Social Capital and Participation A Perspective from South America- Brazil, Chile and Uruguay Patricio Valdivieso (12.04.2007) Valdivieso, P. (2010) Social Capital and Participation .A Perspective from South America- Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. Working paper in progress, Santiago de Chile
Summary: This working paper will exhibit rigorous methodology and evidence concerning South American cases from Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay- with the proposition of revitalizing the debate toward Social Capital and urban participation in the Americas. With a better understanding and further discussion towards the instruments of observation will come an advancement in this line of investigation, as well as in public politics. With information generated autonomously and through ad-hoc literature, findings will be obtained concerning conventional, non-conventional, and participation by trusted sources, as well as socio-economic, demographic, and attitude relation variables. This study will also include the founding of the central concepts involved; the operation of these concepts; the observation of tendencies, in addition to their correlations, and the recording of casual relations, while comparing proper observations with others, and examining some generalities. KEY WORDS Social Capital, Participation, Trust, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay Patricio Valdivieso Instituto of Political Science Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile (PUC) Vicuna Mackenna 4860. Macul, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile Tel: 56/2/3547825, Fax: 56/2/3547805
[email protected]
1. Introduction The participation of conventional, non-conventional, or communitarian politics, along with the trust of interpersonal, and institutional relations, manifest conditions of recognized importance for social progression and for the stability of the democratic political regime, and for this reason, are the object of much scientific investigation and play a large role in the public politics of Latin America; among others, Pateman (1992), Norros (2002), Hagopian/Mainwaring (2005,8), IDB (2006,V-IX), www.usaid.gov. In relation to the prior, there has developed a line of investigation toward the conceptualization and the operation of the social capital; among others, Norris (2002), Baquero (2005), Freitag (2006). In a good deal of literature, the central operational concepts for the observation of the Social Capitol are levels of participation and social trust. These observations tend to centralize in supplemental information provided by the countries or in very specific case studies; Norris (2002), Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005), Castillo (2006). The purpose of this study consists in summarizing empirical evidence concerning the indicators of the social capital and, unlike the other studies that have been published till now, to do it based on an analysis comparing three cases in South America. This study presents new observations concerning the social capital and reveals a rigorous methodology to propose relations, and in by so doing, leading to the contribution of resources to the investigation both here and abroad.
The methodology has consisted in the revision of literature concerning the social capital and the Democratic Participation, both in and outside of the Americas; the operation of conceptualizations in variables of observation; constructing and applying surveys to representative assemblies by population in three distinct countries in the tip of Latin America; constructing index’s of social capital and related variables; observing tendencies and correlations; and finally making an analysis of the relations amongst variables using multiple regression and logistic methods. Using collected information in three cities representative of Latin America (Porto Alegre, Santiago de Chile, and Motevideo), we consider empirical evidence concerning the concepts and the prominent variables found in literature concerning social capital. This study follows the deterioration of the theoretical and empirical investigation; unanimously stressing participation and trust as indicators of the social capital. In this way, the analysis and the observations obtained from the three concrete cases being investigated supplement the findings obtained from other investigations held up to date. This study investigates relations between the variables of social capital (participation and trust), which are considered as dependent variables, as well as other variables and information concerning the interests covered in this course of investigation. A good understanding about the grouping of variables and the relations presented in this study should contribute to the discussion of the methods of work as well as the discussion of the explicated and predictive conceptual models, as much as the like in the realm of public politics. Likewise, the information concerning South American cases could add to the discussion of other cases from the region and the world, encompassing it in better understanding. In this sense, in addition to repeating, along with a rigorous
methodology and the use of the same instrument in three distinct cases in order to obtain information (surveys), a specific contribution of this work is the detailed voyage through the principle observed tendencies in relation with the variables of the social capital; the observation of the significant correlations; and the work with multiple linear regression models in order to observe a conjoining of independent variables. This study begins with the election of concepts of observation, is followed by the presentation of observed tendencies in relation to the prior, continues with correlations between variables, proceeds with observations realized from the analysis of regressions, and concludes with a ranking of these variables and their implications. At the end, there is a recapitulation of observations and findings of interest in order to continue developing this line of investigation.
2.Conceptualization and Justification What concepts of observation can represent the social capital and the realized variables (both correlated and explained)? Participation and trust are central, operational concepts of social capital. Conventional political participation (institutionalized and electoral) and the interests in politics are manifestations of the civil democratic culture, and have been singled out and documented in Brody (1994,173-208), Verba (1995), Borba (2005, 58-59), and Castillo (2006). Non-conventional communitarian participation, considered in the large part of literature, see Norris (2002), understands all these forms of participation, non-institutionalized and primarily electoral, which benefit along with the urban population that don’t go against a logic or democratic practices. So, along with the participation of associations with distinct characteristics are included the collective
defiant actions, both conventional and non-conventional, like protests and strikes. Trust and consensus are central concepts, in that they represent facilitative attitudes of collective actions in terms of common goals, as stated by Locke (2002, 481-483). Between the different possibilities of social trust, each of the following can be obtained: interpersonal trust in the common institutions can be used as a vehicle for social progress; evidence of which can be found in Putnam (1996), Baquero (2003, 19-20); social confidence in the elite in a genuine democracy (social, economic, and political leaders, including social and recruiting institutions, with access and maintenance in directional positions), for being a resource that contributes to the cohesion, participation and social integration, the confidence in the means of communication in societies increasingly pluralist in interests, convictions and expressions, and so they constitute a resource for the representation of urban disgruntlement. In literature, see Barberet (2004:172-174), Borba (2005), Souza (2005), Pase (2005), Fialho (2005), Santos/Viscarra (2005), Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005), Rubenson (2005), the variables already indicated of Social Capital are related with a group of socioeconomic and relative indicators to the quality of life of the people and their associations: gender, the level of education and the level of earnings tend to be considered; the conditions of associativity (infrastructure of organizations), in the areas where people live, it results to be reasonable to think that if they dispose instances for the participation of their neighborhoods and understandings in respect to these, they’d have better predisposition to participate; the level of security or insecurity of the people, because these conditions influence confidence and participation. Personal well-being, quality of life, future expectations and the level of satisfaction with democracy all
manifest the impact of socioeconomic, political and institutional variables; see PNUD (2004). Finally, Social Capital has a relation to a conjoining of attitude based variables of political culture and inter-city competitions, see Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005) and Geissel (2006): the collective identity or the sense of solidarity express competitions of social ability for collective action; the attitude of support for democracy has influence in the disposition to participate. In this study, Social Capital will be observed by means of indexes that represent the variable forms of conventional political participation, communitarian and nonconventional participation, and trust. These will be placed in relation with indexes that synthesize information concerning socio-economic variables and the attitudes of the people.
3. Observations of the tendencies taken from Social Capital variables In this paragraph, information concerning the tendencies of variables will be presented in percentages, in the cases of Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. These cases will correspond to the types of societies or countries considered to be in a stage of development according to Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005). The concept of “community participation” was put into use and observed by means of indexes of participation and sociotropical associations (volunteered, with philanthropic objectives), in utilitarian associations (predominant of an instrumental rationality, utilitarian) in religious associations (identified with certain creeds and related forms of life) and in collective actions considered challenging (identification with critical attitudes and non-conformism). This typology makes possible
the comparison with observations and findings of other studies, such as those of Rubenson (2005), Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch 92005) and Geissel (2006). In the first place, the following table presents tendencies in respect to conventional participation (voting, informing, debating) and the interest in politics:
Table 1: Conventional participation in Brazil, Chile y Uruguay by % (2005) IPP IDSP IISP SI SI SI BRASIL 87.3 90.8 67.6 CHILE 72 86 55.8 URUGUAY 88.2 91.2 71.8 IPP: participación política convencional; IDSP: acción de discutir sobre política; IISP: acción de informarse sobre política. Fuente: Encuestas de elaboración propía para la observación en la ejecución del Proyecto FONDECYT Nr. Nr. 1071073 y en la ejecución del proyecto Capital Social e desenvolvimento sustentável na construção da cidadania e melhoria da qualidade de vida um estudo comparado entre cidades do Brazil, Chile e Uruguay, Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul, 2005; encuestas e indices construidos se pueden ver en
http://rodolfo.venegas.googlepages.com.
In Chile, a smaller percentage of political participation is observed than in Brazil and in Uruguay, and in all three cases, there exists a considerable level of political discussion, notwithstanding there being a lower level in the action of informing. It is necessary to mention that the high level of political participation in the three countries reflects the obligatory nature of voting for those who are written into the electoral records. The following table contains information referring to non-conventional participation: Table 2: Non conventional participation: Brazil, Chile y Uruguay by % (2005) IPAS IPAU IPAR IPACD NO SI NO NO NO SI SI SI Brasil 89,2 10 88 82.5 82.4 11.2 16.9 17.1 Chile 89,6 10,4 88 73.8 82.8 12 26.2 17.2 Uruguay 82 76,4 88 64.4 18 23.6 12 35.6 CASEN 2003 77,3 2,1 60,7 71.4 ----18,7 8 CASEN 2000 76,9
1,3
59,1
19,1
71.6
6.6
---
---
IPAS: Índice de Participación en Asociaciones Sociotrópicas; IPAU: Indice de Participación en Asociaciones Utilitarias; IPAR: Índice de Participación en Asociaciones Religiosas; IPACD: Índice de Participación en Acciones Colectivas Desafiantes. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1.; Ministerio de Planificación Nacional de Chile, bases de datoos de encuestas CASEN 2000 y 2003.
The percentages of participation observed are low, and this is goes along with observations in other studies, see Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005, 33). In Uruguay there is greater participation in challenging collective actions and in utilitarian associations, but fewer in religious associations. In comparison, Chile shows greater participation in religious associations than Brazil. In contrast with he data from CASEN, the observations concerning Chile suggest a greater level of participation in the common level than in the national level (10.4% participation in sociotropical associations and 26.2% in religious associations in the year 2005; for all the Chilean territory, CASEN pertains to only 2.6% and 10% respectively in the year 2003). All in all, in the case of participation in utilitarian associations, the tendency is reverted (12% in the communes and 23% in the national level). It is necessary to mention some observations concerning the data from CASEN in relation to world tendencies, see Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005, figure #1). The increase in the participation of sociotropical associations observed in CASEN in 2000 and 2003 continues the tendency of growth of 0.6% annually in the midst of 20 postindustrial democracies; participation in utilitarian associations remains relatively constant; as for participation in religious associations, the data from CASEN would fit to a projection of world tendency. The concept of trust was observed by means of the construction of binary indexes of confidence.
Table 3: Trust in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay by % (2005) Brazil Chile Uruguay
ICOG SI 100 100 100
ICE SI 99.8 98.8 98.6
ICOI SI 80.4 71.6 89.4
ICOF SI 98.4 98.6 98.6
ICGO SI 90 77.4 96.6
ICI SI 99.6 100 100
ICMC SI 77.8 72.6 76.4
ICOG: Indice de Confianza en otra gente; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación.
In contrast with other studies, see Borba (2005, 60-62), the information from the board indicates an elevated level of trust. Therefore, in this dimension, the level of Social Capital appears to be high. In short, the observations of the of the graphs reiterate that Social Capital can be observed by means of indicators of conventional, non-conventional participation, and trust. The level of communitarian participation and non-conventional participation is low in all areas, while the level of trust is high.
4. Correlations of Social Capital with socioeconomic and attitude variables Are there relations between observations of Social Capital, indicated tendencies and other variables considered in literature? In continuation, the most significant correlations will be observed and commented upon,
Table 4. Conventional participation and other variables: Brazil, Chile and Uruguay BRAZIL
CHILE
IPP
IDSP
IISP
n.s.
n.s.
-.09*
-.08*
-.11*
-.08*
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.29***
.30***
.22***
.09*
.26***
n.s.
.22***
.26***
.18***
.15**
.13**
.22***
.14**
.19***
n.s.
-.08 *
n.s.
n.s.
.15**
n.s.
.01*
.13**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.10* .20*** n.s.
n.s. n.s. .20***
n.s. .15** .11*
.11* .19*** .15**
.10* .17*** .16***
n.s. n.s. .08*
n.s. n.s. .18***
n.s. n.s .18***
n.s. n.s. .15**
n.s.
-.14**
-.15***
n.s.
-.08*
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.18***
n.s.
.15**
.21***
n.s.
n.s.
.11*
n.s.
.09*
.10*
.21***
.13**
.21***
.24***
.14**
.30***
.26***
.23***
.08 *
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.08*
.13**
n.s.
.15**
.13**
.15**
n.s.
.20***
n.s
.09*
n.s.
n.s.
---
.30***
.32***
---
.37***
.31***
---
.38***
.28***
.30***
---
.49***
.38***
---
.47***
.38***
---
.49***
--.49*** .31*** .47*** * * p 0 .0 1 ns . . p 0 .1 0 * p 0.10 Nivel de significación: ; ;
---
.28***
.49***
---
S NE NI IBP IEV ICV IEAFI IIN
-.13** ISD ISOI ISC IAD IPP IDSP IISP
.32***
IPP
URUGUAY
IDSP
IISP
IPP
IDSP
IISP
S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1
The indicators of conventional participation are positively correlated with the major number of the cases, which indicates relations between electoral participation and the practices of discussing and informing oneself about politics. This emphasizes the high correlation between IDSP and IISP (to discuss and to find out). The correlations between participation and the act of supporting democracy (IAD), although positive, are not especially high. There are positive correlations between conventional participation and
education (NE). In contrast with Uruguay, in Chile and Brazil it appears that the level of earnings (NI) and the quality of life (ICV) influence positively in conventional participation. The correlations with Solidarity and Social Identification (ISOI) are significant and positive in all the cases, and in Uruguay are exhibited in the highest level. In continuation, in the following tables, the referred information will be observed with non conventional participation, in sociotropical and utilitarian associations, and in collective actions deemed challenging in the cases of Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, where the data can be compared with the estimations from other studies that refer to other groups of countries that correspond with the south American cases.
Table 5: Communitarian participation, non conventional participation, socioeconomic variables, attitudes (correlations), in cases from Brazil and global estimations Sociedades Postindustriales (1)
Brazil (Porto Alegre)
Sociedades en desarrollo (1)
IPAS
IPAU
IACD
IPAR
IPAS
IACD
IPAS
IACD
S
-.14***
-.13***
n.s.
n.s
.03**
-.07**
.02**
-.08**
NE
.17***
.15***
.20***
n.s
.16**
.22**
.18**
.16**
NI
.19***
.19***
n.s
n.s
.13**
.18**
.12**
.12**
IIEAFI
.18***
.18***
n.s.
n.s.
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
IIN
.09*
.10*
.10*
n.s.
n.s.
-.09*
-.11*
n.s.
ISOI
.64***
.62***
.17***
.19***
---
---
---
---
IAD
.13***
.11***
n.s.
n.s.
.06**
.19**
.03**
.15**
IPAS
---
.89***
.32***
.16***
---
.21**
---
.11**
IPAU
.89***
---
.33***
.20***
.23**
.23**
.24**
.22**
IACD
.32***
.33***
---
.19***
.20**
---
.11**
---
IPAR
.16***
.20***
.19***
---
.23**
.08**
.17**
.03**
-.14**
-.10*
-.13**
n.s.
---
---
---
---
ICOI
.37***
.35***
.62**
.21***
---
---
---
---
ICGO
.21***
.21***
.28***
n.s.
---
---
---
---
ICMC
n.s.
n.s.
-.10*
n.s.
---
---
---
---
IBP
ICE
n.s.
n.s.
.12**
-.08*
---
---
---
---
IDSP
.25***
.24***
.26***
.09*
.17**
.27**
.11**
.27**
IISP
.17***
.16***
.12***
n.s.
.08**
.13**
.07**
.14**
IPP
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01; ***p0.001; el signo --- se coloca cuando no hay Nivel de significación: ns información suficiente para el análisis. Las correlaciones que son “n.s.” en todos los casos no son incluidas en la tabla. (1) En el trabajo de Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch, 2005, las variables S, NE, NI y tamaño del barrio son agrupadas como Factores socio-demográficos; las variables IPAS e IACD como Otros envolvimientos comunitarios; IDSP, IISP y ver televisión como Interés en vida pública; ICE, ICI, obediencia de las normas y religiosidad como Orientaciones Conformistas; ICOG, IAD, tolerancia a la homosexualidad, aspiraciones de libertad, énfasis en la expresión autónoma como Orientaciones Humanistas. S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
Table 6: Communitarian participation, non conventional participation, socioeconomic variables, attitudinal (correlations), in cases from Chile and global studies Sociedades Postindustriales (1)
Chile (Santiago)
Sociedades en desarrollo (1)
IPAS
IPAU
IACD
IPAR
IPAS
IACD
IPAS
IACD
-.16***
-.12**
n.s
.09*
.03**
-.07**
.02**
-.08**
NE
.08*
n.s.
.14***
n.s.
.16**
.22**
.18**
.16**
NI
.15***
0.1*
.13***
n.s.
.13**
.18**
.12**
.12**
IIEAFI
.24***
.26***
.22**
.16***
---
---
---
---
ISOI
.60***
.59***
.17***
n.s.
---
---
---
---
ISC
.21***
.24***
n.s.
.08
---
---
---
---
IAD
.09*
n.s.
.14***
n.s.
.06**
.19**
.03**
.15**
IPAS
---
.87***
.24***
.14***
---
.21**
---
.11**
IPAU
.87***
---
.21***
.15***
.23**
.23**
.24**
.22**
IACD
.24***
.21***
---
.13***
.20**
---
.11**
---
IPAR
.14***
.15***
.13***
---
.23**
.08**
.17**
.03**
ICOG
.26***
.24***
.13**
.09**
.14**
.15**
.05**
.07**
ICE
.19***
.16***
n.s.
.12***
.08**
n.s
n.s.
n.s
ICOI
.37***
.29***
.62***
.2***
---
---
---
---
.11*
.08*
.09*
.08*
---
---
---
---
S
ICOF ICGO
.17***
.14**
.22***
.01*
---
---
---
---
ICI
.13***
.13***
n.s.
.13***
.04**
-.03**
.04**
-.07**
IPP
.15**
.12**
.22**
.1*
---
---
---
---
IDSP (5)
.2***
.19***
.31***
.12***
.17**
.27**
.11**
.27**
IISP
.14***
.14***
.13***
n.s.
.08**
.13**
.07**
.14**
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01 Nivel de significación: ns S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
Table 7: Communitarian participation, non conventional participation, socioeconomic variables, attitudinal (correlations), in cases from Uruguay and global studies
Uruguay (Montevideo)
Sociedades postindustriales
Sociedades en desarrollo
IPAS
IPAU
IACD
IPAR
IPAS
IACD
IPAS
IACD
NE
.17***
.10*
.15***
n.s.
.16**
.22**
.18**
.16**
NI
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.13** ---
.18** ---
.12** ---
.12** ---
IIEAFI
.25***
.23***
.26***
.08* ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
ISOI
.66***
.62***
.28***
.10*
ISC
.12**
.19***
.12**
n.s.
IAD
.08*
n.s.
.15***
n.s.
.06**
.19**
.03**
.15**
IPAS
---
.78***
.36***
.15***
---
.21**
---
.11**
IPAU
.78***
---
.50***
n.s.
.23**
.23**
.24**
.22**
IACD
.36***
.50***
---
n.s.
.20**
---
.11**
---
IPAR
.15***
n.s.
n.s
---
.23**
.08**
.17**
.03**
ICOG
.20***
.24***
.27***
n.s.
.14** ---
.15** ---
.05** ---
.07** ---
ICOI
.49***
.50***
.78***
.15** ---
---
---
---
ICOF
.18***
.21***
.25***
.08* ---
---
---
---
ICGO
.2***
.24***
.32***
n.s. ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
n.s.
n.s.
.08*
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-.14**
.08*
IPP
.29***
.33***
.30***
.08*
IDSP (5)
.28***
.33***
.38***
n.s.
.17**
.27**
.11**
.27**
IISP
.21***
.26***
.24***
n.s.
.08**
.13**
.07**
.14**
ICI ICMC
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01 Nivel de significación: ns S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en
Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
These observations suggest relations of interest between the indicators of Social Capital. In the cases of south America, the levels of correlation between communitarian participation (sociotripcial IPAS’s and utilitarian associations IPAU’s) and that of collective actions deemed challenging (IACD) are more prominent than in postindustrial societies; that is to say, the higher level of participation in communitarian associations and in large organizations (parties, syndicates), the greater the level of participation in collective action deemed challenging. It should be pointed out that Uruguay has the highest level of correlation (0.36), followed by Brazil (0.32), and ending with Chile (0.24). The most participative experience could be favoring critical, un-conformist, and contestartarias attitudes. On the other hand, the same correlations justify placing Chile within developing and post-industrial societies (correlation between 0.21 and 0.23), while Uruguay and Brazil correspond to post-industrial societies (0.33 and 0.50 respectively). The relations between (communitarian and conventional) participation and diverse forms of trust tend to be, in general, positive, and they reaffirm the assumption made by literature that with greater trust, greater is the disposition to participate (Baquero 2005). The disparity’s observed in the cases, such as in the correlations between participation and trust in the elite or in institutions (ICE, ICI), obey very different contexts, where the elite differs in its behaviors and where institutions don’t function in the same way. In relation to the level of trust in organizations (ICOI, ICOF, ICGO), evidence suggests a high level of importance in informal interaction, especially in the case of Uruguay, with relations between trust, informal interaction, and both critical and challenging behaviors (IACD); the higher the level of trust in informal organizations, the
higher the level of participation in associations and in collective action. On the other hand, the observations reiterate that the cases from South America can only be partially classified within ideal types, such as “developing societies” or as “postindustrial”; in effect in the correlation between trust in other people (ICOG) and participation. Chile, just as much as Uruguay shows a higher value than both developing and postindustrial societies; the correlation between trust in other people (ICOG) and collective action deemed challenging (IACD) is greater in Uruguay than in Chile, and both are greater than in developing societies. Conventional participation (poltical, electoral; debate and informing oneself) is positively correlated with communitarian participation (non-conventional participation), especially in the cases of Uruguay and Chile; that is to say, the greater participation in communitarian associations (IPAS, IPAU) and in collective action deemed challenging (IACD), the greater the disposition to inform oneself, discuss, and participate in politics. In Brazil, the only case with different tendencies, the negative correlation between conventional and religious participation could indicate a higher level of distancing between associativism
and politics.
The correlations
between
communitarian
participation and “discussing about politics” (IDSP) are positive and significant; they are above the level observed in postindustrial societies (within 0.2 and 0.28). In Uruguay, a higher level of correlation is observed than in all the other cases between participation in collective action deemed challenging (IACD) and the practices of discussing and informing oneself about politics (IISP). These differences are clearly convergent with differences relative to cultural and democratic tradition, as well as civic behavior.
The correlations between communitarian and non-conventional participation, as well socioeconomic variables (sex, education, level of earnings, infrastructure, insecurity/security, satisfaction/insatisfaction with institutions) tend to be low in general. In the case of Chile, the positive correlation between religious participation and gender is consistent with other observations concerning the outstanding feminine role in religious associations, see Maria (2004). The low correlations between collective actions deemed challenging and education suggest that Chile and Uruguay are found in the mid-range of correlation in the global level (between 0.14 and 0.16), while Brazil approaches the level of postindustrial societies. As for the correlations between participation and revenue, Chile and Brazil are closer than Uruguay to global tendencies. To their turn, the correlations of the infrastructure of associations (IIEAFI) suggest that the greater the quantity of organizations and instances of association in the neighborhoods and in the communes, the greater the willingness to participate. In relation to insecurity/security (IIN), Brazil is the only case where significant correlations can be observed, both low and high, which suggest that with greater insecurity, the greater the level of participation. On the other hand, personal well-being does not manifest a straight relationship with participation, and could operate in both a positive and negative sense. In addition, the level of satisfaction or insatisfaction with democracy also doesn’t seem to have a clear relation with participation, in neither a positive or negative sense. Some actitudinal variables (political culture) have a clear relation with participation. Solidarity and Social Identification (ISOI) tends to correlate positively with communitarian participation in the three South American countries. In the case of
Uruguay, the correlations are much stronger, especially in the areas of solidarity, identification, and collective action deemed challenging. In the following tables, correlations between trust and the other variables for each case will be observed.
Table 8. Trust and other variables, Brazil Brazil ICOG NE NI N=508 IEAFI N=499 IIN
n.s.
ICE n.s.
ICOI -.10*
ICOF n.s.
.17***
n.s.
.17***
.13**
n.s.
ICGO
ICI
ICMC
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.16***
.32***
.17***
n.s.
.16***
n.s.
.09*
n.s.
n.s.
-.23***
-.17***
n.s.
-.17***
-.13**
-.30***
n.s.
IBP
.24***
.20***
n.s.
.16***
.08*
.30***
.10*
ICV
.1*
.14**
n.s.
.20***
.19***
.23***
n.s.
IEV
.16***
.09*
.1*
.11*
.1*
.20***
.1*
ISD
.26***
.26***
.15***
.28***
.26***
.77***
.17***
ISOI
.18***
n.s.
.28***
n.s.
.26***
.07*
n.s.
ISC
.40***
.08
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.09*
.07*
.18***
n.s.
n.s.
.16***
.25***
n.s.
n.s.
---
n.s.
.3***
.32***
.27***
.34***
.14**
n.s.
---
-.08*
.17***
-.08*
.31***
.12**
IAD N=490 ICOG ICE ICOI
.3***
-.08*
---
.26***
.33***
.21***
.08*
ICOF
.32**
.17***
.26***
---
.30***
.62***
.27***
ICGO
.27***
-.08*
.33***
.30***
---
.31***
n.s.
ICI
.34***
.31***
.21***
.62***
.31***
---
.30***
.14**
.12**
.08*
.27***
n.s.
.30***
---
.22***
.2***
.13**
.27***
.41***
.25***
n.s.
.11*
n.s.
.24***
n.s.
.31***
n.s.
n.s.
ICMC IPP IDSP N=504
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01; ***p0.001; el signo --- se coloca cuando no hay Nivel de significación: ns información suficiente para el análisis. (1) En el trabajo de Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch, 2005, las variables S, NE, NI y tamaño del barrio son agrupadas como Factores socio-demográficos; las variables IPAS e IACD como Otros envolvimientos comunitarios; IDSP, IISP y ver televisión como Interés en vida pública; ICE, ICI, obediencia de las normas y religiosidad como Orientaciones Conformistas; ICOG, IAD, tolerancia a la homosexualidad, aspiraciones de libertad, énfasis en la expresión autónoma como Orientaciones Humanistas.
S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
Table 9. Trust and other variables, Chile
S NE NI IIEAFI IIN IBP ICV IEV ISD ISC ICG IAD ICE ICOI ICOF ICGO ICI ICMC IPP IDSP IISP
ICOG -.081* n.s. .21** .21*** -.22*** .23*** .16*** .15** .23*** .72*** --.08* .18*** .39*** .33*** .19*** .27*** .12** .17*** .14** .09*
ICE n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -.13** .18*** .09* .11* .28*** .12** .18*** n.s. --.19*** .21*** .15** .39*** .18*** .27*** .09* n.s.
Chile ICOI n.s. n.s. .17*** .26*** -.09* .1* .11* n.s. .18*** .12** .39*** .14** .19*** --.25*** .26*** .25*** .14** .29*** .27*** .15**
ICOF n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -.16*** .21*** .14** .16*** .33*** .15** .33*** n.s. .21*** .25*** --.27*** .61*** .23*** .17*** .08* n.s.
ICGO -.075* n.s. .18*** n.s. -.09* .09* .14** .15** .27*** n.s. .19*** n.s. .15** .26*** .27*** --.34*** .15** .51*** .34*** .23***
ICI n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -.27*** .35*** .21*** .27*** .77*** .14** .27*** n.s. .39*** .25*** .61*** .34*** --.36*** .21*** n.s. n.s.
ICMC n.s. -.09* n.s. n.s. -.08* .12** .09* n.s. .21*** n.s. .12** n.s. .18*** .14** .23*** .15** .36*** --n.s. n.s. -.08*
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01 Nivel de significación: ns S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI:
Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
Table 10. Trust and other variables, Uruguay
NE NI N=402 IEAFI N=499 IIN IBP ICV IEV ISD ISOI ISC IAD ICOG ICE ICOI ICOF ICGO ICI ICMC IPP IDSP IISP
ICOG .16***
Uruguay ICE ICOI ICOF -.12** .19*** .08*
n.s.
n.s.
.19***
n.s.
ICGO .18**
ICI n.s.
ICMC -.14**
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
.3*** .17***
.14**
n.s.
n.s.
-.19***
n.s.
.25*** .13** .24*** .77*** .15** .19*** .08* .35*** .32*** .24*** .65*** .39*** --.29*** .21*** .12** .16***
.14** n.s. .16*** .22*** n.s. n.s. n.s. .07* .13** n.s. .16*** n.s. .29** --n.s. -.11* n.s.
n.s.
n.s. n.s. -.12** -.12** .19*** .14** n.s. n.s. .12** n.s. .15** n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .11* .11* n.s. n.s. .1* .26*** .21*** .12** .30*** .27*** .28*** .09* .39*** .24*** .24*** n.s. .15** .18*** .14** .49*** .10* .07* .17*** .12** .09* --n.s. .41*** .43*** .34*** n.s. --.1* .22*** n.s. .1* --- .36*** .36*** .41*** .43*** .22*** .36*** --- .48*** n.s. .36*** .48*** .34*** --.35*** .32*** .24*** .65*** .39*** n.s. .13** n.s. .16*** n.s. .29*** .08* .34*** .34*** .48*** .27*** n.s. .37*** .3*** .41*** .20*** n.s. .26*** .22*** .32***
. . p0.10; * p 0.10; ** p0.01 Nivel de significación: ns S: Sexo; NE: Nivel Educacional; NI: Nivel de Ingreso; IIEAFI: Infraestructuras de Asociaciones Formales e Informales; IIN: Inseguridad; ICV: Calidad de Vida Socioeconómica; IBP: Bienestar Personal; IEV: Expectativas de Vida; ISD: Satisfacción con la Democracia; ISOI: Solidaridad e Identificación; ISC: Sentido Colectivo; IAD: Apoyo a la Democracia; IPAS, IPAU, IPAR, IACD: Participación comunitaria, no convencional; ICE: Confianza en Elites; ICOG: Confianza en otra Gente; ICOI: Confianza en Organizaciones Informales; ICOF: Confianza en Organizaciones Formales; ICGO: Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones; ICI: Confianza en Instituciones; ICMC: Confianza en Medios de Comunicación; IPP: Participación Política; IDSP: Discusión sobre Política; IISP: Acción de Informarse sobre Política. Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1; ver Welzel/Inglehart/Deutsch (2005).
In the correlations between different forms of trust, certain tendencies are found in all the cases. In Brazil, they are significant and positive, except in ICE and ICOI, ICE and ICGO, ICOG and ICE, and ICGO and ICMC. In Chile, the correlation between trust and both formal and informal organizations (ICOF and ICI) is emphasized, and, just like in Brazil, the correlation is especially high between trust and formal organizations (ICOF) as well as trust in institutions. Uruguay demonstrates similar tendencies, which are both significant and positive correlations, save in ICOG ad ICE, ICE and ICGO, ICOI and ICMC, and ICGO and ICMC. Especially high are the correlations between trust in formal organizations (ICOF) and trust in informal organizations (ICOI), in large organizations (ICGO) and, just like in the previous cases, in institutions. The correlations between indexes of political participation (IPP), the disposition to inform oneself and to discuss politics, and the indexes of trust all tend to be significant and positive in the three countries, especially in Uruguay. They don’t provide significant and positive correlations between participations and trust in the mediums (ICMC), in contrast with what is suggested by other measurements, for example PNUD (2004) in the case of Chile. Most significant is the interrelation between IPP and the confidence in the big organizations (parties, syndicates, etc.). The socioeconomic and quality of life variables tend to positively correlate with trust. In the three cases, the indicators of conditions and life expectations (earnings, quality of life, personal wellbeing, security/insecurity), as well as satisfaction with institutions (satisfaction with democracy), show positive correlations. But in contrast with Chile and Brazil, in Uruguay the significant and positive interrelations stand out between education and the variables of trust, and also a minor relation is warned between the
indicators of well-being and of confidence. In all the cases, the associative infrastructure is positively correlated with trust. In the case of attitudinal variables (solidarity and identification; collective sense), significant and positive interrelations with most of the indexes of trust. Chile and Uruguay exhibit the highest levels of interrelation, especially between trust in other people (ICOG) and collective sense (ISC).
The observation of the interrelations indicate certain tendencies of interest at an additional level, that can be synthesized: The variables of Social Capital (community and non conventional participation, confidence and political participation) have clear, above average interrelations, in all the cases. In order of magnitude, the three South American cases emphasize the interrelations between participation in sociotropic associations (IPAS) and utilitarian associations (IPAU), between participation in challenging collective action (IACD) and trust in informal organizations (ICOI), and to a lower degree between community participation (IPAS, IPAU) and other manifestations of trust. In their turn, the trusts have considerable interrelations in all the cases, especially between trust in institutions (ICI) and in formal organizations (ICOF), as well as between trust in other people (ICOG) and in informal organizations (ICOI). The same occurs in the case of political participation, where the highest correlations, in the three cases, are centralized in: informing oneself and the discussion of politics (IISP, IDSP), followed by political participation and the discussion of politics (IPP, IDSP).
In the three South American cases, interrelations are observed between socioeconomic and Social Capital variables, of the quality of life, and actitudinal. The correlation between non conventional and community participation, as well as the attitude of solidarity and social identification (ISOI) is particularly high in all the cases, free from context, which is to say, a significant percentage of the people that participate manifest attitudes of of identification and solidarity with their citizens and their nations. Similarly, from the perspective of trust, a high correlation is observed between trust in other people (ICOG) and the sense of responsibility towards the social collective (ISC). These observations are coherent with the interpretations of holista and organicista characters of the political culture in Latin-American societies (Wiarda/Kline 1996). In this sense, in the studied cases, the indicated variables, when related with “affective enabling attitudes” (doing things together with others, voluntary cooperation, disposition to integrate, etc.) represent an important social resource for politics. In Chile and Uruguay, the positive correlations between participation and trust are significant, on one hand, and the associative infrastructure where the people live (IIEAF) is significant in another. In this way, significant and positive correlations between the associative infrastructure and the disposition to discuss politics (IDSP) exist. In these cases, the results validate one of the classic assumptions of the relations between associativity, democracy, and development: the more major favorable social conditions for participation, such as the existence of instances for the practice of asociativism, the greater the level of trust and the greater the disposition to participate from the people. The negative correlations between insecurity (IIN) and trust (the more insecurity, the less trust), are repeated in the three cases, independent from context. Especially
significant are the correlations between cases of insecurity/trust in institutions (ICI) and cases of insecurity/trust in other people (ICOG). The prior is in line with two central concerns in the three countries: citizen insecurity, related with perceptions, attitudes, and violent social acts, and insecurity in the performance of institutions, related to problems in the interactions between civil concerns and the work of institutions; effectiveness, responsibility, and transparency. In the same sense the correlations between variables of personal well being (IBP), quality of life (ICV), expectations of live (IEV) and trust in institutions and other people; the greater the personal well being, the greater the trust in institutions and in other people. There is also a positive correlation between political participation and satisfaction with democracy (institutions, people responsible, etc.). These correlations clearly suggest that the performance of institutions and the living conditions of the people have a clear relation with Social Capital and all its consequences (participation, democratic stability, development, etc.). The previous observations are in tune with the growing attention that is being paid to institutional variables and the socioeconomic development in studies of Social Capital and public politics, see Interamerican Development Bank (2005), Freitag (2006), Keele (2007). Some dimensions of conventional participation directly correlate with social and demographic variables. In the three cases, the greatest level of correlation is observed between the educational level (INE) and the disposition to discuss politics (IDSP), and in far less measure between the attitude of support towards democracy (IAD) and political participation. After comparing the case studies of the societies classified as being “in development” by literature, numerous correlations are observed as being greater then the
first ones. These facts remain hidden in the added observation, where Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay are cases added to a mass of twenty cases of developing countries. Reaching conclusions by aggregation is not the best way to proceed, because the differences and the causes can remain hidden under the added variables.
5. Models of Regression In the previous section, we saw a lot of diversity between the cases of Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, and also with respect to global tendencies. Yet similarities can also be observed, some of which have been underlined. Now it is of interest to observe casual relationships, and if they have any relation to the tendencies observed in the analysis of correlations. The methodology has consisted in selecting variables of Social Capital as dependent variables, with bases in literature and in the previous analysis (see 2,3, and 4). The previously mentioned variables have been placed in relation with themselves, with demographic, socioeconomic, and attitudinal variables. With the help of the computational program SPSS, an trend of multiple linear regression became apparent in each case. In the construction of each model, a backwards selection methodology was used in order to go discarding variables that weren't significant. In the cases of dependent binary variables (participation in religious associations and the discussion of politics), logistical regression was used. In the appendices of this study, one can observe all the considered variables, model by model. At the same time, one can compare the models
from Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, with the intention of identifying variables that repeat and to find similarities and general indicators for the comparison of other cases and for the intervention in promotion of Social Capital. The analysis from Varianza (ANOVA) available in the appendices of this study indicate that each group of predictors related with the models are significant for each one. In this study, the reading of the chart derived models is centralized in the interpretation of the coefficient Beta, with the object of observing the explicative importance relative to the variables within each model.. The observation of the regression models in the three cases forms a group of independent variables that influence Social Capital (conventional and non conventional participation and different forms of social and political trust). The following charts only present the most significant relations in the three cases:
Table 11. Models of Regression for Brazil VD VI IPAS IPAU IPAR IACD IEAFI
IPAS Beta --0,656 n.s. -0,327 n.s.
IPAU Beta 0,64 --n.s. 0,431 0,053
IACD Beta --0,236 n.s. ---0,077
ICOG Beta -0,169 n.s. n.s. -0,242 n.s.
ICOF Beta n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
ICGO Beta n.s. n.s. n.s. 0,102 n.s.
ICI Beta -0,018 n.s. n.s. -0,026 n.s.
ICE Beta -0,138 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
ICOI Beta --n.s. 0,094 0,783 0,077
n.s. n.s. n.s.
IPAR11 B n.s. n.s. --n.s. n.s. -2,509*** -0,546 n.s. n.s.
IIN ICOG ICOF
-0,045 -0,063 n.s.
-0,049 -0,082 n.s.
n.s. --0,18
0,109 0,147 n.s.
n.s. 0,23 0,153
-0,079 n.s. 0,428
n.s. n.s. n.s.
0,078 0,1 0,11
ICGO ICI ICE
n.s. -0,047 -0,058
-0,089 0,188 n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s.
0,086 -0,165 n.s.
0,132 n.s. n.s.
0,043 0,982 n.s.
--0,356 -0,37
0,032 --0,072
-0,267 0,295 ---
n.s. n.s. n.s.
ICMC
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0,044
-0,096
0,058
n.s.
n.s.
ICOI IISP
0,408 n.s.
-0,282 n.s.
n.s. 4,166*** -0,767 n.s.
0,763 n.s.
0,361 n.s.
0,026 n.s.
n.s. 0,123
0,038 n.s.
n.s. n.s.
--n.s.
IDSP
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
ISOI ISC
0,201 n.s.
0,344 n.s.
-0,149 n.s.
0,177 0,422
-0,043 n.s.
0,152 -0,133
n.s. n.s.
0,097 n.s.
0,064 n.s.
IBP ISD
n.s. n.s.
n.s. -0,21
n.s. 0,092
0,185 n.s.
n.s. -0,471
n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,525
0,094 n.s.
n.s. n.s.
IPP
n.s.
n.s.
0,055
n.s.
0,045
0,296
n.s.
0,272
n.s.
n.s. 1,553** -0,525 n.s. -1,201** -0,38 n.s. -,923* -0,362
IISP2 B n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. -2,756* -1,227 n.s. n.s. 2,022** -0,685 n.s. n.s. ,913* -0,374
IDSP Beta n.s. n.s. n.s. 0,173 0,101
IPP Beta n.s. n.s. -0,077 n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. -0,066
n.s. n.s. 0,103
n.s. n.s. n.s.
0,267 n.s. 0,255
n.s.
-0,107
n.s. --5,042*** -0,616
n.s. 0,404
n.s. 0,113
---
0,121
n.s. n.s. -1,054* -0,608 n.s. ,926** -0,351
0,078 n.s.
n.s. 0,075
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
0,12
---
IEV ICV
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. -0,073
n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,059
n.s. 0,084
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,046
S
n.s.
-0,054
n.s.
n.s.
0,032
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
-0,049
NE
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. -,876* -0,382
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
NI
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. n.s. -,414* -0,253
n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,08
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 2,137** -0,642
0,124
0,121
n.s. -0,057 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 0,068 n.s. -,874* IAD n.s. n.s. -0,448 n.s. n.s. 0,048 0,11 -0,031 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. R2 0,74 0,816 ,444A 0,768 0,419 0,953 0,823 0,979 0,218 0,763 ,328A 0,351 R2 aj 0,736 0,812 ,591B 0,762 0,409 0,952 0,818 0,979 0,208 0,758 ,461B 0,342 D-W 1,963 1,838 387,262C 1,904 1,896 1,981 1,919 0,979 1,912 1,968 408,507C 1,92 (1) Regresión logística ( participación en asociaciones religiosas y Se Informa sobre política son variables dicotómicas); A : Cox & Snell R Square; B : Nagelkerke R Square; C : -2 Log likelihood Para regresión OLS, se utilizo Backward Selection; para regresion logistica Backward selection Likelihood ratio Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1
n.s. n.s. 0,346 0,332 1,765
Table 12. Models of Regression for Chile VD VI
IPAS Beta
IPAU Beta
IPAR1 B
IACD Beta
ICOG Beta
ICOF Beta
ICGO Beta
ICI Beta
ICE Beta
ICOI Beta
IDSP Beta
IPP Beta
---
IISP1 B ,953* -0,576
IPAS
---
0,743
n.s 1,132* (0,677)
---
-0,079
0,073
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
IPAU IPAR IACD
0,594 n.s -0,243
--0,061 0,141
-0,055 n.s ---
n.s n.s -0,239
n.s n.s n.s
n.s n.s 0,083
n.s 0,069 -0,111
n.s n.s n.s
0.144 0,06 0,737
n.s n.s n.s
n.s 0,043 n.s
n.s n.s n.s
IEAFI
n.s
0,058
n.s
n.s
n.s
-0,089
n.s
n.s
0,047
n.s
0,085
n.s n.s n.s ---
0,217 n.s 0,354 0,066
n.s n.s -0,092 -0,118
n.s 0,244 n.s n.s
n.s -1,545*** -0,399 n.s n.s n.s
IIN ICOG ICOF ICGO
n.s n.s n.s n.s
0,096 n.s n.s n.s
n.s -0,527 0,216 0,078
-0,086 --0,169 n.s
-0,096 0,222 --n.s
ICI ICE
-0,052 n.s
n.s n.s
n.s n.s n.s n.s 4,310*** -1,073 n.s
n.s n.s n.s 0,108
n.s n.s n.s 0,386
-0,521 n.s
n.s n.s
0,953 -0,059
0,434 -0,16
--0,108
0,548 ---
0,046 n.s
n.s n.s
-0,129 0,214
n.s
n.s
n.s
0,094
n.s
0,074
n.s n.s -,836** -0,3
ICMC
n.s
n.s
-0,098
ICOI IISP
0,472 n.s
-0,194 n.s
IDSP ISOI ISC IBP
n.s 0,158 n.s n.s
n.s 0,151 0,045 0,097
ISD
n.s
n.s
n.s 1,431* -0,749 n.s ,746* -0,432 n.s n.s n.s -2,783** -1,035
n.s
n.s
1,039 n.s
0,404 n.s
n.s n.s
n.s n.s
0,06 n.s
n.s n.s
--n.s
0,1 0,286
n.s 0,136
n.s n.s. 0,195 n.s
n.s 0,109 0,631 n.s
n.s n.s -0,086 n.s
0,178 n.s n.s n.s
n.s n.s n.s 0,164
n.s 0,124 n.s n.s
0,048 -0,047 -0,142 n.s
n.s --3,883*** -0,489 n.s n.s n.s
--0,094 n.s -0,113
0,127 n.s n.s
0,302
n.s
-0,477
n.s
0,646
-0,164
n.s
n.s
0,124
n.s -,879* -0,384
n.s
n.s
n.s
0,416
-0,056
0,261
n.s
n.s 1,021*** -0,283
IPP
n.s
n.s
0,117
---
IEV
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s ,513* -0,22
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s -1,060** -0,326
ICV
n.s
n.s
0,143
0,084
S
-0,051
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
n.s
--n.s 1,091* -0,511
NEL 0,048 -0,075 n.s 0,103 n.s 0,055 n.s n.s n.s NI n.s n.s n.s n.s 0,071 n.s 0,101 n.s n.s IAD n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s R2 0,738 0,678 ,104A 0,756 0,644 0,517 0,728 0,828 0,24 R2 aj 0,738 0,671 ,152B 0,756 0,638 0,509 0,724 0,824 0,231 D-W 1,953 1,903 520,267C 1,807 1,923 1,95 2,09 2,106 2,112 (1) Regresión logística ( participación en asociaciones religiosas y Se Informa sobre política son variables dicotómicas); Square; C : -2 Log likelihood Para regresión OLS, se utilizo Backward Selection; para regresion logistica Backward selection Likelihood ratio Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1
n.s n.s 0,178 n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s 0,094 n.s 0,762 ,254A 0,805 0,375 0,757 ,254A 0,801 0,365 1,926 539,79C 1,958 2,082 A B : Cox & Snell R Square; : Nagelkerke R
Table 13. Models of regression for Uruguay VD VI IPAS
IPAS Beta ---
IPAU Beta 0,503
IPAU IPAR
0,524 0,081
---0,087
IACD
-0,499
0,539
IEAFI IIN ICOG
n.s. n.s. -0,308
n.s. n.s. n.s.
ICOF
n.s.
n.s.
ICGO
n.s.
n.s.
ICI ICE ICMC
-0,449 n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. 0,133
ICOI IISP
0,85 n.s.
-0,353 n.s.
IDSP ISOI ISC IBP
n.s. 0,338 n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,483 n.s. n.s.
ISD IPP IEV ICV S
0,212 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s. -0,148 n.s.
NE NI
0,118 n.s.
n.s. n.s.
IAD R2 R2 aj D-W
n.s. 0,769 0,764 2,149
-0,126 0,781 0,781 1,993
IPAR11 B ---2,143* -1,172 ---3,428* -1,572 1,319* -0,777 n.s n.s -2,376* -1,137
IACD Beta ---
ICOG Beta -0,101
ICOF Beta n.s.
ICGO Beta n.s.
ICI Beta -0,131
ICE Beta n.s.
ICOI Beta ---
IISP2 B n.s.
IDSP Beta n.s.
IPP Beta n.s.
0,127 -0,053
n.s. n.s.
0,115 -0,052
n.s. -0,034
n.s. 0,072
n.s. n.s.
n.s 0,065
n.s. n.s.
0,056 n.s.
0,142 n.s.
---
-0,307
n.s.
0,038
-0,155
-0,236
0,829
0,088
n.s.
n.s. -0,053 -0,069
n.s. -0,081 ---
n.s. n.s. 0,209
n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s.
-0,089 n.s. -0,123
n.s. 0,08 0,109
n.s. 1,302* -0,607 n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. 0,133
0,091 -0,129 0,109
n.s.
0,261
---
0,249
0,411
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0,132
---
0,042
n.s.
n.s.
n.s. 1,956** -0,693
0,182
0,243
-0,066 -0,054 n.s.
n.s. -0,09 n.s.
0,877 n.s. n.s.
0,305 n.s. -0,08
--0,085 0,097
0,405 --n.s.
0,032 0,055 n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,12 n.s.
0,123 n.s. n.s.
0,874 n.s.
0,47 n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,092
0,192 n.s.
0,297 n.s.
--n.s.
n.s. 0,327
n.s. n.s.
n.s n.s n.s n.s -2,992* -1,689 n.s n.s n.s n.s
0,065 -0,103 0,044 n.s.
0,08 n.s. 0,472 n.s.
0,069 n.s. -0,067 n.s.
0,153 n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,097 n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,081 -0,05 n.s.
n.s. --4,230*** -0,571 n.s. n.s. n.s.
--n.s. n.s. n.s.
0,15 n.s. -0,099 -0,185
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,102 n.s. 0,103 n.s.
-0,453 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,238 n.s. n.s. n.s.
0,583 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
-0,126 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. 0,125 -0,057 n.s. 0,091
n.s. --n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s n.s -,928* -0,557 ,067A ,136B 241,361C
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. n.s.
n.s. -0,052
-0,092 n.s.
0,054 n.s.
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. 1,015* -0,61 n.s.
n.s. n.s.
0,098 -0,07
n.s. 0,834 0,83 1,944
n.s. 0,525 0,512 1,934
n.s. 0,619 0,611 1,822
n.s. 0,88 0,88 1,852
n.s. 0,819 0,819 1,872
n.s. 0,149 0,131 2,093
0,045 0,845 0,841 1,953
n.s. ,289A ,424B 322,163C
-0,056 0,868 0,864 1,898
n.s. 0,325 0,306 1,828
n.s 6,176** -2,313 n.s n.s 5,555** -1,753 n.s
(1)
Regresión logística ( participación en asociaciones religiosas y Se Informa sobre política son variables dicotómicas); A : Cox & Snell R Square; B : Nagelkerke R Square; C : -2 Log likelihood Para regresión OLS, se utilizo Backward Selection; para regresion logistica Backward selection Likelihood ratio Fuente: Tabla Nr. 1
What is observed in the charts? Which are the variables with greatest effects on the variables of Social Capital? In conventional participation, including actions of exercising the right to vote, informing oneself, and debating about politics, independent relations are observed: in all three cases, engaging in political discussion is a predictor of informing oneself, and vice versa, and voting is a predictor of discussion (those who vote tend to be more disposed to disc). Both in Chile and in Brazil, insecurity poses a negative coefficient, for which there would be an inverse relation with the dependent variable of debate: the more insecurity, the less the tendency to debate. In addition, trust in people, as well as trust in large organizations, and to a lesser degree, in the elite and middle classes, influence the disposition to debate about politics and exercise the right to vote. In non conventional participation, previous associative experiences (having participated), the level of trust in both society and in institutions of the state, and in relation to the prior, the identification with the society in which one lives all play a large influential role. In the three cases, the experience of participating plays an influence in influencing the option to participate in non conventional, but stable organizations, just like trust in social relations between people and in common institutions. In Chile, just like in Brazil, participation in utilitarian associations is the one that possesses the largest value of Beta, while in Uruguay, it is the variable of trust in informal organizations that possesses the largest value. In the three cases, the negative Beta coefficient of participation in challenging collective actions is equivalent to the evidence of other
studies, where in other contexts, it is observed that critical and nonconformist attitudes influence non associative dispositions, but that they also promote other forms of participation and Social Capital, see Geissel (2006, 3). The variable of solidarity and identification, when compared with independent and indicated variables, is the third most important predictor of non conventional participation. Next follows a heterogeneous group of casual variables that are important in each case and in relation with each form of participation varies; it is necessary to mention the associative infrastructure, the level of satisfaction with democracy, and different demographic and socioeconomic factors. Observations made from the table suggest that challenging collective actions can be partly attributed to a lack of trust in institutions and in routines, as well as in forms of social relations (from the perspective expectations from the results), just like stable neighborhood organizations, as well as the erosion of collective attitudes of solidarity (with society, the State or the over-all well being, known as collective matters). On the other hand, trust in informal organizations appear to positively influence them, like community ties that aren't highly formalized, and, in the cases of Brazil and Uruguay, previous experience in participating in both associations and utilitarian collective actions, where concrete benefits are sought. In relation to participation in religious associations34, trust continues to be a relevant predictor in the three cases, although there are certain levels; trust in informal organizations retreats, while trust in institutions is only important in Chile and Uruguay. Inversely, participation in religious associations is an important predictor of trust in informal organizations. More clearly in Brazil than in the other cases, trust in informal organizations and participation in religious associations, which is greater than in
Chile and Uruguay, has relation with perceptions of security, personal well being, and the level of education, see Maira (2004). In the three cases, the lack of satisfaction with the political regime (democracy) results to be an important predictor of religious associativism, which is to say, the greater the dissatisfaction, the greater the disposition to participate in informal religious associations, where people interact with propensity to feel insecure, with a low level of well being and a modest education; empirical studies concerning religion in Brazil emphasize this impression35.
The removed observation of the different types of trust show different rules of casual relationships. In relation to interpersonal trust in other people, the independent variables that retreat in the three cases are collective sense, trust in informal organizations, participation in challenging collective activities, and trust in formal organizations, being the three most relevant primary predictors. These relationships suggest that facts related with feelings of belonging to a collective, along with facts that strengthen trust in informal organizations, for example when they adequately represent civil concerns, influence in the capital of social trust. Not thus, however, the collective actions that, as has been seen, show a breakdown of confidence, probably when it is seen that the regular ways to resolve problems, as much in society as the state, don't produce results. Trust in formal organizations, in large organizations (parties, syndicates, churches, for example) and in the elite (those who redeem functions of direction and leadership) is favored by the capital of trust in society, especially in the institutions and the people. This is to say, trust in the functioning of institutions of state and social trust all promote higher
trust in formal organizations. Likewise, the experience of participating in challenging collective actions favors, in all three cases, the level of trust. Satisfaction with democracy, with a negative Beta coefficient, specifically influences trust in formal organizations. In its own turn, political participation is a fact that has an impact on the level of trust in large organizations (the more political participation, the more confidence in large organizations). Special attention must be placed on the most important predictor in Brazil, trust in the elites, which has a negative Beta coefficient; this indicates that there is an inverse relation between this predictor and trust in large organizations36. On the other hand, there is a varied group of other predictors with different levels of influence, according to its context; for example, the level of earning, the perception of security, the quality of life, the previous experiences of participation, the existence of infrastructure for participation, etc. In the three countries, the level of satisfaction with democracy is a factor of primary importance that affects the level of trust in institutions. A second important predictor is trust in formal organizations. Other indicators of trust also have effects, although minor, such as trust in formal and informal organizations, trust in the elites and in the middle class, the perception of insecurity and personal well being, among others. The obtained observations allow for the identification of significant independent variables, repeated in the models of the three cases. Therefore, a hierarchy of variables are justified in its place in the models of regression, in the quality of independent variables (in percentage). In this way, for example, the variable of Participation in Challenging Collective Actions (IACD) is significant and can be found in the three cases, in six of the thirty models of regression. But IACD is the dependent variable in one
of the models, so it is considered significant and in reality can be found in only six of the twelve models, which is to say, in 50% of them.
Table 9. Reoccurring independent variables Predictor Participación en actividades colectivas desafiantes (IACD) Confianza en Organizaciones Informales (ICOI) Confianza en Instituciones (ICI) Solidaridad e Identificación Social (ISOI) Confianza en otra Gente (ICOG) Confianza en Grandes Organizaciones (ICGO) Confianza en Organizaciones Formales (ICOF) Satisfacción con la Democracia (ISD) Participación Política (IPP) Discute sobre Política (IDSP) Confianza en Elites (ICE) Confianza en Medios de Comunicación (ICMC) Participación en Asociaciones Religiosas (IPAR) Informarse sobre Política (IISP) Sentido Colectivo (ISC)
Porcentaje de ocurrencias 50.0 50.0 41.6 33.3 25.0 25.0 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 7.7
The results of our observations converge with the observations made in other works, in other contexts, see Welzel, Inglehart, Deutsch (2005), Geissel (2006). Participation in challenging collective action is a good indicator for the measurement of Social Capital. It is important to notice that in each of the six cases that the Beta coefficient associated with IACD appears, it possesses the same sign in Brazil, Chile, and
Uruguay, which indicates the strength of the variable independent from the particulars of the context. This finding is significant for the case of study, due to how it indicates a path by which work could converge in promotion of Social Capital and for the strengthening of democracy; in effect, if the state instruments of participation were to promote participation in these actions, they would create better and more stable conditions for democracy.
Trust redeems a central role and indicates Social Capital, which also has been been properly promoted by literature, see Norris (2002), Baquero (2005), Castillo (2006), Keele (2007). Just like in the case of IACD, trust in informal organizations, besides representing a contribution in the direction of diverse and pluralist society in interests and convictions, strengthen the levels of cohesion and social integration, which promotes Social Capital and stability in democracy.
6. Final Observations In summary, it's indicated that Social Capital, when observed through both conventional and non conventional participation as well as through the level of trust, shows the following tendencies in the three South American cases: First, high conventional participation, where actions of discussion and informing oneself about politics are included, which is clearly lower in Chile. These tendencies result to be plainly coherent with a high level of political stability in recent years. Second, low levels of non conventional participation. It's important to note that the tendency is higher in the case of Uruguay, except in relation with religious
associations. The prior is consistent with the higher level of secularization in Uruguay, in comparison with Chile and Brazil. From the compared perspective of participation, Uruguay is the case where the greatest disposition is observed in the people towards non conventional participation, and therefore the most detailed understanding of the experiences of that country could be of interest for the formulation of questions and comparisons. Clearly, the high level of participation should be related to a single trajectory of social participation and of stability of the democratic political system, with socioeconomic, demographic, and and educational factors that are also related. Thirdly, high levels of trust, although nevertheless being low in respect to large organizations, which corroborate perceptions on the growing debility and fault of legitimacy in other important forms of social relation, such as with political parties and syndicate associations. The high level of trust suggests a high potential of Social Capital, which has a relationship with the stability of political systems as well as with the high level of social cohesion, notwithstanding numerous adverse economic and social conditions in the last decade. In the same sense as trust, the variable of “solidarity and social identification” has a heavy weight throughout the study. It should be mentioned that the already observed tendencies, just like the correlations and casualties, are given in different contexts, and as a result the analysis and the generalizations that can be taken are only approximations that could be polished with new comparable observations. In this sense, the observations can be considered pautas in relation with situations and similar problems, under different social and space-time
conditions in Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay. This rule is valid for all the compared studies of Social Capital.
The variables that are considered by variables of Social Capital, which are socioeconomic, demographic, and attitudinal variables, are significant, and are greater than those observed in revised world literature. This last could obey the sample, to the instruments of meditation or of changes in the actual variables that are considered in the passage of time (between meditation and others). Still it's not possible to take conclusions, temporal series are missing in order to make major comparisons and precise impressions. Thus, it is necessary to underline certain findings for the sake of comparison and academic debate. Some of the correlations that are observed suggest areas of interest for the formation of Social Capital and to strengthen social conditions of democratic stability. In effect, it occurs like this in the case of the positive correlation between non conventional and conventional participation (voting, debating, and informing oneself); the greatest participative experience could have an incidence in political participation, and therefore the stimulus and the promotion of this kind on non conventional participation could benefit the stability of the democratic system. The same can be indicated with Solidarity and Social Identification, whose strengthening could affect participation and democratic stability. In contrast with other studies, where various cases are considered, the synthesized correlations in this work indicate that different forms of participation don't exist in pure form, and neither isolated. The evidence presented, presented by different studies in Chile
and Brazil (through specialists, students, and various communities), suggest that the accumulated experience in the practice of participation is a favorable condition for the formation of Social Capital; one example being with participation in volunteer and sociotropic associations, and through challenging collective actions. In this sense, it fits that the highest level of Social Capital does not necessarily result from participation in certain specific types of associations, or in determined collective actions. Far from the previous, the evidence directs towards interdependent relations, that are positive in respect to participation, like how experience in participating in associations would be an important competition for participation in collective actions, and vice versa. The observed correlations between trust and participation coincide with the evidence and affirmations of numerous studies about the stretched relation between both, see Norris (2002), Baquero (2005), not withstanding the tones that are warned in the different indexes of trust. The South American cases summarize evidence concerning the narrow relation that exists between institutions and their workings, as well as social behavior, in this case of participation and public trust. In the same way as other studies that give special importance to the effects of institutions and governments in the formation of Social Capital, see Freitag (2006), Keele (2007), clear correlations between participation and trust in institutions, participation and trust in other people, socioeconomic conditions resulting from a good institutional performance, trust, and others are all observed. In other words, determined social attitudes that manifest Social Capital are in part consequences of the performances of governments and institutions. As a result, it follows that the best tuning between performance (results) of institutions and civil worries should
conduct a major accumulation Social Capital , a benefit to democracy and to development and vice versa. The models of regression strengthen the previously indicated observations, in respect to the importance of non conventional participation, trust and certain attitudinal variables for the formation of Social Capital, especially solidarity and social identification and collective sense. We need to keep advancing through the investigation of concrete cases, done case-by-case, because they will lead to a better understanding and better conditions for the comparison, and therefore for the formulation of politics. The study of cases results to be an adequate methodology for the observation of where important variables are operating, where dynamics of interest are being generated, which end up being hidden behind macro level visions. Certainly, the evidence given by the study of cases should complement visions that present hypothesis of relations from the added information.
Literature
Baquero, Marcelo (2003). “Alcances e limites do capital social na construcao democrática”. M. Baquero (editor). Reinventando a Sociedade na América Latina. Cultura Política, Genero, Exclusao e Capital Social. Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul, 19-49.
Baquero, Marcello (2005). Um modelo integrado de democracia social na América Latina. Revista Debates, 9, Universidades Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre América Latina. Porto Alegre, 5-55
Barberet, Rosemary (2004). “Sicherheit im urbanen Raum. Erfahrungen in Europa und Folgerungen für Lateinamerika“. K. Bodemer (ed.). Gewalt und öffentliche (UnSicherheit). Beiträge zur Lateinamerikaforschung, vol. 17, 171-180.
Berry, W. D. (1993). Understanding regression assumptions. New Bury Park, CA: Sage.
Borba, Julian (2005). Comportamento Político e Capital Social na América do Sul. Revista Debates, 9, 55-68.
Brody, Richard A. (1994) Bildung, politische Toleranz und Demokratie – eine Untersuchung, en: BZPB. Grundwerte der Demokratie im internationalen Vergleich. Bonn: BZPB.
Bryman, A. y Cramer, D. (1994). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. New York: NY, Routledge.
Buquet, Daniel et. al. (2005). Las claves del cambio, Ciclo electoral y nuevo gobierno 2004/2005. Ediciones de la Banda Oriental S.R.L.
Castillo, Antonio M. Jaime (2006). La compleja relación entre capital social y confianza política desde el sur de Europa. Evidencia empírica de Andalucía. Documento de Trabajo, Grupo de Valores: Centro de Estudios Andaluces. Departamento de Sociología, Universidad de Navarra.
Detjen, Joachim (2000). „Die Demokratiekompetenz der Bürger. Herausforderung für die politische Bildung“. Aus Politki und Zeitgeschichte, 25, 7-12.
Durkheim, Emile (1897). De la division du Travail Social. Paris: F. Alcan
Fialho, Angela (2005). “Desenvolvimento sustentable e empoderamiento juvenil”. Revista Debates, 9, Universidades Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre América Latina. Porto Alegre, 141-154.
Freitag, Markus (2006). “Bowling the State back in: Political Institutions and the Creation of Social Capital”. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 45 (1), 123152.
Geissel, Brigitte (2006). “Kritische Bürgerinnen und Bürger – Gefahr für Demokratien?“. Aus Politki und Zeitgeschichte, 12, 20. März 2006, 3-9.
Grimm. L. G. & Yarnold, P. R. (1995). Reading and understanding multivariate analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hagopian, Frances y Scott P. Mainwaring (2005). The Thrid Wave of Democratization in Latin America. Advances and Setbacks. Cambridge University Press
Interamerican Development Bank (2005). The Politics of Policies. Economic and Social Progress in Latin America 2006. Report. David Rocefeller Center for Latin American Studies. Harvard University.
Keele, Luke (2007). Social Capital and the Dinamics of Trust in Government. American Journal of Political Science, 2: 241-254 Kirby (2003). Introduction to Latin America. Twenty –First Century
Challenges.
London: Sage Publications
Locke, John (2002). „Second Treatise of Government“, en: S. M. Cahn (ed.). Classics of Political and Moral Philosophy. N. York: Oxford University Press. 461-505
Mara de Araújo Campos, Tânia (2004). Identidade da renovaçâo carismática católica em Brasília e em Santiago do Chile. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade de Brasilia, BarasiliaDF
Pase, Hemerson Luiz (2005). “Capital social e desenvolvimento rural: uma abordagem cultural das desigualdades”. Revista Debates, 9, Universidades Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre América Latina. Porto Alegre, 101-121.
Pateman, Carole (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (2004). Desarrollo Humano en Chile. El Poder: ¿para qué y para quién?. Santiago: PNUD.
Putnam, Robert (1995). Bowling alone: America´s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6: 65-78.
Rose, Richard (1996). Getting things done in an anti-modern society: Social Capital networks in Russia. Social Capital Iniciative. The World Bank. Working Paper Nr.6
Rubenson, Daniel (2005). Can Social Capital Account for Differences in Political Participation Across American Cities?. Paper presented at the 2005 APSA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
Santos A., Douglas y S. Viscarra (2005). Capital Social, Satisfacao e as Diferentes Formas de Participacao Política. Revista Debates, 9, Universidades Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre América Latina. Porto Alegre, 169-181.
Souza de Amorim, Maria Salete (2005). “Desenvolvimiento sustentable na perspectiva da cultura política e da participacao democrática”. Revista Debates, 9, Universidades
Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Núcleo de Pesquisas sobre América Latina. Porto Alegre, 85-100.
Tilly, Charles, L. Tilly y
R. Tilly (1975). The Rebellious Century 1830-1930,
Cambridge, 1975
Valdivieso, Patricio (2001). “Liderazgos, democracia y Formación Política Ciudadana”. Estudios Sociales, CPU, Nr. 107, 34-60.
Valdivieso, Patricio (2003). “Capital social, crisis de la democracia y educación ciudadana: la experiencia chilena”. Revista de Sociología e Política, 21, 13-34.
Verba, Sidney; L. Schlozman y H. Brady (1995). Voice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Yaffé, Jaime (2005). Al centro y adentro. La renovación de la izquierda y el triunfo del Frente Amplio en Uruguay. Montevideo: Librería Linardi y Risso.
Welzen, Christian, Ronald Inglehart y Frnziska Deutsch (2005). Social Capital, Voluntary Associations and Collective Action: Which Aspects of Social Capital Have the Greatest “Civic” Payoff?. Paper presented at the 2005 APSA Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
Wiarda, Howard et. al. (1996). Latin American Politics and Development. Boulder, colo: Westview Press
