Social capital has been a topic of debate and research over the last few years, with attention focused on the non-economic causes of poverty and exclusion. This is a welcome development. There has, however, been confusion over how to interpret the data and therefore significant divergence about appropriate remedies.
There is more to well-being than having a fat bank account, and there is more to poverty and exclusion than having no bank account at all. What people living in poverty and isolation really need is the right to self-determination: the capacity both individually and with others to determine their own future and gain control over their lives. This applies to neighbourhoods as much as it does to individuals and families. Self-determination can only be realised by individuals through their relationships with others. Money is just one avenue towards realising this goal and merely a contributing factor which may allow people to realise autonomy.
The debate about social capital is hampered by the skewed assumptions that some hold about the relationship between economics and humanity. Instead of approaching the problem of poverty by looking beyond economics, and subjecting economic theory and policy to practical criticism from this broader perspective, proponents broaden the scope of economics by casting human life as a form of capital (rather than capital as a form of human life), as a resource which can be converted into cash or used for self-advancement. The concept claims, confusingly, to subsume political and moral problems under economic science.
Such is the view taken by Mark Latham, in his latest book From the Suburbs, which focuses on capital accumulation as the sole route to self-determination, a ‘ladder’ which people climb alone. He poses one solution to the problem of building social capital to the exclusion of all others, and what is more, this is a solution whose capacity to overcome the anomie and injustice of modern society is problematic.
Tony Vinson, whose report on community adversity and resilience was reviewed in Eureka Street (April 2004), reflects a contrasting view. He reports on a number of projects in which Jesuit Social Services have participated. Each project begins with efforts to find out the concerns of as broad a range of residents as possible. A public forum is then called, in which people are encouraged to step forward to take responsibility and gain a mandate from the wider community. This group then drafts an action