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.