projectmanager could devise. In all the villages, it was clearthat the people with resources and the ability to assumethe risk were the ones that were chosen. This seems tofavor the richer people, but also identifies a role forrich people in this situation.

Women accessed

The fact that the group that had survived the longestwas a women’s group says a lot about the benefitswomen gain by working in groups. This should notbe underestimated. Since the goats are viewed as non-threats, women and the networks they have throughthese groups are also viewed as non-threats, and there-fore the groups are able to do more. Among thewomen, there seemed to be a greater motivation tohave the groups.

Networking technological packages

The biggest benefit to working with a group approachis that it lets people organize their own system.This means the system will be established within thecultural context of that community. There are severalreasons why this is a benefit. One, people under-stand the system better, and it is not seen as anintervention; instead, it is something that people mustnegotiate to make sure it will fit within their world.Two, groups allow people who are best able to assumethe risk of the technology to take this risk becausethey will only select the people who can handle thetechnology. Three, groups take away certain barrierssuch as gender and religion because people work fora common goal. However, when examining socialcapital one notes that there are also some disadvan-tages to working with groups. One, a group maysupport a system that an individual would not wantto support. Two, it is often the people who create thegroups that have control over the resources. In otherwords, they use their social capital in a negative way.Three, it does not necessarily foster a fair distributionwithin the groups, though it can be argued that thedistribution is more fair than if there was no group tocontrol it.

Conclusions

This paper started out examining technology transferwithin the cultural context of communities and groups.However, it turned out that the groups were not used


for technology transfer. Instead the groups’ main rolewas resource transfer (the distribution of the goats).This is due in part to the flexible set-up of the groupapproach, which resulted in groups that were not verycohesive or community-oriented. On the other hand,it was also related to the technology itself. For mostof the farmers in the area, taking care of a goat wasnot a new technology, so they were not dependent onthe groups for information or for the survival of thetechnology.

The only group that benefited from the socialcapital within their group, was the Pendaneni women’sgroup. It was the most cohesive and provided the mostbenefits for its members. One of the most importantreasons for this was because women often did not haveaccess to as many resources as the men did, and wereable to use the group as a resource. Therefore, theywere also more likely to spend time and energy oncreating good relationships within the group becausethe group had some worth to them, and they were ableto benefit from the social capital in the groups. Socialcapital was important to all of the groups. However itwas only the women’s group that was able to use thesocial capital at the group level for the benefit of theindividual members. In the other groups, social capitalwas used to gain access to the goat.

This research project has been beneficial because itillustrates that groups are not cohesive, single units;instead, they are individuals with complex relationsand with different agendas. Therefore, it is importantnot to treat groups as simplistic tools, but instead tolook at them for what they are worth. Individuals withrelations in a group gain many benefits from workingwithin the group. Within these groups, one has theability to use one’s own social capital, as well as thegroup’s. Social capital becomes very important for thefunctioning and the sustainability of the group, and asanother option for farmers to access resources.

Notes

1. Ujamaa, also known as African socialism, was the socialand political founding upon which Tanzania developed afterit gained independence in 1962. Nyerere Tanzania’s presi-dent at the time, and biggest proponent of the idea, basedhis teachings on developing from within. Concepts suchas love and respect among villagers, common propertywithin villages and obligation to work for the commongood figured very strongly in most of Nyerere’s teaching.On a practical level,ujamaaforced many Tanzania’s intovillages, so that they could function as a productive unit.

2. A banda is a separate structure used by farmers to housetheir animals. HPI has a specific design, which is raised offthe ground to limit the goat’s contact with diseases.

References

Akker, J. and J. Shumaker (1996).The Cornerstone Model.Little Rock, Arkansas: Heifer Project International.

Angen, M. (1993).Gender Issues in Arumeru District: A SurveyReport. CIDA, Dar es Salam.

Barkan, J. D. (ed.) (1994).Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialismin Kenya and Tanzania. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne RiennerPublishers.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The forms of capital,” in J. G. Richardson(ed.),Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology ofEducation. New York: Greenwood Press.

Cala, E. and C. Jette (1994).Posesion y Control deTtierras enUna Communidad del Antiplano Central. La Paz, Bolivia.IBTA 138/Boletin Technico 07/SR-CRSP.

Carlsson, E. (1996). “Small holder dairy farming. An aspectof farm intensification.” Lund Papers in Economic History.No. 58. Department of Economic History, Lund University,Sweden.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social capital in the creation of humancapital.” American Journal of Sociology94(Supplement):S95–S120.

de Haan, N., C. Valdivia, G. Njeru, and D. Sheikh (1996).OfGoats, Groups and Gender: A Research Report on the Socio-logical Impacts of the Kenya Dual Purpose Goat. Universityof Missouri: Kenya SR-CRSP Technical Report Series, TR-MU 96-1.

Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic action and social struc-ture: the problem of embeddedness.”American Journal ofSociology91(3): 481–510.

Kinsey, E. (1994). “Aspects of credit in dairy development:The HPI Tanzania Experience.”Tanzanian Society of AnimalProduction21.

Lele, U. (1975).The Design of Rural Development. London:The John Hopkins University Press.

Long, N. and A. Long (eds.) (1992).Battlefields of Knowledge:The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Researchand Development. London: Routledge.

Markowitz, L. and C. Jette (1994).Estrategias Sociales Haciala Sosyenibilidad en Los Andes. Un estudio de caso del Anti-plano Central. La Paz, Bolivia: IBTA 139/Boletin Tecnico08/SR-CRSP.

McCormack, J., M. Walsh, and C. Nelson (1986).Women’sGroup Enterprises: A Study of the Structure of Opportunityof the Kenya Coast. Boston: World Education, Inc.

Narayan, D. and L. Prichett (1996). “Cents and sociability:Household income and social capital in rural Tanzania.” Paperpresented at the World Bank conference “Rural Well-Being:From Vision to Action,” September 25–27, 1996.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). “The prosperous community: Socialcapital and public life.”The American Prospect13: 35–42.

Serageldin, I. (1994).Making Development Sustainable: FromConcept to Action. Environmentally Sustainable Develop-ment Studies and Monograph Series No. 2. Washington, DC:The World Bank.

Serageldin, I. (1996).Sustainability and the Wealth of Nations:First Step in an Ongoing Journey. Environmentally Sustain-able Development Studies and Monograph Series No. 5.Washington, DC: The World Bank.

84 NICOLINE DE HAAN

Valdivia, C. (2001), “Gender, livestock assets, resourcemanagement, and food security: Lessons from the SR-CRSP.”Agriculture and Human Values18(1): 27–39 (this issue).

Villareal, M. (1994).Wielding and Yielding: Power, Subordina-tion and Gender Identity in the Context of a Mexican Devel-opment Project. Published PhD, Wageningen AgriculturalUniversity.

Address for correspondence: Nicoline de Haan, IITA, Ibadan,Nigeria, c/o CIAT, P.O. Box 025443 Miami, FL 33102, USAE-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Of goats and groups: A study on social capital in development projects