This article analyzes the importance of social capital in the emergence of local institutions and the contribution of these institutions to the governance of rural territories. By valuing useful links between people and favoring the formalization of these types of links, social capital facilitates the establishment of local ways of managing rural territories and their resources.

A vision of governance of rural territories is presented, based on local institutions that formalize social relationships and organizations in these territories. It is considered that community forms of organization in rural territories are more effective for the administration of local resources, than actions implemented by the States or external actors.

Specifically, a case study is carried out on a rural organization, the General Board of Users of the Pirca Irrigation System, located in the San José de Minas parish of  Ecuador. The presence and contribution of social capital to the institutionalization of the Board and its contribution to the establishment of a local governance in the territory is analyzed.


The marked poverty and inequality of rural territories compared to large cities, as well as the permanent disinterest or historical inefficiency of the Ecuadorian State in establishing policies and actions that contribute to the development of rural territories, leads those who study these territories in Ecuador to rethink governance and development alternatives for them.

This article analyzes social capital as a precursor for the formation of local institutions and how these institutions facilitate their own or endogenous governance of rural inhabitants over their territories; allowing the administration of local resources present in these rural territories.

By social capital we understand all the resources or potential resources that can be linked to a network of interpersonal relationships, more or less institutionalized (Bourdieu 1980)[1]. Social capital studies the useful links established by individuals to satisfy needs or interests, for example trust and cooperation are resources that individuals maintain in their relationships. These resources in social relations are valued and can be accumulated, therefore they constitute a type of capital.

Bourdieu (1980)[1] raises the existence of different types of capital, such as social capital and cultural capital, contradicting the position of a purely economic capital which considers only productive factors such as land, machinery and work. There are non- financial capitals that must be taken into account within socioeconomic studies, specifically on means of production and productive factors, since there is a marked influence of these types of capital on productive activities.

It is considered that individuals obtain material benefits such as services, which are provided from useful relationships derived from their belonging to a certain group. The diversity of the groups presents opportunities for individuals to access different types of capital (Bourdieu 1980)[1], there are strategic interpersonal networks formed and oriented to common interests.

Coleman (2001)[2] analyzes social capital from its function, giving utility to social relations. It starts from the rational action that people take, but leaves aside solely personal benefits, taking into account the relationships between individuals.

Social capital sets aside individualism, not out of altruism, but for interest. Cooperation between individuals with a common interest is considered to be more beneficial to each individual than the individual benefit obtained through individual management.

Coleman (2001)[2] studies how social organizations influence the functionality of economic activities. Social capital is productive, it allows individuals to achieve goals and interests. The strength of the bonds between individuals provides security in the transactions, outside these bonds of trust, these transactions could not be carried out.

Coleman (2001)[2] assesses the constitutive aspects of social relationships and structures, aspects such as interactions, obligations, norms and sanctions. This author considers that effective norms and sanctions are forms of social capital that imply an institutional framework of social relations, which facilitates and limits the performance of actions by individuals.

Another author who works on social capital from an institutional or collective perspective is John Durston, who considers social capital as “the content of certain social relationships and structures, that is, the attitudes of trust that occur in combination with behaviors of reciprocity and cooperation” (Durston 2002, 15)[3]. This author mentions that social capital contributes with 3 types of benefits: it produces public goods, reduces transaction costs and allows the constitution of solid organizations.

Durston (2000)[4] mentions two forms of social capital, individual based on reciprocity between people and communal or collective based on norms and organizations created through group cooperation. This collective perspective of social capital is the one emphasized in this article.

A vision of local governance of the territories is proposed, based on the institutionalization of useful relationships or links between the inhabitants of these territories.

Social capital from a collective perspective contributes to the formation of institutions that go beyond interpersonal relationships. The institution being a social group determined by a system of rules that establishes a form of cultural exchange, composed of mechanisms of order and cooperation, normalizing the practices of individuals (Lapassade 1974)[5]; allows directing the actions of people, to achieve specific ends and satisfy common interests. This institutional framework provides greater functionality and efficiency to relationships and organizations in achieving common needs.

Collective social capital values the formal or institutional aspects of human relations, such as regulations, procedures, behaviors, sanctions. The consolidation and effectiveness of the institutions in the territories goes through the previous reciprocal relations and common objectives between the individuals. Institutions provide an infrastructure that allows order and avoids uncertainty for individuals in their relationships (North 1993)[6], for these institutions to take shape or be effective, there must be certain prior correspondence between their members.

In general, institutions in rural areas are formed as investment strategies that seek a regulated return to satisfy common needs and interests. These needs or interests could hardly be satisfied from individual efforts.

Local institutions that are formed in rural territories, generally for productive purposes, in addition to generating profitability, employment, exchange of services, exchange of knowledge, ease of access to local resources and distribution of goods among their members, contribute to the governance of the territories.

A vision of governance for rural territories is proposed from the institutionalization of reciprocity relations, in this sense it is understood that “governance is being seen as a process of economic coordination, capacity development, creation and strengthening of local institutions that have for the purpose of reducing transaction costs, from a neo- institutional economics and sociology point of view” (Torres Salcido, G .; Ramos Chávez, H. 2008, 81)[7].

Local institutions contribute to the governance of territories, “governance is characterized by a network of institutions and individuals that collaborate together and united by a pact of mutual trust, they are organizations of power that form semi-autonomous and sometimes self-governed networks” (Zurbriggen 2011 , 43)[8].

Local institutions in rural areas allow forms of governance in the territory that establish a greater representation of the inhabitants of said territories, as well as a better interrelation with: the State and with other local, national and international institutions. This since they empower the inhabitants of these territories. “The importance of the theory of social capital for the strategies of overcoming poverty and the integration of excluded social sectors is in the way in which it complements empowerment. ” (Durston 2000, 33)[4].

Empowerment constitutes a premeditated social process, which aims to change power relations (Sen 1997)[9], by generating opportunities for one or more individuals. It is not based on a power granted by a higher authority, but rather a power acquired through self- management, which consists of enhancing the pre-existing strengths of a person or a group of people. Empowerment should not be considered as a neutral process, but as a process that seeks to gain control by substituting the external barriers that influence access to resources (Sen 1997)[9].

Empowerment is conceived from the local, from self-management. Private investments can show development in rural areas, but these investments in many cases do not include local inhabitants, who are spectators of activities that generate benefits but do not necessarily include them.

Institutions make it possible to avoid external threats, for example they prevent external actors from working on local resources. Through an institutionalized organization, the resources of the territories can be concessioned and have certain legal security in their management.

The institutionalization of useful relationships or links is key to empowering individuals in excluded territories, since an organization, being established, is legitimate and allows its members to establish negotiations as a bloc. Individual needs are formalized and channeled, through the institution, the individual home is connected with public institutions and with private companies.

Social capital constitutes a bridge for regional alliances (Durston 2002)[3], individuals through institutions can expand their social capital networks, including generating external coalitions or “bridging”, the form of social capital that analyzes the relationship of individuals and organizations with external factors (Putnam 2000)[10].

Bebbington (2001)[11] also makes an approach about the alliances that community organizations should take into account. It considers that the ties that are forged with non- governmental organizations (NGOs), municipalities, federations, among others, should be analyzed. When groups become institutionalized, they can generate pressure on political decision-making on the territory.

In rural areas, local institutions have more influence on the governance of the territories, mainly because they are often the only institutions present in them; contrary to cities, where political institutions are more present, due to the fact that the State administration tends to be centralized. Although there are some political institutions in rural territories, these generally manage very large territories and in most cases obey the territorial order of the States, without necessarily having a very broad knowledge of specific territories. While the local institutions that are generated from associations between individuals in rural territories manage internal, decentralized and specific levels of action.

Specifically, the local institutions in charge of the use or administration of natural resources, such as the Water Boards, represent central axes of productive activity in the territories, but they are also considered a central focus in their administration. Irrigation projects represent a fundamental factor for social organization in the Andes, specifically in rural areas. Irrigation constitutes a communal issue that allows establishing a symbiosis between the community and the economy (Boelens, Dávila 1998).

Case Study

The case study of this article is carried out precisely in a Water Board, called: General Board of Users of the Pirca Irrigation System, located in the San José de Minas parish. The territory of the present investigation constitutes the former farm of Pirca, currently the sector known as “Alance”, where the workers of the former farm settle and who were acquiring plots after the dissolution of this and formed the Board of Waters of Pirca ago more than 50 years.

The Pirca Water Board, through its Board of Directors, has the main function of managing the Pirca drought. Part of its management consists of creating and maintaining the infrastructure of the irrigation canal, this is usually done by carrying out mingas and specialized works in the maintenance of the irrigation canal. The extension of the irrigation canal is approximately 28 km, the irrigation system is conventional and the irrigation method uses gravity.

Regarding the flow, this is approximately 22 liters per second, the irrigation canal crosses for 300 (ha); Depending on the day of assignment, the Board members use the water by raising gates that go to their hoses in order to carry water to their plots.

Figure 1. Irrigation Canal Representation

Source: Own Elaboration 2020

Figure 1 corresponds to a satellite image of the year 2020, which was processed with a digital model of the terrain, this allows to see the geomorphology of the terrain in three dimensions. The route of the irrigation canal and its descending route are observed, operating by means of gravity. After the fall of the water from the waterfall, there are intakes from water holes, from where the water is captured and directed along the channel. Only the main irrigation canal is represented, since there are hundreds of branches throughout the territory and that supply water to each land where the members of the Board live.

Once the irrigation canal is characterized, the methodology used in this article is exposed to solve the following objectives: firstly, to identify social capital that contributes to the institutionalization of the Pirca Board. Secondly, and in case it is demonstrated that the Pirca Water Board constitutes an institution, its contribution to the governance of the territory.

Social capital in the forming of institutions

In order to identify the presence of social capital in the Pirca Board, which contributes to the institutionalization of this organization and its contribution to the governance of the territory, a mixed methodology was applied, addressing quantitative and qualitative techniques of social investigation.

Regarding the quantitative methodology, surveys were carried out on a sample of all the members of the Board, this sample corresponded to 32 people. Questions with multiple choice answers were designed, which were asked to selected Board members. These questions were based on the postulates of the authors previously described.

In the qualitative field, interviews were conducted to key stakeholders of the Pirca Board, including its board of directors. Likewise the participant observation technique was applied, attending several official meetings of the Board, called General Assemblies.

Although within the existing literature there is no consensus methodology regarding the identification and measurement of social capital, variables have been generated for its identification and measurement thought. Durston (2002)[3] from a collective perspective of social capital identifies some variables: the control norms determined by the group, the sanction or punishment of individuals who transgress the determined norms, trust as the willingness to deliver their own goods (Durston 2001)[12], reciprocity as relational transactions, cooperation aimed at achieving objectives, conflict resolution by an instance of judgment within the group, mobilization and management of resources present in the territory, the election of leaders and the implementation of structures for the execution of specific works.

Narayan and Cassidy (2001)[13] establish a diagram regarding the dimensions of social capital, where they establish variables such as the types of contribution of the participants to the groups they belong to, the frequency of participation, the heterogeneity of the group, the generalized norms, the solidarity, voluntary actions and trust.

Espinoza (2001)[14] considers the following variables for the measurement of social capital: Associativity, it has to do with the interest of people to participate in the actions of the group, Density, which establishes belonging or considering themselves part of the community, Centrality that has to do with the coordination that is maintained between internal and external relations, Mediation, it has to do with the processes of recognition of a member as part of an organization, Fractions, the level of conflict present in the group is measured.

There are ways in which social capital can be evaluated in an irrigation system, Bebbington (2001)[11] mentions that the ease of organization in resolving conflicts can be valued, that is, the ability to solve problems derived from the use of water irrigation. Likewise, the establishment of sanctions and the execution of the norms agreed within the organizations that are dedicated to the administration of irrigation are analyzed.

Another aspect is the management and mobilization of resources, is the management to carry a service to those who are part of the organization (Durston 2002)[3], this includes the generation of infrastructure and technical assistance. This management and mobilization of resources must be carried out from a fair and sustainable environment.

Because the information transmitted by individuals constitutes part of social capital, communication must necessarily be an aspect to be taken into account in the evaluation of social capital in organizations. The spaces and means by which individuals communicate within organizations must be considered.

Cooperation between individuals must be analyzed since it has to do with the management of individuals to mobilize resources (Durston 2002)[3], this coordination is aimed at carrying out activities related to the irrigation canal, which also have to do with democratic participation.

The concepts and variables mentioned, allowed to elaborate the questions for the elaboration of the surveys, which were applied to a representative sample of the members of the Board. The members were asked about the social capital variables present in their organization, then their responses were tabulated using specific software.

Figure 2. Presence of collective social capital in the Board of Pirca

Source: Own elaboration 2020

Figure 2 shows the variables that were used to determine the existence of social capital in the Board of Pirca from a quantitative view, also in towards a collective or institutional perspective. Because all the variables were represented in percentages, the results could be located within a comparative percentage table, which systematizes the social capital variables. For the variables that had several response categories (such as “often”, “sometimes”, “never”), the category with the highest frequency was selected.

Financial capital is important but the basis of management lies in trust.

Figure 2 shows the general perception of the members of the Board surveyed, regarding the variables of social capital consulted. This multivariate graph shows the presence of social capital in the Board and allows us to observe the degree of social capital from a quantitative point of view.

Also Figure 2 shows how solid is the social capital present in this organization. In which aspects it is strong and what weaknesses are present. The variables of valued opinion, sense of belonging, absence of significant conflicts among its members, justice and trust in the Board account forms of social exchange and interpersonal values oriented to mutual interests; This allows and facilitates the establishment of regulatory mechanisms on the forms and practices that are agreed upon, since there is a predisposition and general agreement to regulate common practices, and in order to make them more effective and avoid arbitrariness.

The majority of respondents agree with the economic contributions, they recognize the importance of financial capital and the need to contribute financially, but these contributions are only given thanks to the trust they have in the board of Directors and the other members of the Board. Board members are willing to hand over part of their individual resources and invest them in stocks for mutual benefits.

It is possible to appreciate the presence of variables that are precursors for the institutionalization of the relations between the members of the Board, for example the attendance to the General Assemblies, the associativity or the participation in “mingas” (traditional cooperative work); this last practice, as could be corroborated in the territory, is carried out constantly and has a high degree of acceptance. This type of more or less institutionalized regular practices or behaviors are easy to regulate since there is a need or common interest to reproduce this type of productive relationship.

Social capital variables are identified and account the existence of institutionalization processes of the Water Board, such as the presence of regulations in the organization. As it was observed when the General Assemblies were attended, there is a Statute of the Water Board, as well as procedures such as taking a list, where the Assembly only starts if there is half plus one of the Board members; also there are Acts of each meeting and agendas to be discussed previously approved.

It was observed that the Board is legally constituted and recognized, complying with what is dictated in the Ecuadorian case for its legalization, obtaining legal status. In this sense, the action of the Water Board is legal, allowing the award of water intakes.

There has been an important intervention of farmers who belong to the Board in the processes of legalization. “Farmers of the Board who originally came from the city have helped a lot, they know other things, they have contacts, they know about laws and they help with the papers that they must be done in Quito” (Danilo Naranjo, August 2018). The heterogeneity of the Board enriches the current social capital, since it allows the exchange of knowledge, services and contracts among the members.

In addition to the legal processes for the recognition of legal status of the Board and the concessions of water intakes, the institutionalization of the processes regulates the activities of the Board members, avoiding arbitrariness and allowing better water management. The variables of social capital such as regulations, rules or procedures, make the functions of the Water Board effective, allowing democratic decision-making, justice in the distribution benefits the organization to satisfy the production and profitability needs of the Board members.

Effective relationships and useful links between individuals and formalizing them allow the Board members to obtain a greater benefit from these relationships, “organization has always been the only way to solve needs and carry out projects” (Jorge Morales, August 2018).

The social capital present in the Pirca Board has contributed and continues its contribution to strengthen its institutionalization, although there are aspects that must be worked on, for example creating and improving the sanction and exclusion mechanisms for those who violate the Board’s regulations. Regardless that, this study concludes that, the Pirca Water Board has enough aspects to consider it an Institution.

Social capital not only contributes but allows the emergence of local institutions, legal recognitions are only the process for regulating constant behavior. Regulating constant actions or processes favor the institutionalization, but this only regulates processes and actions that are already established, stable and legitimate.

The links between individuals form institutions, as solid as social capital is the more effective the institution will be. This postulate can be applied to all types of social organizations. Especially in rural areas, productive institutions, mainly those in charge of irrigation management, have a special connotation, since they constitute a central axis of economic activity; where their actions go beyond only the interests of productivity, these indeed can have a significant role in the governance of the territory.

Contribution of the Institution to the Governance of the Territory

It is analyzed whether the Pirca Water Board contributes to governance in the territory. Although the general function of the Board does not have to do with the exercise of governance, the fact that it administers the irrigation canal of the territory, necessarily places the institution in the axis of the productive and political sphere of the territory, mainly because it is an area purely agrarian.

Managing the main resource for agricultural production entails a priority attention of the inhabitants of the territory towards the Board, establishing implicit governance processes, “territorial actors are much more significant when it comes to ensuring or building a real change than what occurs within the territory and determine if it will be viable or not and sustained.” (Berdegué et al; 2015, 11)[15].

Based on the perception of the respondents, 56.3% of these mentioned not being entirely satisfied with the government services in the territory. On the other hand, there is considerably greater trust towards the Board (71.90%), indicating a greater legitimacy towards the Board than towards state and municipal institutions.

Part of the legitimacy of the Board has to do with the fact that the institutions that make political decisions about the parish correspond to centralized administrations in large cities, in this case the Metropolitan District of Quito. This is confirmed by 56.3% of those surveyed who consider that the political administration of the parish is not centralized in the same territory, where the decisions made are not necessarily made under specific knowledge of the area.

In rural areas, local institutions and organizations are often the only instances to which the inhabitants can turn to solve their conflicts, as the vice president of the Board mentions “in the meetings we talk about problems that occur where we live, that, if someone has a complaint, he speaks to the Board” (Danilo Naranjo, August 2018). The presence of specific government entities in the area of conflict resolution is limited and community organizations allow for local administration and justice enforcement systems.

It could be observed in the General Assemblies that the Board to some extent exerts pressure on its members, in order to preserve and prioritize common interests. Although the sanction mechanisms are not entirely effective, it was noted that there is group pressure that affects the behavior of individuals, avoiding excesses or impairment of rights in the use of water.

Although the General Assemblies are spaces that bring together all the members of the Board to discuss issues related to the irrigation canal, it was evidenced that these spaces also serve for members to deal with other types of problems with their neighbors, for example criminal activities that arise in the territory, improvement of roads or rapprochement with other organizations for the generation of external alliances.

The Board can exert greater pressure on the Parish Board and the security and control institutions, each member of the board has more possibilities of being heard through the Water Board than individually, there is greater individual political representation by being part of the Water Board.

This article considers local institutions as forms of government, as ways of managing the territory. Institutions are agreed spaces that go beyond the will of each individual, regulate the behavior and activities that individuals can exercise, establishing common benefits. Part of these benefits has to do with greater political representation, an empowerment of individuals over their territories, the possibility of negotiating as a bloc, establishing external alliances and avoiding external threats.

Figure 3. Political Representation of Individuals

Source: Own elaboration 2020

Figure 3 establishes a comparison regarding the representativeness of individuals who belong to an institution compared to others who do not, in the first case all members of an institution benefit from all the relationships that the institution maintains with other actors. While in the case of the right, few individuals have access to and can benefit from relationships with other actors, although these will hardly be able to have relationships with all relevant actors.

An example of this were the relationships maintained by the Water Board with the Provincial Council in 2018, this approach from the Board, allowed the donation of a large part of the pipe that was used for the irrigation canal works; “Cooperation between institutions should continue to be sought to improve the service provided to the members of the Irrigation Canal” (Danilo Naranjo, August 2018).

Institutions allow their own or endogenous governance, in the sense that it is the inhabitants themselves who can make decisions about the territory, establish external alliances and avoid external threats, but perhaps the main reason has to do with the fact that they allow the administration of own resources. Governance from institutions has to do with the empowerment of the territory, this empowerment deals with a power acquired through self-management (Sen 1997)[9].

If the resources of the territory are managed by community organizations and not by external institutions that perhaps do not know the entire territory or seek a commission for the work they can carry out, there will be a better use of resources, including more a more sustainable management. At the moment the Water Board is pressuring the Parish Board for the formation of mancomunidades, with other parishes such as those of Puéllaro and Perucho. “The idea is to keep the territories out of mining or deforestation, it seeks to avoid the presence of extractive companies that affect the environment, declaring them protected areas” (Danilo Naranjo, August 2018).

The institution allows better management of its own resources, a legal use of them, the possibility of negotiating with external actors and avoiding external threats; the latter in the sense that keeping certain resources under concession prevents new possessions or uses of them.

It should be clarified that the benefits are not necessarily going to be the same for all members, for example being able to access irrigation water will benefit more individuals who have a reservoir. Belonging to the institution benefits everyone, but there is a difference in the individual impact.

Finally, local institutions allow the emergence of local leaders, who are elected. In the case of the Water Board the president is elected by majority vote, the fact of having legitimate local leaders allows in part the self-determination and self-regulation of the territories.

Final Thoughts

This article analyzed the importance of social capital in the formation of local institutions and the contribution of these institutions to the governance of rural territories. The presence of social capital from a collective perspective was evidenced in the Pirca Board, which has contributed to the institutionalization of this organization, and it was also evidenced that the Pirca Board contributes to the governance of the territory.

In the case of study, the social capital manifested in customary practices, agreements, procedures, regulations and norms have allowed the consolidation of the Board of Pirca as an institution. This institution has had a marked importance within the governance of the territory. Being part of the institution gives political representation to individuals, allows them to empower the territory, manage its resources, establish alliances with political actors for the benefit of the territory and avoid external threats.

The regulations and actions instituted allow efficient management of resources, the establishment of rules allows resources to be distributed in a more just and equitable way, it allows the territory to be governed from the local inhabitants, from self-management. This is only possible if there are previous links and agreements, that is, social capital. The imposition of an institutionality will be ephemeral and inefficient; this must be part of the process of formalizing existing relations and organizations.

Governments should not impose institutions in rural territories. If what the government is looking for is to generate public policy aimed at rural development, it should strengthen and cooperate with the organizations present, facilitate their institutionalization rather than impose new institutions. As rural actors are the ones who know the territory and its needs, local organizations that have already been created must be supported; it is not about creating organizations but rather about consolidating and instituting existing links. Social capital in the formation of local institutions and their contribution to territorial governance.

Social capital does not necessarily have to do with empathy, but with the interests of individuals. Although the affinity between individuals can be beneficial, in the General Assembly Board it was observed that not all individuals have an affinity, but they understand the importance of the organization, to generate agreements to fulfill their interests.

The study of social capital does not imply downplaying other types of capital, but relating to them. Trust, for example, facilitates financial capital transactions, if there is no trust between the members of a group, they would not risk investing in works for the canal.

It is clear that the benefit between the members of the Board is differentiated, likewise not all the individuals present in the territory may be part of all the organizations located in the territory, in the case of those who do not belong to an organization may consider the option to enter this, even so this requires a prior investment.

In the event of not having the facilities or sufficient capital (whatever this may be) to enter an organization, individuals may choose to associate with other individuals who have common needs or objectives, in order to carry out joint actions; there is greater individual benefit after collective management.

Social relationships are essential for individuals to establish common interests and generate links. Local integration is impossible if I do not know my neighbors, in this sense meetings, events, parties that allow the establishment of social relationships are important.

The organization studied in this case was linked to the management of an irrigation canal, however, in all organizations the presence of social capital can be studied, its contribution to the institutional framework of relationships and its possible contribution to the governance of the territories if applied. It does not matter if it is a group of artisans, ranchers or farmers, the type of links may change, but the consolidation of local institutions constitutes a competitive advantage for its members. It also allows the self- determination of individuals towards their territory, allowing governance from rural territories to rural territories.


Bebbington Anthony. 2001. Capital Social en los Andes. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Berdegué Julio, Bebbington Anthony, Escobal Javier. 2015. “Conceptualizando la diversidad espacial en el desarrollo rural latinoamericano: estructuras, instituciones y coaliciones. Centro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural 165: 1-28.

Bourdieu Pierre. 1987. “Los tres estados del capital cultural”. Sociológica 5 (2): 11-17

Bourdieu Pierre 2001. “El capital social. Apuntes provisionales”. Zona Abierta 94-95: 83- 87.

Coleman James 2001. “Capital social y creación de capital humano”. Zona Abierta 94- 95: 47-81.

Coleman, James S. (1990), The Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Coleman James 1986. “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action”. American Journal of Sociology 91: 1399-1335.

Durston John. 2000. ” ¿Qué es el capital social comunitario?” CEPAL 38: 3-41.

Durston John. 2002. El capital social campesino en la gestión del desarrollo rural. Santiago: CEPAL

Durston, John. 2001. “Capital Social parte del problema parte de la solución”. CEPAL: 1-43

Espinoza, Vicente 2001, “Indicadores y generación de datos para un estudio comparativo de capital social y trayectorias laborales”. CEPAL 55: 23-32.

Lapassade, Georges (1974), Grupos, Organizaciones e Instituciones. París: Gedisa Editorial.

North, Douglass. 1991. “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 97-112. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.97

Narayan, Deepa, and Michael F. Cassidy. “A Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory.” Current Sociology 49:59–102.

Putnam Robert. 2000. “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” New York: Simon & Schuster.

Sen Gita. 1997. “Empowerment as an approach to poverty”. Oxford: 1-245

Torres Gerardo, Ramos Hector. 2008. “Gobernanza y territorios. Notas para la implementación de políticas para el desarrollo”. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 203:75-95. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/421/42120304.pdf

Zurbriggen, Cristina. 2011. “Gobernanza: una mirada desde América Latina” Revista Perfiles Latinoamericanos 38: 39-64. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/115/11519271002.pdf

  1. Bourdieu Pierre. 1987. “Los tres estados del capital cultural”. Sociológica 5 (2): 11-17 ^
  2. Coleman James 2001. “Capital social y creación de capital humano”. Zona Abierta 94- 95: 47-81. ^
  3. Durston John. 2002. El capital social campesino en la gestión del desarrollo rural. Santiago: CEPAL ^
  4. Durston John. 2000. ” ¿Qué es el capital social comunitario?” CEPAL 38: 3-41. ^
  5. Lapassade, Georges (1974), Grupos, Organizaciones e Instituciones. París: Gedisa Editorial. ^
  6. North, Douglass. 1991. “Institutions”. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 97-112. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.5.1.97 ^
  7. Torres Gerardo, Ramos Hector. 2008. “Gobernanza y territorios. Notas para la implementación de políticas para el desarrollo”. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales 203:75-95. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/421/42120304.pdf ^
  8. Zurbriggen, Cristina. 2011. “Gobernanza: una mirada desde América Latina” Revista Perfiles Latinoamericanos 38: 39-64. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/115/11519271002.pdf ^
  9. Sen Gita “Empowerment as an approach to poverty”. Oxford: 1-245 ^
  10. Putman Robert. 2000. “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” New York: Simon & Schuster. ^
  11. Bebbington Anthony. 2001. Capital Social en los Andes. Quito: Abya-Yala. ^
  12. Durston, John. 2001. “Capital Social parte del problema parte de la solución”. CEPAL: 1-43 ^
  13. Narayan, Deepa, and Michael F. Cassidy. “A Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory.” Current Sociology 49:59–102. ^
  14. Espinoza, Vicente 2001, “Indicadores y generación de datos para un estudio comparativo de capital social y trayectorias laborales”. CEPAL 55: 23-32. ^
  15. Berdegué Julio, Bebbington Anthony, Escobal Javier. 2015. “Conceptualizando la diversidad espacial en el desarrollo rural latinoamericano: estructuras, instituciones y coalicionesCentro Latinoamericano para el Desarrollo Rural 165: 1-28. ^

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join the Facebook Group

Social Capital Research Group - a supportive community of people interested in social capital research

Do you want


to get more

Subscribe to get a free guide to social capital.

Free Guide to Social Capital






Enjoy luxury, exclusivity and discretion


Get 25% Off & Free Shipping On Your First Order. Enter Code WELL25SPE


Our guide has answers to key questions about social capital

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive our free guide about social capital with links to our extensive resources for futher information

No thanks, I don't want the guide
Scroll to Top