1 / 11

Social Capital and Leadership: Rural Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe

Social Capital and Leadership: Rural Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe. Annette Hurrelmann, Catherine Murray and Volker Beckmann IDARI Dissemination Event June 2, 2006 in Dublin. Motivation.

keran
Télécharger la présentation

Social Capital and Leadership: Rural Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social Capital and Leadership: Rural Cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe Annette Hurrelmann, Catherine Murray and Volker Beckmann IDARI Dissemination Event June 2, 2006 in Dublin IDARI Dissemination Event

  2. Motivation • WP3 case studies: local leaders can play an import role for starting and maintaining rural cooperation • Social Capital literature: cooperation happens “automatically” where enough SC is present • What is the role of leadership for rural cooperation in CEECs? • How are SC and leadership connected? • What policy advice can be drawn from this? IDARI Dissemination Event

  3. Social Capital Theory (1) • Starting point: argument of low social capital in CEECs due to historic experiences (distrust in authorities, enforced cooperation) • Network definition of SC: “Social Capital inheres in the structures of relations between actors and among actors” (Coleman 2000) • Trust as popular measurement • Bonding (between actors with similar backgrounds) and bridging (between groups with different backgrounds) SC IDARI Dissemination Event

  4. Social Capital Theory (2) • “Social capital is expected in this reckoning to provide not just the glue (which binds community members together into collective action) but also the gear, which directs community members toward participating in democracy building” (Krishna 2001) • Krishna (2001, 2002): SC holds communities together – but what motivates them to play an active role in collective action? • SC provides the “glue” but a mediating agency may be necessary to provide the “gear” for cooperation • The mediating agency can be an organisation, such as a political party, but also a particular individual IDARI Dissemination Event

  5. Cooperation In and between communities In environmentally protected areas (state) In the market Case studies: Bulgaria: Land Market Hungary: Cooperatives PhD: Bulgaria: Land Market Poland: Producer Groups Case studies: Latvia: Rural Tourism Lithuania: Rural Tourism Poland: Local products Case studies: Poland: National Park Slovakia: National Park Case Studies (1) IDARI Dissemination Event

  6. Case Studies (2) • Hungary (Pillar A: cooperation in the market) • Old producer’s cooperative BEKE, new purchasing and marketing cooperative PMCHG • BEKE: president persuaded members to stay in cooperative by informing them of advantages and disadvantages, long history of cooperation • PMCHG: key players set up cooperation by informing farmers of benefits of collective action, cooperative took consecutive steps to increasing cooperation • Members trust each other and their leaders • Members realise the advantages of cooperation (better access to the market, lower transaction costs…) IDARI Dissemination Event

  7. Case Studies (3) • Latvia (Pillar B: Cooperation in and between communities) • Rauna Tourism Association unites farmers, a recreation centre and a church, initiated by one individual who runs a farm/rural tourism enterprise • Municipal government paid for office and coordinator in the first year, then funding stopped • Information, meetings, exchange etc. is organised by coordinator, members trust each other but are not very active, beginning frustration of coordinator • Members: we “could run business also without RTA”, few immediate benefits of cooperation IDARI Dissemination Event

  8. Case Studies (4) • Slovakia (Pillar C: Cooperation in protected areas) • Slovensky Raj National Park is under control of various administrative units and antagonistic actor groups • Park Administration has limited rights, is regarded critically by other actors as representing “authority” • Park Administration initiated application for PanPark scheme but no cooperation with other groups • Population regards SRNP as imposed on them and as obstacle to their economic activities IDARI Dissemination Event

  9. Results (1) • Theory: • Not necessarily low overall levels of SC in CEECs • Bonding social capital (= trust within the group) present • Lack of bridging social capital (= trust to other groups, especially trust in authorities) • Leaders as mediating agency to provide “gear”, bridge the gap • Leadership problems: • Leadership is difficult where SC is low (“glue” is missing) • Leaders give high input but often do not profit accordingly • Free rider problem: leader’s action benefits all IDARI Dissemination Event

  10. Results (2) • Role of leaders: • Communicate advantages of cooperation, inform about realistic expectations • Cooperation more difficult where benefits are harder to recognise and/or materialise more slowly • Immediate benefits: In the market > in and between communities > in protected areas • Policy advice: • Need to support leaders (technically and financially) • Need to identify leaders who are accepted by the whole community IDARI Dissemination Event

  11. Thank you! IDARI Dissemination Event

More Related