- Email: [email protected]
Social capital of cities: Emerging networks of horizontal assistance
Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181 www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc
Social capital of cities: Emerging networks of horizontal assistance Hilda Blanco a,1,*, Tim Campbell b a
Chair, Department of Urban Planning and Design, University of Washington, Box 355740, Gould Hall, Room 410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b Urban Advisor, City Management and Urban Development, World Bank Institute, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
Abstract After reviewing relevant global trends in city development and situating the work in the theoretical context of social capital literature, this paper reports on an empirical study of technical visits by cities from the developing world to Seattle, Washington. The paper reports on basic descriptive statistics and features of the visits that were in line with the approach to measure ‘structural’ social capital [Uphoff N. Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In: Dagupta P, I. Serageldin, editors. Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2000. Grootaert C, Van Bastelaer T. Understanding and measuring social capital. A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Forum series on the role of institutions in promoting economic growth. Washington, DC: USAID and IRIS; 2002, January 11]. Many areas emerged with potential policy or theoretical interest, for example, the transaction costs of information exchange, the role of mediating institutions, the payoff of facilitation and structured learning for city delegations, and the role of international development assistance organizations like the World Bank in facilitating such exchanges. The authors see the Seattle data as representative, in part, of the burgeoning exchanges between and among cities as they respond to new global pressures. Further study should explore the costs and the impact of the exchanges. Policy measures could guide and improve effectiveness of information flow as a new tool to achieve sustainable urban development. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C1 206 616 9057; fax: C1 206 685 9597. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Blanco). 1 The paper has been produced with the assistance in data collection and analysis of Sarah Dooling, Ph.D. student, and Shishir Mathur, Ph.D., Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington. The World Bank funded the research for the paper. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.
0160-791X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.002
170
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
Keywords: Measurement of social capital; City-to-city exchanges; Social networks; International development assistance agencies; Economic development
1. Introduction Cities are beginning to feel new pressure from the internal dynamics of decentralization as well as from external forces of shifting economic fortunes. One response to this pressure is a startling growth of technical delegations that visit cities and form channels of information flow about city management and best practice. However, it is one thing to be connected, and quite another to derive value through city networks to help create and maintain sustainable cities. This paper explores one case of a ‘mentor’ city, Seattle, Washington, and the creation of social capital there and among cities that send delegations to Seattle. The case illustrates how Seattle provides technical information—advice, lessons, approaches to regulatory frameworks, and scores of other topics—that can be useful to ‘sending’ delegations. This paper, and the study on which it is based, can be seen to fit in several streams of literature. Some recent work concentrates on the hierarchy and connectedness of cities, according to the extent to which they attract globally active firms [3] or have built up global command and control technology to communicate [4]. This paper looks ‘underneath’ this global plane to explore the active exchange of information and skills horizontally between and among cities seeking answers to policy and practice in managing cities. In this sense, the paper seeks to gauge the depth and scope of municipal international cooperation [5,6]. Another, more productive perspective, in our view, is that of social capital. The process of city visits can be characterized as part of the creation and exchange of social capital. Urban social capital of many kinds will become a resource and a measure of sustainability as cities move into a fast changing global environment. Social capital in the customary literature and policy circles is a popular way of talking about how social relations within a community can affect a community’s ability to engage residents and mobilize resources. This paper contends that international technical exchanges also build up social capital. The paper documents in detail the case of the city of Seattle, Washington and suggests, based on data from Seattle and extensive anecdotal evidence from elsewhere, that urban social capital is being created at the city level and is qualitatively different in kind and function than the conventional understanding. Most of the focus of the social capital literature has been on community development, placing an emphasis on the internal development of a community through voluntary associations. Putnam [7] distinguishes between bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital refers to those efforts that develop ties that bond members within a community, typically among people who share certain interests or values, or, in other words, bonding refers to internal links within a community. Bridging social capital refers to links across networks, connections that bridge demographic and social differences, or to external links. Beyond bonding and bridging types of social capital, Woolcock [8] identifies a third type, ‘linking’ social capital. This third type refers to the capital of individuals or communities to leverage resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community itself. Horizontal cooperation between and among cities around the world belongs in the bridging or linking categories of social capital. These exchanges disseminate information, and through the personal relations that they initiate, they have a potential for influencing future resource decisions among cities and countries. We believe that the networks of horizontal cooperation
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
171
Table 1 Urban population, 1950–2030 Midyear population (millions) Region
1950
1975
2000
2030
Urban World total High-income countries Middle and low income countries Asia Africa Europe Latin America and Caribbean North America Oceania
751 359 392 244 32 287 70 110 8
1543 562 981 592 102 455 198 180 15
2862 697 2165 1376 295 534 391 243 231
4981 825 4156 2679 787 540 608 335 32
Source: National Research Council, 2003 [9].
among cities are expanding and that these linkages constitute an important and largely unstudied means of social capital formation. 2. Backdrop of urban growth Important to the context of city-to-city exchange is both the growth in numbers and importance of cities over the past several decades. Recent projections by the National Academy of Sciences suggest a total urban population increase of more than 2 billion, by the year 2030 [9]. A very large fraction of this increase takes place in the developing world and is largely driven by natural increase from populations already urban. The old policy issue of keeping the migrants from coming to the city is now moot. The issue for cities is one of managing the change, and, for this, social capital is one of the most important resources for cities (Table 1). Even though the numbers are staggering, the sheer volume of urban populations is perhaps not the most important variable in managing sustainable cities. Of equal, if not greater importance, is the numbers of large cities on the globe. The numbers of sheer population expansion often blur our view of the more important unit of policy analysis: the cities themselves as organized units. Table 2 indicates that the number of million plus size cities on the planet will grow to around 500 by the year 2015. Cities as organized elements in national and regional arenas are growing in importance as corporate bodies with identities and stakes in the future. With decentralization, democratization, and globalization, cities now have more decisions to make, serve growing numbers of the urban poor, and a vastly more open political and economic system in which to operate. Decentralization in more than 80 countries has shifted political and Table 2 Numbers of cities by population size Size range
World total
More developed countries
Total developing countries
O10 M 5–10 M 1–5 M 0.5–1 M
21 37 496 507 1061
4 6 118 107 235
17 31 378 400 826
Source: National Research Council, 2003 [9].
172
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
decision making authority to local governments, often before they are ready to make good use of their new authority. Democratization has confronted cities with pressures of an unfamiliar paradigm of participatory choice making, for which many cities are also unprepared. Globalization reduces the protections that trade regimes once offered for uncompetitive urban industries. As trade protections disappear, city leaders are realizing that they must respond to new dimensions of competitiveness in attracting or keeping investments and creating jobs. 3. Policy responses: Seattle and the World Bank In turn, the World Bank has been adjusting its approach to poverty alleviation by paying more attention to cities in the context of its dialogue with national authorities. Though the Bank cannot lend directly to cities, it often agrees with governments on programs that aim to address systemic problems in cities, such as management, regulation, financial discipline, and the like. To take on these urban issues multiplies the Bank’s clientele a hundred-fold, and heightens the need for a partnership approach to urban development. One among many exploratory approaches is an experiment with the city of Seattle in which the city was challenged to engage in the development process. That challenge, laid before the city in 1998, was taken up by then Mayor Paul Schell and his administration. The city had already been engaged for decades with sister city relationships. Typically, sister cities associations involve the official recognition of the relationship by the top elected official and local legislative bodies, and the formation of an NGO that focuses attention on exchanges between the two cities. Such associations include members of the business community, government officials, members of NGOs, and members with ethnic affiliations to the sister city.2 Seattle has 21 such sister cities, the oldest alliance with the city of Bergen, Norway dating back to 1967. In addition, Seattle has a vigorous Trade Development Alliance (TDA), a unique partnership of governmental, private, and service agencies in the Greater Seattle area, including cities, counties, ports, and the Chamber of Commerce. The TDA acts to promote national and international trade in the greater Seattle area.3 4. Defining and measuring social capital Definition. Grootaert and van Bastelaer [2] provide a theoretical framework for the concept of social capital that goes beyond the popular distinction between bonding and bridging. By focusing explicitly on how social capital affects development,4 Grootaert and van Bastelaer offer an operationally relevant framework for study. Grootaert and van Bastelaer discuss scope, form, and channels of social capital. The scope of social capital can be characterized as: (a) ‘micro,’ as 2
See the web page for Sister Cities International (SCI), a non-profit organization that facilitates the formation of sister cities affiliations for further information on the concept of sister cities. SCI is a ‘diplomacy network creating and strengthening partnerships between U.S. and international communities in an effort to increase global cooperation at the municipal level, to promote cultural understanding and to stimulate economic development.’ (http://www.sister-cities. org, July 1, 2003.) 3 In addition to hosting visiting delegations, the Trade Development Alliance leads trade delegations at least annually to cities around the world. These delegations include high level local government officials, business and non-profit executives. 4 The interest in the concept of social capital is wide-ranging. Putnam’s early work on civic associations in Italy focused on the influence of civic associations in regional development; but the more recent work on the US is focused on social fragmentation and civic participation. Interest in social capital also stems from its correlation with better health, lower crime, and other social welfare measures [11, p.52–55].
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
173
in Robert Putnam’s study of civic associations in Italy (1993), where social capital refers to features of social organization, such as networks of individuals or households and associated norms and values; (b) ‘meso,’ as in James Coleman’s [10] definition of social capital, which recognizes vertical as well as horizontal associations within and among other entities, such as business firms; and (c) ‘macro,’ which includes the social and political environment that shapes social structures and goes beyond ‘the largely informal, and often local, horizontal and hierarchical relationships of the first two concepts, . and includes formal institutional relations and structures, such as the political regime, the rule of law, the court system, and civil and political liberties.’ [10, p.5–6] In addition, two forms of social capital can be distinguished at any of the levels above, ‘structural’ and ‘cognitive.’ Structural social capital is a more ‘objective and externally observable construct,’ since it is effective through ‘established roles, social networks, and other social structures supplemented by rules, procedures, and precedents.’ On the other hand, ‘Cognitive social capital refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs. It is, therefore, a more subjective and intangible concept.’ [1, p.6] Structural and cognitive capital may be complementary, but need not be. Participation in a neighborhood organization, or in cityto-city exchanges, need not be accompanied by strong personal connections among participants. Feelings of trust may linger long after a structural relationship ends. [1, p.7–8] Channels of social capital refer to the types of benefit streams that may accrue to social exchanges. Three benefit streams are hypothesized: (a) increasing the availability of information and a lowering of its costs; (b) facilitating collective decisions and implementation of collective action; and (c) reducing opportunistic behavior by community members (p.7–8). The present paper concerns itself with social exchanges between cities and involves governmental agencies, non-profits, business firms, and other institutions, as well as individuals in these agencies, making pertinent at least two levels of social capital, ‘meso’ and ‘macro.’ Also, the main form of social capital is, in Grootaert and van Bastelaer’s scheme, ‘structural,’ i.e. externally observable knowledge and information exchanged through interaction of city visits. We shall discuss the potential benefit streams from these exchanges at the conclusion of the paper. Measurement. Social capital has proved notoriously difficult to measure. A recent OECD study on the role of human and social capital on the well-being of nations states that, ‘measurement of social capital is still in its infancy.’ [11, p.43] However, a variety of indicators have been identified, such as the level of trust towards others, voter turnout, newspaper readership, participation in voluntary associations [7]; or the feeling that the community is spatially distinct, the degree to which residents work and socialize, the use of neighborhood facilities within a community, the presence and quality of neighborhood organizations [12]. But many attempts to measure social capital have been criticized. Portes [13, p.16] in his review of the literature notes the confounding of the causes and effects of social capital. Schuller, Baron and Field in a recent review [14, p.27–29] of the literature caution against the use of quantitative measures without regard for the validity of the measures, and of the danger of bundling up incommensurable things, such as beliefs, rules and networks. Grootaert and van Bastelaer [2, p.11] note that ‘social capital is difficult, if not impossible, to measure directly; for empirical purposes the use of proxy indicators is necessary.’ In their synthesis of the 12 studies of the social capital initiative (SCI), Grootaert and von Bastelaer find that social capital indicators vary geographically and sectorally, but that the studies demonstrated that ‘it is possible to measure social capital and its impact.’ [2, p.28] They indicate that the SCI studies show the usefulness of several proxies (summarized in Table 3) ‘for measuring social capital in a policy-relevant manner.’ [2, p.28]
174
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
Table 3 Types and measures of social capital Indicator
Type of social capital
Measures
Memberships in local associations
Structural
Trust and adherence to norms
Cognitive
Collective action as outcome
Both
Counting associations measuring functioning of institutions Expectations and experiences regarding trust Outcome measures
Source: authors.
This brief review of the literature and difficulties with measuring the concept helps to ‘map’ out the policy area of interest in this paper. This paper (and the study on which it is based) focuses on the ‘macro’ levels of social capital involving both government, private and non-profit institutions and their exchanges, and thus has relationships rather than individuals as the central concern of the study. The form of social capital studied is ‘structural’ rather than ‘cognitive,’ and thus the study has a more objective and externally observable subject. Instead of using a proxy for relations, e.g. the number of associations and networks, this study will provide a direct accounting of the extent and types of exchanges between Seattle and cities outside the US and is thus a direct measure of ‘structural’ social capital between cities. 5. Study objectives This study takes stock of the exchanges that occurred among principal government and the private and non-profit sectors in Seattle and similar agencies from cities within and outside the US during the year 2002. In particular, we were interested in tracking interchanges between Seattle organizations and organizations from cities in developing countries. Anecdotal evidence from Seattle and numerous other cities suggests that the numbers of exchanges is high and rich with content. A major objective of the study was to categorize the types of city-to-city assistance that occur during these exchanges. We identified several types of categories. The first type is related to the kind of exchange, which range from professional meetings, house visits, tours/cultural events, receptions, and speaking engagements. The second type of category relates to the topic or purpose of the visits. The following six categories accounted for the majority of the visits: Governance (including administrative, legal and political issues), Business (which includes trade, industry, economics, and finance), Media, Civil Society, Environment, and Education. Another category relates to the types of individuals or agencies visiting/visited. These ranged from businesses, government agencies, NGOs, higher education institutions, and business and professional associations. 6. Data sources Interviews with key officials made it evident that data on exchanges was not maintained in any systematic way nor were data comparable across different city agencies and institutions.5 5 In general, most agencies do not keep comprehensive records of visiting delegations. With the exception of the World Affairs Council, an agency that needs to track its work on an annual basis to obtain U.S. State Department funding, the agencies involved typically maintain paper records that provide brief summaries of visiting delegations.
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
175
Key sources of data included the International Affairs Office of the City, the Trade Development Alliance of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Seattle, the World Affairs Council, and the University of Washington. Initial interviews were helpful in identifying further sources of information and problems of comparability. Other sources of information included the Puget Sound Trade Development Alliance, a nonprofit funded by the City, County, and Chamber of Commerce that promotes trade and economic development through incoming and outgoing trade-oriented delegations, and the University of Washington. As the major research institution in the state, the University is a major partner in exchanges in the City. The University has an Office of International Exchanges that coordinates some exchanges, especially when they involve upper administration. But many schools and colleges within the University host delegations on their own. In addition, preliminary interviews revealed that several key actors in the region also host delegations that were not counted in our tabulations. Major corporations, such as Boeing and Microsoft, host many visiting delegations that we considered purely corporate. In addition, several state institutions, such as the Washington State China Relations Council, and the Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development, may also host city delegations that were not counted in our study. (See Annex one.) The data sources and informants did not make it possible to track specific costs of exchanges nor to follow-up or attempt to track the outcomes from particular exchanges. These are important areas of concern that need to be addressed in future work. The results of this study, therefore, do not provide a total accounting for all incoming city exchanges. They are likely to underestimate university exchanges by one quarter to one third. In addition, Seattle University also engages in international exchanges, some of which were captured by the World Affairs database. Microsoft and Boeing are also likely to host exchanges that are not fully captured by the agency databases compiled. 7. Results: emerging urban networks Although we are aware that the data sources and gathering methods probably undercount total numbers of exchanges, the level of sustained exchange still emerges as a potentially significant source of social capital. Moreover, the high level of visiting delegations, together with elements of self-selection and cost, represent forms of validity and effective demand. Table 4 summarizes the broad outlines about the exchanges discovered in this research. Features of visiting delegations. First, in terms of the scope and volume of the exchange, the total number of people in the 159 documented visits included total delegations of over 700. The flow of ‘visitors’ set in motion a large number of professional meetings, estimated at over 600. This represents a significant investment on the part of Seattle institutions, since many of these Table 4 Features of visits, City of Seattle, 2002 Delegations
Numbers
Incoming Total number of visitors Average duration of stay Total number of meetings Approximate number of Seattle personnel involved
159 714 4 days 620 2700–3700
Source: authors.
176
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
meetings involved several professionals, and countless hours of time in preparation and followup. All in all, counting professional staff involved in these exchanges, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700–3700 persons were engaged in some way. More than two-thirds of the ‘sending’ places were Asian. Part of this is due to Seattle’s position, and interests, around the Pacific Rim. Also, a large Asian-American population in Seattle probably contributes to this trend. The balance of visits comes from many parts of the developing world. The long distances traveled represent a significant investment on the part of Asian cities engaged in these exchanges. Some of the visits are paid for by international organizations, most are covered by sending countries. Further, average stays of around 4 days signify only part of the cost. Anecdotal evidence from sending cities gathered separately suggests that delegations visit several cities before or after Seattle. Sending agencies and purpose of visits. Visiting delegations were primarily of three types, government, business, or education officials. The major purposes of the delegations were business and trade, and, government initiated some of these visits. The second largest percentage of visits (Table 5) had to do with governance, in particular legal and administrative issues, but also governance and regulatory issues of education. The single largest fraction of delegations visited Seattle to explore regulatory frameworks connected to management of utilities, such as water and power. Another large fraction was interested in the system of management and administration in primary education. The University of Washington as a major research university in the US is also a large attractor of visiting delegations. The first category of information flows focused on trade and economic development is directly related to economic development. The latter two categories, public administration and the structure of institutions are strongly related or coincide with the political, institutional, and legal arrangements that support market activities and civic life [11, p.13]. Thus, about 70 percent of the delegations identified improved information flows that aid economic development directly or indirectly. Although the benefits associated with the information flows related to public administration and the structure of legal political and informal institutions accrue primarily to the visiting delegations, this is not necessarily the case with trade and business-oriented delegations. Many of the visiting delegations offered opportunities for new markets, construction materials, and for business investment and partnerships. These are opportunities in which institutions on both sides stand to benefit. Indeed, the investments Seattle makes through these exchanges, in conjunction with its relative proximity, are likely to contribute to its greater market share of trade with Asian cities. Table 5 Purpose of delegations and sending agencies by type Topical areas Governmental Business Education Arts and culture Civil society Environment Health Other Total Source: authors.
Sending agency 35 32 20 13
100
Purpose of meetings 22 33 12 9 7 7 2 8 100
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
177
Many cities are interested in trade and economic development efforts and seek information about city marketing and promotion. For instance, Chongquing delegation sought information for an upcoming annual trade fair and tourism festival. Delegates from the city of Fukuoka sought to promote business development and to learn about new building materials, and several cities in China requested information and direct exchange about the development and management of retail sales. In the area of public administration, delegations come to Seattle for its reputation as a green and clean city with open space and high quality outdoor environment. Delegations sought information on the administration of state land resources, policies related to littering, and measures to deal with illegal dumping. About seven per cent of the exchanges focused on environmental issues such as sustainable development, water quality, disaster management, and worldwide goals of sustainability. Still others are interested in administrative and management practices, such as procurement policies; the structure of legal, political and informal institutions, such as citizen involvement in government; management of NGOs in public decisions. Other delegations came to explore practices in the judicial system and intellectual property rights. Seattle’s multi-faceted port operations—in containers, ferries, airports, and commercial establishments at bayside—is a source of continuing exchange. The proportions of types of officials or agencies leading the visiting delegations are similar to their associated purposes, except that education officials play a larger role in exchanges than is reflected in delegations whose purpose was educational. On the ‘hosting’ side, the types of Seattle institution participating in professional meetings are primarily government agencies, businesses, NGOs, and educational institutions. Also relevant to the growing importance of city-to-city exchanges is the sheer proportion of city-related exchanges to total or national and regional delegations. For example, around 46 percent of the delegations organized by the World Affairs Council (WAC) and 42 percent of those arranged by the Trade Development Alliance (TDA) were based in cities, as opposed to regional or national institutions.6 In other words, city experience in Seattle in these instances is at least half directed to officials outside the purely urban domain. In part, this may be due to the many questions about the practical experience of decentralization, that is the administrative and financial devolution of power from central to local authorities in the many sending countries. 8. Interpretation of results Though this paper reports basic descriptive statistics and some category formation, in line with the approach to measure ‘structural’ social capital [1,2], many areas emerge which have potential policy or theoretical interest. For instance, three areas of further exploration include: (a) increase in the availability of information and a lowering of its cost; (b) facilitation of collective decisions and implementation of collective action; (c) economic benefits of the exchanges. Iimproving information flows. Exchanges between Seattle institutions and institutions from the visiting cities contribute to information flows that directly and indirectly effect economic development. But many questions arise as to the most effective way to facilitate information 6 Some caution in interpretation should be exercised here, since some of the WAC delegations included as city exchanges may have been representing individuals rather than cities.
178
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
flow and to measure the practical impact of the exchange. Since these types of exchanges are not currently tracked for outcomes, we cannot speculate on the quality of content. Nor is it possible to gauge the direct impact of these exchanges in terms of facilitating collective decisions, implementing collective actions, or reducing opportunistic behavior. Further work might help to clarify the quality and value of information in order to address these questions. Mediating institutions for the exchanges. Mediating institutions, such as Seattle’s Office of International Affairs, the Trade Development Alliance, the Community Affairs Office of the Port of Seattle, and the World Affairs Council were major partners in these exchanges and facilitated exchanges for the visiting delegations with other institutions and business firms in Seattle. Although its exchanges are not fully represented in this study, the University of Washington emerged as a major partner in many of these exchanges. These institutions are important mediating agents in the exchange of social capital between Seattle and other cities. They are repositories of knowledge on Seattle institutions, public, private, and non-profit and their interests. Once a visiting delegation approaches them with a specific interest, based on their experience, they can identify appropriate institutions and individuals for the visit. Their involvement represents a major portion of the investment that Seattle institutions make in sustaining these exchanges. Without their participation, many exchanges would either not have taken place, or would have involved much higher transaction costs in the form of a search for the appropriate institutions and arrangements for meetings. We suggest that greater value added can be derived by improving the sorting and guidance function in the host city, and by enhancing the learning process through dissemination of materials and more formal organization of the exchange sessions. Some cities, for instance Stockholm, have created a fee-for-service scheme operated out of the city’s office of international affairs to carry out this mediating function. Economic benefits and other impacts. Among the types of economic development benefits attributed in the literature to social capital are higher productivity in firms and organizations [11, p.57–59]. Also, Grootaert and van Bastelaer’s broader characterization of the streams of benefits, which accrue through participation by individuals in social networks or social capital, are relevant to the scale of social capital in our study. While it is not possible in the scope of this study to gauge the benefits for visiting (and visited) agencies, an important next step would be to conduct follow-up studies to track the scope, intensity, and impact on those individuals and agencies involved. A critical question is the extent to which new knowledge and learning is applied back home, and whether these applications make some progress toward more sustainable cities, in economic, social, or environmental terms. Other potential benefits. Of course Seattle itself benefits from the exchanges in multiple ways, for instance by reaffirming its position as a world city, extending and strengthening its contacts with present and potential trading partners, and gathering intelligence about the needs and interests of cities in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere. Second, the exchanges contribute in subtle and indirect ways to the idea of transparent, democratic governance and institutions. 9. Policy implications The exchange of information, skills, and best practice between and among cities in the size range of Seattle may be an important source of social capital creation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many, if not most cities, in the size range of Seattle engage in this exchange. Referring again to Table 3, recall that more than 200 cities around the developed world of more than half a million in population are in a position to take part in horizontal skill building; another
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
179
800 of the same size in the developing world can contribute also through so-called ‘south–south’ cooperation. In effect, the cities are already in an informational network about which we know far too little and for which national and international policy assistance is quite weak. However, until we strengthen our knowledge about the extent of the exchanges, the types of exchanges, and the typical results or outcomes of these exchanges, it is not possible to craft helpful policy. This small database from Seattle suggests that the critical role of capacity building—the increase of skills, technical knowledge, and creation of social capital can be sharpened and facilitated. Policies can help to facilitate good practice and exchanges can help cities find solutions to problems of water, waste, shelter, and management by tapping into sources of knowledge already existing in other cities and regions. For instance, the Seattle study highlights the mediating role of city agencies, such as Seattle’s International Affairs Office, Trade Development Alliance, or World Affairs Council, and that these agencies can provide a useful service in directing incoming delegations to productive exchanges. The study suggests that it would also be useful to track and evaluate exchanges, and to compile outcome data for both sending and receiving agencies. The Seattle study also suggests that a more organized mechanism to help structure exchanges, perhaps with the help of international organizations, might help to increase the incentives and the quality of knowledge for visiting cities. Recent work at the World Bank [15] suggests that it is possible to identify and encourage high potential leaders and cities, and doing so might enhance the outcome of city exchanges. 10. Conclusion The surprisingly active exchange in Seattle, together with anecdotal evidence from scores of other cities, suggests that a large potential for skill building and creation of social capital is already on the move around the globe. We interpret some of this movement as a healthy response by cities to global trends of the falling protective barriers that come with trade liberalization. These trends expose cities to new competitive pressures. At the same time, we suggest that part of the demand for information from sending cities is a response to the changing global balance of power between central states and local governments as nations move deeper into fiscal and political decentralization. Even if this view is not proven true (a wider view of city exchanges plus follow-up studies will help to determine its accuracy) the system of horizontal exchange promises to be a new tool to achieve sustainable development around the globe. Annex one A.1. Sources of information and data characteristics of exchanges Sources † Seattle’s Office of International Affairs. This agency is in charge of the Sister Cities programs (22 programs). † Puget Sound Trade Development Alliance. A non-profit funded by the City, County, and Chamber of Commerce that promotes trade and economic development through incoming and outgoing trade-oriented delegations. † World Affairs Council. A non-profit funded by the US State Department to host visiting delegations.
180
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
† Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle has Sister Port relations with 4, and affinity port relations with 7. † The University of Washington. As the major research institution in the state, the University is a major partner in exchanges in the City. The University has an Office of International Exchanges that coordinates some exchanges, especially when they involve upper administration. But many schools and colleges within the University host delegations on their own. † Major corporations, especially, Boeing and Microsoft also host many visiting delegations on their own. † Several state institutions, such as the Washington State China Relations Council, and Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development may also host city delegations. Data gathered † Date of exchange; † Organizations participating on both sides; † Contact person on the non-Seattle side (this would facilitate a follow-up study to determine consequences or results of the exchange in the receiving city); † Who organized the exchange on both sides (to trace the networks or hierarchies of these social exchanges within cities); † How many people participated and their approximate job titles; † The topic of the exchange; † Where it took place; † How long it took; † Whether there was preparation and an estimate of the time it took the Seattle agency to prepare for the meeting or exchange; † Incidental costs related to the exchange—official van use, reception, etc.; † How the Seattle organization rationalizes the use of personnel in such exchanges—i.e. how the time spent on the exchanges is categorized by the organization, e.g. marketing, public relations, community relations, trade and economic development, etc.; † Whether there was any follow-up or outcome from the specific exchange.
References [1] Uphoff N. Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In: Dagupta P, Serageldin I, editors. Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2000. [2] Grootaert C, Van Bastelaer T. Understanding and measuring social capital. A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Forum series on the role of institutions in promoting economic growth. Washington, DC: USAID and IRIS; 2002. January 11. [3] Taylor P, Walker DRJ. World cities: a first multivariate analysis of their service complexes. Urban Stud 2001;38(1): 23–47. [4] Sassen S. The global city. New York, London, Tokyo. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1991. [5] IULA/VNG. Local challenges to global change: a global perspective on municipal international cooperation. The Hague: SDU Publishers; 1995. [6] UN Habitat. City to city coooperation. Habitat Debate 2002;8(3). [7] Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2000.
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
181
[8] Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc 1998;27:151–208. [9] National Research Council. Cities transformed: demographic change and its implications in the developing world. In: Panel on Urban Population Dynamics, Montgomery MR, Stren R, Cohen B, Reed HE, editors. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [10] Coleman JC. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 1988;94:S95–S120. [11] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The well-being of nations: the role of human and social capital 2001. Paris. [12] Tempkin K, Rohe W. Social capital and neighborhood stability: an empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate 1998;9(1):61–8. [13] Portes A. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 1998;22:1–24. [14] Schuller T, Baron S, Field J. In: Baron S, Field J, Schuller T, editors. Social capital. Critical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 1–38. [15] Campbell T, Fuhr H. Leadership and innovation. World Bank Development Series: World Bank; 2004.
Further reading 1. Berry JM, Portney KE, Thomson K. The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 1993. 2. Briggs XS. Social capital and the cities: advice to change agents. Natl Civic Rev 1997;86(2):111–8. 3. Fine B. The World Bank’s speculation on social capital. In: Pincus JR, Winters JA, editors. Reinventing the World Bank. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2002. p. 203–21. 4. Gittell R, Thompson JP. Making social capital work: social capital and community economic development. In: Saegert S, Thompson JP, Warren MR, editors. Social capital and poor communities. New York: Russell Sage; 2001. p. 115–35. 5. Lin N. Social capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. 6. Maskell P. Social capital, innovation, and competitiveness. In: Baron S, Field J, Schuller T, editors. Social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 110–23. 7. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr 1995;6(1):65–78. Dr. Hilda Blanco is a professor and chair of the Department of Urban Design and Planning and co-director of the Northwest Center for Livable Communities at the University of Washington. She holds masters and doctoral degrees in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley. As a specialist in planning theory and urban growth management, she has published a book on planning theory, How to Think about Social Problems (1994), and articles in Urban Studies, Places, Journal of the American Planning Association, and other journals, and has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Planning Association and the Journal of Planning Education and Research. Tim Campbell advises the World Bank Insitute’s (WBI) program for developing capacity in cities of the Bank’s client countries. Before joining WBI, he was responsible for identifying changing demand and developing new Bank products and services for cities. He was the Bank-wide coordinator for City Development Strategies (CDS), a new analytical tool focusing on cities as the unit of analysis in national development. Previously, Mr. Campbell led the Urban Partnership, established by the Bank in 1997 to develop new tools to meet the needs of the Bank’s urban development agenda. From 1995 to 1997, he served as a member of the Advisory Group in Latin America and the Caribbean Region and was Chief of the Urban and Water Unit. Mr. Campbell has worked for more than 30 years in urban development with experience in scores of countries and hundreds of cities in Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. His areas of expertise include strategic planning, decentralization, urban policy, and the social and poverty impact of urban development. Before joining the Bank his consulting clients included private sector firms, governments, and international organizations. He lived in rural and small town Costa Rica for two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer. In addition to many policy papers on decentralization, Mr. Campbell has authored several books. ‘The Quiet Revolution,’ explores the rise of political participation in cities with the onset of decentralization in Latin America from 1983–1995 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003). A second book ‘Leadership and Innovation’ (World Bank, 2004) is a collection of case studies about the innovation process in leading local governments in Latin America. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from U.C. Berkeley (1966), a Master’s in City and Regional Planning from U.C. Berkeley (1970) and a Ph.D. in Urban Studies and Planning from M.I.T. (1980).
Social capital of cities: Emerging networks of horizontal assistance Hilda Blanco a,1,*, Tim Campbell b a
Chair, Department of Urban Planning and Design, University of Washington, Box 355740, Gould Hall, Room 410, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b Urban Advisor, City Management and Urban Development, World Bank Institute, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA
Abstract After reviewing relevant global trends in city development and situating the work in the theoretical context of social capital literature, this paper reports on an empirical study of technical visits by cities from the developing world to Seattle, Washington. The paper reports on basic descriptive statistics and features of the visits that were in line with the approach to measure ‘structural’ social capital [Uphoff N. Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In: Dagupta P, I. Serageldin, editors. Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2000. Grootaert C, Van Bastelaer T. Understanding and measuring social capital. A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Forum series on the role of institutions in promoting economic growth. Washington, DC: USAID and IRIS; 2002, January 11]. Many areas emerged with potential policy or theoretical interest, for example, the transaction costs of information exchange, the role of mediating institutions, the payoff of facilitation and structured learning for city delegations, and the role of international development assistance organizations like the World Bank in facilitating such exchanges. The authors see the Seattle data as representative, in part, of the burgeoning exchanges between and among cities as they respond to new global pressures. Further study should explore the costs and the impact of the exchanges. Policy measures could guide and improve effectiveness of information flow as a new tool to achieve sustainable urban development. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C1 206 616 9057; fax: C1 206 685 9597. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Blanco). 1 The paper has been produced with the assistance in data collection and analysis of Sarah Dooling, Ph.D. student, and Shishir Mathur, Ph.D., Interdisciplinary Ph.D. Program in Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington. The World Bank funded the research for the paper. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank cannot guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.
0160-791X/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.002
170
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
Keywords: Measurement of social capital; City-to-city exchanges; Social networks; International development assistance agencies; Economic development
1. Introduction Cities are beginning to feel new pressure from the internal dynamics of decentralization as well as from external forces of shifting economic fortunes. One response to this pressure is a startling growth of technical delegations that visit cities and form channels of information flow about city management and best practice. However, it is one thing to be connected, and quite another to derive value through city networks to help create and maintain sustainable cities. This paper explores one case of a ‘mentor’ city, Seattle, Washington, and the creation of social capital there and among cities that send delegations to Seattle. The case illustrates how Seattle provides technical information—advice, lessons, approaches to regulatory frameworks, and scores of other topics—that can be useful to ‘sending’ delegations. This paper, and the study on which it is based, can be seen to fit in several streams of literature. Some recent work concentrates on the hierarchy and connectedness of cities, according to the extent to which they attract globally active firms [3] or have built up global command and control technology to communicate [4]. This paper looks ‘underneath’ this global plane to explore the active exchange of information and skills horizontally between and among cities seeking answers to policy and practice in managing cities. In this sense, the paper seeks to gauge the depth and scope of municipal international cooperation [5,6]. Another, more productive perspective, in our view, is that of social capital. The process of city visits can be characterized as part of the creation and exchange of social capital. Urban social capital of many kinds will become a resource and a measure of sustainability as cities move into a fast changing global environment. Social capital in the customary literature and policy circles is a popular way of talking about how social relations within a community can affect a community’s ability to engage residents and mobilize resources. This paper contends that international technical exchanges also build up social capital. The paper documents in detail the case of the city of Seattle, Washington and suggests, based on data from Seattle and extensive anecdotal evidence from elsewhere, that urban social capital is being created at the city level and is qualitatively different in kind and function than the conventional understanding. Most of the focus of the social capital literature has been on community development, placing an emphasis on the internal development of a community through voluntary associations. Putnam [7] distinguishes between bonding and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital refers to those efforts that develop ties that bond members within a community, typically among people who share certain interests or values, or, in other words, bonding refers to internal links within a community. Bridging social capital refers to links across networks, connections that bridge demographic and social differences, or to external links. Beyond bonding and bridging types of social capital, Woolcock [8] identifies a third type, ‘linking’ social capital. This third type refers to the capital of individuals or communities to leverage resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community itself. Horizontal cooperation between and among cities around the world belongs in the bridging or linking categories of social capital. These exchanges disseminate information, and through the personal relations that they initiate, they have a potential for influencing future resource decisions among cities and countries. We believe that the networks of horizontal cooperation
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
171
Table 1 Urban population, 1950–2030 Midyear population (millions) Region
1950
1975
2000
2030
Urban World total High-income countries Middle and low income countries Asia Africa Europe Latin America and Caribbean North America Oceania
751 359 392 244 32 287 70 110 8
1543 562 981 592 102 455 198 180 15
2862 697 2165 1376 295 534 391 243 231
4981 825 4156 2679 787 540 608 335 32
Source: National Research Council, 2003 [9].
among cities are expanding and that these linkages constitute an important and largely unstudied means of social capital formation. 2. Backdrop of urban growth Important to the context of city-to-city exchange is both the growth in numbers and importance of cities over the past several decades. Recent projections by the National Academy of Sciences suggest a total urban population increase of more than 2 billion, by the year 2030 [9]. A very large fraction of this increase takes place in the developing world and is largely driven by natural increase from populations already urban. The old policy issue of keeping the migrants from coming to the city is now moot. The issue for cities is one of managing the change, and, for this, social capital is one of the most important resources for cities (Table 1). Even though the numbers are staggering, the sheer volume of urban populations is perhaps not the most important variable in managing sustainable cities. Of equal, if not greater importance, is the numbers of large cities on the globe. The numbers of sheer population expansion often blur our view of the more important unit of policy analysis: the cities themselves as organized units. Table 2 indicates that the number of million plus size cities on the planet will grow to around 500 by the year 2015. Cities as organized elements in national and regional arenas are growing in importance as corporate bodies with identities and stakes in the future. With decentralization, democratization, and globalization, cities now have more decisions to make, serve growing numbers of the urban poor, and a vastly more open political and economic system in which to operate. Decentralization in more than 80 countries has shifted political and Table 2 Numbers of cities by population size Size range
World total
More developed countries
Total developing countries
O10 M 5–10 M 1–5 M 0.5–1 M
21 37 496 507 1061
4 6 118 107 235
17 31 378 400 826
Source: National Research Council, 2003 [9].
172
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
decision making authority to local governments, often before they are ready to make good use of their new authority. Democratization has confronted cities with pressures of an unfamiliar paradigm of participatory choice making, for which many cities are also unprepared. Globalization reduces the protections that trade regimes once offered for uncompetitive urban industries. As trade protections disappear, city leaders are realizing that they must respond to new dimensions of competitiveness in attracting or keeping investments and creating jobs. 3. Policy responses: Seattle and the World Bank In turn, the World Bank has been adjusting its approach to poverty alleviation by paying more attention to cities in the context of its dialogue with national authorities. Though the Bank cannot lend directly to cities, it often agrees with governments on programs that aim to address systemic problems in cities, such as management, regulation, financial discipline, and the like. To take on these urban issues multiplies the Bank’s clientele a hundred-fold, and heightens the need for a partnership approach to urban development. One among many exploratory approaches is an experiment with the city of Seattle in which the city was challenged to engage in the development process. That challenge, laid before the city in 1998, was taken up by then Mayor Paul Schell and his administration. The city had already been engaged for decades with sister city relationships. Typically, sister cities associations involve the official recognition of the relationship by the top elected official and local legislative bodies, and the formation of an NGO that focuses attention on exchanges between the two cities. Such associations include members of the business community, government officials, members of NGOs, and members with ethnic affiliations to the sister city.2 Seattle has 21 such sister cities, the oldest alliance with the city of Bergen, Norway dating back to 1967. In addition, Seattle has a vigorous Trade Development Alliance (TDA), a unique partnership of governmental, private, and service agencies in the Greater Seattle area, including cities, counties, ports, and the Chamber of Commerce. The TDA acts to promote national and international trade in the greater Seattle area.3 4. Defining and measuring social capital Definition. Grootaert and van Bastelaer [2] provide a theoretical framework for the concept of social capital that goes beyond the popular distinction between bonding and bridging. By focusing explicitly on how social capital affects development,4 Grootaert and van Bastelaer offer an operationally relevant framework for study. Grootaert and van Bastelaer discuss scope, form, and channels of social capital. The scope of social capital can be characterized as: (a) ‘micro,’ as 2
See the web page for Sister Cities International (SCI), a non-profit organization that facilitates the formation of sister cities affiliations for further information on the concept of sister cities. SCI is a ‘diplomacy network creating and strengthening partnerships between U.S. and international communities in an effort to increase global cooperation at the municipal level, to promote cultural understanding and to stimulate economic development.’ (http://www.sister-cities. org, July 1, 2003.) 3 In addition to hosting visiting delegations, the Trade Development Alliance leads trade delegations at least annually to cities around the world. These delegations include high level local government officials, business and non-profit executives. 4 The interest in the concept of social capital is wide-ranging. Putnam’s early work on civic associations in Italy focused on the influence of civic associations in regional development; but the more recent work on the US is focused on social fragmentation and civic participation. Interest in social capital also stems from its correlation with better health, lower crime, and other social welfare measures [11, p.52–55].
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
173
in Robert Putnam’s study of civic associations in Italy (1993), where social capital refers to features of social organization, such as networks of individuals or households and associated norms and values; (b) ‘meso,’ as in James Coleman’s [10] definition of social capital, which recognizes vertical as well as horizontal associations within and among other entities, such as business firms; and (c) ‘macro,’ which includes the social and political environment that shapes social structures and goes beyond ‘the largely informal, and often local, horizontal and hierarchical relationships of the first two concepts, . and includes formal institutional relations and structures, such as the political regime, the rule of law, the court system, and civil and political liberties.’ [10, p.5–6] In addition, two forms of social capital can be distinguished at any of the levels above, ‘structural’ and ‘cognitive.’ Structural social capital is a more ‘objective and externally observable construct,’ since it is effective through ‘established roles, social networks, and other social structures supplemented by rules, procedures, and precedents.’ On the other hand, ‘Cognitive social capital refers to shared norms, values, trust, attitudes, and beliefs. It is, therefore, a more subjective and intangible concept.’ [1, p.6] Structural and cognitive capital may be complementary, but need not be. Participation in a neighborhood organization, or in cityto-city exchanges, need not be accompanied by strong personal connections among participants. Feelings of trust may linger long after a structural relationship ends. [1, p.7–8] Channels of social capital refer to the types of benefit streams that may accrue to social exchanges. Three benefit streams are hypothesized: (a) increasing the availability of information and a lowering of its costs; (b) facilitating collective decisions and implementation of collective action; and (c) reducing opportunistic behavior by community members (p.7–8). The present paper concerns itself with social exchanges between cities and involves governmental agencies, non-profits, business firms, and other institutions, as well as individuals in these agencies, making pertinent at least two levels of social capital, ‘meso’ and ‘macro.’ Also, the main form of social capital is, in Grootaert and van Bastelaer’s scheme, ‘structural,’ i.e. externally observable knowledge and information exchanged through interaction of city visits. We shall discuss the potential benefit streams from these exchanges at the conclusion of the paper. Measurement. Social capital has proved notoriously difficult to measure. A recent OECD study on the role of human and social capital on the well-being of nations states that, ‘measurement of social capital is still in its infancy.’ [11, p.43] However, a variety of indicators have been identified, such as the level of trust towards others, voter turnout, newspaper readership, participation in voluntary associations [7]; or the feeling that the community is spatially distinct, the degree to which residents work and socialize, the use of neighborhood facilities within a community, the presence and quality of neighborhood organizations [12]. But many attempts to measure social capital have been criticized. Portes [13, p.16] in his review of the literature notes the confounding of the causes and effects of social capital. Schuller, Baron and Field in a recent review [14, p.27–29] of the literature caution against the use of quantitative measures without regard for the validity of the measures, and of the danger of bundling up incommensurable things, such as beliefs, rules and networks. Grootaert and van Bastelaer [2, p.11] note that ‘social capital is difficult, if not impossible, to measure directly; for empirical purposes the use of proxy indicators is necessary.’ In their synthesis of the 12 studies of the social capital initiative (SCI), Grootaert and von Bastelaer find that social capital indicators vary geographically and sectorally, but that the studies demonstrated that ‘it is possible to measure social capital and its impact.’ [2, p.28] They indicate that the SCI studies show the usefulness of several proxies (summarized in Table 3) ‘for measuring social capital in a policy-relevant manner.’ [2, p.28]
174
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
Table 3 Types and measures of social capital Indicator
Type of social capital
Measures
Memberships in local associations
Structural
Trust and adherence to norms
Cognitive
Collective action as outcome
Both
Counting associations measuring functioning of institutions Expectations and experiences regarding trust Outcome measures
Source: authors.
This brief review of the literature and difficulties with measuring the concept helps to ‘map’ out the policy area of interest in this paper. This paper (and the study on which it is based) focuses on the ‘macro’ levels of social capital involving both government, private and non-profit institutions and their exchanges, and thus has relationships rather than individuals as the central concern of the study. The form of social capital studied is ‘structural’ rather than ‘cognitive,’ and thus the study has a more objective and externally observable subject. Instead of using a proxy for relations, e.g. the number of associations and networks, this study will provide a direct accounting of the extent and types of exchanges between Seattle and cities outside the US and is thus a direct measure of ‘structural’ social capital between cities. 5. Study objectives This study takes stock of the exchanges that occurred among principal government and the private and non-profit sectors in Seattle and similar agencies from cities within and outside the US during the year 2002. In particular, we were interested in tracking interchanges between Seattle organizations and organizations from cities in developing countries. Anecdotal evidence from Seattle and numerous other cities suggests that the numbers of exchanges is high and rich with content. A major objective of the study was to categorize the types of city-to-city assistance that occur during these exchanges. We identified several types of categories. The first type is related to the kind of exchange, which range from professional meetings, house visits, tours/cultural events, receptions, and speaking engagements. The second type of category relates to the topic or purpose of the visits. The following six categories accounted for the majority of the visits: Governance (including administrative, legal and political issues), Business (which includes trade, industry, economics, and finance), Media, Civil Society, Environment, and Education. Another category relates to the types of individuals or agencies visiting/visited. These ranged from businesses, government agencies, NGOs, higher education institutions, and business and professional associations. 6. Data sources Interviews with key officials made it evident that data on exchanges was not maintained in any systematic way nor were data comparable across different city agencies and institutions.5 5 In general, most agencies do not keep comprehensive records of visiting delegations. With the exception of the World Affairs Council, an agency that needs to track its work on an annual basis to obtain U.S. State Department funding, the agencies involved typically maintain paper records that provide brief summaries of visiting delegations.
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
175
Key sources of data included the International Affairs Office of the City, the Trade Development Alliance of the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the Port of Seattle, the World Affairs Council, and the University of Washington. Initial interviews were helpful in identifying further sources of information and problems of comparability. Other sources of information included the Puget Sound Trade Development Alliance, a nonprofit funded by the City, County, and Chamber of Commerce that promotes trade and economic development through incoming and outgoing trade-oriented delegations, and the University of Washington. As the major research institution in the state, the University is a major partner in exchanges in the City. The University has an Office of International Exchanges that coordinates some exchanges, especially when they involve upper administration. But many schools and colleges within the University host delegations on their own. In addition, preliminary interviews revealed that several key actors in the region also host delegations that were not counted in our tabulations. Major corporations, such as Boeing and Microsoft, host many visiting delegations that we considered purely corporate. In addition, several state institutions, such as the Washington State China Relations Council, and the Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development, may also host city delegations that were not counted in our study. (See Annex one.) The data sources and informants did not make it possible to track specific costs of exchanges nor to follow-up or attempt to track the outcomes from particular exchanges. These are important areas of concern that need to be addressed in future work. The results of this study, therefore, do not provide a total accounting for all incoming city exchanges. They are likely to underestimate university exchanges by one quarter to one third. In addition, Seattle University also engages in international exchanges, some of which were captured by the World Affairs database. Microsoft and Boeing are also likely to host exchanges that are not fully captured by the agency databases compiled. 7. Results: emerging urban networks Although we are aware that the data sources and gathering methods probably undercount total numbers of exchanges, the level of sustained exchange still emerges as a potentially significant source of social capital. Moreover, the high level of visiting delegations, together with elements of self-selection and cost, represent forms of validity and effective demand. Table 4 summarizes the broad outlines about the exchanges discovered in this research. Features of visiting delegations. First, in terms of the scope and volume of the exchange, the total number of people in the 159 documented visits included total delegations of over 700. The flow of ‘visitors’ set in motion a large number of professional meetings, estimated at over 600. This represents a significant investment on the part of Seattle institutions, since many of these Table 4 Features of visits, City of Seattle, 2002 Delegations
Numbers
Incoming Total number of visitors Average duration of stay Total number of meetings Approximate number of Seattle personnel involved
159 714 4 days 620 2700–3700
Source: authors.
176
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
meetings involved several professionals, and countless hours of time in preparation and followup. All in all, counting professional staff involved in these exchanges, somewhere in the neighborhood of 2700–3700 persons were engaged in some way. More than two-thirds of the ‘sending’ places were Asian. Part of this is due to Seattle’s position, and interests, around the Pacific Rim. Also, a large Asian-American population in Seattle probably contributes to this trend. The balance of visits comes from many parts of the developing world. The long distances traveled represent a significant investment on the part of Asian cities engaged in these exchanges. Some of the visits are paid for by international organizations, most are covered by sending countries. Further, average stays of around 4 days signify only part of the cost. Anecdotal evidence from sending cities gathered separately suggests that delegations visit several cities before or after Seattle. Sending agencies and purpose of visits. Visiting delegations were primarily of three types, government, business, or education officials. The major purposes of the delegations were business and trade, and, government initiated some of these visits. The second largest percentage of visits (Table 5) had to do with governance, in particular legal and administrative issues, but also governance and regulatory issues of education. The single largest fraction of delegations visited Seattle to explore regulatory frameworks connected to management of utilities, such as water and power. Another large fraction was interested in the system of management and administration in primary education. The University of Washington as a major research university in the US is also a large attractor of visiting delegations. The first category of information flows focused on trade and economic development is directly related to economic development. The latter two categories, public administration and the structure of institutions are strongly related or coincide with the political, institutional, and legal arrangements that support market activities and civic life [11, p.13]. Thus, about 70 percent of the delegations identified improved information flows that aid economic development directly or indirectly. Although the benefits associated with the information flows related to public administration and the structure of legal political and informal institutions accrue primarily to the visiting delegations, this is not necessarily the case with trade and business-oriented delegations. Many of the visiting delegations offered opportunities for new markets, construction materials, and for business investment and partnerships. These are opportunities in which institutions on both sides stand to benefit. Indeed, the investments Seattle makes through these exchanges, in conjunction with its relative proximity, are likely to contribute to its greater market share of trade with Asian cities. Table 5 Purpose of delegations and sending agencies by type Topical areas Governmental Business Education Arts and culture Civil society Environment Health Other Total Source: authors.
Sending agency 35 32 20 13
100
Purpose of meetings 22 33 12 9 7 7 2 8 100
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
177
Many cities are interested in trade and economic development efforts and seek information about city marketing and promotion. For instance, Chongquing delegation sought information for an upcoming annual trade fair and tourism festival. Delegates from the city of Fukuoka sought to promote business development and to learn about new building materials, and several cities in China requested information and direct exchange about the development and management of retail sales. In the area of public administration, delegations come to Seattle for its reputation as a green and clean city with open space and high quality outdoor environment. Delegations sought information on the administration of state land resources, policies related to littering, and measures to deal with illegal dumping. About seven per cent of the exchanges focused on environmental issues such as sustainable development, water quality, disaster management, and worldwide goals of sustainability. Still others are interested in administrative and management practices, such as procurement policies; the structure of legal, political and informal institutions, such as citizen involvement in government; management of NGOs in public decisions. Other delegations came to explore practices in the judicial system and intellectual property rights. Seattle’s multi-faceted port operations—in containers, ferries, airports, and commercial establishments at bayside—is a source of continuing exchange. The proportions of types of officials or agencies leading the visiting delegations are similar to their associated purposes, except that education officials play a larger role in exchanges than is reflected in delegations whose purpose was educational. On the ‘hosting’ side, the types of Seattle institution participating in professional meetings are primarily government agencies, businesses, NGOs, and educational institutions. Also relevant to the growing importance of city-to-city exchanges is the sheer proportion of city-related exchanges to total or national and regional delegations. For example, around 46 percent of the delegations organized by the World Affairs Council (WAC) and 42 percent of those arranged by the Trade Development Alliance (TDA) were based in cities, as opposed to regional or national institutions.6 In other words, city experience in Seattle in these instances is at least half directed to officials outside the purely urban domain. In part, this may be due to the many questions about the practical experience of decentralization, that is the administrative and financial devolution of power from central to local authorities in the many sending countries. 8. Interpretation of results Though this paper reports basic descriptive statistics and some category formation, in line with the approach to measure ‘structural’ social capital [1,2], many areas emerge which have potential policy or theoretical interest. For instance, three areas of further exploration include: (a) increase in the availability of information and a lowering of its cost; (b) facilitation of collective decisions and implementation of collective action; (c) economic benefits of the exchanges. Iimproving information flows. Exchanges between Seattle institutions and institutions from the visiting cities contribute to information flows that directly and indirectly effect economic development. But many questions arise as to the most effective way to facilitate information 6 Some caution in interpretation should be exercised here, since some of the WAC delegations included as city exchanges may have been representing individuals rather than cities.
178
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
flow and to measure the practical impact of the exchange. Since these types of exchanges are not currently tracked for outcomes, we cannot speculate on the quality of content. Nor is it possible to gauge the direct impact of these exchanges in terms of facilitating collective decisions, implementing collective actions, or reducing opportunistic behavior. Further work might help to clarify the quality and value of information in order to address these questions. Mediating institutions for the exchanges. Mediating institutions, such as Seattle’s Office of International Affairs, the Trade Development Alliance, the Community Affairs Office of the Port of Seattle, and the World Affairs Council were major partners in these exchanges and facilitated exchanges for the visiting delegations with other institutions and business firms in Seattle. Although its exchanges are not fully represented in this study, the University of Washington emerged as a major partner in many of these exchanges. These institutions are important mediating agents in the exchange of social capital between Seattle and other cities. They are repositories of knowledge on Seattle institutions, public, private, and non-profit and their interests. Once a visiting delegation approaches them with a specific interest, based on their experience, they can identify appropriate institutions and individuals for the visit. Their involvement represents a major portion of the investment that Seattle institutions make in sustaining these exchanges. Without their participation, many exchanges would either not have taken place, or would have involved much higher transaction costs in the form of a search for the appropriate institutions and arrangements for meetings. We suggest that greater value added can be derived by improving the sorting and guidance function in the host city, and by enhancing the learning process through dissemination of materials and more formal organization of the exchange sessions. Some cities, for instance Stockholm, have created a fee-for-service scheme operated out of the city’s office of international affairs to carry out this mediating function. Economic benefits and other impacts. Among the types of economic development benefits attributed in the literature to social capital are higher productivity in firms and organizations [11, p.57–59]. Also, Grootaert and van Bastelaer’s broader characterization of the streams of benefits, which accrue through participation by individuals in social networks or social capital, are relevant to the scale of social capital in our study. While it is not possible in the scope of this study to gauge the benefits for visiting (and visited) agencies, an important next step would be to conduct follow-up studies to track the scope, intensity, and impact on those individuals and agencies involved. A critical question is the extent to which new knowledge and learning is applied back home, and whether these applications make some progress toward more sustainable cities, in economic, social, or environmental terms. Other potential benefits. Of course Seattle itself benefits from the exchanges in multiple ways, for instance by reaffirming its position as a world city, extending and strengthening its contacts with present and potential trading partners, and gathering intelligence about the needs and interests of cities in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere. Second, the exchanges contribute in subtle and indirect ways to the idea of transparent, democratic governance and institutions. 9. Policy implications The exchange of information, skills, and best practice between and among cities in the size range of Seattle may be an important source of social capital creation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many, if not most cities, in the size range of Seattle engage in this exchange. Referring again to Table 3, recall that more than 200 cities around the developed world of more than half a million in population are in a position to take part in horizontal skill building; another
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
179
800 of the same size in the developing world can contribute also through so-called ‘south–south’ cooperation. In effect, the cities are already in an informational network about which we know far too little and for which national and international policy assistance is quite weak. However, until we strengthen our knowledge about the extent of the exchanges, the types of exchanges, and the typical results or outcomes of these exchanges, it is not possible to craft helpful policy. This small database from Seattle suggests that the critical role of capacity building—the increase of skills, technical knowledge, and creation of social capital can be sharpened and facilitated. Policies can help to facilitate good practice and exchanges can help cities find solutions to problems of water, waste, shelter, and management by tapping into sources of knowledge already existing in other cities and regions. For instance, the Seattle study highlights the mediating role of city agencies, such as Seattle’s International Affairs Office, Trade Development Alliance, or World Affairs Council, and that these agencies can provide a useful service in directing incoming delegations to productive exchanges. The study suggests that it would also be useful to track and evaluate exchanges, and to compile outcome data for both sending and receiving agencies. The Seattle study also suggests that a more organized mechanism to help structure exchanges, perhaps with the help of international organizations, might help to increase the incentives and the quality of knowledge for visiting cities. Recent work at the World Bank [15] suggests that it is possible to identify and encourage high potential leaders and cities, and doing so might enhance the outcome of city exchanges. 10. Conclusion The surprisingly active exchange in Seattle, together with anecdotal evidence from scores of other cities, suggests that a large potential for skill building and creation of social capital is already on the move around the globe. We interpret some of this movement as a healthy response by cities to global trends of the falling protective barriers that come with trade liberalization. These trends expose cities to new competitive pressures. At the same time, we suggest that part of the demand for information from sending cities is a response to the changing global balance of power between central states and local governments as nations move deeper into fiscal and political decentralization. Even if this view is not proven true (a wider view of city exchanges plus follow-up studies will help to determine its accuracy) the system of horizontal exchange promises to be a new tool to achieve sustainable development around the globe. Annex one A.1. Sources of information and data characteristics of exchanges Sources † Seattle’s Office of International Affairs. This agency is in charge of the Sister Cities programs (22 programs). † Puget Sound Trade Development Alliance. A non-profit funded by the City, County, and Chamber of Commerce that promotes trade and economic development through incoming and outgoing trade-oriented delegations. † World Affairs Council. A non-profit funded by the US State Department to host visiting delegations.
180
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
† Port of Seattle. The Port of Seattle has Sister Port relations with 4, and affinity port relations with 7. † The University of Washington. As the major research institution in the state, the University is a major partner in exchanges in the City. The University has an Office of International Exchanges that coordinates some exchanges, especially when they involve upper administration. But many schools and colleges within the University host delegations on their own. † Major corporations, especially, Boeing and Microsoft also host many visiting delegations on their own. † Several state institutions, such as the Washington State China Relations Council, and Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development may also host city delegations. Data gathered † Date of exchange; † Organizations participating on both sides; † Contact person on the non-Seattle side (this would facilitate a follow-up study to determine consequences or results of the exchange in the receiving city); † Who organized the exchange on both sides (to trace the networks or hierarchies of these social exchanges within cities); † How many people participated and their approximate job titles; † The topic of the exchange; † Where it took place; † How long it took; † Whether there was preparation and an estimate of the time it took the Seattle agency to prepare for the meeting or exchange; † Incidental costs related to the exchange—official van use, reception, etc.; † How the Seattle organization rationalizes the use of personnel in such exchanges—i.e. how the time spent on the exchanges is categorized by the organization, e.g. marketing, public relations, community relations, trade and economic development, etc.; † Whether there was any follow-up or outcome from the specific exchange.
References [1] Uphoff N. Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience of participation. In: Dagupta P, Serageldin I, editors. Social capital: a multifaceted perspective. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2000. [2] Grootaert C, Van Bastelaer T. Understanding and measuring social capital. A synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative. Forum series on the role of institutions in promoting economic growth. Washington, DC: USAID and IRIS; 2002. January 11. [3] Taylor P, Walker DRJ. World cities: a first multivariate analysis of their service complexes. Urban Stud 2001;38(1): 23–47. [4] Sassen S. The global city. New York, London, Tokyo. New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 1991. [5] IULA/VNG. Local challenges to global change: a global perspective on municipal international cooperation. The Hague: SDU Publishers; 1995. [6] UN Habitat. City to city coooperation. Habitat Debate 2002;8(3). [7] Putnam R. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2000.
H. Blanco, T. Campbell / Technology in Society 28 (2006) 169–181
181
[8] Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc 1998;27:151–208. [9] National Research Council. Cities transformed: demographic change and its implications in the developing world. In: Panel on Urban Population Dynamics, Montgomery MR, Stren R, Cohen B, Reed HE, editors. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [10] Coleman JC. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 1988;94:S95–S120. [11] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The well-being of nations: the role of human and social capital 2001. Paris. [12] Tempkin K, Rohe W. Social capital and neighborhood stability: an empirical investigation. Housing Policy Debate 1998;9(1):61–8. [13] Portes A. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 1998;22:1–24. [14] Schuller T, Baron S, Field J. In: Baron S, Field J, Schuller T, editors. Social capital. Critical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 1–38. [15] Campbell T, Fuhr H. Leadership and innovation. World Bank Development Series: World Bank; 2004.
Further reading 1. Berry JM, Portney KE, Thomson K. The rebirth of urban democracy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 1993. 2. Briggs XS. Social capital and the cities: advice to change agents. Natl Civic Rev 1997;86(2):111–8. 3. Fine B. The World Bank’s speculation on social capital. In: Pincus JR, Winters JA, editors. Reinventing the World Bank. Ithaca: Cornell University Press; 2002. p. 203–21. 4. Gittell R, Thompson JP. Making social capital work: social capital and community economic development. In: Saegert S, Thompson JP, Warren MR, editors. Social capital and poor communities. New York: Russell Sage; 2001. p. 115–35. 5. Lin N. Social capital. A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. 6. Maskell P. Social capital, innovation, and competitiveness. In: Baron S, Field J, Schuller T, editors. Social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 110–23. 7. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr 1995;6(1):65–78. Dr. Hilda Blanco is a professor and chair of the Department of Urban Design and Planning and co-director of the Northwest Center for Livable Communities at the University of Washington. She holds masters and doctoral degrees in city and regional planning from the University of California at Berkeley. As a specialist in planning theory and urban growth management, she has published a book on planning theory, How to Think about Social Problems (1994), and articles in Urban Studies, Places, Journal of the American Planning Association, and other journals, and has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of the American Planning Association and the Journal of Planning Education and Research. Tim Campbell advises the World Bank Insitute’s (WBI) program for developing capacity in cities of the Bank’s client countries. Before joining WBI, he was responsible for identifying changing demand and developing new Bank products and services for cities. He was the Bank-wide coordinator for City Development Strategies (CDS), a new analytical tool focusing on cities as the unit of analysis in national development. Previously, Mr. Campbell led the Urban Partnership, established by the Bank in 1997 to develop new tools to meet the needs of the Bank’s urban development agenda. From 1995 to 1997, he served as a member of the Advisory Group in Latin America and the Caribbean Region and was Chief of the Urban and Water Unit. Mr. Campbell has worked for more than 30 years in urban development with experience in scores of countries and hundreds of cities in Latin America, Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa. His areas of expertise include strategic planning, decentralization, urban policy, and the social and poverty impact of urban development. Before joining the Bank his consulting clients included private sector firms, governments, and international organizations. He lived in rural and small town Costa Rica for two years as a Peace Corps Volunteer. In addition to many policy papers on decentralization, Mr. Campbell has authored several books. ‘The Quiet Revolution,’ explores the rise of political participation in cities with the onset of decentralization in Latin America from 1983–1995 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2003). A second book ‘Leadership and Innovation’ (World Bank, 2004) is a collection of case studies about the innovation process in leading local governments in Latin America. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from U.C. Berkeley (1966), a Master’s in City and Regional Planning from U.C. Berkeley (1970) and a Ph.D. in Urban Studies and Planning from M.I.T. (1980).