Sociologický ústav AV ČR, v.v.i.

O titulu

Kontakt

Redakční rada

Texty

Prodej, distribuce, objednávka

2009:5 Social Capital in the Czech Republic and in an International Comparison

Jana Stachová, Josef Bernard, Daniel Čermák

What role does social capital occupy in theories of regional development? What is the context of social capital in the Czech Republic? What kind of relationship exists between an individual’s level of social capital and his/her socio-demographic, socio-cultural, socio-economic, and regional background? And where do regions in the Czech Republic stands in terms of their social capital in the context of European regions? These are the basic questions that this Sociological Study on ‘Social Capital in the Czech Republic and in an International Context as a Factor in Regional Disparity and Regional Development’ attempts to answer. The results of the empirical part of the research project this study is based on show that it is important to concentrate not just on the total score in the social capital index, but also on differences that exist within each of its dimensions. Although the social capital index used proved applicable, a closer look at individual aspects of the dimensions of trust, social networks, civic participation, and belonging to a place produced interesting results. As expected, the individual index of social capital is mainly related to an individual’s economic situation but also to human capital and life experience. Conversely, in the Czech Republic it is relatively independent of territorial context, represented by the size of the community a person lives in and NUTS 2 regions. The conclusion that social capital in the Czech Republic is relatively homogeneous is partly supported by findings based on international data. Compared to Europe, the Czech NUTS 2 regions have weak, below-average levels of social capital, but compared to other post-communist countries, they are well above-average.

Keywords

Social capital, regional development, Czech Republic, international comparison

Summary

Social networks and the values, norms, and sanctions that determine their character are what make up social capital. This notion of social capital can be applied on both the collective and the individual level, even though networks, norms, and sanctions qualitatively differ in nature depending on which level they are studied at. Social capital is a multidimensional concept, its basic dimensions being formal and informal social networks, trust, shared norms, values, understanding, civic participation, and belonging to a locality. Social capital is analysed in relation to various aspects of social life, whether this relates to civil society, the performance of institutions, the economic situation, community life, public health, education, or criminality. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, enabling the fulfilment of certain goals that would be unattainable without it. It can, but need not necessarily, be socially constructive, depending on how the individual or the collective actor makes use of it.
The social network dimension encompasses sources of social capital, such as personal contacts and interactions mediated by encounters in associations, clubs, churches, and other organisations. This dimension also includes voluntary activities as an important indicator of the willingness of people to act to benefit others. On the other hand, it also represents the various types of exchanges between people (family, friends, acquaintances, neighbours) within a social network and access to resources of others who are able to offer help. The dimension of trust and reciprocity measures the willingness of people to cooperate together to each other’s benefit. Civic participation measures individual participation in public affairs, the perception of one’s own ability to influence those affairs, and even trust in institutions. The sense of belonging to a place or locality is closely tied to the degree and quality of an individual’s personal ties and with how happy, satisfied, and secure a person feels in life.
Social capital is part of the theory of regional development. Attempts to explain differences in the dynamics of development in the regions are moving away from a purely economic perspective and are increasingly looking at so-called soft, socio-cultural, or non-economic factors. Social capital, cooperation, trust, reciprocity, knowledge, and learning are among the concepts used to explain uneven regional development. The presence of social capital in the region assumes the existence of numerous social ties, some of which can relay valuable information. Those who have better access to information have an advantage, and that is crucial for regional development and regional strategy. As a system of interpersonal networks, social capital, if properly organised, supports the formation of both community institutions and markets. A regionally and locally embedded identity generates greater collective and personal motivation to work and supports learning and civic participation. A relationship exists between networking, the construction of institutions, and strong regional identity. Thus, the factors of importance for regional development are networks of regional actors from the private, public, and non-profit sector, which mediate information and facilitate cooperation, effective civic participation, and a sense of belonging to the region.
Findings from an analysis of data from a representative survey of citizens of the Czech Republic show that it is important to concentrate not just on the total score in a social capital index, but also on differences within each of its individual dimensions. Although the social capital index used proved appropriate, a closer look at the individual aspects of the dimensions of trust, social networks, civic participation and belonging to a place also produced interesting results. The socio-demographic and socio-economic variables examined are usually correlated with a higher level of social capital; if they are not demonstrated in the total index, they are manifested in its individual dimensions.
According to expectations based on previous research in other countries, the social capital index is especially connected with an individual’s economic situation, and particularly his/her subjective perception of it. People with a better living standard also have a higher level of social capital in all its dimensions. Also, there is an undeniable connection between social and human capital. People with more human capital, that is, with higher education, achieve a higher level of social capital. In addition to the given socio-structural conditions, such as an individual’s economic situation or his/her human capital, the level of social capital is also connected with life experience. That the level of social capital is also likely influenced by personal life experience is demonstrated by the effect of the variables describing marital or partner relationship, a history of criminal activity, and even age. The territorial context proved to be of no importance in connection with the attained level of social capital of an individual. The only significant correlation of overly large NUTS 2 regions and the size of the community the respondent lives in is with the dimension of belonging to a place.
Social capital on the level of individuals is connected with structural factors, both economic and social indicators, and with socio-cultural factors and the personal life experience of an individual. It was beyond the scope of the analysis to determine the causal ties between individual factors and social capital, so in what direction the examined variables influence each other remains a question.
Proceeding to social capital as a collective variable, we can claim that the internal variability of the amount of social capital within individual European states is lower than the variability of social capital between states. This analysis did not reveal significant variability between Czech NUTS 2 regions. It is likely that an analysis of the self-governing regions, which are internally more homogeneous in terms of socio-demographic conditions, would reveal the measured differences to be more pronounced. Compared to Europe, the level of social capital in the Czech NUTS 2 regions is weak and below-average, but when compared to other post-communist countries it is above-average. Eastern and Southeast Europe are made up of regions with a low level of social capital, but the relatively homogeneous region of Eastern Europe cannot simply be identified as the region of post-communist states, because by their level of social capital the Czech Republic and former East Germany differ from Poland and Hungary. Former socialist countries differ most from the countries of Western Europe by membership in associations, and in this respect the most pronounced difference can be observed between the regions of former western and eastern Germany.
Based on the results of analyses and the cited theories of regional development it is possible to present examples of some potential implications for regional development. What will likely be of key importance for the endogenous development of regions is not just satisfaction with the living standard and life in the locality and the region overall but also education. These factors lead to stronger identification with the community or region, but also to greater participation in public events and to more contacts with people. In the literature, all these factors are considered to be the components of social capital that are of fundamental significance for regional development.