How is social capital distributed in different types of communities?

Networks: bonding, bridging and linking ties

The FSAC survey asked respondents about their informal social connections, as well as links to civic/community groups and institutional ties.

Starting with informal networks, results show that everyone we spoke with has at least some informal ties, and most have both familial and non-familial connections. All respondents have some family ties, most have at least one friend (98.5%) and most (93.7%) know at least one of their neighbours (by name or well enough to have a conversation with). Most people also have some ties through work as they are currently in paid work (or on leave from paid work) and 63.9 per cent reported keeping in contact with at least one work mate from a previous job.

While these figures paint a picture of a reasonably high level of informal connectedness among Australians generally, they also suggest that the ways people experience informal ties in regional Australia differ in some ways from informal social networks in urban centres.

Note 1. Includes partner (married or defacto) and relatives other than children (eg. parents, siblings etc).

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

In particular, people in rural/remote centres are more likely than others to live with other family members (82.7% of regional respondents compared with 76.7% of those living in capital cities). Related to this, more rural/remote residents are likely to have networks of in-laws as well as kin than other Australians.

As well, although most people know at least one of their neighbours well enough to have a conversation with, no matter where they reside, rural/remote residents are most likely to know their neighbours personally (97.0%). Findings not presented here also indicate rural/remote residents are significantly more likely to know more of their neighbours (11 on average) than either of their capital city or other metropolitan counterparts (who know 8.4 and 9.5 neighbours on average, respectively).

In sum, examination of the proportion of people in different types of localities who have different types of informal ties, shows that people have a reasonably high number of different types of informal ties overall but there are differences in the composition of these ‘bonding’ ties according to locality. The informal networks of people in rural and remote centres appear to be more ‘close’ than those of people in urban settings. For these residents, connections with family, kin and in-laws as well as with neighbours are more pronounced than for people in metropolitan regions.

It is interesting to consider not only whether people in different types of locations have different types of informal ties, but also the extent to which these are ‘local’. Previous Australian research indicates that, as might be expected, the more close network ties are, the more contact people are likely to have with them (see for example Millward 1998) and the more likely these ties are to form part of support networks. The question of how proximate people are to their informal networks is particularly relevant when we consider the ways in which people living in rural and remote settings interact. In social capital terms, the proximity of informal networks — the extent to which these ties form part of daily life and are ‘invested in’ — may contribute to the ‘bonding’ capabilities of social capital.

The following two tables present data about the proximity of informal networks to respondents. Table 3 shows whether members of different types of informal networks live in close proximity to respondents (within 30 minutes by usual mode of transport). Table 4 shows the proportion of each network type living in the local area. Together, these figures indicate variation in the extent to which informal networks are geographically proximate to respondents, according to the type of network involved as well as to whether people reside in urban or regional areas.

The key thing to note in Tables 3 and 4 is the considerable variation in proximity of family-based networks. These figures indicate that while people in rural and remote areas are more likely than other people to have networks of kin and family in-law, these networks are less likely to be geographically proximate to people in rural settings. Table 4 shows that less than a fifth (18.9%) of the family networks of people in rural and remote Australia live within 30 minutes of them.

Note 1. Includes partner, girlfriend or boyfriend with whom don’t live.

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

Note 1. Includes partner, girlfriend or boyfriend with whom don’t live.

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

However, despite living further away from family and kin, Table 4 shows that rural and remote residents appear to be nearby around the same proportion of their informal networks (48%) as people who reside in urban settings (52.4% in capital cities and 50.9 in other metropolitan areas).

One of the key concerns within the social capital literature is the notion of civic ‘decline’. Following the work of Putnam (1993, 1995, 1998) who made famous this approach, civic group memberships are typically used as indicators of the vibrancy of civic life. Putnam and others who employ this approach equate high levels of group memberships with healthy civic life. The assumption is that the more engaged people are in civic affairs in this way, the more likely people are to develop trusting, cooperative and reciprocal relations with people who are different from themselves (see Uslaner and Dekker 2001 for discussion). It is further assumed that these types of ties will lead to the development and maintenance of ‘generalised’ trust that is argued to be critical for ‘public good’ outcomes, as described earlier (see Uslaner 2001 for discussion; and Stolle 2001 for a counter-argument). Civic group memberships are thus seen as providing the means through which people develop and foster bridging ties (Putnam 1998).

To explore the extent to which Australians engage in civic life through groups and organisational memberships, we asked people about whether they belonged to any of a series of types of civic groups/organisations and, if so, how many of each type they belonged to (the average number of groups are reported elsewhere. The table below indicates that 84.7 per cent of all respondents belonged to at least one group or organisation. Sporting groups were the most common, then community/welfare groups, arts/educational groups, child-related groups and professional groups/trade unions.

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

While previous research has indicated a higher propensity for people in rural and remote areas to have community connections (Onyx and Bullen 2001) and to participate in some types of community groups (Hughes, Bellamy and Black 2000: 228) these figures indicate no evidence of this trend.

Indeed, while Table 5 shows minor variations in the proportion of people who are involved in different types of groups according to whether they live in rural/remote areas or urban centres, these differences are not significant. As well, no statistically significant differences are found between people living in capital cities, other metropolitan centres and rural/remote areas in relation to the total number of groups people belong to.

On the face of it, these findings indicate no support for the notion that there is a deficit of cross-cutting ties in the form of bridging social capital in rural/remote centres compared with metropolitan areas. However, to further examine the extent to which group memberships put people into contact with people who are different from one’s self, we also investigated the extent to which the group memberships that people in rural/remote centres and urban areas are heterogenous. Central to the idea that group memberships will lead to generalised trust is the notion that these group memberships should not be ‘inward looking’ and should be diverse.

We asked people who were involved in any of the groups and organisations listed whether the members of these groups were mostly the same or mostly mixed in terms of the ethnic and cultural diversity of group members as well as their educational qualifications.

Table 6 shows that while the overall extent to which rural/remote residents and others are engaged in civic and community groups is not significantly different, there are some qualitative differences in the make-up of these groups. Specifically, the groups rural/remote residents belong to are significantly less likely to be mixed in terms of ethnicity. Sixty-five per cent of rural/remote residents compared with 41.4 per cent of people in capital cities reported that the members of the group(s) they belonged to were ethnically and culturally homogenous.

We found no significant differences between the extent to which members of groups respondents belonged to were mixed in terms of their educational attainment — although analysis not presented here does show that the members of groups rural/remote residents belong to are significantly less likely to have high educational attainment, and are significantly more likely to have medium levels of education than the members of groups urban residents belong to.

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

The greater homogeneity overall of the groups rural/remote people belong to may adversely affects the likelihood of the group memberships held by rural/remote residents to result in bridging ties. It also draws attention to the overall extent to which rural/remote centres are homogenous relative to metropolitan regions and capital cities in particular. Even where rural/remote residents are active in groups, these groups are likely to be made of members ‘like themselves’, and to be concerned with local affairs.

An important aspect of cross-cutting that remains under-explored in Australian social capital research is the nature and distribution of ‘linking’ social capital. As described earlier, linking social capital refers to connections with those who hold positions of power and with organisations that are influential. These types of connections are argued to enable communities to garner resources as well as to engage in processes of governance and decision-making (Woolcock 2000).

One way of measuring the extent to which respondents have what is known as ‘linking’ social capital is to investigate whether people are connected to or can access institutional networks. The survey listed a series of organisations and institutions and asked respondents, for each one, whether they personally knew someone in the organisation or institution they could contact if they needed information or advice about something (they could include family, friends and work-associates among others).

Table 7 shows that 90 per cent of respondents have personal ties with at least one type of institution, whether it be the church, the media, the legal system, the government, or big business. The tables also shows that there are some differences in the extent to which rural/remote residents are connected with some types of institutions compared with their urban counterparts — although the proportion of respondents in regional and urban settings with institutional ties is not significantly different overall.

We find that people in regional Australia are more likely than their urban counterparts to have some types of institutional ties, though are less likely to have ties with other, arguably more ‘powerful’ institutions.

Rural/remote residents appear significantly more likely than residents of capital cities to have links to the police force (60% compared with 43.5%) and the media (35.9% compared with 25.1%). On the other hand we find that people in rural/remote areas are significantly less likely than their urban counterparts to have connections with tertiary education institutions and with big business/a major company. People in rural/remote settings also appear to have fewer ties to professional associations and organised trade unions (17.4% compared with 24.4% in capital cities). In addition, the extent to which people have contacts with some institutions does not seem to vary according to whether people live in country or urban settings. These include links with government, churches and the legal system.

1 Assume respondents have personal tie/s to church if they attend church at least a few times a year (71 per cent of respondents attended church at least once a year).

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

Of concern in these figures are the low levels of linkages with educational and business institutions found in rural/remote communities compared with capital cities and other metropolitan centres. Ties to universities are one of the key ways in which regional communities may be able to increase their levels of human capital, in the form of skills and knowledge. Ties with business and major companies are important mechanisms for establishing and maintaining investment, industry and finance in rural Australia.

So far we have identified some differences in the ways in which the informal networks of respondents in regional Australia differ from those in urban centres. We have also found that the nature of cross-cutting ties in rural and remote Australia differs from these same ties in urban settings in some ways. We find evidence to support the idea that even where rural/remote residents are engaged in civic/community groups, the memberships of these groups are relatively homogenous and therefore may not result in the bridging ties social capital theory associates with civic engagement. As well, while residents of regional centres have some linking ties to institutions, they are significantly less likely to have ties with educational and business organisations — two of those types of sectors most important in terms of developing human and economic capital in regional Australia. Next we ask whether these differences are reflected in the norms governing social relationships in regional and urban Australia.

Social capital theory suggests that the quality and structure of social networks are inextricably linked. Thus, the FSAC survey not only asked respondents about the extent and structure of their connections, but also about the quality of those connections, as measured through norms of trust and reciprocity (as set out at Table 1, above). Respondents were asked about the norms of trust and reciprocity for each respective network type separately. As in the case of network structure, above, the quality of social relations can be thought of in terms of representing, or enabling, bonding, bridging and linking forms of social capital. Trust of family and other familiars equates with bonding ties; trust in others — both in the local area and more generally — represents the generalised type of trust argued to be of most importance for achieving broad outcomes; and confidence in institutions equates with norms governing linking relationships to institutions and systems of power.

In order to examine these different types of norms, we asked respondents about the levels of trust and reciprocity respectively in each of these types of networks. Respondents were asked to indicate (using a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 equals no trust and 10 equals complete trust) the extent to which they could trust each of these types of networks, as well as the extent to which each of these networks ‘helped each other out’.

Analysis of these norms indicated that each of trust and reciprocity vary according to network type, but that some of some of these are similar to others. Using factor analysis, we identified four types of trust, and three types of reciprocity. Analysis of trust items indicates trust of family within the household differs from trust among other familiars (including kin, in-laws, friends and workmates), and is also different from generalised trust (including of local people and people more generally) and institutional confidence. These distinctions between different types of trust are largely supported in the social capital literature (see for example Dasgupta 1988; Uslaner 1999; Cox and Caldwell 2000; Black and Hughes 2000). Similarly, analysis of reciprocity items distinguishes between reciprocity among family households, other familiars and people in general.

Table 8 presents the mean levels of trust respondents reported across the different network types (mean levels of trust for the four trust factors plus the individual items that comprise these are reported). A comparison of ‘bonding’ trust across regional and urban centres indicates very little to no difference in the extent to which rural/remote and other residents trust their family households and other networks of familiars. On average, people trust their family and friends most highly, regardless of the locality type in which they live.

These results also indicate a relatively high level of ‘generalised’ trust among Australians. The overall average level of trust in the factor representing trust of ‘people around here’ and ‘people in general’ is 6.8. There are significant differences, however, in these results according to whether people live in rural/remote or urban areas.

At odds with previous Australian research, we find people in rural/remote areas score marginally higher in terms of the generalised trust factor (7.0) than people living in either capital cities (6.8) or other metropolitan centres (6.8). However, what these figures also show is that much of this difference is actually accounted for in the extent to which rural/remote residents trust ‘people around here’ rather than people in general. In response to this item, people living in rural/remote areas report a higher level of trust in ‘locals’ (7.7) than either of the urban groups (7.1 in capital cities and 7.5 in other metropolitan areas). We find no significant differences in the extent to which rural/remote and other residents trust ‘most people in general’.

At the same time, and consistent with previous research, are findings (not presented here) that indicate residents in rural/remote are less tolerant of diversity than their urban counterparts (where rural/remote residents are significantly less likely to agree with the statement ‘having people from many different ethnic and cultural backgrounds makes Australia a better place’).

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

Table 8 also shows overall levels of trust, or ‘confidence’, reported in the various institutions listed above. Average responses for the institutional trust factors show that trust in institutions is lower than for all other types of networks (5.1). These results show that trust of the media, of unions, big business and all levels of government (ranging from federal government at 4.4 to local government at 5.0) are relatively low — with each attracting an average score of between 4.3 and 5.0 only. Confidence in the public service, the legal system, churches rate slightly higher (up to 5.6), with the police force attracting the highest average level of confidence (7.0).

While scores for the overall institutional confidence factor do not differ significantly according to whether people reside in regional or urban Australia, we do see some differences when we consider trust in particular types of institutions. Most notably, rural/remote residents report lowest levels of trust in federal and state government (4.1 and 4.5 respectively, compared with the population averages of 4.4 and 4.8).

Table 9 shows mean levels of reciprocity reported across different network types, and indicates some differences in the way reciprocity operates in rural/remote and urban settings.

In relation to bonding ties, what these figures show is that the norm of reciprocity is high on average across the board in family households. However, reciprocity among other familiars is significantly higher for rural/remote residents (8.3) than for people living in urban centres (8.0 on average in capital cities and other metropolitan areas). This is perhaps not surprising, and is consistent with the notion of rural/remote settings being rich in ‘bonding’ social capital identified in previous research.

***=P < 0.005 , **=P < 0.01, *=P < 0.05.

What is surprising, however, is that rural/remote residents are also significantly more likely to report higher levels of generalised reciprocity (7.4) than their urban counterparts (6.7). Even more unexpected is the finding that higher levels of reciprocity are reported by rural/remote respondents for each type of ‘generalised’ reciprocity, including ‘most people around here’ (7.6) and — most notable of all — ‘people in general’ (7.3) (unlike for trust, where rural/remote residents were more trusting of locals, but not significantly more trusting of others).

These are curious findings given they are at odds with the findings reported above, that rural/remote respondents are less tolerant of difference than metropolitan residents, and that rural/remote residents have higher levels of generalised trust in local people compared with ‘people in general’ (Table 8). The extent to which this sense of generalised reciprocity results in cooperative behaviour is a question for future research. It may be indicative of a capacity to develop ‘cross-cutting’ ties, or a reflection of the homogeneity of rural/remote Australian communities (ie and that generalised trust is not required to cooperate with members of other regional communities). This is a question for future research.

As discussed above, ‘community’ has re-emerged as an important aspect of regional sustainability, and is evidenced in the shift from finance-based solutions to regional ‘decline’ to solutions that recognise the importance of economic, human, environmental and social resources. This shift is reflected in current policy which aims to strengthen communities, in order for them to achieve self-reliance. Together these trends draw attention to ‘social capital’, a concept that describes good quality social relations that can lead to outcomes of mutual benefit.

Recent social capital literature draws the further distinction between different forms of social capital, argued to assist in the processes of getting by and getting ahead respectively. It is asserted that not only do communities need bonding social capital if they are to be sustainable, but that healthy stocks of cross-cutting ties (in the form of bridging connections to people who are different, as well as linking ties to institutions of power) are also necessary pre-conditions for community sustainability. The small amount of research that informs on the extent to which regional Australia is characterised by these different forms of social capital suggests rural and remote centres have bonding ties to assist in daily processes, but that bridging ties, particularly in the form of group membership and tolerance of diversity are in deficit.

The aim of this paper has been to add to our as yet limited understandings of how social capital features and operates in regional Australia. We have documented the nature of people’s connections with one another in rural/remote, minor metropolitan and capital city centres and examined these in relation to the bonding, bridging and linking distinction drawn in social capital theory. So, what does this tell us about social capital in rural/remote Australia, and the likelihood that it will assist the processes of community sustainability?

Too much bonding?

This analysis has shown mixed evidence in support of previous research that suggests rural and remote Australia is characterised by bonding rather than cross-cutting ties, and is inward looking. A comparison of the informal networks of people in rural/remote regions with those of their urban counterparts indicated the importance of family for regional Australians. However, what is also apparent is that due to the distance between rural centres, rural/remote residents are in fact less likely than other people to live in close proximity to these same important ties.

Too few cross-cutting ties?

Social capital theory asserts that bonding ties are important for daily life, but that cross-cutting ties (in the form of bridging and linking) and associated generalised forms of trust are essential for achieving sustainability.

At odds with previous Australian research (particularly the work of Onyx and Bullen, see Onyx and Bullen 2001), our analysis showed no evidence that rural/remote residents are more likely than people living in metropolitan regions to belong to civic and community groups (one of the key indicators used in social capital research to evidence vibrant civic life).

On the other hand, our analysis of the diversity of memberships of the groups rural/remote and other respondents belonged to does reflect some differences between stocks of bridging ties in these different types of communities. The greater homogeneity of group memberships in regional centres, coupled with lower levels of ‘tolerance of diversity’ reported on average in these communities is indicative of fewer bridging ties, and of less propensity to forge cooperative relations with outsiders. This picture of ‘inward looking’ ties is reflected in the higher levels of trust reported by rural/remote residents in networks of familiars and local people — though is offset by the unexpected finding that rural/remote residents report high levels of a generalised norm of reciprocity in relation to people in the local area and people more generally. Analysis of the norm of reciprocity, in addition to trust, warrants greater attention in social capital research.

The lower levels of linking ties found in rural/remote Australia with educational institutions and major companies in particular highlight the relationship between the different types of resources, or capitals, argued to be necessary for regional sustainability. They also highlight the need to understand how social capital — in all its different forms — relates to levels of human, economic and environmental capital in different types of communities, and in a range of circumstances.

Implications for regional Australia and for public policy

The analysis of social capital presented in this paper has, then, supported previous Australian research to a large degree and indicates that on average regional Australian communities are characterised by higher stocks of bonding than bridging or linking forms of social capital.

If the logic of social capital is correct, the implications of these findings are substantial and immediate. Cross-cutting ties are argued to be those types of connections that may best enable rural/remote centres to manage and influence the nature of external pressures, including changes to the economy, in addition to increasing community capacity to manage the effects of these externalities locally. It is this aspect of social capital that is argued to complement the processes of getting by. If social capital theory is indeed correct, the deficit of these types of connections in regional centres may undermine the ability of communities to achieve sustainability.

These findings have direct implications for the current policy aim of ‘building social capital’. What we see in these data is an indication that on average rural and remote Australian communities have high levels of bonding ties and a healthy capacity to trust and reciprocate at the local level. What is less clear is the extent to which civic and community connections in regional Australia result in generalised trust (beyond the local area), or in connections with power institutions.

In order to enhance the capacity of regional communities, greater emphasis must be placed upon engaging regional communities in processes of decision-making across all sectors of ‘power’ (including education, business, governance) in addition to current efforts aimed at bridging communities with one another and with some institutional sectors (such as via community-business partnerships).

Finally, these findings highlight the need for continued investigation of the nature of connections in Australian communities, including the relationships between community members, the relationships they have with other communities, as well as the relationships communities have with institutions of power. Only as our understandings of these relationships develops can we establish how social capital relates to other types of resources within communities, and to outcomes such as community sustainability. By doing so we can understand more about the role and importance of social connections in achieving vibrant community life in regional and other parts of Australia.

Black, A. and Hughes, P. (2000) ‘Social capital in urban life’, Paper presented to Quality of Life Conference, Singapore, February 2000.

Black, A. and Hughes, P. (2001) The Identification and Analysis of Indicators of Community Strengths and Outcomes, Report to the Department of Family and Community Services, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.

Bourdieu, P. (1993) Sociology in Question, Sage, London.

Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology 94:S95-120.

Cox and Caldwell (2000) ‘Making Policy Social’, in Winter, I (ed) Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp. 43-73.

Dasgupta, P. (1988) ‘Trust as a commodity’, in D. Gambetta (ed.) Trust, Basil Blackford, Oxford, pp. 49-72.

Gibson, K. and Cameron, J. (2001) ‘Transforming Communities: Towards a research agenda’, Urban Policy and Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 7-24.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, London.

Hughes, P., Bellamy, J. and Black, A. (2000) ‘Building social trust through education’, in I. Winter (ed.) Social Capital and Public Policy in Australia, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp. 225-249.

Millward, C. (1998) ‘Family support and exchange’, Family Matters, No. 50, pp. 19-23.

Narayan, D. (1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social capital and poverty, Word Bank, Washington DC.

Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. (2001) ‘The different faces of social capital in NSW Australia’, in P. Dekker and E. M. Uslaner (eds.) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, Routledge, London, pp. 45-58.

Ostrom, E. (2000) ‘Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept?’, in Dasgupta, P. and I. Serageldin (eds.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, World Bank, Washington DC.

Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, pp. 1-24.

Putnam, R. D. with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. Y. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Putnam, R. D. (1995) ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. (1998) ‘Foreword’, Housing Policy Debate, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. v-viii.

Putzel, J. (1997) ‘Accounting for the "dark side" of social capital: reading Robert Putnam on democracy’, Journal of International Development, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 939-949.

Stone, W. and Hughes, J. (2001) 'The nature and distribution of social capital: initial findings of the Families, Social Capital & Citizenship survey (2001)'. Paper presented to 'Competing Visions' National Social Policy Conference, hosted by the Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, 4-6 July 2001, Sydney.

Stone, W. and Hughes. J. (2001 in press) Conceptualising Community Strengths, Australian Institute of Family Studies Briefing Paper, Melbourne.

Uslaner, E. M. (1999) ‘Trust and consequences’, Paper presented to the Communitarian Summit, February 1999, Arlington, VA.

Uslaner, E. M. and Dekker, P. (2001) ‘The ‘social’ in social capital’, in P. Dekker and E. M. Uslaner (eds.) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, Routledge, London, pp. 176-187.

Woolcock, M. (2000) ‘Why should we care about social capital?’, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, no. 98, pp. 17-19.