Civic Capacity, Social Exclusion & Political Participation in Britain: Evidence from the 1999 Poverty & Social Exclusion Survey

Eldin Fahmy

presented at the

Political Studies Association Annual Conference

University of Leicester 15th-17th April 2003

The Social Capital Debate: Lochner et al. (1999) focus upon four principle dimensions of social capital: collective efficacy; sense of community; neighborhood cohesion, and; community competence. The study of political participation the concept of social capital thus offers one means of linking patterns of civic engagement with underlying structural processes of exclusion and inclusion, and their interaction with demographic factors. The relationship between education and political participation is amongst the most reliable results in the study of political behavior. Social capital also has applications to the major theoretical perspectives, which seek to provide explanatory frameworks, which extend beyond the base-line socio-economic model – rational choice (Downs, 1957; Olsen, 1965) and civic voluntarism models (Verba et al., 1995; Brady et al., 1995). In Social networks and memberships are key resources in the development of citizens’ sense of self-efficacy within Verba et al.’s (1995) approach. Social capital has also given new life to debates about the vigor of “civic culture.” Social Capital and Social Exclusion Notion of social capital as capital opens up avenues of explanation centered around distributional issues and patterns of social inclusion and exclusion. Levels of inequality and social marginalisation draw attention to individual and collective resources in shaping patterns of civic engagement rather than to changes in citizen’s moral commitment to associational life and civic duties. Social exclusion – decline of participation in civic duties is due to citizen’s integration within economic, social, political and cultural life. the concept is best understood as a series of related exclusionary processes and practices (eg. discrimination, issues of access, income poverty) which restrict individuals and groups capacity to participate in society (see also Silver, 1995).

Factors educational attainment, income, ethnicity, and marginalisation in shaping patterns of associational involvement. measures of civic engagement to be significantly correlated with a range of individual-level socio-demographic characteristics. Young people, the economically inactive, private and social renters, those lacking educational qualifications, manual employees and ethnic minorities are amongst those most likely to be disengaged. A significant relationship is also evident between levels of civic engagement and levels of area deprivation, based upon the 2000 Index of Multiple Deprivation (Coulthard et al., 2002). relationships, mutuality and trust are also partly compositional, individual characteristics which serve to obstruct or facilitate social participation and community engagement (Brehm & Rahn, 1997).

METHODOLOGY

to understand the processes underlying the production of social capital, how these are structured by underlying social and structural inequalities, and specifically their interaction with other dimensions of social advantage as facilitators of civic engagement in Britain. is hypothesised that respondents who are more involved in the associational life of their communities, who have extensive friendship networks, and who benefit from a high degree of social support, will also be more politically engaged and report participation in a greater range of political activities (eg. Verba et al., 1995; Parry et al., 1987).

RESULTS

The 1999 Poverty & Social Exclusion Survey reveals levels of associational involvement and civic commitment to be strongly correlated with a range of social and demographic variables. Civic engagement is most strongly correlated with associational involvement: amongst the most politically active quartile of respondents one fifth (20%) reported membership of three or more groups compared with just one fiftieth (2%) of less active respondents. In line with existing research, social class (Registrar General’s classification), age, income and educational achievement are all related to levels of political engagement in the expected direction, with higher status, higher income and older respondents being most likely to be politically active. Similarly, poor households and those reporting high levels of material and social deprivation report lower levels of political activity and associational involvement. The extent of social networks is also correlated with levels of associational and political involvement, though perhaps more weakly than might be expected on the basis of social capital theory (eg. Putnam, 1993; Coleman, 1988).

of the indicators of material and social disadvantage (PSE poverty, deprivation, and PSE equivalised household income) identified as significant bivariate correlates of civic engagement were significant within the logistic model. networks, the impact of social support upon civic engagement is not substantial even for non-manual respondents. membership index has by far the most substantial effect upon levels of civic engagement. As individual’s social memberships increase the likelihood of unit increases in civic participation rises by between 200 and 300% (ie. 95%CI=2.00- Brehm and Rahn’s (1997) structural model reveals the effects of trust on levels of civic engagement to be extremely weak, and Pattie et al.’s (2002) social capital model suggests a similarly modest role for inter-personal trust in predicting levels of civic activism in the UK. These observations emphasise the difficulties involved in the definition and measurement of social capital (see eg. Ulzarran, 2002; Paxton, 1999). In particular, as Paxton (1999) notes, Bourdieu’s (1985) conceptualisation of social capital refers not simply to the extent of individuals objective ties to others, but involves a qualitative transformation of those ties in ways which imply subjective bonds of trust, respect and friendship, etc. Social capital here refers to a particular quality of social relationships and not simply to the extent of individual’s social networks, memberships, etc. Hence, it may be that it is this qualitative dimension of social capital which is most useful in explaining patterns of civic engagement and how these map onto underlying structural inequalities and demographic differences. Skocpol (2002, 1999), for example, argues that it is the decline of trans-local and cross-class associations, rather than a decline in associational involvement per se, which has been the most significant development in the United States in recent years. At an individual level, it may be that a similar qualitative dimension is the most politically significant aspect of the social capital construct. From this perspective, and drawing upon notions of cultural capital (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1976), it could be that it is the operation of age and class-based symbolic, linguistic and normative frameworks which obstruct the access of disadvantaged groups to the types of social networks and associational commitments which facilitate civic engagement.

Tools for Practice Measuring Community Capacity Building A Workbook – in – Progress for Rural Communities

The Aspen Institute Rural Economic Policy Program

How is community capacity built? The three essential ingredients of community capacity—commitment, resources, and skills— don’t “just happen.” Rather, they are developed through effort and will, initiative and leadership. For example, effort, will, initiative, and leadership are needed to: ✿ involve and educate community members, help shape opinion, and galvanize commitment to act. ✿ attract and collect resources, compile information, and shape ways for deploying these resources to “catalyze” change in how problems are addressed and opportunities are seized. ✿ organize people and work, develop skills, and coordinate or manage a sustained effort that builds up the positive qualities of community life that enable a community to address its problems and recognize and act on its opportunities. All kinds of community groups contribute to community capacity to some degree. Communities, and the groups and institutions within them, can intentionally and strategically work to develop their capacity.

\

Developing Civic Indicators and Community Accounting in Canada By Paul Reed

Statistics Canada and Carleton University Ottawa With Afterword by Armine Yalnizyan and Paul Reed

“Indicators of Sustainable Community” were analyzed and presented in a first report in 1993 and a sequel in 1995. 5 Categories:

1. Environment: a. Biodiversity b. Soil erosion c. Pedestrian friendly streets d. impervious surfaces e. open space in urban villages f. air quality

2. Population and Resources: a. Residential water consumption b. Renewable and nonrenewable energy use c. Vehicle miles traveled and fuel consumption d. Population prevention and renewable resource use e. Solid waste generated and recycled

3. Economy: a. Distribution of personal income b. Health care expenditures c. Housing affordability ratio d. Children living in poverty e. Emergency room use for non-emergency purposes f. Real unemployment g. Work required for basic needs h. Community capital i. Employment concentration

4. Youth and Education: a. Juvenile crime b. Adult literacy c. High school graduation d. Ethnic diversity of teachers e. Arts instruction

f. Volunteer involvement in schools g. Youth involvement in community service

5. Health and Community: a. Childhood asthma b. Equity in justice c. Low birth weight infants d. Gardening activity e. Neighborliness f. Public participation in the arts g. Voter participation h. Library and community centre usage i. Perceived quality of life

“Civic” refers to life lived in common, as by residents of a community or society. Two of the most important elements in the contemporary understanding of “civic” are a capacity for cooperative, often informal collective action in support of the social good, whatever its specifics, and a concern for the well-being of those who are disadvantaged. Identify or create measures of consensus (or its reciprocal, dissensus), engagement in the social and political affairs of the community, cooperative action that serves some social purpose, and acts of generosity and expressions of mutuality. Developing a Set of Civic Indicators

a. specifying the characteristics we want the measures to have b. deciding what to measure and establishing a list of candidate measures c. searching for these measures among existing statistics d. assessing those measures that are currently available against the criteria in “a”.

]Potential Civic Indicators Economic Resources

• annual total community revenue per 1000 households and per 1000 individuals

• level of public debt and liabilities as a proportion of community revenue • median household income, and income per adult • median per household net assets • home ownership rate • income distribution skewness • percentage of households/individuals receiving income support exceeding one

quarter of total household income • median level of shelter cost as percentage of income • percentage of households below the LICO

• median per household consumer debt • household consumer debt as percent of income

Work

• number of FTE jobs per 1000 adults • gross unemployment rate • median duration of unemployment • unemployment of household sole-earners

Situation of Children

• infant mortality • incidence of low-birth weight infants • percentage of children in single parent households • percentage of children in single parent households below their LICO • percentage of children in single parent households with parent under 25 • number of children under 15 per 1000 in protective and foster care • incidence of children with asthma, immunity system disorders, birth defects

Situation of Young People

• percentage of population 18-25 years in a post-HS educational institution • percentage of high school students competing HS within 6 years of entry • unemployment rate for population 18-25 years • percentage of individuals under 25 leaving community

Situation of Adults

• adult literacy rate • percentage of the population age 75 and over living alone • percentage of elderly living alone who are below LICO • percentage of population age 75 and over receiving income support exceeding

one-half of income Families

• incidence of single parent families • incidence of families below LICO • family dissolution rate • family formation rate

Population Stability

• average number of years’ residence in community • churn rate (total annual in-imgrants plus out-migrants as percentage of mean

annual population) Destabilizing and Social Stress Conditions

• rate of alcohol – and drug-related deaths (non-traffic) per 1000 persons • rate of alcohol – and drug-related traffic injuries

• rate of alcohol – and drug-related traffic deaths • rate of alcohol – and drug-related traffic offences • rate of property crime reported (theft; break and enter) • incidence of vandalism • rate of crimes of violence reported (total; domestic; sexual assault) • incidence of sexually transmitted diseases • distress centre visits and crisis line calls per 1000 persons • number of meals and person-nights of lodging provided by shelters to

members of the community, per 100 individuals Institutional Resources and Capacities

• for each type of public institution (police, courts, hospitals, teaching institutions and social services) measures of:

total personnel per 1000 population professional personnel per 1000 population workload duration of waiting queues

• public library facilities • number of charitable and voluntary organizations per 1000 households

Community Physical facilities

• public open space as percent of total settled area • kilometers of paved road per 1000 population • kilometers of sidewalk per 1000 population • community civic and recreational facilities (community centres, meeting

facilities, sports facilities) per 1000 persons Environment

• community air quality • community water quality • community ambient noise levels

Time Use

• time spent on selected activities: caring for needy persons within

household caring for needy persons outside

household social participation activities political participation activities volunteering

Civic Participation

• incidence/frequency of civic participation (via membership and meeting attendance) in

religious organizations school organizations work-related organizations school-related organizations other organizations

• voting incidence in local, provincial, and federal elections • frequency of acquiring news and information about current events and public

affairs locally, nationally, and internationally • local newspaper circulation and readership

Social Participation

• incidence/frequency of social participation - with non-household family - with non-family

Caring and Contributing to the Community

• incidence, frequency and magnitude of formal volunteering • volunteer activity by type of organization • incidence, frequency and magnitude of direct personal (non-organizational)

helping and caring • personal and household charitable giving through organizations: incidence,

frequency, amount • incidence of donating blood

Trust and Confidence in Institutions

• confidence in government and other community institutions/organizations • perceptions and judgements of performance of community

institutions/organizations

Civic Capacity and the Authentic Governance Principle: Understanding Social Contexts and Citizen Participation in Metropolitan America

Eric Oliver

Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Princeton University This paper explores the importance of social contexts for local civic participation, particularly in an era of massive suburbanization. After outlining a theory for understanding how local political institutions and social contexts shape citizen involvement and summarizing some empirical findings from earlier work, I consider two different perspectives on citizen participation and self-governance: classical liberal/public choice theory and civil society/social capital arguments. Finding problems inherent to both perspectives, I offer a new way of understanding the importance of civic participation, what I call the civic capacity argument. Then, taking insights from all these views, I offer some guidelines restructuring local municipal arrangements in the United States. The differences in participation between residents of the largest and smallest, most and least affluent, and most and least racially segregated places are larger than the differences for many of the individual characteristics long-identified as important for civic engagement such as age, home-ownership, race, and sex. Outside of individual education and income, the combined effects of contextual measures are some of the greatest predictors of civic participation. A single way to characterize Americas suburbanization, it is as the political fragmentation and institutionalizing of social differences among residents of a common metropolitan area. If a community is structured in such a way that is generates little internal conflict or seeks nothing more than to maintain a set of policies that most residents agree with, then it provides little motivation for citizens to become civically active. Classical Liberal and Public Choice Assessments of Suburban Civic Life Hobbesian-like premise that individuals in a political system are isolated and autonomous, with the added condition that all individuals are motivated to act in ways that maximize the utility of their actions. If the rewards outweigh the costs, the thinking goes, citizens will participate. Low levels of local civic participation are un-troubling because, in a fragmented political environment, citizens have replaced old-fashioned political action with modern consumer

behavior. Rather than having to protest, undertake campaign work, lobby officials, public choices models predict that if citizens are dissatisfied with local policies or leaders, they can simply vote with their feet and move to another jurisdiction. Suburban homogeneity is thus beneficial for democracy because it relieves citizens of the costly and time-consuming burdens of political participation. By acting as consumers of government services, citizens force local leaders to respond to market pressures - low participation is homogeneous suburbs may reflect the substitution of consumer pressure for citizen action .reducing all social connections to calculated and bargained market exchanges between estranged, selfish actors denies the multifaceted and inherently social condition of human existence. The root premise of democracy is that all citizens have equal voice in representing their political preferences. By substituting the threat of mobility for the power of civic action, public choice theory inadvertently eliminates conditions of political equality because not all citizens are equally mobile, particularly in a competitive housing market. By positing that all municipal services reflect the preferences of residents, public choice theory also rationalizes the discrepancies in public services that exist between rich and poor areas. Aristotle argued that the good life the ultimate goal of human existence, was only possible through participation within a self-governing community. The best study of the social capital argument has come from John Brehm and Wendy Rahn, who find a reciprocal relationship between activity in political campaigns and interpersonal trust: political participation corresponds with higher trust but more trusting people also are more likely to be politically active, although campaign work seems to increase levels of trust more than vice versa. Mansbridge claims, that the kinds of interpersonal transformation that comes from civic activity cannot be easily measured with the blunt instruments of social science. Social conflict and civic engagement actually have symbiotic relationship in a well functioning democracy: civic engagement is more essential in places with more conflict and in places with more conflict, social tensions needs to be directed into civic channels. High levels of racial and economic segregation also prevent many class and racial issues from being contested within municipal boundaries and forces their resolution at the state or federal level. And with less internal political conflict, civic participation in segregated suburbs declines.