1 / 12

Partnerships, Networks, Social Capital & Rural Development Tom Van Rensburg IDARI NUI, Galway

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Partnerships, Networks, Social Capital & Rural Development Tom Van Rensburg IDARI NUI, Galway 02/06/06. This project is financed by the EC FP5.

ailis
Download Presentation

Partnerships, Networks, Social Capital & Rural Development Tom Van Rensburg IDARI NUI, Galway

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. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions Partnerships, Networks, Social Capital & Rural Development Tom Van Rensburg IDARI NUI, Galway 02/06/06 This project is financed by the EC FP5

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Network 1 Network 2 A B A B C D C D Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Methodology • Cliques • Relations • Structural differences in social capital This project is financed by the EC FP5

  5. Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results • 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 This project is financed by the EC FP5

  6. Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results • Evaluate number of isolates • MHT, more highly on SK measures of information sharing and discussion • WUC has more isolates This project is financed by the EC FP5

  7. 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 WUC MHT

  8. Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results • Number of cliques in each network • MHT has more discussion cliques • WUC more socialising cliques This project is financed by the EC FP5

  9. 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)

  10. Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results FAO LGF

  11. 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 strongly disagree middling agree strongly dont know disagree agree The LGF is successful 20.00 Mean infocentrality 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 middling agree strongly agree Dont Know The organisation is successful Partnerships, Social Networks and Sustainability: Results - Behaviour LGF • 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 FAO

  12. 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.

More Related