You are on page 1of 13

University of Utah

Exploring the Impact of Community and Organizational Social Capital on Government
Performance: Evidence from England
Author(s): Rhys Andrews
Source: Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 4 (DECEMBER 2011), pp. 938-949
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of the University of Utah
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23056358
Accessed: 25-08-2018 05:40 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23056358?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc., University of Utah are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Political Research Quarterly

This content downloaded from 112.200.230.109 on Sat, 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

although interest in the social capital-perfor policy decisions. Thus.sagepub.109 on Sat. Moreover.org/terms .. political science has contained wide a notable exception see Cusack 1999). aspects in theoretical accounts of the social capital and trust among citizens create positive externalities for government performance relationship (see especially Boix governments seeking to carry out core bureaucratic tasks and Posner 1998) and recent suggestions that it is important (Putnam 1993. Is community performance. governments may be able to reduce local governments. Tavits 2006). political engagement. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.ac. a number of important greater government responsiveness and thereby improved empirical questions remain underexplored. but almost none CFI0 3EU have considered the role of organizational social capital (for Email: AndrewsR4@cardiff.com/journalsPermissions. Tavits organizational social capital on government performance 2006). this article advances research on the their reliance on cumbersome monitoring procedures. Cardiff. Where there By applying a statistical model of community and orga are high levels of collaboration and good will among orga nizational social capital to the performance of English nization members. Cardiff. further analysis revealed that the combined effects of these two forms of soc beneficial for performance. organization. Keywords social capital. By enabling citizens to overcome to unravel their separate and combined effects (Tavits collective action problems associated with influencing 2006). Moreover. government performance In recent years. formance (e. Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). 2000).200.nav DOI: 10. Political Research Quarterly 64(4) 938-949 Exploring the Impact of Community © 2011 University of Utah Reprints and permission: and Organizational Social Capital sagepub.1177/1065912910381649 on Government Performance: http://prq. UK. This article tests these assump the impact of community and organizational social capital on the achievements of English local gov interdependence between social capital and performance is modeled using a range of primary and s statistical results suggest that both community and organizational social capital are positively relat performance. the social capital inherent in the or organizational social capital most conducive to better social relations within an organization can also be regarded performance? Are the effects of community and organiza as a potentially critical asset in maximizing bureaucratic tional social capital stronger in combination or separately? effectiveness (Langbein and Jorstad 2004). Putnam 2000. Cardiff University.jstor. 'Cardiff University.g. UK A small but growing number of empirical studies have Corresponding Author: examined community social capital and government per Rhys Andrews. community. However. to date. despite the central place of both that community organizational life.230.uk This content downloaded from 112. ranging debate about social capital and government perfor scant research has explored the impact of community and mance (see Boix and Posner 1998. relationship between social capital and government perfor thereby lowering the transaction costs associated with mance by moving beyond the existing focus on the salience leveraging organizational effort and resources (Leana and Van Buren 1999.com (DSAGE Evidence from England Rhys Andrews' Abstract Civic-republican theories of democracy assume high levels of social capital within the community bureaucracies will be associated with better government performance. community social capital can lead to mance relationship grows apace. Knack 2002. Cardiff Business School. Civic-republican theories of democracy suggest within the same study.

see Portes 1998) in ways that are conducive to the diverse group members are required to collaborate public good (Putnam 2000). As such.org/terms . the potential for governments to respond eff tively to policy problems and challenges may be enhanc Community Social Capital and where citizens are more public spirited and engaged in Performance public affairs and political decision making (Putna 1993). cultural. others emphasize the bonding nature of the straightforward shared for governments to meet their needs values that underpin such interactions (e. Robert Putnam identifies three key dimensions o community social capital that have played a central role maintaining the quality of government performance i Social Capital and Government Italian regions (1993) and the U. in exclusively on the bridging aspects of interactionsturn. 2000).19). governments can tap vital reserves nity time and money that can be deployed in pursuit of bett statistical models of social capital and government perfor policy formulation and implementation (Montgomery mance are presented. substitute. While some scholars have sharedfocusedprojects (Cigler and Joslyn 2002). In p ticular. ent within the communities that they serve as well as that community-based organizations often develo found among their leaders and members is likely particular to create expertise in addressing complex economi environmental. In particular. Each of these dimensions of communit operationalizing social capital have been advanced by social capital incorporates bonding and bridging aspects social capital social scientists (see Portes 1998). In the shared resource that potentially can be directed toward thepresence of community organizational life..109 on Sat. community-bas distinctive bonding (exclusive) and bridging (inclusive) organizations aspects. important influence on government performance. Thereafter. Central to the concept is and is likely to have important independen and can the notion that a community's relational resources combined be positive effects on the structural and attitu harnessed by certain actors to achieve desired nal resources available within communities for government outcomes (Bourdieu 1980). states (2000): commu Performance nity organizational life. cit achievement of collective goals. the social capital available to governmentsexternal takes anstakeholders. an Numerous alternative approaches to conceptualizing and interpersonal trust. a side and in combination with organizational social capital. By drawing on the formal an eses on their potential impact on performance. The article concludes by discussing the implications of the findings. which may reinforce exclusive identities or encom may raise political awareness (Claibour and Martin 2007). resources among bureaucrats (see Boix and PosnerPublic 1998). greater force (Leroux 2007) and make it mor 1997). typically (though not necessarily. distinctive positive externalities for organizational effec and cultural problems at the neighbor hood tiveness. One such purpose is t nity and organizational social capital and deriving hypoth improvement of government decision making and servi provision within an area. Almond and Ver According to Coleman (1988). (Elkins Colemanand Simeon 1979). Indeed. theoretical perspectives on social level (Florin and Wandersman 1990). Community-based organi tions 1994). Broadly speaking. In addition to zens maya be increasingly able to overcome collecti being "jointly owned" resource. increasing For large public bureaucracies. especially local citizens and s vice users (Hirschman 1970). For instance. engagement with public affairs.g. before results of that they serve. enable citizens to articulate their political demand connect with Burt ing diverse actors as the source of social capital (e.230. and moderate political attitudes pass myriad diverse ones. social capital is a powerful to harness in the pursuit of service improvement. This may. 493). They ma capital also "better provide for niche segments of the target p and government performance assume that the relational ulation resources of citizens is a prime source of public containing few clients with specialized need service improvement but also acknowledge the value of(Wallis the sameand Dollery 2006.organizations require the support of multiple Thus. measures of performance and social capital and appropri informal mobilizing social structures present in the comm ate controls are identified and described. passes "social networks and the norms of reciprocity and thus generating positive externalities for them by lowering their costs while simultaneous trustworthiness that arise from them" (Putnam 2000. or support pub encom lic agencies..200. to examine its impact along community constitute a large stock of material. Almost half a century ago. the networks of relationships (1963) found that a cultural legacy of civic engagemen between the residents living within any given geographical This content downloaded from 112.S. the social capital pres their capacity (Putnam 1993. social capital therefore might also supplement. The active interest of loc external community-based and internal organizational based form.jstor. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.g. human resources that can be potentially be mobilized f The article begins by formalizing the concepts of commucommon communal purposes. each of which may have a distinctive people in public affairs is therefore likely to exert an though potentially complementary effect on performance. social capital is characterized problems action by associated with monitoring and influ encing government.Andrews 939 of community social capital. 2000).

quality 245). may Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998). 940 Political Research Quarterly 64(4) had a positive effect theories on theassumequality that positive relationships of governm among organ United Kingdom and the zation United members are essential forStates. Coffe and Geys 2005. bolster theEach legitim of these facet lic organizations as well as make of organizational it constitutes social capital easier to collectivel vices to the needs of users. voluntary associations and the private within organizations create networks of relationships sector (Purdue 2001). within government bureaucracies can be understood. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. These broader organizational mission and values that form the This content downloaded from 112. Frequent with interactions societal between organization laws and mem may be reduced where there bers in is strong different functional social areas and departments. for instills a sense of social connectedness and decreases the example. 244). such as "groupthink" (Adler and Kwon 2002). Such trust can also lower transaction costs within Zander 1996).org/terms . governments may require which senior managers can mobilize for the benefit of fewer resources to mediate local demands and maintain organizational outcomes (J. trust can Knowledge-based theories of the firm suggest that orga organizational commitment. tional change (Kramer 1999). Engaged.200.g. Scott 1999). can have a beneficial may make it easier to improve the provision of public ser influence on organizational performance. Formal and vices through increased funding and partnerships between informal processes of collaboration and coordination local communities. prior studies find that the Relational social capital refers to the underlying reci aggregated effect of the different elements of community procity that guides exchanges between organization social capital positively influences management quality members. in turn. which. such as 1998. High levels of trust between organizational in governments (e. izing in speed and efficiency in the creation and transfer Finally. are likely to positively influence the speed with likelihood of antisocial behavior (Mazmanian and Sabatier which organizational learning can occur (Kogut and 1989). Miller (1992) argues that repeated suc civil society. Knack leaders and members in particular may permit the trans 2002). Resources previously assigned to monitoring employees can be redirected else where if the "expectation among the multiple layers in a Organizational Social Capital large firm that cooperative behaviour will be met in kind" and Performance is fulfilled (Miller 1992. Nahapiet and alternatives available to Ghoshal policy (1998) argue that theremakers (E are three key interrelate Simeon 1979). as amon e electoral participation. and cognitive (shared democratic goals and values politics. 503). Thus. (connections among This actors).109 on Sat.jstor. An knowledge transfer an zenry can set policy agendas creation to occur asor constrain effectively the as possible. relational (trust sug amon high commitment to actors). cognitive social capital is constituted by the of knowledge" (Kogut and Zander 1996. it is anticipated that fer of sensitive information. foster collaborative action in the absence of formal mechanisms for that purpose Hypothesis 1: Community social capital will be (Coleman 1988). This cooperation rates. Interaction good community relations. Although strong intraorga Organizational theory provides a fruitful lens through nizational relational ties may increase the prospect for which the potential benefits of the relational resources negative externalities associated with closure to emerge.197).actors. Ifunits" between people and such (Nahapiet s missing. of life and envi well-being. between different departments within an organization can Although the existence (and direction) of a causal enable leaders to garner knowledge "spillovers" to accom mechanism between community social capital and govern plish collective goals or obtain scarce resources (Willem ment performance has been questioned (see especially and Scarborough 2006). and diminish resistance to organiza positively related to government performance. governments andare Ghoshallikely 1998. only where there Structural is is"cooperation social capital constituted by the "configu among local people (Wilson rations of linkages 1997). which can in turn increase nizations are best viewed as "a social community special lead to better outcomes (Langbein 2000). creating stronger incentives for the expansion cessful bilateral interaction between agents increases of community organizational life (Fukuyama 1995). owned "assets" that facilitate "some forms of social Governments can effectively action while inhibiting promote others" (Nahapiet andand Ghoshal m public goods. Such to connections face between consi lenges in their attempts to distribute actors provide opportunities for them services to gain access to different social groups. aspectsactive citizens of the social relations aremembers among organization als more likely to view themselves as of that may enable the unlocking aideas collection and information th equals and to therefore feel influence can positively an obligation to organizational outcomes: p struc public good (Rice and tural Feldman 1997). The amount relevant peers with of behavi desired sets of knowledge or exper required for compliance tise. In turn..230. Jackman and Miller 1998).

this classified the per resources to community development by providing supformance of local governments by making judgments port for a multitude of valuable activities and organiza about their achievements in six key service areas (educa tions (Lowndes. London boroughs. strong organi central regulatory agency).Andrews 941 context in which collective action take place. metropolitan districts.org/terms . central government performance classifica responsive local governments are those that are able to tions are important (though contestable) means for assess establish a political opportunity structure in whiching the achievements of local governments. Each service area was given a score from 1 (lowest) to 4 and vice versa. Data. Shared interpreta142 English single and upper tier local governments (county tions of the values and mission of the organization furnishcouncils. If organiza Research Context. capital may have distinctive effects (see especially Jackman and Miller 1998). be strengthened by organizational social capital. libraries. local government performance carried out by central gov increasing their ability to marshal their organizational ernment inspectors was the annual Comprehensive Perfor social capital toward the provision of better servicesmance Assessment conducted by the Audit Commission (a (Boix and Posner 1998). 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. The emergence of this virtuous cycle leads toment function regarded as "excellent" could benefit from the final hypothesis: "lighter touch" inspections and freedom from some central controls. p. Thus. Scott 2001. (W. and Method tion members share and pursue a common strategic vision and goals. Lowndes. local government managers. The local governments operate 542) is thus associated with greater overall synchronizawithin statutorily defined geographical areas and receive tion of organizational effort. 58).K. At the same time. and lei cohesive communities and cohesive bureaucracies may sure and benefits) together with their broader "management continually reinforce the positive externalities associatedof resources" (Audit Commission 2002). and uni cognitive "templates for particular types of actors"tary authorities). The criteria. politicians. For four years during the period zational capital can enable bureaucrats to devote more covered by this analysis (2002-5). welfare benefits. In recent years the principal assessment of English the "burden of enforcing compliance" with legislation. social to achieve desired goals (Selznick 1957). environment. They are large multipurpose governments pro with.230. they are invariably highly Dependent Variable correlated (Tsai and Ghoshal 1998). new management imposed. social care. this may promote both integration and collec The panel data set for the analysis consists of a maximum of tive responsibility (Coleman 1990). and motivate. Central bureaucrats. central government. including education. based on achievements on "objective" statutory This content downloaded from 112. such as taxpayers. Indeed. Strong commu monitors administrative accountability on behalf of citi nity social capital can help relieve public authorities of zens. their achievements are judged by a diverse array of constituencies. This is especially importantapproximately two-thirds of their income from U. housing. myriad diverse groups of employeesviding a range of public services. The politicians collectively decide "willingness and ability to define collective goals that arepolicy on the basis of advice and guidance from professional then enacted collectively" (Leana and Van Buren 1999. Pratchett.200. staff.jstor. which is usually made up of senior members of the tive externalities for organizational performance. potentially creating posiagement. A local govern with each. which may enable them to cope with a Westminster-style cabinet system of political man with environmental uncertainty.U. tion of performance indicators are thus all subject to ongoing debate and contestation among key stakeholders While community and organizational social capital(Boyne 2003). Hypothesis 2: Organizational social capital will be and politicians. and Although each dimension of organizational social leisure and cultural services. By contrast. tion. care. and Stoker (2006) highlight that the most In England. The ruling political party. leading potentially conflicting organizational goals (Rainey to the following expectation: 1993). housing. Moreover. Pratchett. weighting. Accordingly. These governments are elected bodies.K. (highest). the analysis presented here may be expected to have important separate effects onfocuses on the views of the primary external stakeholder government performance. those classified as "poor" could be Hypothesis 3: The positive impact of community externalized. and interpreta positively related to government performance.109 on Sat. their com bined effect has been shown to positively influenceGovernments are typically required to meet multiple and public school performance (Leana and Pil 2006). environmental services. central in large organizations as leaders need to communicate government. or stricter regula social capital on government performance will tion introduced (Downe and Martin 2007). and Stoker 2006). it is likely that in tandem they on the service performance of English local governments: enhance bureaucratic effectiveness still further. and citizens are all willing and government provides the majority of their funding and able to contribute toward common goals.

The Audit Characteristic Commission Factor loading th the service scores to reflect the relative budget of Community social capital area (children and young people Community andlife organizational adult .942 Political Research Quarterly 64(4) performance Table indicators thatI. Because these social capital are scores . create and theinterpersonal aggregate communitytrust.85 parable across all types of authority. levels (see W ties among lower income groups. volu Data ciations. A The relative gauging measure prevalence of community social behavior capital within will theinformal likely reflect areas English local governments was appropriate created conduct by ag toward fellow citi separate measures of community (Gibbs organiza 1977). variance and that the factor loadings therefore life Community organizational important determinant in local gove areas was measured as explained the number (Hair et al. for this an Cognitive social capital . Coffe and Geys 2005. for the senior managers and middle m This content downloaded from 112. Because of their legal status. film societies. socia is the shown equivalent of that in Table used by 1.62 an overall service p judgment.93 mum possible score. the performance score therefore represents a goo their overall effectiveness. capital.12 for county coun not provide housing orOrganizational benefits socialservices) capital to Structural county councils).66 leisur and management of resources .jstor. By providing Percentage variance an overall j 64. ranging Percentage from 15 (12variance 54. or sports clubs) per on organizational social capital were deri capita registering for of value managersadded (orlocal in English goods an governm tax.86 government's score is taken as a percentage o Eigenvalue 1.. of commun 1998). Rice a The rate of criminal damage is a parti tor of the level of social trust since it r Independent Variables or reckless destruction or damage t property. data on informal social between these networks hierarchical (e. Al measure is therefore a broad middle managersproxy as researchfor as indicates activity. with Engagement libraries public affairs and .68 not d Relational social capital .are Community and O independently checked for accuracy.30 the achievements of local governments. good" This (Smith 2002).109 on Sat. To explore the possibility Following that Putnamperformance (2000) and others measure may reflect the adherence to of relative influence the Labour political partic government's policyitalagendas was measured during theinst as the turnout En rather than substantive ment achievements. Assessment) originallyAdevised under proxy for social trustthe Con was measu government in the 1980s.org/terms . and personal services organizations Organizational social(e. measure The measure is ther lated as the ratio of actual expenditure for political toabsence participation in the spe as determined by theattitudes central towardtoengagement local governwith pub allocation formula (known English local as the Standard governments. elections. (e.230. The principal componen political engagement. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.83 Social trust The weigh Eigenvalue were summed to provide 1. . The data weresee Stack aggregated by 19cr readily available.. The table shows Coffe and that Ge their study of social capital and on to a single financial factor man accounting for ove Belgian municipal governments.1). 2004).g.71 soci environment and housing = 2. High turnout the impliesing variables were also regressed public affairsonandtoactive excess engagement gov spending (see Revelli 2010). Data were community collecte life. Crime of excess spending.200. thereby rates have adding been used further coi the findings presented below studies (results as proxies shown for the level of tru in the supplementary ties materials). Both rate of criminal social damage capit offences rec were associated with statistically sand capita withinsignificant the areas served bl ment.g. Community social capital. these organi series of organizational issues carried fromof likely persistent features 2001 to 2004.

within their organizations. Public organizations in densely popu to which the local government's "mission. Transport and Regions 2001. These measures represent a large employers. respec government.. all the factor loadings are over 0. performance mentary materials). the average number of health). The proportions of ment) to 7 {agree with the proposed statement) the extent the various subgroups within each of the different catego to which "coordination and joint-working" and "cross ries identified by the 2001 national census within a local departmental and cross-cutting working" were important government's jurisdiction (e.1 Thus. 2000) was used as a measure of the quantity of service with a 56 percent (1. signi residents. adding these two scores together. the total sample consisted of 121 organizations.g. and higher managerial occupations) was reasonable proxy for the frequency with which actors are squared and the sum of these squares subtracted from likely to have interacted across functional boundaries 10. It provides an overview of the different tively. may vary because of local political preferences (Sharpe The table highlights that the measures load on to and a Newton 1984). The percentage Labour Party vote single factor accounting for 60 percent of the varianceshare in in the most recent local election was therefore included as a progovernment measure among local the data. These survey Organizations serving big populations can accrue items were developed from those utilized in Cusack's economies of scale by distributing fixed costs over more (1999) study of organizational social capital and local units of output (Boyne 2003)." with a high score on the index reflecting a high management and staff' and if "there is a high level of level of diversity (see Trawick and Howsen 2006)—and trust between top-management and politicians" to assess therefore a greater challenge for local governments. Population figures were therefore divided by the centrated on achieving its "mission. and rate of 54 percent (1. The cognitive dimension of governments was measured using population estimates social capital was evaluated by enquiring about the extent for each local area. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. therefore. The first was the In each participating organization.230. Armstrong and Overton 1977) revealed no significant likely to be economically skilled and socially enterpris differences in the views of early and late respondents. performance (see Tavits 2006) was captured by includ ing a dichotomous variable for those English local governments with an elected mayor and 0 for those Control Variables without. thereby generating positive externalities for local The structural dimension of organizational social cap authorities (H. Two proxy measures for the prosperity of ing them by two to provide an organizational-level mean. questionnaires were Average Ward Score on the Index of Multiple Deprivation sent to at least three senior and four middle managers. In (Department of Environment. employment. were further controlled is both shared and pursued within an organization.109 on Sat. central rates of 65 percent (922) and 56 percent (790).052).000. In needs. such as access to Ghoshal (1998) use to gauge the extent to which a visionbetter capital goods or labor. combination of each of the three dimensions into a single organizational social capital index using principal com central government (see Office of the Deputy Prime Min ister 2002) and 0 for those classified as rural. This deprivation score is the standard population 2002 and 2003. Local governments with high levels of finan cial resource capacity can potentially pay their way to Eleven measures were selected to control for the poten success by investing in better-quality staff or new tial impact of other relevant variables on government This content downloaded from 112.259) informant response rate. with response weighted measure of deprivation used by U. and social class. In 2004. New residents in areas with growing populations are (J. values and objec area served by each local government to measure density. income.K. ing. and divid performance. The resulting measures are akin to the Hehrfindahl (see Langbein and Jorstad 2004). ages 0—4. The through the inclusion of a dichotomous variable coded 1 for those local governments classified as urban by U. The potential influence of mayoral power on fying that they are important determinants of the variance explained. The second was the percentage population respondents per local government during the study period growth in each local authority recorded in the 2001 cen was 10. Time-trend tests for nonrespondent bias sus. values and lated areas can reap scope economies by offering multi objectives are clearly and widely owned and understood ple services from the same site (Grosskopf and Yaisawamg by all staff' and the extent to which the organization con 1990).200. local residents were used in the analysis.. Black African. ital was gauged by asking informants to score on 7-point Three dimensions of diversity of service need are mea scales ranging from 1 (disagree with the proposed state sured: age. the total sample was 77.g. Again.K. tives.org/terms . the relational dimension of social capital. The relative size of local government performance. ponents analysis is shown in Table 1 (full descriptions for the survey items can be found in Table 2S in the suppleGovernment expenditure and. Informants were asked indices economists use to measure market "fractionaliza whether "there is a high level of trust between top tion.jstor.5. the total sample was 136. ethnicity." These measures are based on those Tsai and Potential urban agglomeration effects. Armstrong and Taylor 2000). with a response domains of deprivation (e.Andrews 943 government.1.

<.085) Population growth 2. Generalized least squares regression with random revealed that inclusion of the measures of social capital effects estimations was used since it can accommodate makes a statistically significant improvement to the varying intercepts and controls for the effects of time cor explanatory power of the model of over 10 percent. Some cases could between social capital and government performance are not be matched when the survey variables and perforsupported: the coefficients for community and organiza mance measures were mapped because of survey attrition tional social capital are both positive and statistically sig and missing data within the respective data sets. its positive influence was statistically indistin 120 governments in 2001.545) Organizational social capital (OSC) 2.9607 (3.26** Overall R2 . Community and Organizational Social Capital and Performance Independent variables Slope Slope Slope Community social capital (CSC) 1. that the intercepts for the sample governments are Akaike the information criteria (AIC) and an F test same.731 (2. A joint Ftest revealed that despite organizational tistical analysis of the relationship between social capital social capital having the stronger statistical effect within and performance was therefore conducted on a panel of the model.258 .151 .475) 1. and some are statistically significant.012 (0.020 (0.189) Elected mayor 3.097 (0.0006) -0.jstor. Standard errors are in parentheses.637). panel heteroscedasticity. Political Research Quarterly 64(4) Table 2.01.413) Interaction CSC x OSC -0.013) -0.suggesting that gains and losses in the stocks of either so no additional controls for nonconstant error varianceform of social capital may be likely to have important were required.2 ments.014) Ethnic diversity -0.022 (0. *p < .139) 6.014) 0.010 (0.059) Service expenditure per capita 0.468 (0.813* (3.084) -0.05.898) 1. and guishable from that of community social capital.109 on Sat.988* (1.477) Population density (log) 0.006* (0.283 (1.230.6. < .001* (0.014) 0.059) -0.194 (1.0006) -0.356 (3.0006) Social class diversity -0.262 N of observations 397 397 397 Note: Directional hypotheses were evaluated with a one-tailed test. 10.454 (1.0003 (0.003) 0.346) Control variables Deprivation -0.003) 0.082) 0. methods of working (Boyne 2003).19** 121.604 (1. except Labour vote share. 73 in 2003.844 (3. indicat AIC and an F test showed that the inclusion of the ing that the results are not distorted by multicollinearity interaction between community and organizational social (Bowerman and O'Connell 1990).602) 1.389) 6. Performance appears to be positively influ Statistical Results enced by prosperity and service expenditure and nega A Lagrange multiplier test rejected the null hypothesis tively influenced by ethnic diversity.577 (1.475) 1. although trol variables and performance before the measures of the interacted term itself does not quite reach statistical This content downloaded from 112. thereby 128 in 2004.085) -0. The average variance inflation factor consequences for government performance.083) Urban 1.001* (0.04** 119.177) 0.187) 3.4 However.927** (0.583) Labour vote share -0.200.060) -0.014) -0. capital does not make a statistically significant addition Table 2 presents the relationship between the con to the model's explanatory power. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about.005+ (0. and within-panel auto addition.831) Age diversity -0. Dummy variables for individual years are not reported.013) Population (log) 1.005+ (0.010 (0.215 (2.3 score for the independent variables is about 3.010 (0. The data for this sample are homoscedastic.023 (0.581) 2.658 (1.001* (0. The table highlights that ures per capita (the descriptive statistics for all the mea the control variables account for about 15 percent of the sures used in the multivariate analysis can be found in variation in the performance of this sample of govern Table 3S in the supplementary materials).168** (0.682) 2. All the control variables. 76 in 2002.090 (0. In relation.299) 3.194** (1.003) Wald x2 77.163* (0.009 (0. nondirectional hypotheses with a two-tailed test. have the expected signs. The sta nificant. the first two hypotheses on the relationship correlation (Beck and Katz 1995.org/terms .221** (0. Potential spendingcommunity and organizational social capital are added effects were controlled by using revenue expenditure fig separately and in combination.954 (2.543* (3.

Hoxby 1996). Brambor. insignificant. while several studies point to worse student perfor ilar pattern. if Figure 1 suggests that the relative degree of organiza both governments and citizens exhibit strong group cohe tional social capital is likely to have an important moderat sion. at about 1 At the same time.109 on Sat. These findings was expected. capital brought to bear on their resolution.200. Graphing the slope It is conceivable that gains associated with strength in and confidence intervals of the marginal effects is the one form of social capital are offset by strength in the most effective way to present this information. The quest for goal congru the relationship between community social capital and ence between local governments and their citizens is performance. then it is possible that such problems become more ing effect on the relationship between community social intractable. Pratchett. Figure 1 provides a graphical illustration of the with bringing together highly cohesive social groupings moderating influence of organizational social capital on in pursuit of better outcomes. Figure 2 illustrates the moderating effect of inevitably beset with collective action problems.org/terms .230.. and Stoker (2006) illustrate organizational social capital for this sample of governments. Moe 2009. governments benefiting from high standard deviation below the mean level of community levels of organizational social capital may find it difficult This content downloaded from 112. though in this case much earlier. though they remain positive to resist any perceived threats to their professional auton until nearly two standard deviations above the mean level of omy. how highly active citizens were unable to influence an At this point. the positive effect of community social capital English local government with a strong bureaucratic becomes statistically insignificant. Lowndes. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. However. it could be more difficult to address these for the interaction model) the beneficial effects of commu priorities if public servants have the collective resources nity social capital decrease. In particular. it is actually negative—the opposite of what social capital (9 for the interaction model). While governments serving areas high in capital and government performance. what community social capital on the relationship between ever the degree of community and organizational social organizational social capital and performance. Figure 2 illustrates a sim ethos. and Golder 2006). Marginal impact of community social capital on performance contingent on organizational social capital significance. perhaps because of the transaction costs associated ingly. As community social capital rises the positive mance in highly unionized public schools in the United effect of organizational social capital becomes statistically States (e.32 zens' priorities. To fully explore interaction effects it is suggest that any combined benefits accruing to local gov necessary to calculate the marginal effects on perfor ernments high in both forms of social capital are not being mance of varying levels of the moderator variable (see realized in terms of better performance.Andrews Figure I.g. as orga community social capital may be fully cognizant of citi nizational social capital rises from its minimum level (6.jstor. Accord other. Clark.

jstor. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. Marginal impact of org to overcome social capital are therefore not strong eliciting anticipated a collecti policy change tional amongperformance gains. Cowell. new trailer parks There is some evidence in that th app by politically priate activehuman resource management local initiatives resi can co French agriculture policy tribute to greater trust by between leaders and members strong may also political andindependently lead to better performa bureaucra been circumvented by (Gould-Williams 2003). Governments with to addressing.5 However. the citiz and Crook (2008)The statistical findresults imply that thatgovernments seeki th agement to enhance effectiveness Agency. even when controlling for other relevant judgments about existing levels of social capital with variables. Community socialhigh capital too h (Roederer-Rynning 2007). For example. Grassroots comm organization nity involvement that increases social capital may also the focus of public policy (Harris and Young 2009).200. H Conclusion ever. Effective that both forms of social capital are positively related to responses to these questions will refl performance. For example. improving performance. The findings indicated. performance payoff.109 on Sat. of one or the ot to site form of social capital. the some re gove and ment-led initiatives. and and Downe 2008). as expected. which can be harnessed to Fu governm tative effectiveness in several of investigation ways. thehighcommunity lev and the organization and the particu els of one form of social capital appear to cancel challenges out any that each form of social capital may be sui gains attributable to the others. while community social simulta neously high levels of community and organizationalital is arguably likely to support the growth of mor This content downloaded from 112. the interactions presented in Figures 1 and 2 Tab This article expands on existing quantitative studies by that governments may encounter difficult tra highlight systematically exploring the separate and combined offs between community and organizational developm impact of community and organizational social capital onwhengovern weighing the relative merits of different approaches ment performance. a through support for public org social c very tal should prioritize strong sense of the development mission.org/terms . when taken in combination. governments in such areas as promoting understandin hig capital would unravel the democratic citizenship. Political Research Quarterly 64(4) I I I 5 10 15 Community Social Figure 2. may lead dyn to better performance community Andrews.230.

This content downloaded from 112. this did Financial Disclosure/Funding The authors received no financial support for the research and/ not add any explanatory power to the model.93) and population density (1. and five of the indicators tative of that found in governments operating in other have a statistically significant influence on performance. Comparison of thetheir performance may face important trade-offs between effectiveness of alternative approaches to building social fully realizing the positive effects of community and organi capital could reveal which policy levers should be pulled zational social capital by developing one at the expense of and when. Daniel P. have very different cultural and political antecedents and NJ: Princeton University Press. Mests on the control variables for included or omitted g the ability of local governments to harness social capital ernments revealed no statistically significant difference in ways that anticipated central government's demands at between the sample and population. Gabriel A. 2008.81) indicated no parative generalizability of the results presented here.6 Further research in was distributed normally. The sign for each of the social capital co served by English local governments may be unrepresen efficients is in the expected direction. Erez. By the same token. 6. the study has clear limitations. and Seok-Woo Kwon. Bureaucrats in Adler.g. Scandinavian countries are sometimes claimed versions of these variables were created.230. There is no correlation between the measures of communit capital (Rothstein 2001). Ten was added to the community and organizational soc tive civil society-government relations (Valkov 2009). and Rodwell 2009). Rerunning the model using the six separate indicators of eac at the state rather than the local level (e. may be less trusting of superiors or ety as a double-edged sword.. improvements on and Latin American countries also exhibit very distinc one may not lead to improvements in the other.org/terms . organi themes merit extended consideration. All of these responsive and innovative policies (Tavits 2006). The civic culture: servants in developing and non-Western countries may Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. 4.200. 2002. Academy of Managem public management reforms. Studies that therefore seek to compare and contrast Although the statistical findings reveal the positive the impact of alternative approaches to community and influence of social capital. This analysis has examined a particular group of local governments during a specific time period. Before running the statistical models. countries or at other spatial scales. nity social capital and performance has been carried out 5. and Aycan 2007).109 on Sat. skewness tests we across several consecutive national governments as well carried out to establish whether each independent variable as in other organizational settings.. logged example. much of the pioneering work on commu combined when they were interacted. and Sidney Verba. the other. Strong civil soci Bouckaert 2004). The possibility that the positive effects of both community and organizational Declaration of Conflicting Interests social capital may eventually turn negative as cohesive The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with ness become exclusionary or increases rigidity (Adler respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. Thus. Canada. Paul S. and Kevin Crook. for government performance. Review 27:17-40. At capital measures to ensure that two positive scores wer the same time. or authorship of this article.. High skew test results for popu other developed countries could cast light on the com lation (1. The findings Notes for the core service performance measures may reflect 1. Social capi Anglo-Saxon states experiencing the most trenchant new Prospects for a new concept. It would therefore be important to identify sample of English local governments is a representative one whether the relative importance of social capital differs 2. ernments may also reflect the strength of the professional References ethos prevailing within any given country. while European postcommunist and organizational social capital.Andrews 947 effects (Gelfland. and Kwon 2002) was tested by including quadratic terms in the second model shown in Table 2. Political Research Quarterly exhibit weakened organizational commitment (Noblet 61:379-89. to exhibit especially high levels of community social 3. This indicates that the that time.jstor. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. To correct for positive skew. the ethos of civil Almond. dimension of community and organizational social capital r The community social capital extant within the areas veals similar results. zational social capital may more likely to enhance admin istrative efficiency through its facility for reducing In conclusion.. For normal distributions. 1963. the United Kingdom. Knack 2002). Princeton. However. The author is grateful to an anonymous reviewer for th The organizational social capital present within gov insight. and the United States (Pollitt and Aldrich. organizational development on government performance The analysis presented here does not explicitly set out to within the same research design would furnish vital clues to model the potentially damaging effects of social capital help solve this important puzzle. such as Australia. the findings of this study suggest that gov transaction costs associated with coordinating govern ernments seeking to harness the benefits of social capital for ment action (Boix and Posner 1998).

Yaisawamg. to decline in firms. 2003. 43:61-74. 3rd ed. Fukuyama. Van Buren. tures. Charles. S95-S120. 2000. 1994. Insights for empowerment through research. This content downloaded from 112. James S. voice and loyalty: Responses Burt. 948 Political Research Quarterly 64(4) Andrews. David J. Management Review 24:538-55.org/terms . London: Audit Commission. and Jim Taylor. Social capital: Gould-Williams. Es Psychology 18:41-54. How teachers' unions affect educa Britain. culture. Thomas. Roderick.. 2000 Leana. and Paul S. A cause Down in Support for active citizenship and search of its effect. Bruce. 2009. An introduction to Armstrong. J. Social capital and regional economies Hoxby. Annual Review of Political Science 1:47-73. Simeon. JournalUpper of Saddle River. 1995. citizen participation. National Tax Journal statistical models: An applied approach. Langbein. Transport and Regions. and Jonathan N.. Pil. and Connie Jorstad. 1996. tion production. The third Knack. 2002. Social Forces 56:408-23. Bruce L. Black. schools. 2007. organizations and ec Regional and policy. Harvey. Miller. Jackman. Martin. and politics. Harris. Nathaniel. 1990. study of public-sector organizations. James 1979. Boix. Creation of Prosperity. 1990. tivity: Some empirical evidence on the causes and conse Cambridge. enduring questions. and Abraham Wandersman. Allan. and Steve Martin. British Journal of Political Science 28:686-93. Journal of Policy Analysis Cusack. 1999. American Journal of ciations improves policy accountability. Social capital. Linearthe provision of local public services. cooperation. Actes de le Recherche Scientifique et Sociale 30:3-6.. 1990. and Boyne. in Caroline M. 2006. and Research 35:1-34. 1980. Michelle P. Miriam Erez. Anderson. Michele J. Oxford. and Ross A. 1988. Carrie R. George A. Belmont. or what public service does political culture explain? Comparative of mance: An empirical analysis PoliticsEnglish 11:127-45. Julian. Cross-cultural organizational behaviour. Exit. Jack P. James. Political Studies 52:96-117. American Gibbs. Comprehensive Performance Gelfland. and E. and Harry J. MA: Harvard University Press. of Community 1977. voluntary community 2000. Tatham. Organization Science and social capital: An application to the local government 7:502-18. The contingent value of social capital. What to do (andPsychology 58:479-514. 2nd ed. Claibourn. NJ: Prentice Hall. London: Department of organizational performance: Evidence from urban public Environment. and Frits K.. Political Research Quarterly 57:65-79. The impact on political tolerance attitudes. Scott. Armstrong. and Richard Cowell. institutional struc & Management 19:427-49. The Social Virtues Journal of andMar the Research 14:396-402. Laura. What do firms do? Coffe. organizations and states. Overton. 2007. Annual Review of Psychology human capital. Laura. Posner. Understanding interaction models: Improving empiri building: An exploration. Stephen. not to do) with time-series cross-sectional data. Quarterly 60:192-201. The importance of HR practices Explaining its origins and effects on government perfor and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A mance.. Le capital social: Notes provisoires. Regulation inside gov Leana. cal analyses. 2002. Joseph F. Kramer. Carrie R. Ronald S. Social capital in the creation of tions. Transport and Regions. Jr. B. and Patricia Young. Audit Commission. non-response bias in mail Francis. MA: Harvard University Press. Social capital and Indices of multiple deprivation. 2007. Albert O. International Journal Bourdieu. empowerment and produc Coleman. and Benny Geys. Paul.jstor. 1970. Richard Elkins. Policy & Politics 37:517-34. on social order. Social capital group membership and social capital. Katz. and democratic performance: A comparative study of Langbein. Grosskopf. 1995. Rolph E. Downe. communication. 1996. community and social cohesion through grassroots bridge 2006. Department of Environment. 1997. New York: Free Press.230. Economies of scope in Bowerman. 1999. Rhys. 2005. Organization Science 17:353-66. Institutional performanceCoordination. and Daniel N. 5th ed. and Zeynep Aycan.. Political Research Political Science 46:772-85. Organizational ernment: Processes and impacts of inspection of local public social capital and employment practices. of Human Resource Management 14:28-54. Annual Review of Beck. Journal of Urban Affairs 27:485-502. and S. 2002. S... Sources of public service improve William C. James S.109 on Sat. O'Connell. Social capital and the quality of gov face of social capital: How membership in voluntary asso ernment: Evidence from the states. Hair. ment: A critical review and research agenda. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. CA: Duxbury. Assessment. Hilde. Ronald L. Margaret. Ownership. deterrence and perspectives Political Science Review 89:634-47. European Journal of Politicalworkplace: Cops. Social control. and Ugo Zander. Terence. Academy of services. Thomas R. Kogut. Productivity in the German local governments. Trust and distrust: Emerging ques Coleman. Political Analysis 14:63-82. Joslyn. 1998. American Journal of Sociology 94 (Suppl. Public Administration Research and Theory 13:367-94. Foundations of social theory. and Matt Golder. identity and learning. 2004. Multivariate data analysis. Cambridge.. 1999. local auth Policy & Politics 36:225-43. 2003. Hirschman. Florin. quences of employee discretion. level. collusion. Developing Brambor. Trust: surveys. 1977.): 50:569-91. William Roberts Clark. and Mark R. Robert W. UK: development: Blackwell. Policy & Politics 35:215-32. Pierre. and American Terry Journal S. Administrative Science Quarterly 42:339-65. 2004. 1998. 1998. The extensiveness of 718.. and Richard T. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111:671 Cigler.200. Political Research Quarterly 55:7-25. Casey.

Daniel A. Revelli. 1998. Lowndes. Social capital in the social democratic wel Mazmanian. Neighbourhood governance: Leadership. 25 Aug 2018 05:40:43 UTC All use subject to https://about. role of community-based organizations in promoting politi cal participation. Noblet. 2004. Management Journal 41:464-78. Farm conservatism in France: Local political participation: The impact of rules-in-use. 2006. Policy 14:1010-27. Robert D. 2002. 2nd ed. Administration Research and Theory 14:417-34. ethnicity. omy of hierarchy.Andrews 949 Leroux. Ballot initiatives and the democratic citi tal. 1998. Social capital and agement reform: A comparative analysis. get more? An inquiry into Willem. 2001. Communist Studies 42:1 -21. Scott. Andrew J.230. 1957. Rice. 2002. Lawrence Pratchett. Applied Economics Letters 13:341-45. Making democracy work: Civic traditions tiple informants in public administration: Revisiting the in modern Italy. 2000. MD: fare state. NJ: Princeton University Press. Journal of European Public Public Administration 84:539-61. Urban Studies 38:2211-24. 2006. 1974. 2006. The Tom W. Research in Public Administration 2:121-66. Human Relations 59:1343-70. International Journal of Social Economics 33:491-511. Stack. and Brian Dollery. and Gareth Enticott. Does politics matter? Montgomery. area definitions: A user guide. and Alexander F. Princeton. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Social capital: Its origins and applica and democratic performance: European post-communist tions in modem sociology. Janine. intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Carol B. and political bias in knowledge sharing: An exploratory study.. Making democracy work more? stress and social exchange theories to predict employee Exploring the linkage between social capital and govern strain in reformed public sector contexts. Urban and Trawick.Institutions and organizations. Roederer-Rynning. Journal of Public Putnam. University Press of America. 1998. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. 1993. J. Nonprofits as civic intermediaries: Rice. Journal of Politics 64:892-903. Revitalizing the contribution nizations. and Jan L. Alejandro. orga Joe. and Kenneth Newton. New York: Harper & Row. Political Research Quarterly 59:211-25. 2009. Spend more. Crime and community heterogeneity: Race. 1993. Hal G. Social network analysis: A handbook. A theory of goal ambiguity in public Wallis.jstor. Lanham. 1997. manWenpin. Margaret.zen. Oxford. 2001 . ological interpretation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19:555-78. Social capital English local government performance.capi Mark A. L. Sumberg. 2004. UK: value creation: The role of intra-firm networks. Managerial dilemmas: The political econLondon: Sage. Kelly. 1999. UK: Clarendon. Scott. New York: Cambridge University. Sabatier. Federico. and Sumantra Ghoshal. Valkov. 2000. Using mul Putnam. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27:99-114. Richard. Bo. Phillip. Nikolay. Robert D.. 2006. Vivien.109 on Sat. and Harry Scarborough. Tom W. Academy of Oxford University Press. 2007. Rothstein. 1992.org/terms . John. Christilla.. Oxford.200. Selznick. countries in comparative perspective. rural Michelle W. Membership in voluntary organizations Portes. 1997. 1984. Annick. and Roy M.. This content downloaded from 112. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Howsen. Politics & Society 29:207-41. Purdue. All our kin: Strategies for survival in a Black Community. 2007. 2001. Terry M. Christopher. Miller.. 1989. New York: Simon & Schuster. Social capital as a policy resource. Integrating job Tavits. Civic culture and Wilson. Pollitt. and religion. Sharpe. and John J. ment performance. Urban Affairs Review 42:410-22. Richard M. Journal of Politics 59:1143-72. and Paul A. Public Tsai. Policy Sciences 33:227-43. 2009. Derek.. Rainey. 2009.. Moe. W. Civic cul ture and government performance in the American states. IL: Harper & Row. managerial values and actions debate. Oxford Economic Papers 62:185-207. and Sumantra Ghoshal. Leadership and administration: A soci mance of public schools. Feldman. Annual Review of Sociology 24:1-24. 2006. Rodwell. Urban Studies 34:745-60. Academy of Management Review 23:242-66. SocialSmith. American Journal of Political Science 53:156-74. 2010. and Gerry Stoker. Gary. Evanston. John D. Implementation and public policy: With a new postscript. Revisiting the weak state thesis. for the twenty-first century. Nahapiet. 1997. Building social capital: A learning agenda democracy from Europe to America. Communist and Post trust and social capital. Patricia A. Walker. non-profit organizations can make to the provision of human services. Collective bargaining and the perforLondon: Sage. and Geert Bouckaert.