National development and using social capital<\/p>\n
By Aleksius Jemadu<\/p>\n
BANDUNG (JP): Over the last three decades the Indonesian
\ngovernment has been focusing on economic development. Several
\ntraditional policy instruments like taxation, raising export
\nrevenues, and foreign debt have been employed. Very rarely, if
\never, do we stop to think about the necessity of social capital
\nin our national development.<\/p>\n
But social capital is just as essential as economic capital.
\nSocial capital can be understood as \"shared understanding and
\nmutual trust\" in any collective action such as developing the
\neconomy of a nation.<\/p>\n
The notion of social capital was first used by Elinor Ostrom
\nin her 1994 book, Neither Market Nor State: Governance of Common-
\npool Resources in the Twenty-first Century. Ostrom argued that
\nmany policy failures in development undertakings emanated from an
\novercentralization of control which tended to impose policy
\nprescriptions upon all social members.<\/p>\n
In her illustrations Ostrom made special reference to the
\nrapid depletion of natural resources in many developing
\ncountries. Ostrom would have asked why centralization of control
\nover Indonesian forest resources has not put an end to their
\nrapid depletion.<\/p>\n
In Francis Fukuyama's most recent book, Trust: The Social
\nVirtues and the Creation of Prosperity, he develops a thesis
\nwhich regards social capital as an essential precondition for
\neconomic prosperity. Fukuyama argues that the economic
\nadvancement of industrial nations such as the United States,
\nGermany, and Japan is closely related to the extensive presence
\nof social capital in their respective societies. There is much
\nevidence of mutual trust between the government and the governed,
\nbetween the government and business people, and among business
\npeople themselves.<\/p>\n
In reflection we have to admit that mutual trust is quite
\nlacking in our society. When Salim Group recently sold 50.1
\npercent of Indofood shares to a Singapore-based public company,
\nsuspicion was so strong that several ministers had to make a
\nstatement to restore public trust.<\/p>\n
The relationship between the government and businesspeople is
\nbuilt on shaky ground. Business professionalism seems to be a
\nsecondary requirement to build a sustainable link with the ruling
\npower. Politically well-connected businesspeople with less
\nprofessionalism can perform a lot \"better\" than those who purely
\nrely on legal and professional requirements.<\/p>\n
In politics there are ample examples of incidents which show
\nthat mutual trust is lacking between the government and the
\npeople. Worst still is when the government occasionally gives
\nconflicting statements regarding a critical issue. When political
\nviolence broke out throughout the country some time ago the
\ngovernment promised to announce the \"intellectual actor\" behind
\nthe unrest. But people are still waiting for the announcement.<\/p>\n
Timely fulfillment of promises could strengthen mutual trust.
\nThe same applies to promises made during the election campaign to
\ncombat corruption and collusion.<\/p>\n
There are also questions regarding the urgency of the
\ngovernment-sponsored legislative crash courses. Even though the
\ngovernment has explained the purpose of the upgrade there is
\nstill temptation to wonder how effective such an undertaking is
\nin empowering the legislative body.<\/p>\n
Skepticism is based on the fact that legislative members' weak
\nposition has less to do with their level of understanding about
\nthe constitution and state ideology than their fear of being
\nrecalled once they try to criticize executive policies.<\/p>\n
On top of that, a democratic government can only be
\nestablished if there is a strong commitment on the executive side
\nto allow other branches of government to function independently.<\/p>\n
Seeds of suspicion among different social and political groups
\nin society could emerge from a corporatist strategy made by the
\nruling power. Through this strategy the government would provide
\na certain political group a monopoly of political representation
\nat the expense of the others. From a realist perspective such a
\nstrategy could be effective in causing various political groups
\nin society to seek favor and protection from a political leader.
\nHowever, by nurturing political envy among different groups, such
\na strategy could hinder the establishment of social capital in
\nour political development.<\/p>\n
In theory, the more a executive power defends its hegemonic
\nrole in policy-making processes the more difficult it is to
\nproduce social capital in national development. In other words,
\novercentralization of political power can be counterproductive in
\nthe creation of social capital. The government cannot demand the
\nparticipation of private groups in development undertakings
\nwithout some sort of power sharing.<\/p>\n
It is often argued that a good government is an interactive
\ngovernment. In essence, this is a government which would
\nrecognize interdependence and mutual trust between government and
\nsociety in general.<\/p>\n
There is an increasing demand that the government develop a
\nmore pluralistic strategy for guiding social and economic
\ndevelopment by which diverse actors and structures in state and
\nsociety interact in pursuit of development goals.<\/p>\n
Economic capital alone may never lead to a prosperous future.
\nSocial capital is just as essential.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the School of Social and Political
\nSciences at the Catholic University of Parahyangan, Bandung.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/national-development-and-using-social-capital-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}