| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 06:23 AM
Have you ever wondered, to give one example, why
perfectly rational,
self-interested and
obviously bright Nepalis -- who must have hundreds of other oh-so-important
career-enhancing things to do in the course of a day -- spend their (valuable) time posting stuff on this Web site . . .
when, as economists would say, the costs (of freely posting materials for others to read here) easily OUTWEIGH (any perceptible) private benefits?
If we agree with the conclusion of this article (see below), then we can argue that posting stuff on this Web site for free is actually a form of investment in social
capital, with rewards that will come about a few years down the line.
An academically verified reason to keep on posting interesting stuff on sajha.com (in your own name, if possible!)!!
Enjoy the article.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
*******************************
A question of trust
Feb 20th 2003
From The Economist print edition
Economists are arguing about “social capital”—starting with what it means
WHAT gives rise to the wealth of nations? Some see the source in rich seams of mineral resources such as oil or coal. Geography matters too: countries in temperate climes tend to be richer, other things being equal, than those closer to the equator. Then there are institutions: the rule of law and (perhaps) democracy. Above these, most economists since Adam Smith have believed, stands the invisible hand of the market, guiding selfish human actions to serve the common good.
Is there something missing from the list? For the past decade or so, sociologists have been pushing one more concept, “social capital”—trust or community, in one of its guises—that is now also being taken up by economists. Crudely speaking, the more people trust each other, the better off their society. They might work more efficiently together, for example. In business, trust might obviate the need for complicated contracts, and thus save on lawyers' fees.
You might expect that America, which has such a successful economy, had social capital in shedloads. Maybe, and maybe not: one of the most influential essays in the field, “Bowling Alone”, by Robert Putnam of Harvard University, pointed out that Americans were far less likely to be members of community organisations, clubs or associations in the 1990s than they were in the 1950s. He illustrated his thesis by charting the decline of bowling leagues.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 06:24 AM
A recent set of articles in the Economic Journal* shows how economists are grappling to analyse social capital. On the face of it, the idea that trust or community can make a difference between wealth and poverty does not fit easily with the basic assumption of orthodox economic theory: that humans are essentially self-interested animals. That is why it has an instinctive appeal to “behavioural” economists, who think that this assumption has been accepted too uncritically.
In one paper, Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, of the University of Massachusetts, advance just such a view. They argue that, if social capital is taken into account, economists have to put aside the idea that people are simple, self-interested economic machines. People donate their time to all sorts of things, from voting to teaching in Sunday school, whose costs outweigh the private benefits. Obviously, argue Mr Bowles and Mr Gintis, humans are social animals.
This could be explained away easily, though, by making the assumption that people derive utility from helping others at their own expense. But the authors think that something more sophisticated is required. They carried out experiments, using university students, to see how a group of people might encourage each other to act in the interests of the group as a whole. Many subjects, it seems, take pleasure in punishing free-riders. Many respond to the shame of being found out as shirkers, which encourages co-operation. The lesson is that notions of selfish, or indeed altruistic, preferences cannot explain the incentives of people in a village, school or parish. The authors conclude that such communities are the missing ingredient, alongside markets and the state, in understanding an economy.
No, it does not take a village
In another paper, Edward Glaeser and David Laibson of Harvard University and Bruce Sacerdote of Dartmouth College take individuals, not groups, as their starting point. They also use a more individualist definition of social capital: a person's social skills. This can mean a long list of contacts, a facility for dealing with others, or even just charisma. The authors include popularity in their definition, since it can be the result of investing in personal relationships. They measure people's stock of social capital by the number of organisations—clubs, charities, religious groups and so forth—to which they belong.
The authors see social capital as something that people can build for themselves, rather as they build financial wealth by saving or investing, or “human capital” by acquiring skills and education. A doctor, for example, might invest in more than just medical education: by joining a local club, she could get to know her patients better and perhaps increase her future income.
Messrs Glaeser, Laibson and Sacerdote find that investment in social capital, as they define it, has similar characteristics to investment in financial or human capital. People join professional societies, say, when they are young and reap the benefits when they are older, relying on business contacts made early on, just as they do with savings. People also invest more in social capital the more likely they are to remain living in the same place; the “bowling alone” phenomenon may be partly attributed to rising mobility. They also invest more in social capital the more they stand to gain from it. When there is nothing in it for them, they neglect their neighbours. Homo economicus lives.
By definition, however, decisions to invest in social capital affect not just the individuals making them but others too. It is tempting, if social capital is defined in terms of community or trust, to see such spillovers as always positive. But they may not be. For instance, if people act in the interests of a group to which they belong, others can be harmed: a professional association, for example, may keep fees and entry barriers high, or some groups may exclude outsiders altogether.
In the final paper in the series, Steven Durlauf of the University of Wisconsin says that research into social capital may have become a bit too other-worldly. Existing data, mostly taken from surveys, are not up to the task of specifying social capital precisely enough. Perhaps too much has been invested in the concept of social capital to help explain why nations become wealthy. As more economists pile into this fertile area, expect more deflation of the concept—and also more argument.
*Volume 112, Number 483, November 2002
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 06:29 AM
>>If we agree with the conclusion of this article
PLEASE READ AS: If we agree with some of conclusions made by the researchers, as pointed out by this article,
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 05:00 PM
Have heard the term before. Valid enough. One of many factors in play.
As for resuscicating Sajha, I believe the archives need to be alive. Hiddai chha, pail metdai chha huna bhayena.
Let San make the books public, and contributions will flow, if that is what has been the hindrance.
A virtual chautari, a "club." Helping people meet who otherwise never might. As well renewing old "Old" acquaintances.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 08:30 PM
A successful American multi-millionaire once advised me:
a) Be among the best in what you do (ie go for depth or professional competence)
b) Know a lot of people of various backgrounds (ie. go for breadth or social capital)
Success will follow.
Short and life-changing advice indeed.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 08:37 PM
So are we a millionaire yet!?
:-)
Actually I think he makes a bunch of sense!
;-)
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 09:03 PM
hm, accumulation of social capuital is NECESSAARY to succeed anywhere. And in a country like Nepal, where you have to use your "connections" at times to get things done, its more of a life-saver than in other countries.
I have always said that we should be able to use these kind of forums and chat rooms to build a network of young, educated (excluding me) and ghumeko-fireko Nepalis because in the long run (keynesian model ho? :-) I know no econ) we are the ones who will lead Nepal.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a healthy discussion her despite our differences and also learn it right here on sajha that:
admitting mistakes won't result in your Beijjjaatti
disagreeing doesn't mean Hindi-Film style dushmani
hoina ta?
(of course, being isolated I have no clue...just my random thoughts)
m, an interesting piece. i didn't read it at first thinking it would have all those economic equations and theories..
let me just write one thing:Yes
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 09:07 PM
ulto palto bhayo.. damnmed khasa bajar mouse..
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 09:09 PM
The concept of Social Capital is a spill over of "Culture", where social credibility has been given importance as an investment into a "comfort zone" in times of need. It is a fancy term for "communalism" of sorts where the fundamental unit of social capital is the family: nuclear or extended; where the members involved have a vested interest in nurturing such relationships so they can bank upon it in future. Look at an average Nepali family where the sons are conditioned to take over family business as well as "look after" the parents in their old age.
If you move away from the core concept of the family, social capital translates into school "cliques", ivy leagues, boarding schools, country clubs,...and so on. The term can be further stretched and abstracted into cyber circles ( Ashu ji as you said.....Sajha). One good example is the question/s: "Any Sajhaites in Thailand?" , where based on a cyber identity, we create a credibility which transcends the web into forming a concrete and credible social circle based on a demand trust. Here the demand trust translates into: " you have read my views; you know my leanings; we have communicated and dis/agree upon certain topics.....therefore since we share the same forum, I expect you to trust me because I am willing to trust you in seeking you out on the basis of our cyber interaction."
Such a creation of a subculture is not new. Anthropologists have moved away from using the concept of "culture" because it re-affirms what it set out to refute.... stereotyping of people, place, nationality..... The academic definition of "culture" was/is limiting in itself because the norms have shifted and so has the "average" or "general" terms. Critical Anthropology questions such broad yet rigid generalizations. Ironically the term "culture" has been taken up by other disciplines like Politics, Psychology, Economics...... and have coined other terms that suit the context in a broad sense. "Social capital" is just one of such terms percolated from the larger and more ambiguous word "Culture".
Ashu ji,
Thank you for the article. I had read "Bowling Alone" and a couple or more on the same subject. Wonderful that you bring these topics to our attention.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 26-Feb-03 10:29 PM
sitara
wow!!
|
| rajunpl |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 04:35 AM
bujhina kya..??
|
| noname |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 06:32 AM
Pachhi padhchhu! IF lai WOW garaune kuro ke rahechha ta tyaha....! ahile aru thread ma pani aankha daudaunu chha...!!
|
| SITARA |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 07:51 AM
IF ji....
Why wow? Making fun of my views hajur? :( chitta bhujhena?
:)
|
| rajunpl |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 08:46 AM
Pakka pani hoina hola
IF le ta bughera nai ho............... lau ja
|
| Paschim |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 09:16 AM
I'm sure Sitara will be pleased to note that I found (while doing a literature survey on this topic 2 years ago) that the first use of the term ‘social capital’ is actually attributed to a *Superintendent of Schools* in West Virginia, Lyda Hanifan, who advocated community involvement to make state schools run well. And that was a long time ago, in 1916!
Putnam’s “Civic traditions in Modern Italy” preceded “Bowling Alone” in fame. He studied 20 regional governments, identical in form, that were planted in different Italian provinces in the 1970s. Some ended up performing way better than others. After a classic study, he concluded that their differing quality in performance was less to do with party politics or ideology, or initial wealth, than forms of SC/civic engagement like voter turnout, football club membership, newspaper readership, etc. His simplest explanation of SC is this: social networks have value, and like physical capital (machines) or human capital (education), social contacts also influence the productivity of people (of course people knew this in Nepal from Bhimsen Thapa's time, way before Putnam figured it out at Harvard!).
It’s not all rosy, and the literature emphasizes the flip side of social capital too. Religious cults, terrorist organizations, and drug cartels are all groups with strong internal ties, but they wreak havoc in the wider society. Add to the list, Nepali Maoists, Nepali Congress Central Committee, and the Nepali Raja’s friends at hotels and Indian vehicle stores.
|
| Arnico |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 10:37 AM
Glad to see so many familiar faces here. Maile pani hajir garnu paryo... even if at the moment I can't think of anything meaningful to contribute...
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 27-Feb-03 07:44 PM
Wow! on your informed explanation of social capital ni hajur... how can moi make fun of vous experrt views?
I'll never do that.
However, I have some question on your post, which I'll be bugging you with, soon.
freaky freak
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 28-Feb-03 03:22 AM
Sitara,
Thank you for your kind words.
It's my pleasure to bring -- in a spirit of nothing other than public service -- to bring interesting news, info and views here so that more discussions, guff-suff and fun
ensue for all of us.
The kind of quiet good pleasure that one derives from doing things like this is immense; to me, anyway.
oohi
ashu
ktm,nepal
|
| RAJUNPL |
Posted
on 28-Feb-03 04:06 AM
I wasn't being offensive but it was a good one from the ashu literally.Good topics to go with.good views on the SC by IF,SITARA,PASCHIM and the ASHU.
Let's begin with the something smaller (practically)
social: This is a begining of civilization it can be compared with the science,politics,economics,culture and many more ( as far as i am concerned the plce where we are today is all because of what....? )somewhre i can find that ISOLATED FREAK believees in the changes of state from the transformation of one stage to other.
capital: Also for this let's go for the simplest of the simple meaning.In the political term "capital" means the collective wealth of a state.The capital is nothing moe than the kind of moveable object.It is a state who has to rule over it.Economically capital can be everything for the any given company.(as far as i am concerned)
ISOLATED FREAK: I have seen his ideas practicalle effective and something that has revolt and can be resulted as good.
SITARA: concentrated in the inheritance bur right in his/her perspective.
PASCHIM: Was a informative knowledge.
|
| paramendra |
Posted
on 03-Mar-03 05:04 PM
Ashu ko social capital
Hajur ko intellectual capital
Paschim ko .. hmm .. capital
Junction place ...........
|
