Defining political capital
‘Political capital’ is increasingly recognised as the missing dimension of the Sustainable Livelihoods framework, and as one potential remedy to the limited use of political analysis in studies of development and poverty. To a large extent, political capital is proposed as a means of overcoming some of the problems of using ‘social capital’ as a catch-all concept for explaining the importance of non-material factors in poverty. For example, John Booth and Patricia Richard [1998: 782] argue that in order for associational activism to have political significance, it needs to go beyond social capital and "foster attitudes and behaviors that actually influence regimes in some way". Carole Rakodi makes a case for political capital because of "the significance attached to powerlessness in the poor’s own definitions of poverty" [1999: 334], and defines it as "based on access to decision-making" in the political process [ibid. 318].
In a strongly argued paper, Pari Baumann [2000: 6] states that political capital "is one of the key capital assets on which people draw to build their livelihoods". Claims and assets are defined as ‘rights’ that are politically defended, and that "how people access these assets depends on their political capital" [op. cit.]. As such, political capital acts "as a gatekeeper asset, permitting or preventing the accumulation of other assets upon which successful poverty-reducing growth depends" [Booth et al 1998: 79, quoted in Rakodi 1999: 318]. Political capital also helps to explains where local people are situated in terms of the balance of power in relation to other groups [Baumann 2000: 6].
The most extensive elaboration of political capital as an operational concept comes from Regina Birner and Heidi Wittner [2000: 6], who propose a distinction between ‘instrumental’ and ‘structural’ political capital.
- Instrumental political capital "consists of the resources which an actor…can dispose of and use to influence policy formation processes and realise outcomes which are in an actor’s perceived interest".
- Structural political capital "refers to the structural variables of the political system which influence the possibilities of diverse actors to accumulate instrumental political capital and condition the effectiveness of different types of political capital". This includes not only democratic political institutions, political openness, devolution, and civil rights, but also ‘perverse political capital’ such as institutions of repression (which can catalyse activism and demand-making).
As yet, studies of political capital have tended to dwell on the links between political capital and poverty reduction, rather than those between low levels of political capital and poverty itself, chronic or otherwise. Research has so far focussed on the transformation of social into political capital, particularly in terms of how local communities and groups can influence policy [Birner and Wittner 2000, Booth and Richards 1998], on the links between political capital and levels of democracy [Booth and Richards 1998], and also on elaborating the analytical, conceptual and practical relationship of political capital to other capital assets within the sustainable livelihoods framework [Baumann 2000, Rakodi 1999]. The ‘development sectors’ studied so far include urban poverty [Rakodi 1999] and natural resource management [Baumann 2000, Birner and Wittner 2000].
Researching political capital I: key dimensions and variables
Following the distinction between structural and instrumental types of political capital, a number of key researchable variables emerge. The following have been adapted from Birner and Wittner [2000: 20, 24], Booth and Richard [1998: 785], Baumann [2000]. Rakodi notes that levels of political capital are highly gendered at the local level [1999: 318], a finding that reinforces the need to examine political capital in terms of its relationship to key dimensions of social difference, including age, ethnicity, class and caste.
Structural political capital
- Political party system/level of competitiveness
- Political ideologies
- Freedom/presence of the press
- Political openness
- Devolution/decentralisation
- Political relevance of poverty problems in political decision-making
- Participatory elements in political decision-making
- Level of state institutionalisation
- Discretionary administrative authority
- ‘Perverse political capital’: institutions of repression, ‘money-politics’, vote-buying, patron-client links
- The political settlement: the balance of power that enables the definition of a structure of rights
- Political accountability
- Political leadership
Instrumental political capital/political capital as an asset
- Political and civil rights (e.g. of association, voting)
- Rights over natural resources
- Disruptive leverage (rallies, protests, cultural ‘weapons of the weak’)
- Access to press
- Access to decision-making processes
- Use of scientific knowledge and ideological resources in political discourse
- Level of associational participation
- Contacts/links with public officials
- International resources that can be used in local and national political processes (financial resources, international conventions)
Researching political capital II: Methods
Macro- and meso-level research is clearly required at the level of ‘structural’ political capital. One study of political capital used large-scale cross-sectional survey data of six Central American countries, focusing on items relating to political participation, political attitudes and values, and democratic norms (which includes the willingness to extend the rights of participation to others, and the willingness to grant political rights to disliked groups [Booth and Richard 1998: 784-5]. The UNDP’s ‘Political freedom index’ could also be of use here, as could its work on making the links between human rights and development [UNDP 2000].
One community level study used newspaper-based and documentary research, along with key informant interviews, in the context of specific case-studies [Birner and Wittner 2000]. Similarly, Baumann [2000: 13] conducted in-depth village level studies, using a mixture of quantitative data (e.g. benefits of participation to households), and qualitative individual and group interviews.
Some of the methods used to explore levels of social capital at community level may also be appropriate [DFID Guidance sheets]. For example, social mapping could be adapted to ‘political mapping’ of people’s access to decision-making institutions, while timelines could be used to track changing levels of political capital, particularly in relation to wider events (e.g. elections, constitutional change).
Participatory methods have also been used to explore peoples rights over resources, women access to rights and so on [Slocum et al 1995, Appendices].