Rural development as an effort to improve the welfare of villagers requires cohesiveness among the actors, namely the villagers, the government (both local and higher tiers), and other related parties.
By
SIWI NUGRAHENI
·4 minutes read
In 2003, while conducting research in a remote area of Jambi, I met a local villager who was "confused" by his distrust of the village head. He said his distrust started when the village received external financial assistance and suspected that the fund was being managed inappropriately.
These days, I often receive information about discord among villagers stemming from the village funds. The previously harmonious ties between the residents become tenuous. Conflicts between villagers often occur.
The village funds are needed as a form of financial capital to develop rural areas. On the other hand, if they are not managed properly, the village funds have the potential to destroy another important type of capital, namely social capital. In some cases, the breakdown of relationships in a villager (usually between villagers and officials or former village officials) can also hamper disbursement of the village funds.
This is probably because social capital is an area of discussion across three branches of knowledge: sociology, politics, and economics. In this writing,
There is no agreement among experts in defining social capital. This is probably because social capital is an area of discussion across three branches of knowledge: sociology, politics, and economics. In this writing, I refer to the definition of social capital put forward by Robert D. Putnam (2001, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community).
According to Putnam, social capital refers to the characteristics of human relationships in social organizations, such as networks, agreed norms (for example, of interrelatedness or reciprocity), and the existence of trust (trustworthiness).
Social capital works to bridge (bridging) and unite (bonding) as well as to encourage mutually beneficial action and cooperation.
Rural development as an effort to improve the welfare of villagers requires cohesiveness among the actors, namely the villagers, the government (both local and higher tiers), and other related parties. Rural development also demands collective action, collaborative work and mutual cooperation. This is where social capital has an important role.
Damaging social capital
Social capital in a community is dynamic and can change over time. Massoda Bano (2012, Breakdown in Pakistan: How Aid is Eroding Institutions of Collective Action) describes how the traditions and spirit of cooperation that had existed for a long time, even hundreds of years, among residents in several areas of Pakistan were damaged when these areas received external financial assistance.
This had occurred not only in Pakistan, which was the area of his research. Bano stated that the problem of the collaborative atmosphere dissolving after receiving financial assistance was not unique to Pakistan, citing the results of similar studies by other researchers in places such as Bolivia and during the 2004 tsunami post-disaster recovery period in Aceh.
One of the causes of damage to social capital is the loss of trust between community members. This trust problem arises from, among other things, nontransparency and partiality.
In the case of the village funds, for example, a village head who appoints his family member or a relative to lead a village-owned enterprise in a nontransparent manner can raise suspicion and envy among other residents.
Bano highlights another factor: change in the motivation of the local leaders who manage the funds, which he calls “initiators”. At first they worked voluntarily. This is the ideal motivation, according to Bano.
This is precisely what undermines social capital, creates jealousy among other residents, and erodes the willingness to work together.
However, when they begin managing the funds and receive a big salary, financial incentives become their motivation. This is precisely what undermines social capital, creates jealousy among other residents, and erodes the willingness to work together.
Transparency and informality
Transparency is the only way to allay suspicion and restore trust. The appointment of village officials, especially to roles related to fund management, must be based on a defined and mutually agreed system. And this should be carried out consistently and transparently.
Bano proposes another approach, namely avoiding formality. He refers to community cohesiveness that formed organically, flowing together in an informal atmosphere. Formality will give an impression of "rigidity", which actually divides individual relationships.
An approach based on informality requires a closer look at a village’s social life to map out people who are respected, informal figures in the area. They are usually traditional leaders, religious leaders, or teachers.
If village leaders can no longer work agilely because of old age and are thus seen as hindering the work, they can be appointed as advisers as a middle way.
Village funds management that involves village elders is expected to reduce suspicion. If village leaders can no longer work agilely because of old age and are thus seen as hindering the work, they can be appointed as advisers as a middle way.
The village funds play an important role in village development, but their nontransparent management has the potential to erode social capital, which is an important asset in motivating villagers to play an active role in developing their area.
Informal management is an additional way to restore eroded social capital. Transparency and informality in village funds management are expected to increase the effective use of the village funds.
FE UNPAR
Siwi Nugraheni
SIWI NUGRAHENI, Lecturer at the School of Economics, Parahyangan Catholic University
(This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi.)
