ISSN 0798 1015

Vol. 38 (Nº 48) Year 2017. Page 14

Role and Impact of Social Capital on Functioning of the Local Self-Government Institute

Papel e impacto del capital social en el funcionamiento del Instituto local de gobierno autónomo

Anna Nikolaevna GLEBOVA 1; Natalya Vladimirovna HAVANOVA 2; Irina Albertovna DUBORKINA 3; Vera Egorovna GLADKOVA 4; Irina Andreevna ROZHDESTVENSKAYA 5

Received: 12/06/2017 • Approved: 30/06/2017

Content

1. Introduction

2. Methods

3. Results and Discussion

4. Conclusion

References

1. Introduction

Researching the self-governance system, O.B. Alekseev and I.O. Genissaretskiy note, “If the local self-governance determines regulatory restrictions on the life activity of local communities, structures of the reality prevail in its content itself” (Alekseev and Genisaretskiy, 1996). In the sociological interpretation the notion of reality is identified with the local self-governance, and everyday local problems.

The reality of the everyday life has an inter-subjective nature. It consists of the interrelation, interconnection and communication of various people “here and now”. The basic of the common world includes life principles, philosophy, standards and rules, “constant correspondence of the values of one individual and values of other people, common understanding of the axiomatical ordinariness of the everyday life” (Berger and Lukman, 1996).

The world of reality is a number of life difficulties everyone has to face and overcome every day. In fact, life difficulties are, above all, social problems. Any person’s life activity is impossible without solving them. Family and every day labor cares and problems consist of trifles of the everyday life: children’s bringing up and education, earning money, acquiring comfortable houses, care after the aged parents, car exploitation, etc. (Kukhtin, Levov, Danilova, Morozov, Khavanova and Danilov, 2012). In order to successfully solve numerous life problems, it is necessary to mobilize all resources the person has or acquires by interrelating in the inter-personal environment. The total of all means and resources for life activity is a resourceful potential or “capital” and its various forms.

One of such forms - the category of social capital – allows “building in” the impact of the reality into the construction of sociological ideas.

The comprehensive sociological research of the notion “social capital” was firstly made by the French Sociologist P. Bourdieu. He defined it as “an aggregate of actual or potential resources related to having strong networks of connections, more or less instutionalized relations of the mutual acquaintance and acknowledge” (Bourdieu, 1896). In his interpretation of the “social capital” there is nothing but the social obligation converted into the economic capital subject to certain conditions.

The social capital as interpreted by R. Patnem (1995) is found in elements of non-governmental organizations, social networks, social standards, and trust. They create conditions for cooperation and coordination for the benefit of the common good. As the social capital is used, its size grows, because the processes of mutual supportiveness and coordination run more intensively, and the networks of solidarity become more efficient, and increase the gross of the mutual trust.

J. Coleman introduced his concept of this phenomenon. According to him, “the social capital is the potential of mutual trust and mutual assistance, formed rationally and according to the target in the inter-personal environment (Coleman, 1988; Coleman, 1990).

Two types of social capital - cognitive and structural – make up a level of local communities. The cognitive type includes trust, mutual responsibility, and solidarity – the most important values that are peculiar of members of the local community and shared by them. M. Paldam uses a successful metaphor and estimates the social capital as “the glue that allows mobilizing additional resources of relations based on the trust of people to each other” (Paldam, 2008). They create the required conditions for their collective work for the sake of their common good. They are formed as a result of the activity, meeting needs of the person, selecting the means of acquiring socially approved needs during the everyday life activity (Glebova, 2015).

Trust is the basics of all social institutes. The modern researcher Fr. Fukuyama introduced an unconventional approach to this term in his work “Trust: the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity” (Fukuyama, 2004). He defines three areas of socialization. The first one is based on ties of kinship. Here the trust is within family relations. The second one is based on principles of voluntary association regardless of kinship. Here the binding factor includes standards shared by all members of the community. The integrating activity of the state is the essence of the third area. According to Fr. Fukuyama, this is the second form that is based on trust. Trust in the post-industrial epoch in terms of its unified logical system has an impact on all aspects of social models of real countries.

According to the concept of G. Garfunkel (2009), the trust simultaneously exists in two roles. Firstly, this is the trust in people’s benevolence and decency, and solidarity to a greater or lesser degree. In its second role, the trust is a readiness to comply with the game (institutes) rules adopted in the society.

The structural social capital unites “composition and practice of local institutes both formal and non-formal that serve as tools of developing the community” (Levine and Havighurst, 1989). In this context local self-governance authorities are such institutes. There is inseparable connection of the social capital with the becoming and development of the local self-governance institute (Morozov and Khavanova, 2015).

As the result of the interrelation between the population and local self-governance authorities based on the trust, in the practice of collective activity there is formation of the aggregate social capital of the local community during the open process of taking decisions that have a collegiate nature of leaders’ records.

According to the authors, when forming the model of measuring and defining the social capital on the level of local self-governance, it is necessary to use the hierarchical system of estimating its social importance and efficiency. In this context, the social efficiency must be considered as a synthesis of the aggregate of components and features of foundational forms of local communities’ functioning and conditions of their life activity. It is necessary to include four basic components or elements in the empiric model of measuring and defining the social capital,

• Level of life (welfare),
• Life quality,
• Readiness of the local population for self-governance, and
• Participating of local communities in self-organization and self-governance (Glebova, 2015).

2. Methods

In order to more objectively and integrally estimate subject-forming factors of the social capital, the article used a qualitative method which is a focusing interview (67 respondents – public counselors of the municipal council head - were polled) and quantitative method – questionnaire survey (336 respondents living in the Taganskiy Area of the Central Administrative District of the city of Moscow were polled in 2015).

The results of the questionnaire survey were processed by using the factorial analysis, quantitative and qualitative scaling. To measure the social feature of the “social capital” category under research, it was necessary to find the measure indicators or the external features of its manifestation. In this work such indicators are variants of respondents’ answers to the set questions. The components of the empiric model were analyzed by using the system of inter-related parameters that are their characteristics within certain framework of their manifestation. The parameters consist of several values (indicators) that reveal the level of separate characteristics state. In order to get the aggregate quotient for every element (component) and calculate the integral quotient, the methodology of “bringing the qualitative variable to the quantitative quotient” was used. The quotients possess the values from 0 to1. A higher value of the quotient means a higher level of the indicator. In order to make the comparative analysis, it is offered to use the rating scale of indicators (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Rating Scale of Indicators

3. Results and Discussion

It is impossible to fully analyze all four elements within this article. That is why it is reasonable to stop at researching the central element of the empiric model of measuring and defining the social capital – “participation of local communities in self-organization and self-management” – in more details. All other elements of the estimation system have an auxiliary nature and vector of their application is focused on forming and strengthening of the relevant behavioral samples that comply with all standards and regulations with members of the local self-governance.

The readiness for activity is not its manifestation yet. Its real rather than declared activity and readiness for activity can be unavailable by many reasons. They include own passivity, counterwork of officials, extreme employment at work or family reasons.

Reasons of Non-Participation of Residents of the Taganskiy Area in the Activity of Local Self-Government Authorities are provided in Figure 2

 Figure 2. Opinion of the Taganskiy Area on What Prevents Them from
More Active Participating in the Local Self-Governance (in %)

The indicators (Figure 2) as clearly as possible explain the opinion of the population from the area in relation to the reasons that prevent them from more active participation in the local self-governance.

This is only the component “participation of local communities in self-organization and self-management” that is characterized and acts as that “acid test” that faultlessly defines the reality of the existing interrelations between members of local communities and local self-governing authorities. Standards-samples of these relations as well as trust to the local governance allow to more efficiently achieve common goals on social transformation and renewal of the territory.

In order to objectively estimate the element “participation of local communities in self-organization and self-management”, it is obligatory to use all three basic indicators:

• Forms of participation in self-governance that are admissible for the population,
• Limit of social activity of the population, and
• Degree of citizens’ participation in the local self-governance.

Table 1. Forms of Participating in the Local Self-Governance
that are Admissible for the Population

Social activity of the population in self-governance is expressed, first of all, in the care about the family, establishing positive interrelations with the surrounding people, professional activity, and, in addition, providing charity, sponsorship, and guardianship (Table 1). If to speak about direct forms of participating - “Becoming the head of the street, yard, entrance hall”, “Entering the vigilante group on protecting the social order”, “Offering candidature for the position of the head of the municipal formation”, “Offering candidature for the deputy’s position”, and “Participating in social and political movements, parties”, they are used by 2.9 to 9.7% of the respondents.

The mechanism of the local population’s influence on various decisions of the local power (general meeting of residents, public rallies, meetings of the population with representatives of the local self-governance) is not efficient enough. Today vivid advantages are observed in individual, indirect forms of organizing social activity. For example, real and efficient activity of social counselors says about positive tendencies in self-governance. However, for all that there is an opposite picture – narrowing the limits of social activity of the population. Data of Table 7 confirms it.

Table 2. Limits of the Population’s Social Activity

The limit of social activity of the population was determined when respondents answered the question “Can you really influence changes of the environment in the family, yard, area, city, and the establishment where you work or study?” According to the above data, these limits are defined in such area of the life activity as family relations. The real impact related to the own family is 85% - К=0.85. This is the maximum value. The lowest value is the influence in own city - 10 % - К=0.1.

Additional researches show the fact that forms and limit of manifesting the social activity of various social groups slightly differ. To some degree, women are more active in their families, participating in charity and assisting surrounding people; men use their service rank, professional activity, and show activity by offering their candidature in the electoral campaign. They are surer that they can change the situation in their family, area of residence, and workplace.

Manifestation of various forms of social activity directly depends on the age. The category of population aged from 30 to 40 finds it more important to solve social problems by using professional activity. The importance of “care about own family” is expressed to the maximum in the age group from 40 to 50 years old. The social role “by participating in charity” achieves its “peak” by 50 years old and then starts falling.

The area of employment has its impact on the form of manifesting the social activity. The use of professional activity is a social form of displaying the activity for officers of municipal organizations and enterprises, individual entrepreneurs, businessmen and officers of law enforcement bodies. All social groups without exception comparatively infrequently attempt to participate in social and political movements and political parties. Entrepreneurs, the most “advanced” part of the population, display the extension of limits of the social activity. Above one third of them are sure that they have an opportunity to influence changes of the situation in the family, organization, and one fifth – in the area of residence.

Muscovites’ social activity is expressed in solving specific tasks and problems. The social estimation of the degree of participation of the population in solving actual problems is made by using 14 indicators provided by the local legislation as basic. These are issues related to housing and utility servicing, site improvements, transportation servicing, social order protection, ecology, education and up-bringing, public health services, trading and catering organization, provision of housing, supporting financially disadvantaged citizens, population’s recruitment, preservation of monuments, leisure organization, and utilization and collection of wastes.

Table 3. Degree of the Population’s
Participation in Solving Urgent Problems

In order to determine the degree of participation in solving the above problems, the respondents were offered to answer the question “How do you personally participate in solving local problems?” The problems stated in Table 3 are specified in the decreasing order related to the residents’ activity to possibly solve them. Besides, it is possible to see an interesting dependence in the context of social efficiency in self-governance. Where the hopes and expectations are related, first of all, to the activity of the local administration, ordinary residents show passivity, and, on the contrary, the population’s activity increases many times if the administration defines this problem as insoluble. Finally, there is division of responsibilities when solving problems: either the power takes up the running, or it is based on the initiative of residents, their self-organization and activity (Glebova, 2013).

Today problems of the first type include, above all, housing and utility servicing, social order protection, provision of housing, recruitment, supporting financially disadvantaged citizens, and public health services (the quotient of participation is from 0.12 to 0.18). Problems of the second type include trading and catering organization, education and up-bringing, site improvements, transportation servicing, and leisure organization (the quotient of participation is from 0.27 to 0.46). The total final analysis of the element “participation of local communities in self-organization and self-management” allows stating the fact that now the real rather than the declared participation is on a low level.

It is reasonable to define the reasons that, according to the respondents, are the main factors of residents’ passivity in solving actual tasks on the local level. The reasons are specified in the decreasing order:

• Counteraction and disagreement with the initiatives of the government – 85%,
• Personal inactivity – 70%,
• Uncertainty in one’s successful undertakings – 30%,
• Low level of informativeness – 25%,
• Deficit of the required knowledge – 27%, and
• Lack of time – 22%.

The majority of the respondents are apt to displaying skepticism and critical attitude to the possibility of participation itself. The key to understanding and explaining such situation, as the respondents think, is the aggregate of the following factors:

• Incompetence and disability of the local governmental authorities (“If the government fails to cope with the social problems, we cannot solve them all the more”),
• Lack of the local population’s organization (“I will not try to show activity because one man is no man”, “People’s efforts must be united”,
• Unsuccessful experience in the past (“Once I tried to be active but nothing good happened”), and
• Unsuccessful experience of my friends and acquaintances (“I know about it from other people”).

There are some issues that prevent the population from displaying activity and fruitful participation. They include the lack of the trust related to having an impact on taking decision, low interest of the local heads and officials in democratizing management methods, disability of local government to support people’s initiatives, and low development of organizational institutes.

Personal conscious readiness for participating is related by the majority of population to the improvements of the building surrounding grounds. Scrupulous fulfillment of the offered orders focuses not on the self-organization but on the management of non-governmental organizations, local authorities, from outside. Activists consider their social work as additional help to the authorities. In this context it is possible to observe an unambiguous situation where, on the one hand, there are too high requirements to the local self-governance and certainty that the local administration bears all responsibility; and on the other hand, absolute ignorance of their rights in relation to the local bodies and inability to protect them. However, local residents are, above all, legally competent subjects of the local self-governance.

The estimating modeling of the unified indicator of the social efficiency of the local community functioning and the real social capital consist of the total value of separately taken components (level of life, quality of life, readiness of the local population for self-governance, participation of local communities in self-organization and self-governance).

The unified indicator was К=0.43. The maximum possible value of this indicator is one, and the results of the research have shown that the value of the real social capital does not reach even the half of the ideal value. The deficit of the cognitive component of the social capital, i.e. duly unrevealed and unexpressed values: mutual trust, certainty in decency and benevolence of the surrounding people, solidarity, open positive interrelations, as well as the deficit of its structural component - weak, indistinct participation of the local population in the real life activity - explain a low volume of its accumulation.

4. Conclusion

Summarizing the discussions and researches of the empiric data from the article, it is necessary to say that, firstly, the basic of the life activity and further gradual development of local communities is the implementation of advantages provided by the social solidarity, mutual assistance, social support, and joint responsibility that contribute to the social efficiency of the local self-governance subjects’ activity. In other words, there is a process of accumulating and implementing a real social capital as an aggregate of social resources whose potential is reflected in the ability of the local population to cooperate. Secondly, the population’s social activity is a necessary pre-requisite of the institute optimal activity. The use of the introduced empiric model of defining the social capital allowed noting a low level of the readiness of the local population’s participation in the local self-governance.

Traditional values like commonness, collectivism, and mutual assistance often cause contradictory situations in the local life. The deficit of trust between the population and local authorities, the noticed aloofness in the modern context are a basic problem. The aggregate of the above circumstances allows making the conclusion that the institute of local self-governance is at the stage of reforming and modernization.

References

Alekseev O.B. and Genisaretskiy O.I. (1997). Ocherednoy etap razvitiya sistemy mestnogo samoupravleniya v svyazi s zhilischno-kommunalnoy reformoy i reformami sotsialnoy sfery [Next Stage of Developing the System of Local Self-Governance Due to Housing and Utility Reform and Reforms of Social Area]. Municipal Technologies. Moscow, p. 19.

Berger P.L. and Lukman T. (1996). The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on sociology of Knowledge, pp. 42.

Bourdieu P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood

Coleman J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120

Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press

Fukuyama F. (2004). Doverie: sotsialnye dobrodeteli i put k protsvetaniyu: (Per. s angl. F. Fukuyama). [Trust: social virtues and the path to prosperity]. Moscow: OOO “Izdatelstvo ACT”: ZAO NPP “Ermak”, c. 330.

Garfinkel G. (2009). Kontseptsiya i eksperimentalnye issledovaniya «doveriya» kak usloviya stabilnyh soglasovannyh deystviy [Concept and Experimental Researches of “Trust” as a Condition of Stable Agreed Actions]. Sociological Review, 8(1), 231-167.

Glebova A.N. (2013). Printsipy razdeleniya vlastey i edinonachaliya v sovremennom sotsialnom upravlenii [Principles of Diving the Power and Individual Responsibility in the Modern Social Management]. Entrepreneurship, 7, 123-133

Glebova A.N. (2015). Kontseptualnoe osmyslenie zapadnoevropeyskogo opyta mestnogo samoupravleniya (sravnitelniy analiz) [Conceptual Interpretation of West-European Experience of Local Self-Governance (Comparative Analysis)]. Actual Problems of the Humanities and Natural Sciences: digital scientific magazine, 5, 234-237

Glebova A.N. (2015). Mestnoe samoupravlenie kak subject modernizatsii obschestva [Local Self-Governance as a Subject of Modernizing the Society]. Thesis of the Candidate of Sociological Sciences. Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Moscow, p. 185.

Kuhtin P.V., Levov A.A., Danilova V.A., Morozov V.Yu., Havanova N.V. and Danilov A.A. (2012). Organizatsiya territorii munitsipalnyh obrazovaniy [Organization of Municipal Formations Territory]. Monograph. Moscow: Alpha M

Levine D. U. and Havighurst R.J. (1989).Society and Education. Boston, London, Sydney, Toronto: Allyn and Bacon.

MorozovV.Yu. and Havanova N.V. (2015). K voprosu o monitoring rezultativnosti okazaniya gosudarstvennyh uslug [On the Issue Related to Monitoring Efficiency of Providing State Services]. Service in Russia and Abroad, 9-3 (59), 168-180.

Paldam M. (2000). Social Capital: One or Many? Definition and Measurement. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(5), 629-653.

Patnem R. (1995). Protsvetayuschaya kommuniti, sotsialniy capital i obschestvennaya zhizn [Prospering Community, Social Capital and Easy Life]. MEiMO, 4, 78

1. Russian State University of Tourism and Service, Moscow, Russian Federation. E-mail: galeona11@yandex.ru

2. Russian State University of Tourism and Service, Moscow, Russian Federation

3. Russian State University of Tourism and Service, Moscow, Russian Federation

4. ANO VPO Russian Academy of Entrepreneurship, Moscow, Russian Federation

5. Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation