Alex MacGillivray
INTRODUCTION
Social indicators have been around since the mid-1960s, when Raymond Bauer first began his work, sponsored by, of all organizations, the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Nevertheless, the vast majority of 'social' indicators still relate to what can be considered individual human development, or what Amartya Sen has called 'capabilities and freedoms.l The Human Development Index is a good example of a set of components measuring lives free of want and deprivation, although there is certainly still room for improvement. For countries with relatively low levels of development, indicators of human capabilities are certainly the top priority.
But, once the prerequisites for human development (long life, education and literacy, adequate income) have been achieved, how do we know whether people go on to use this potential in living worthwhile lives in society? In other words, once someone can read, do they read? And what do they read? Participation in society is more than the absence of obstacles, and yet social development is the incognito of indicators research on sustainable development and Agenda 21. The Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social Development calls eight times for better indicators2, but remains vague as to what these may be. The purpose of this paper is to examine some specific indicators on 'non-individual' social development, proposed in the context of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development's project on indicators of sustainable development.
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS RELATIONSHIPS
There are better ways to describe this than 'non-individual social development'. This paper uses a single, narrow but important one: social capital 3. What is it? According to US sociologist James Coleman, social capital is 'the ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations'4. Robert Putnam at Harvard University describes social capital as 'features of social organization, such as networks, norms and social trust, that facilitate coordination and co-operation for mutual benefit'5. Such associations provide the basis for broadly based cooperation within society, and social capital can also be described as people-in-community, participation in decision-making or social integration6.
Although the language of social capital is widely used, most social scientists have been slow to integrate it into indicators work and to recognize the potential value of social capital. Part of the reluctance has stemmed from the fact that social capital, like quality of life, appears to be the ultimate unmeasurable concept. As Francis Fukuyama points out: 'The accumulation of social capital... is a complicated and in many ways a mysterious cultural process'7.
Why do we need such indicators for sustainable development? Agenda 21 devotes three chapters to decision-making: integrating environment and development in decision-making (Chapter 8); promoting education, public awareness and training (Chapter 36) and information for decision-making (Chapter 40). There is a whole section on the need for participation by the 'major groups' (Section 3). Without indicators to show whether and how these groups are involved in decision- making, there is a risk that sustainable development will remain a task for government and experts, and will thus fail. High levels of social capital are a precondition for sustainable societies.
THE EMPIRICAL UNDERPINNINGS
The empirical basis of social capital is still in its early stages. A pioneering study of Italian regions by Robert Putnam et al. is the strongest evidence available for social capital. Amongst its findings were that membership of choral societies, membership of soccer clubs and co-operatives were the three best predictors of a robust and effective local democracy and economy8. Detailed correlation analysis over time shows that this is not just a coincidence. According to Putnam: 'Communities don't have choral societies because they are wealthy; they are wealthy because they have choral societies -or more precisely, the traditions of engagement, trust and reciprocity that choral societies symbolise'.
A recent World Bank study of Tanzania suggests that social capital makes a significant contribution to household welfare. The study sample consisted of 750 households from 45 villages from across Tanzania. Social capital was measured by membership in groups and networks. At the village level, social capital was found to be a key contributor to household welfare9.
A study of US schools shows lower drop-out rates in religious schools in 'tight' communities than in other public and private schools, even after controlling for religion and household financial position l0. Another US study found that the decline in bowling clubs was symptomatic of a general decline in civic engagement following the Second World War. It also found that newspaper readership is a good indicator of social capital, and TV viewing is its antithesisl1.
In Singapore, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong stated that economic development must be complemented by progress in social behaviour and personal development, to make Singapore 'a more attractive place'. He cited cleanliness in toilets and Singaporeans' ability to sing and appreciate good music, as two markers for social capital.
Within the hundreds of indicators that have been proposed as indicators of sustainable development, there are two key areas of social development: information for decision-making, and institutions that take part in decision-making for sustainable development.
INFORMATION FOR DECISION-MAKING: NEWSPAPER READERSHIP
In the CSD framework, we have followed the lead of UNESCO, Putnam et al. and identified newspaper readership as a key indicator of access to information.
Newspaper readership is increasingly recognized as a key measure of social development, a sign of participation in society. Reading newspapers provides information and generates debate at both the local and national levels. Research by the New Economics Foundation for the United Nations Expert Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators has shown that newspaper readership patterns differ significantly from both adult literacy rates and GDP per capita across the 71 countries for which comparative data are availablel2.
Figures 1 and 2 show a broad positive correlation between newspaper readership and both literacy (R2=0.58), and income (R2=0.64). However, the correlation is not sufficiently strong enough to accept that either literacy or income are proxies for the real levels of newspaper readership in a country. Readership rates vary significantly from one country to another, even at the same level of income and literacy.
ISSUES
Initial analysis does not show that readership is related to cover price or to the number of titles available, although freedom of speech is clearly a prerequisite to the concept of newspapers providing useful information on sustainability issues. The range of titles, the quality of individual newspapers, and the coverage they give to sustainability issues, clearly need to be examined carefully as this indicator is developed.
Rising newspaper readership may be good news for social development, but it has linkages with other indicators of sustainable development which may be bad news simultaneously. The most obvious examples are forest management, industrial pollution and solid waste management associated with the paper production process. Sustainable development does not promise easy answers or unequivocal indicators.
Information can be disseminated in many other ways: by word of mouth, telephone, mail, posters, books, radio, television, cinema and internet, to name a few. Some of these media may be more appropriate indicators in specific cultural or geographical locations. Some examples include local radio in East Africa, television in Brazil, and word of mouth in areas with low levels of literacyl3. Data on the prevalence of telephones, radio and television on a national per capita basis are readily available. But, in common with most indicators of sustainable development, we would also like the data disaggregated by gender and the urban/rural divide.
ASSOCIATIONS: THE 'THIRD SECTOR'
A second key indicator for social capital is the prevalence of civic institutions or associations (often referred to as the 'third sector'). The World Bank has, for the past year, had a study group trying to devise indicators for social capital, to use in its 4-capital model (described in Measuring Wealth and Genuine Savings, Box 3H). Table 1 shows their listing of potential indicators for 'horizontal associations' : the sort that are identified by Agenda 21 as having an important role in sustainable development.
While these examples are useful, knowledge of the size and impacts of the 'third sector' is patchy in most countries. It has been estimated that there are 1,400,000 non-profit organizations in the USA alone, with 350,000 voluntary organizations in the UK, over 300,000 in Germany, and rapid increases noted in France and Italy. In 1995, the first purposeful, cross-national comparison of the scope and scale of the voluntary sector was undertaken by the Johns Hopkins Comparative Non-profit Sector Project. It included France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Sweden, the UK and USA (Australia, the Netherlands and Finland are likely to be included in a second phase )l4. It confirmed the size of the sector.
Japan has 23,000 charitable organizations (koeki hojin), 130,000 pensioners' clubs (rozin), and 270,000 neighbourhoods have community-based mutual-help organizations (jichikai). It is estimated that there are more than 70,000 NGOs in Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, and at least 35,000 voluntary organizations in the developing nations, and more than 500 environmental groups in India alonel5.
A very conservative estimate would therefore suggest 3 million or more NGOs worldwide. In terms of the global spread, the Union of International Organizations reported in 1993 that of 28,900 international non-governmental organizations worldwide, 40% were in Europe, 17% in Asia, 16% in Africa, 15% in Latin America, and just 4% in North Americal6. What is certain is that these organizations, which represent most of the other major groups of Agenda 21, are growing rapidly.
ISSUES
However, relatively little is known about how and in what ways they are involved in real decision-making for sustainable development. The United Nations Division for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development has undertaken a survey of NGOs participating in the Commission on Sustainable Development process, but initial responses show these NGOs to be primarily from the North, and relatively few in numberl7. Sheer numbers of NGOs do not tell us enough. Although they are indicative of a climate of public engagement and diversity, it seems likely that some cultures are more receptive to 'third sector' activities than others, without being necessarily more sustainable. Robust methods of assessing impacts of NGOs need to be developed. In fact, the opposite could be claimed. Countries with the most pressing social and environmental issues are likely to have the most NGOs.
It is widely accepted that the 'third sector' and its major groups should be represented on national councils for sustainable development (one of the CSD indicators). On the other hand, we could not expect any more than a tiny proportion of existing NGOs to have a formal role at events in New York. Networks and coalitions between NGOsl8 are the best ways for the 'third sector' to channel its energies into national and international decision-making.
International comparability will remain a problem until a common methodology is adopted at UN and national levels. With a common approach, a major mapping exercise is needed in order to see this type of indicator develop beyond the anecdotal stage.
CONCLUSIONS
Two indicators of social development ( or social capital) were examined: newspaper readership and the membership of voluntary associations. Data are most readily available for newspapers, but tracking the voluntary sector will become a priority for the UN system and national governments in the near future. The underlying assumption is that, given adequate information and the associations in which to do so, healthy, wealthy and wise citizens can participate in sustainable development. The indicators are imperfect, as all indicators have to be. Newspapers are not the only means of gathering information for decision-making, nor are NGOs the only ways of participating in decision-making. However, a country which has neither is unlikely to enjoy the benefits of popular participation in decision-making, and will probably be unsustainable no matter what other benefits it has.
NOTES
lA. Sen et al., The Standard of Living, Cambridge University Press, 1987.
2Copenhagen Programme of Action, adopted by the World Summit for Social Development, Copenhagen, March 1995.
3L. Lomnitz, Networks and Marginality, New York, Academic Press, 1977;J. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1990 (pages 300-301); J. Coleman, Human Capital in the Creation of Social Capital, in: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94: Supplement S101, 1988.
4 J. Coleman, Human Capital in the Creation of Social Capital, in: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94: Supplement S101, 1988.
5R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: Democracy in America at the End of the Twentieth Century, unpublished paper, Harvard University, 1994. Putnam's work has done much to popularize the concept of social capital. His interpretation focuses on the horizontal relationships which link individuals and the associations to which they belong. These relationships are viewed as largely informal and non-hierarchical providing networks of support and contacts.
6This use of the term community should not be confused with the related but distinct 'communitarian' movement led by Amitai Etzioni (see for example his The Spirit of Community,1995).
7 F. Fukuyama, The Social virtues and the creation of prosperity, Hamish Hamilton, London. 1995.
8Robert Putnam et al., Making Democracy Work: civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, 1993.
9D. Narayan, Voices of the Poor: Social Capital and Poverty, 1996. Multivariate regression analyses established that village level social capital was a key contributor to household welfare even after taking into account the size of household, male schooling, female schooling, household assets, market access and agroecological zone, and after controlling for the contribution of human capital, physical capital and natural capital. The effect of one standard deviation increase in the village level of social capital is higher ($60) than market access ($33) or female schooling ($30). Household level social capital is not as significant as the village level social capital measure.
l0 J. Coleman, Human Capital in the Creation of Social Capital, in: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94: Supplement S101, 1988.
l1R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: Democracy in America at the End of the Twentieth Century, unpublished paper, Harvard University, 1994.
l2 Indicators of Sustainable Development Framework and Methodologies, United Nations, New York, 1996. UNESCO gathers regular time series data on readership and the number of daily titles for most countries of the world. UNEP reports these figures as indicators of human development.
l3 Our Creative Diversity, Report of the World Commission on Culture and Diversity, France,1995.
l4 Salamon, L., Anheier, H., Sokolowski, W. & Associates, The Emerging Sector: a statistical supplement, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Institute for Policy Studies, 1996.
l5 Various references cited in Jeremy Rifkin, The End of Work: the decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era, Putnam Books, New York, 1996.
l6 Cited in Our Creative Diversity, Report of the World Commission on Culture and Diversity, France, 1995. p. 92.
l7 Zehra Aydin, DPCSD, personal communication, 1996.
l8 Such as Real World (31 NGOs) and Green Gauge (7 NGOs) in the UK or the Flemish Network for Sustainable Development. International NGOs such as Friends of the Earth, World Wide Fund for Nature and Greenpeace are examples of concerted influence on decision-making at the international level.