Policy arena: social capital in waste - a solid investment?

This article examines the role of social capital in solid waste management in southern Asia. Two case studies are presented, and the effects of using social capital to mobilise the community to provide for solid waste management are described. The two cases take place in Bangalore India and Faisalabad, Pakistan. In both cases extensive horizontal networks were used in an attempt to mobilise community resources to develop adequate solid waste management programs. In both cases the use of social capital has failed to yield increases in equity among various segment of the communities.

In India, the organisation of neighbourhood waste collection schemes was accomplished by horizontal networks among NGOs, the informal waste collecting sector of the economy, and a local Catholic women's organisation. In India useful waste is collected and recycled and sold by the poor as a way to obtain income. In the city of Bangalore, an NGO instituted a programme through which poor youths would collect household waste which could either be resold directly (dry waste) or composted and resold in its new form. It was thought that this programme would provide a job skill training programme for the youths and a valuable service to the neighbourhoods. The author outlines the many problems faced by the NGO, and how it used horizontal networks to deal with the problems. Eventually, the programme was considered for citywide implementation, but it was realised that the system perpetuated income inequalities, and that implementing it throughout the city would increase the scale and further cement these inequalities into the social system.

In Pakistan, the author notes that municipal services are distributed unevenly to different segments of the community. The wealthy and middle class are provided with reliable service, but the poor are excluded from provision as a general rule. Horizontal networks among different income groups were fairly extensive in the city. Nevertheless, the poorer communities were unable, despite civic organisation and participation, to obtain reliable solid waste management service. During a strike of waste management workers, special provision for waste disposal service was provided only to the wealthy neighbourhoods. Despite substantial civic participation, neither middle class nor poor neighbourhoods had enough political clout to obtain special provisionary service. Social capital in this case seems to have cemented clientelism and patronage of certain segments of the population - namely the wealthy. Mobilising community resources and greater synergy increased inequalities in the provision of services.

These two cases are related to work done by Putnam. They seem to contradict his assertion that civic engagement automatically leads to more effective government and greater equality. The author discusses the idea that structural issues should not be ignored when analysing the effects of civic engagement and collective action.

(From PovertyNet)