Can the World Bank Build Social Capital? The Experience of Social Funds in Malawi and Zambia
Can the World Bank Build Social Capital? The Experience of Social Funds in Malawi and Zambia
复制标题
世界银行能否建立社会资本？
DOI：
10.1080/00220380802242404
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
H. White
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anju Vajja;H. White
摘要社会基金是世界银行推动参与性项目的主要表现之一。社会基金的支持者认为，参与社会基金活动可以建立社区社会资本。对世行使用社会资本的批评者认为，世行忽视了权力结构，但这些批评者关注的是世行的研究，而不是其运营。本文探讨“社会资本”的项目背景下：社会基金在马拉维和赞比亚。与社会基金的支持者所建议的集体行动模式相反，它表明，社区参与的性质确实是由现有的权力和社会关系塑造的。项目的确定和执行由社区中的少数人领导，通常是校长与家长教师协会和传统当局合作。然后利用传统的村长结构动员社区。大多数社区成员积极参与制砖，但消极参与决策。然而，这一过程应被视为对社会基金所提供的服务的一种制度性适应，而不是精英的攫取。大多数社区成员对结果感到满意，尽管所选择的项目不是他们自己会选择的。在这些过程中，社会基金几乎没有建立社会资本，反而似乎是现有社会资本的使用者。
Abstract Social funds have been one of the main manifestations of the World Bank's move toward promoting projects with a participatory orientation. Supporters of social funds argue that participation in social fund activities builds community social capital. Critics of the Bank's use of social capital argue that it ignores power structures but these critics have focused on the Bank's research rather than its operations. This paper examines ‘social capital’ in a project context: social funds in Malawi and Zambia. In contrast to the model of collective action suggested by proponents of social funds, it is shown that the nature of community participation is indeed shaped by existing power and social relations. Project identification and execution is led by a small number of people in the community, usually the head teacher in cooperation with the PTA and traditional authorities. The community is then mobilised using the traditional structures of village headmen. Most community members participate actively in making bricks, but passively in decision making. However, this process should be seen as an institutional adaptation to what social funds offer, not elite capture. Most community members are satisfied with the outcome, although the chosen project is not what they would have chosen themselves. Given these processes, social funds do little to build social capital but instead, appear to be users of existing social capital.