Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development

Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318 – 330 www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

ANALYSIS

Exploring cultural capital and its importance in sustainable development Phoebe Cochrane* RCSS, University of Edinburgh, Old Surgeons Hall, High School Yards, Edinburgh, EH1 1LZ, United Kingdom Received 2 July 2004; received in revised form 3 April 2005; accepted 15 April 2005 Available online 12 September 2005

Abstract This paper explores the concept of cultural capital and suggests a framework for assessing its influence in the management and use of natural capital. Cultural capital has been described as the underlying factors that provide human societies with the means and adaptations to maintain themselves in their environment. Sustainable development calls for a shift in the way in which natural capital is managed and used and much effort has gone into discussing and analysing the sustainable development process and mechanisms by which natural capital levels can be maintained. Cultural capital is an important, but much neglected, element in this process. There have been attempts to analyse the role of culture in development, but these have been few and isolated. This paper identifies three key areas in which cultural capital has influence: dmanagement objectivesT, defficiency of processT and ddemandT. These three areas form the basis of an analysis framework, designed to assess the presence of various cultural traits with regard to the main functions of natural capital—the provision of: raw materials, sinks, environmental services and amenity services. D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Culture; Capital; Sustainable development; Economics

1. Sustainable development and capital 1.1. Sustainable development The concept of sustainable development has come to dominate the debate regarding economic development (Edwards-Jones et al., 2000). It has its origins in the Commission on Environment and Development which was formed by the UN in 1983 to investigate * Fax: +44 131 650 6399. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0921-8009/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.012

environmental issues regarding economic development. In 1987, the Commission published Our Common Future (also known as the Bruntland Report). This report is now acknowledged as a landmark publication in the development of environmental awareness and particularly the need for environmental concerns to be integrated into all aspects of successful development. The report defines sustainable development as ddevelopment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needsT. The Earth Summit in 1992 reinforced the concept of sustainable

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

development which has since become widely embraced and integrated into policies and procedures. There is a growing, global consensus that attempts to acknowledge the interests of future generations and other species. Central to sustainable development is how we use the Earth’s natural resources and the processes by which they are transformed. This can be described in terms of capital. 1.2. The capital issue Capital is the material needed for production of valuable goods and services, and productive capital of some sort is needed to satisfy needs. Capital takes several forms and the distribution of different types of capital represents the set of constraints that determine what production activities are possible (Bourdieu, 1986). Classical economics identified three types of capital: land, labour and human-made capital (often referred to as just dcapitalT). Neo-classical production functions often omitted land and only focussed on labour and capital. For ecological economists, natural capital is a key concept and is considered one of the forms of capital. There is no consensus on a definitive division of types of capital. Costanza and Daly (1992) used the terms natural capital, human capital and manufactured capital to correspond to the traditional economic production factors. Ekin (1992) disaggregated the capital stock into four types: natural, human, social/organisational and manufactured. In this paper we will use three types: natural, cultural and human-made capital which are described in more detail below. Human-made capital, or manufactured capital, is capital generated through economic activity, human ingenuity and technological change—the produced means of production. It comprises material goods such as tools, machines, buildings and infrastructure which contribute to the production process but do not become embodied in the output. Natural capital, sometimes called ecological capital, performs four distinct functions. It provides a resource for production—the raw materials that become timber, fuel or food. As a source of raw materials, natural capital can be renewable or nonrenewable and the harvesting of these stocks is the basis of much economic activity. Secondly, it acts as a sink for waste products, both from the process of

319

production and the products themselves. Thirdly, it provides a range of life support functions, or environmental services, such as flood or erosion control and climate stability. Fourth, it contributes to human welfare directly through amenity services such as attractive landscapes. There is a large sub-category of natural capital, dcultivated natural capitalT, that is intermediate between natural and human-made capital. This consists of things such as plantation forests, agricultural crops or livestock herds. Cultivated natural capital supplies the raw material input but generally provides less of the wide range of natural ecological services characteristic of natural capital. In addition, there is another area of capital, also fundamental to the production of goods and services. Veblen, writing in 1908, was one of the first to identify the existence of a form of capital other than those commonly considered at that time (McCormick, 2002). He noted that the productivity of capital (i.e. human-made capital) was intimately linked to society’s pool of knowledge which is produced and possessed by the community as a whole. In the 1960’s, neo-classical economists such as Becker and Schultz introduced the concept of human capital, arguing that the society’s endowment of educated, trained and healthy workers determined productivity (Becker, 1962; Schultz, 1963). The term human capital is now sometimes used to mean education and skills (Costanza et al., 1997) or labour (Edwards-Jones et al., 2000). The World Bank distinguishes between human capital, which is determined by levels of nutrition, health and education, and social capital. Social capital has been widely used to cover social networks, contacts and trust (Coleman, 1990; Putman et al., 1993). Kliksberg (1999) notes that studies show that it is human and social capital (as opposed to natural capital and constructed capital) that were responsible for most economic development in the later years of the twentieth century and that they are key to technical progress, competitiveness, sustained growth, good governance and stable democracies. Bourdieu (1986) distinguishes between social capital, which is the actual or potential resources linked to membership of a group, and cultural capital, which can be dembodiedT as a state of the mind/body, dobjectifiedT in the form of cultural goods, or dinstitutionalisedT. Berkes and Folke (1994) use the term cultural capital

320

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

to describe the drules of societyT or factors that provide human societies with the means and adaptations to deal with the natural environment. It includes elements such as socio-political institutions, values and needs, social preferences, environmental ethics and traditional ecological knowledge in a society. We can say that cultural capital, being the aptitude or inclination of a group or society to behave in a certain way, underlies human and social capital and describes the potential of a group or society. We should note at this stage that the concepts of social capital and cultural capital are problematic for mainstream economists. Mainstream economics, based on methodological individualism, holds that the social cannot be identified separately of individual interactions. dSocial relations, customs and structures. . .do not exist independently of the individuals that constitute them.T (Fine and Green, 2000, pp. 85). On the other hand, the social scientists’ concept of culture refers to something that is inherently social— dIndividuals are embedded in their cultural surrounds. . .and to some degree constructed by those surroundsT (Francois, 2002, pp. 11). Thus, in attempting to marry the economic and the social, one meets challenges in the divergent theoretical bases of the two disciplines. Acknowledging that this debate exists, we maintain that cultural capital is a useful concept and valuable in drawing attention to important factors affecting economic life that might otherwise go unnoticed. 1.3. Interactions between forms of capital The different types of capital are used in combination to give rise to flows of goods and services and wealth creation. Sustainable development requires that the needs of future generations are considered alongside those of today’s societies. If capital stocks are not maintained, the flow of goods and services will decrease over time and the intergenerational aspect of sustainability will not be met. There is considerable debate as to whether it is the total capital stock that needs to be maintained, which assumes that one type of capital can be substituted for another, or whether certain components of capital, particularly natural capital, contribute to welfare in a unique way that cannot be replicated by another capital com-

ponent. These positions are described as dweakT and dstrongT sustainability (Turner, 1993). Weak sustainability is derived from the perception that welfare is not normally dependent on a specific from of capital and can be maintained by substituting human-made for natural capital. This is the position adopted by neo-classical economics. Strong sustainability, on the other hand, holds that such substitutability is seriously limited by such environmental characteristics as irreversibility, uncertainty and the existence of dcriticalT components of natural capital (Pearce and Turner, 1990) which, if destroyed, has profoundly damaging consequences. (See Ekins et al. (2003) for an in depth discussion on critical natural capital.) Ecological economists promote the strong sustainability position and argue that a condition for sustainability is to maintain the total natural capital stock at or above the current level (Daly and Cobb, 1990). As well as investing in stocks of natural capital, attention needs to be paid to using it efficiently. Costanza et al. (1997) argue that the evolution of the human economy has passed from an era in which human-made capital was the limiting factor in economic development to an era in which the remaining natural capital has become the limiting factor. We should therefore maximise the productivity of natural capital, the scarcest factor, and emphasis should shift from technologies that increase the productivity of labour and human-made capital to those that increase the productivity of natural capital. Natural capital productivity is increased by increasing the flow of goods and services per unit of natural stock, and increasing the end-use efficiency with which the resulting product yields services to the final user. In addition, from the demand side, tastes and values will affect the economic productivity of natural capital (Costanza et al., 1997). It would seem likely that cultural capital is a key factor in this process. How is cultural capital used in the production of goods and services? Fig. 1 shows the interactions between the different forms of capital. Natural capital is used to produce human-made capital through the provision of raw materials and environmental services. Natural capital also provides a sink for waste products. Both processes usually deplete natural capital stocks although depletion can be reduced by replacing renewable

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

Energy

321

Cultivated natural capital

Natural capital

Human–made capital

Raw materials, sinks, environmental services, amenity services.

‘The produced means of production’ – tools, machines, buildings, infrastructure.

Impact on ecosystems from management and pollution

Cultural capital Cultural beliefs and practices.

Welfare goods and services Fig. 1. The interaction between forms of capital and the production of welfare.

natural capital, for example by planting trees or composting organic waste. Cultural capital influences these processes. Berkes and Folke (1994) suggest that cultural capital is positioned at the interface of natural capital and human-made capital. They emphasise the importance of cultural capital in mediating and controlling natural capital–human-made capital interactions and describe a fundamental and co-evolutionary relationship between the three types of capital. It can be said that human-made capital is dnever value-neutral, but a product of evolving cultural values and normsT (Berkes and Folke, 1994, pp. 132). Also, the three forms of capital combine to produce final products or welfare goods and services, and it is the nature of the three types of capital that dictate the goods and services that can be produced. Nearly all final products need all three types of capital, although a few amenity service products,

such as the intrinsic value and beauty of wilderness, may not require human-made capital. Despite its obvious importance, the concept of cultural capital has received little attention and, at this juncture, we should discuss it in more depth. We will firstly explore what culture is and how it is interposed between humans and the environment. We will then turn to discuss recent recognition of the importance of culture in development and attempts to analyse its role.

2. Exploring culture 2.1. What do we mean by culture? The term culture has been used widely by a number of disciplines. Definitions and uses of the term have

322

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

varied to the extent that it has been described as da term which has plagued the social sciences for over a centuryT (Gerring and Barresi, 2003, pp. 203). Two key works have tried to make sense of the proliferation of definitions. Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1953) undertake a comprehensive review of uses of the term culture conclude that dthe central idea. . .followed by most social scientists. . .follows: Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning elements of further actionT (pp. 181). More recently Gerring and Barresi (2003) have used a dmin–maxT strategy to develop core definitions for the concept of culture. The strategy involves sampling uses, typologising attributes and constructing minimal and ideal-type definitions. The minimal definition is based on dthe bare essentials of the concept. . .(embodying) all definitional attributes that are necessary and therefore always presentT (pp. 207). The ideal-type definition need not have a real empirical referent, but daims for a collection of attributes. . .that includes all non-idiosyncratic characteristics that together define the concept in its purest, most ideal formT (pp. 208). The minimal definition has relatively clear borders, whereas the ideal type definition is dfuzzierT. The minimal and ideal-type definitions were found to have the following attributes (Table 1): Thus, in its minimal form, culture is a set of beliefs or behaviours which are produced socially. They are also transmitted socially or dlearnedT and often spoken of as a heritage or tradition. Formal rules, behaviour and objects are only cultural if they signify something other than themselves. The fact that humans are born into a culture, rather than randomly producing it, means that there is a degree of pattern to a culture, although it is not always obvious. Lastly, a culture is shared by a social group, such as a nation, an ethnic group or a trade.

Table 1 Culture: min–max definitions

Production and transmission Characteristics

Minimal definition

Ideal-type definition

Social

Social Human Ideational or symbolic Patterned Shared Enduring Cumulative Coherent Differentiated Comprehensive Holistic Non-interest based Implicit Causal Constitutive

Ideational or symbolic Patterned Shared

Functions Source: Gerring and Barresi, 2003, pp 210.

In its ideal-type, as well as being produced and transmitted socially, culture can be said to be a distinctly human phenomena. In addition to being symbolic and patterned, its characteristics are that it is enduring in nature (being slow to change), it builds and alters in a cumulative fashion, it is coherent and interconnected, it is unique to a particular group, it is comprehensive and holistic in the range of beliefs and practices it covers (rather than being related to a single issue), its beliefs and practices are generally not merely a function of self-interest and nor are they formulised (rather being implicit). Its functions are both causal, constraining and influencing human action, and constitutive, influencing people and their experiences with a certain essence. In our own use of the concept of culture, later in this paper, we stick within the boundaries of these min– max definitions. 2.2. Culture and the environment Different cultures can have specific environmental philosophy, values, and ethics (Leopold, 1949; Naess, 1989). Rappaport (1971) describes cultural images of nature being composed through a screen of beliefs, knowledge and purposes and suggests that it is on the basis of these cultural images of nature, rather than the actual structure of nature, that humans act. Disparities between human’s images (the dcognized modelT) of

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

nature and the actual organisation of ecosystems (the doperational modelT) are inevitable. The degree to which a group successfully maintains itself in its environment can be said to depend on the extent to which its cognized model elicits behaviour appropriate to the biological well-being of the actors and the ecosystems in which they participate (Rappaport, 1971). Stark distinctions have been drawn between dtraditionalT and dwesternT societies. Traditional cultures are often viewed more positively, regarding sustainable development, than modern western cultures. They are perceived by some as being in harmony with the environment and made up of dsystems of values, beliefs and art forms which sustain social organization and rationalise actionT (Norgaard, 1994, pp. 90). It should be noted that this position is probably somewhat simplistic and other factors are likely to have been instrumental in lack of intensive environmental manipulation, such as low population densities and lack of technologies (see for example Simmons, 1996; Goudie, 2000.) The transnational dculture of modernityT, in contrast to traditional cultures, has been said to suffer from dlack of context and sensitivity to its systemic environmentT (Jenkins, 2000, pp. 305). With its core societal goal as economic growth, modernity has tended to sever the feedback links that help to facilitate sustainability. However, the increasing emphasis on quality of life concerns in developed Western societies, has been accompanied by a (partial) shift in the way in which the environment is viewed and a more sympathetic attitude towards its use. 2.3. Culture and development We have discussed how forms of capital are combined to provide goods and services and increase welfare. Increase in welfare is synonymous with ddevelopmentT. As development theories and practices have evolved, the importance of culture has increasingly been recognised, at least by some authors (for example, Landes, 2000). dThe relations between culture and development are manifold and it is amazing that so little attention has been given to themT (Kliksberg, 1999, pp. 84). Although development goals were traditionally equated with economic growth, in recent years

323

broader social factors have been considered equally important. In this more general sense, development includes changes in social indicators such as nutritional levels, participation in education, standards of public or welfare service provision and environmental indicators such as air and water quality. These changes in emphasis are reflected in the UN Human Development Report which has been used to assess well-being since 1991. Human beings themselves are increasingly seen as both the object of development and as the agents by which development is brought about and a dcommodity-centredT notion of economic development is giving way to a dpeople-centred strategyT of human development (Kliksberg, 1999). Development approaches attempt to foster participation and bottomup initiatives. Also endogenous development is increasingly favoured where local resources, as opposed to inward investment, form the main basis of development initiatives. There are obvious cultural implications. People as the object and means of development do not exist in isolation. They interact under a framework defined, in part, by their culture. As indicated in the UN World Commission on Culture and Development (1995), reconceptualising development in human terms brings culture in from the periphery of development thinking and places it in centre stage. 2.4. Analysing the role of culture The above discussions demonstrate that cultural capital is an important element in the provision of welfare. To what extent has its role been analysed? Ruttan (1998) provides a good overview of the work of several development economists working in the post-war years. Economists such as Hoselitz, Hagen, Bauer, Adelman and Morris emphasised the role of cultural endowments in constraining or facilitating economic growth. In spite of drawing wide attention, their work was not incorporated into mainstream economic thought and subsequent attempts to analyse the role of culture have been few and isolated. The general position of mainstream economists appears to be somewhat dismissive. Casson (1993, pp. 418): dtoday the (economic) theorist is more likely to admit that culture matters, but to argue that it is

324

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

something that economics cannot, or should not, attempt to explainT. However, there have been exceptions and interesting work has been carried out which we will divide into four areas. 2.4.1. (a) Discussions surrounding the potential of (rural) economies to capitalise on cultural endowments There have been studies which have highlighted the importance of culture to local economies in peripheral areas. Ray (1998) and Jenkins (2000) note the potential for rural areas to capitalise on traditional cultures. Ray develops the idea of a dculture economyT, in which economic activity is reformulated to be based more firmly on local resources, both physical and human. He observes a proliferation of initiatives in which local cultural resources are seen as the key to improving the social and economic well-being of local rural areas. Different ways in which culture economies can use culture are noted. Firstly the commoditisation of local/ regional culture, secondly the construction and projection of a (new) territorial identity through promotion of cultural resources, and thirdly, a return to the indigenous culture of the territory and pursuit of alternative development paths. Jenkins (2000) suggests two strands to the culture economy approach. A culture can, first, be turned outwards and marketed and, second, turned inwards and used to facilitate socio-cultural and economic networks which animate local and regional development. 2.4.2. (b) Studies which have revealed the importance of cultural factors as underlying causes of differentiated economic performance between regions Culture has been found to be an important element in determining the vibrancy of local economies. Studies (for example Bryden et al., 2001; Copus et al., 2001) have sought to reveal underlying causes to why some rural areas are vibrant whilst other lagging. Several factors with cultural underpinnings, such as: (a) entrepreneurial tradition; (b) skills and knowledge, especially tacit knowledge; (c) sense of identity, belonging and community; and (d) trust and cooperation were found to be important. In addition, there have been considerable efforts to analyse the effect of social capital, which is often rooted in culture, and studies have sought to reveal relationships between

levels of social capital and vibrancy of economies (for example Otto et al., 2001; Putman et al., 1993). A few studies have looked for links between levels of social capital and the successful management of natural resources (Kantz, 2000; Pretty and Ward, 2001). These studies found that high levels of social capital foster trust and cooperation in the collective management of natural resources. 2.4.3. (c) Attempts to develop economic models which take account of culture A few authors argue that economic analysis can make progress in identifying the influence that culture has on economic performance. Hayami and Ruttan (1985) present a model developed to show the interrelations between resource endowments, cultural endowments, technology and institutions. They note that, although our capacity to test relationships between resource endowments and technological change is relatively strong, the same cannot be said for our capacity to model and test the relations between cultural endowments and either technological or institutional change. Their model is developed to a preliminary stage and they call for further work to be able to incorporate the role of culture into economic development analysis. Casson (1993) defines culture, in economic terms, as dcollective subjectivityT. He suggests that efficiency can be gained by a culture that encourages a realistic and sophisticated view of the environment which is likely to support better informed decisions. Also a culture that encourages good behaviour towards other people, such as honesty or integrity, increases trust and cooperation and is likely to reduce transaction costs. Moral aspects of culture can also affect the group’s response to issues of equity within and between generations. He suggests an ideology, dvoluntary associationT, where individuals automatically associate with each other for the purpose of production and other activities. Casson claims that associatism can be used to model the impact of many aspects of culture on economic performance. However, again it appears that the development of such a model has not been pursued. Throsby (2001) takes this discussion forward and, referring to sustainable development, disaggregates the manner in which culture affects economic outcomes into three broad strands. First, through world-

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

views, values and beliefs, culture may influence or determine the social and economic objectives of the group. Second, culture may affect economic efficiency through affecting adaptive behaviour, innovation, group dynamics and decision making processes. Third, culture may influence equity, both interand intra-generational, through shared morals and values. 2.4.4. (d) Attempts to develop proxy indicators and quantify levels of cultural capital One difficulty in resolving the various theoretical disputes about the effect of culture on economic performance is the availability of appropriate data with which to test competing theories. Cultural capital, like social and human capital, is difficult, if not impossible, to measure directly and for empirical purposes the use of proxy indicators is necessary (Throsby, 2001; Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2002). There has been some progress in this area. Pargal et al. (2002) have developed proxy measures of trust and norms of reciprocity and sharing. Ronald Inglehart has tabulated a wide range of individual attitudes towards religion, work, the family and social issues across a broad range of countries and related them to economic achievement (Inglehart, 1997). His measurement of relevant cultural traits and their inclusion in cross-country models of economic growth attempts to show more clearly the quantitative importance of the cultural context in which economic activity takes place. One of the fundamental difficulties analysts tackling the latter two areas, (c) and (d), face is the attempt to reduce culture to units that can be synthesised with other economic production factors. This largely results in an unsatisfactory treatment of culture which is necessarily reduced to certain indicators which are readily measured. It would appear that there is much remaining work in trying to devise a useful framework to enable a comprehensive analysis of cultural capital and the remainder of this paper will discuss the development of one possible such framework.

3. A framework for assessment We are particularly interested in a framework that would enable us to analyse the role and im-

325

pact of cultural capital in the management of natural resources for sustainable development. It is clear that culture has many interfaces with other forms of capital in the sustainable development process. Any framework that attempts to analyse the cultural capital element is therefore likely to be complex. We can usefully start by looking at three main areas where culture affects the management and use of natural capital in the sustainable development process: (1) Management objectives Management objectives of natural capital will be affected by cultural beliefs concerning the value and importance of various functions. An understanding of this area of culture in the management body/bodies can be an invaluable starting point of our analysis. Such cultural factors will affect the weight given to economic, environmental and social objectives. They will also affect issues of equity, both intra-generational, through management objectives that consider the social well-being of local or less powerful groups, and inter-generational, through adoption of a stewardship ethic and commitment to reinvesting in the capital stock. If there is only one management body, as may be the case with privately owned natural resources, this exercise may be relatively straight forward. If, however, as is often the case, there is more than one body involved in the management of natural capital, consistency and compatibility between the cultures of the groups, and their objectives, needs to be investigated. Where there are multiple bodies involved in management, this may take the form of different layers, for example, bodies representing national, regional and local levels; and/ or bodies involved in the management of different aspects of the natural resource. (2) Efficiency with which natural capital is used Cultural characteristics of groups responsible for the transformation of natural capital into

326

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

human-made capital and final products/services will affect the efficiency with which natural capital is used. This efficiency can be measured by the flow of goods and services per unit of capital stock and/or the services the final products yield to the user. Behaviour of groups involved in managing the processes and designing the products in terms of, for example, collaboration and innovation, will affect the efficiency of the conversion of natural capital. This is a highly complex area in itself due to the number of bodies involved. The multiple functions of natural capital (for example an area of woodland will have uses ranging from the very tangible, such as the production of sawn timber, to the less tangible, such as contributing to recreation) will tend to involve a number of bodies, often from different sectors. Also, it is likely that a chain of bodies will be involved in the conversion process for any one use. (3) Demand The values and tastes of consumers will be derived, in part, from their culture. Public demand for manufactured products and quality of life factors produced by natural capital, such as recreation, aesthetics and spiritual well-being, will affect its management and use. In addition, beliefs will affect the extent to which various management approaches and uses of natural capital are acceptable to the public. In order to disaggregate the three areas outlined above further, we can examine them in a table (Table 2). As has been observed (paragraph 1.2), natural capital has several functions—provision of: (a) raw materials for production, (b) sinks for waste and pollution, (c) environmental services and (d) amenity services. We can look at each of these functions in turn with regard to the three areas described above: (a) management objectives, (b) efficiency of process, and (c) demand. In addition, because we are interested in the effect of culture on sustainable development, the economic, environmental and social aspect of each main function should be considered. Forests/

woodland will be used as an example of natural capital. Under each of the four functions, key areas potentially affected by culture are noted. This is followed by a brief description giving one or two examples from Britain of cultural impacts on the delivery of the function. In using this framework, care must be taken not to ascribe any change in attitude or practice as being dculturalT. There will be many instances where such changes will be driven by policies, incentives or other factors and may, for example, be short-lived, single issue, formulised or driven by self-interest. Due care must be taken to differentiate the cultural from the non-cultural, a distinction which is bound to be fuzzy at times. The unit of analysis used with this framework could be natural capital of various types, such as forestry, and at various scales, such as the national or local. At the national level, the culture of national institutions together with public attitudes and values would be a main area of analysis. At a more localised level, the analysis could involve many more layers as the cultures of specific groups involved in the management and use of the particular resources, as well as the larger institutions, would be relevant. It may also be of interest to focus on a particular function of a particular resource and carry out a more in-depth analysis of how culture affects the use of, for example, forestry for sinks, or, more specifically still, the use of forestry as a sink for carbon dioxide. This analysis framework could be used to investigate and reveal the role and importance of cultural capital in the sustainable development process and be useful for policy analysis and design. It would indicate areas where underlying cultural characteristics of a group are not conducive to sustainable development and where policy makers may wish to devise incentives or other approaches to encourage groups to change their behaviour. It would also highlight areas where culture is offering a significant opportunity for sustainable development which could be capitalised upon. Where project or policy replication is being considered, it could be used to determine whether it is likely to be successful given the (differences in) cultures of the groups involved. It could also be used in comparative studies.

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

327

Table 2 Impact of cultural capital on the management and use of natural capital Aspects of sustainability

Management objectives

Efficiency of process

Demand

Function of natural capital: (1) The provision of raw materials, such as timber General: how culture affects General: how culture affects General: how culture affects values values and priority for the efficiency of those involved and tastes of consumers for particular production of raw materials. in the transformation process. materials and products. Economic: how cultural beliefs Economic: emphasis given to Economic: inclinations Economic: importance placed on economic returns on raw towards, innovation and product costs. and practices affect the economic returns on raw materials. collaboration contributing to material production. economically efficient transformation processes. Environmental: assimilation of Environmental: priority given Environmental: incorporation Environmental: value given to environmental awareness to conservation objectives in of environmentally friendly environmental impact of purchasing and how cultural beliefs and management for raw material processes. behaviour. practices embody protection production. for the environment. Social: how cultural beliefs Social: values concerning Social: innovation and Social: value given to social impact affect ethics and values promoting opportunities for entrepreneurship amongst local of purchasing behaviour. regarding concerns for local, local benefits and renewing population and ethics disadvantaged and future depleted stock. concerning impact on others of populations. production activities. For example: In Britain, the Forestry Commission has historically been imbued with a strong culture of timber production. The organisation has undergone a cultural shift such that the relative value and importance given to environmental and, more recently, social objectives has increased. The wood processing industry in the South of Scotland is said to suffer from a lack of dbusiness cultureT, especially relating to innovation and marketing. The Scottish people, in general, are said to have lost the culture of using and relating to wood. Although wood use for fittings and construction is increasing, awareness of dconnectionsT to those wood products are generally not present and environmental and social issues relating to sources of products are not considered. Function of natural capital: (2) The provision of sinks for waste products, such as carbon dioxide General: how culture affects the General: how culture affects General: how culture affects consideration of sink use in collaboration between polluters attitudes of public concerning rights management objectives. and managers of natural capital to use of sinks. and the formation/functioning of institutions to manage and regulate the process. Economic: beliefs concerning Economic: beliefs regarding Economic: how cultural beliefs Economic: beliefs regarding expectation of free, versus the value of sinks and affect the perceived value of the value of, and charging for, payment for, use of sinks. use of sinks. incorporation of practices that environmental sinks and facilitate a charging, or how cultural practices compensation, mechanism. embody that perceived value. Environmental: assimilation of Environmental: awareness of Environmental: use of practices Environmental: ethical environmental awareness environmental consequences of that include environmental concerns over measures. individuals’/society’s impact and how cultural beliefs and use as sink. practices embody protection on the environment through for the environment. pollution. Social: ethics concerning Social: ethics concerning Social: how cultural beliefs Social: ethics concerning affect ethics and values localised impact and impact on localised impact and impact on localised impact and impact on others, including future regarding concerns for local, others, including future others, including future generations, of sink use. disadvantaged and future generations, of sink use. generations, of sink use. populations. For example: The general acceptance of climate change and the assimilation of environmental concerns regarding the limitations of sinks, has resulted in the beginnings of a change in culture amongst policy making departments. Research is underway to determine the sink capacity of different tree species and policies and mechanisms are being designed to mediate transactions between polluters and sink managers. Such mechanisms, and associated economic incentives, are leading to carbon sink objectives being considered by some land managers. Amongst the British public, the dominant culture is still the belief that sink abundance exists, at least in relation to their personal levels of pollution, and attitudes and practices tend to reflect this. (continued on next page)

328

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

Table 2 (continued) Aspects of sustainability

Management objectives

Efficiency of process

Demand

Function of natural capital: 3) The provision of environmental services such as biodiversity and climate regulation General: how cultural beliefs General: how culture affects General: how culture affects demand affect the consideration of the development and for natural capital to provide environmental service functioning of institutions to environmental services. provision in management facilitate the delivery of objectives. environmental services. Economic: how cultural beliefs Economic: beliefs regarding Economic: belief in the value Economic: beliefs regarding affect the perceived value of the value of, and charging for, of environmental services and expectation of free, versus payment environmental services. assimilation of practices that for, environmental services. environmental services and how cultural practices facilitate a charging, or embody that perceived value. compensation, mechanism. Environmental: assimilation of Environmental: value given to Environmental: ecological Environmental: demand for environmental awareness biodiversity and environmental knowledge and use of best environmental services. and how cultural beliefs and services. practice to preserve/enhance practices embody protection environmental services. for the environment. Social: how cultural beliefs Social: values concerning the Social: values concerning the Social: demand for local affect ethics and values importance of localised importance of localised environmental services and for benefits of environmental retention of natural capital to provide regarding concerns for local, benefits of environmental disadvantaged and future services and of natural capital services and of natural capital environmental services for future contributing to long term generations. populations. contributing to long term environmental stability. environmental stability. For example: During modernity Western society tended to believe that technological solutions could overcome natural constraints. Environmental disasters and a dbetterT understanding of the complex nature of ecology and the life supporting role of biodiversity has lead to a shift in culture, lead by environmental groups and more recently pervading many natural resource management policy groups. This has resulted in the development of a series of legislative and policy measures to facilitate the delivery of environmental services. Such measures have resulted in incentives to managers to conserve/improve biodiversity value. As part of a general shift in culture, awareness of, and interest in, biodiversity has risen, to varying degrees, amongst the public. This has resulted in an increase in demand for conservation and an increase in conservation activities by the public. Function of natural capital: 4) The provision of amenity services such as opportunities for recreation General: how culture affects General: how culture affects public General: how culture affects the process of delivery of demand for amenity services. value given to provision of amenity services. amenity services in management objectives. Economic: beliefs regarding rights to Economic: how cultural beliefs Economic: beliefs concerning Economic: belief in the free access, versus payment for, economic value of amenity affect the perceived value of the value of, and charging for, amenity services. services and the use of practices amenity use. amenity services and how that facilitate a charging, or cultural practices embody compensation, mechanism. that perceived value. Environmental: assimilation of Environmental: priority given Environmental: use of practices Environmental: demand for to conservation in amenity that incorporate environmental conservation related amenity environmental awareness and how cultural beliefs and provision. measures into the delivery of services. practices embody protection amenity services. for the environment. Social: how cultural beliefs Social: values concerning Social: values concerning Social: demand for access and affect ethics and values access for local and access for local and amenity opportunities for local and regarding concerns for local, disadvantaged people and disadvantaged people and disadvantaged people and future disadvantaged and future amenity services for future generations. amenity services for future populations. generations. generations. For example: A shift in culture amongst the general public has (re)awakened an interest in dnatureT and a demand for access to woodlands and amenity provisions. The Scottish public generally believe that landowners should act as dstewardsT of the countryside and that access should be free. Due to this dominant belief, the transaction costs of attempting to charge for amenity tend to be high and landowners are compensated, to a certain degree, from the public purse for provision of amenity services.

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

4. Conclusions This paper has explored the role of cultural capital in the management and use of natural capital for sustainable development. We found that, although the importance of culture in development has been noted, there is a need to explore further the manner in which it affects processes and outcomes. Accepting the strong sustainability position and recognising that this calls for endeavours to increase the productivity of natural capital, we discussed ways in which culture affects the management and use of natural capital. We described cultural capital as likely to have influence in three key areas: (a) management objectives, (b) efficiency of process and (c) demand. An analysis framework was suggested, designed to assess the effects of culture on these three areas with regard to the main functions of natural capital—provision of: (a) raw materials, (b) sinks, (c) environmental services, and (d) amenity services. It is proposed that the framework developed could provide a useful tool through which to analyse the role and importance of culture and reveal key cultural traits that constrain or facilitate the sustainable development process. It is emphasised that this framework needs testing and refining. Acknowledgments This paper is based on work carried out as part of a PhD funded by the ESRC and the Forestry Commission. Particular thanks to the anonymous referee for very useful comments on an earlier version of this paper. References Becker, G., 1962. Investments in human capital: a theoretical analysis. Journal of Political Economy 70, 9 – 49. Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1994. Investing in cultural capital for sustainable use of natural resources. In: Koskoff, S. (Ed.), Investing in Natural Capital: The Ecological Economics Approach to Sustainability. Island Press, Washington DC. Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Bryden, J., Timm, A., Courney, P., Atterton, J., 2001. Dynamics of Rural Areas: National Report Scotland. The Arkelton Centre, Aberdeen.

329

Casson, M., 1993. Cultural determinants of economic performance. Journal of Comparative Economics 17, 418 – 442. Coleman, J., 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Copus, A., Kahila, P., Jansson, B., Mariussen, G., 2001. The Role of Regional Millieux in Rural Economic Development. SAC, Aberdeen. Costanza, R., Daly, H.E., 1992. Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology 6 (1), 37 – 47. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., Norgaard, R., 1997. An Introduction to Ecological Economics. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, FL. Daly, H., Cobb, J., 1990. For the Common Good. Beacon Press, Boston. Edwards-Jones, G., Davies, B., Hussain, S., 2000. Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Ekin, P., 1992. A Four-Capital Model of Wealth Creation. In: Ekins, P., Max-Neef, M. (Eds.), Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation. Routledge, London. Ekins, P., Folke, C., De Groot, R., 2003. Identifying critical natural capital. Ecological Economics 44 (2–3), 157 – 386. Fine, B., Green, F., 2000. Economics, Social Capital and the Colonisation of the Social Sciences. In: Baron, S., Field, J., Schuller, T. (Eds.), Social Capital: Critical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Francois, P., 2002. Social Capital and Economic Development. Routledge, London. Gerring, J., Barresi, P.A., 2003. Putting ordinary language to work a min–max strategy of concept formation in the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15 (2), 201 – 232. Goudie, A., 2000. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment. Blackwell, Oxford. Grootaert, C., van Bastelaer, T., 2002. Introduction and Overview. In: Grootaert, C., vanBastelaer, T. (Eds.), The Role of Social Capital in Development. CUP, Cambridge, UK. Hayami, Y., Ruttan, V., 1985. Agricultural Development: An International Perspective. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Inglehart, R., 1997. Modernisation and Postmodernisation: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in Forty Three Societies. Princeton University Press, New Jersey. Jenkins, T., 2000. Putting postmodernity into practice: endogenous development and the role of traditional cultures in the rural development of marginal areas. Ecological Economics 34, 301 – 314. Kantz, E., 2000. Social capital and natural capital: a comparative analysis of land tenure and natural resource management in Guatemala. Land Economics 76 (1), 114 – 132. Kliksberg, B., 1999. Social capital and culture: master keys to development. CEPAL Review 69, 83 – 102. Kroeber, A.L., Kluckhohn, C., 1953. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. The Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Landes, D., 2000. Culture Makes Almost All the Difference. In: Harrison, L.E., Huntington, S.P. (Eds.), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Man Progress. Basic books, New York. Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York.

330

P. Cochrane / Ecological Economics 57 (2006) 318–330

McCormick, K., 2002. Veblen and the new growth theory: community as the source of capital’s productivity. Review of Social Economy LX 2, 263 – 278. Naess, A., 1989. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Norgaard, R., 1994. Development Betrayed. Routledge and Kegan, London. Otto, D., Noor Tirmizi, S., Ryan, V., 2001. Role of social capital in economic and community development. Selected paper American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, August 2001, Chicago. Pargal, S., Gilligan, D., Huq, M., 2002. Does Social Capital Increase Participation in Voluntary Solid Waste Management? In: Grootaert, C., van Bastelaer, T. (Eds.), The Role of Social Capital in Development. CUP, Cambridge. Pearce, D., Turner, R., 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. Pretty, J., Ward, H., 2001. Social capital and the environment. World Development 29 (2), 209 – 227. Putman, R., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R.Y., 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University Press.

Rappaport, R.A., 1971. Nature, Culture and Ecological Anthropology. In: Shapiro, H.L. (Ed.), Man, Culture and Society. OUP, Oxford. Ray, C., 1998. Culture, intellectual property and territorial rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (1), 3 – 21. Ruttan, V., 1998. Cultural endowments and economic development: what can we learn from anthropology. Economic Development and Cultural Change 36, 247 – 271. Schultz, T.W., 1963. Investment in human capital. American Economic Review 51, 1 – 16. Simmons, L.E., 1996. Changing the Face of the Earth: Culture, Environment, History. Blackwell, Oxford. Throsby, C.D., 2001. Economics and Culture. CUP, Cambridge. Turner, R., 1993. Sustainability: principles and practice. In: Turner, R. (Ed.), Sustainable Environmental Economics and Management: Principles and Practice. Belhaven Press, London. United Nations World Commission on Culture and Development, 1995. Our Creative Diversity. UNESCO, Paris.