BIBLIOGRAPHY AYAN, JOAN S. APRIL 2010....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AYAN, JOAN S. APRIL 2010. Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto
Consumers Cooperative in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Jovita M. Sim, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the Social Capital among the members of
Lepanto Consumers Cooperative (LCC). A sample of fifty (50) respondents were chosen
at random from the various members of LCC.
A questionnaire-checklist with Likert-type scale was constructed and served as the
main instrument for gathering the needed data. Personal interview was also done to
satisfy information needed in the study and validate answers given.
Social Capital components were measured using a Likert-scale. Data were
tabulated using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage and mean.
The findings show that majority of the respondents were female and were
married.
The sociability of members with in the cooperative and with in the community
and so with the participation in the cooperative and with in other groups/network is low.
However, respondents believe that their cooperative is active. The low result on
participation and sociability mean rating of the respondents with in the cooperative and
with in the community indicates that the respondents are lacking in personal building that
which social capital is all about.
It is recommended that a seminar on values analysis should be provided for the
members to further develop a smooth relationship in the cooperative.
It is also recommended that relationship building activities among members of the
cooperative is to be done in order to enhance participation in decision-making and in their
activities of the cooperative.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . ….. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Importance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Scope and Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Definition of Social Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Benefits Associated with Social Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Themes in the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Importance of Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Locale and Time of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Respondents of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
iii
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Profile of the Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Household Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . … . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Level of Social Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Level of Trust Among
Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Level of Confidence of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Poverty Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Participation in the Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Sociability of the Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Life Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
29
Relationships of Social Capital
Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Relationship of Sociability and
Position in Coop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Relationship of Poverty Perception
and Position in Coop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Relationship of Life Satisfaction
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Relationship of Trust and Position
in Coop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
iv
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
A. Communication Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
B. Survey Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
v
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
In late 1950’s, the Lepanto Consumers Cooperative (LCC) was first organized as
a Women’s Club. It was organized by the employees of Lepanto Mine Division with their
intention of providing their basic consumer goods at a lower price. Membership to the
cooperative was exclusive to the employees of Lepanto Mine but the role of the
cooperative has expanded to the whole community. Originally, there were 15 cooperators
that started the cooperative with Atty. William Claver as their first president. It was first
registered with the Bureau of Cooperatives in January 1964 with the name Lepanto
Consumers Cooperative Association Incorporated (LCCAI) with Madam Adela O.
Tandoc as first manager.
In early 1970’s, the LCCAI was awarded by the Cooperative Administration
Office as the top 7 consumer cooperative in the country. Under the management of
Madam Vicky Ordinario in 1975, its name was changed to Lepanto Employees Kilusang
Bayan (LEKBA) to emphasize that most of the members of the cooperative were
employees of the Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company (LCMCO).
With the continued support and cooperation of its members the management of
the coop is improving so that in 1984 under the management of Prof. Gloria R. Lee, the
Lepanto Consumers Cooperative Association Incorporated was awarded as the most
outstanding Cooperative in Northern Luzon.
In 1990, the coop changed its name to Lepanto Consumers Cooperative and
registered it to the Cooperative Development Authority, and as of 2008 there were 1,261
members with the management of Mrs. Lourdes Bawalan. Because of the sincerity and
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
2
strong support of the members, the cooperative had continued to steadily prosper and up
to the present it is operating as Consumers Cooperative.
The success story of the Lepanto Consumers Cooperative inspired this research
on social capital to be conducted in the cooperative.
Statement of the Problem
This study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents?
2. What are the levels of social capital among members of the Lepanto
Consumers Cooperative along:
a) Informal network
b) Trust
c) Poverty Perception
d) Participation
d.1. cooperative
d.2. social activities
e) Life satisfaction?
3. What is the relationship of social capital variables with?
a. Position in coop and sociability
b. Position in coop and poverty perception
c. Position in coop and life satisfaction
d. Position in coop and trust
4. What are the suggested specific actions to improve social capital for the
cooperative?
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
3
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study were to:
1. Determine the demographic profile of the respondents.
2. Determine the level of Social Capital among the members of the LCC along:
a. Informal network
b. Trust
c. Level of confidence
d. Poverty perception
e. Participation
*cooperative
*social activities
f) Life satisfaction
3. Determine the relationship of social capital variables with:
a. Position in coop and sociability
b. Position in coop and poverty perception
c. Position in coop and life satisfaction
d. Position in coop and trust
4. Suggest specific actions to improve social capital for the cooperative.
Importance of the Study
The study focused on the performance of the Lepanto Consumers Cooperative in
Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet as to social capital.
The findings of this study will serve as a basis or guide for the manager, officers
and members to improve their cooperative management regarding social capital.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
4
Finally, the result of this study can be used as a source of information for research
on other related studies. It may also provide some guide to students and researchers who
are conducting similar studies.
Scope and Delimitations of the Study
The research focused in determining the level of social capital among members
and officers of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative. This study was conducted in Lepanto,
Mankayan, Benguet, from December to April 2010.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Definitions of Social Capital
Social capital is about the value of social networks, bonding similar people and
bridging between diverse people, with norms of reciprocity (Dekker and Uslaner, 2001).
Sander (2002) stated that ‘the folk wisdom that more people get their jobs from whom
they know, rather than what they know, turns out to be true’. The core intuition guiding
social capital research is that the goodwill that others towards us is a valuable resource.
As such they define social capital as the goodwill available to individuals or groups. Its
source lays in the structure in content of the actors social relations. Its effects flow from
the information, influence, and solidarity it makes available to the actor.
Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked
to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of
mutual acquaintance or recognition, made up of social obligations (connections), which is
convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in
the form of a title of nobility (Bourdieu, 1986).
Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of
different entities, having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect
of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the
structure (Coleman, 1994).
Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the
properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals-social
networks in the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that
sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue”. The
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
6
difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most
powerful when embedded in the sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of
many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in Social Capital (Putnam,
2000).
Benefits Associated with Social Capital
In high social capital areas public spaces are cleaner, people are friendlier, and the
streets are safer. Traditional neighbourhood “risk factor” such as high poverty and
residential mobility are not as significant as most people assume. As Sampson and his
associates have also shown those communities with collective efficacy- the confidence to
intervene born of higher rates of social capital are characterized by lower crime rates
(Sampson, 2005).
Childs development is powerfully shaped by social capital. Trust, networks and
norms of reciprocity within a child’s family, school, peer group and larger community
have far reaching effects on their opportunities and choices, educational achievement,
and hence on their behaviour and development. There appears to be strong relationship
between the possession of social capital and better health. (Sampson, 2005).
A growing body of research suggests that where trust and social networks
flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods, and even nation prosper economically.
Social capital can help to mitigate the insidious effects of socio-economic disadvantage.
The growing presence of non-profit organization in some areas is one aspect of this.
Another is the quality network in the underground economy of the urban poor.
(Venkatesh, 2006)
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
7
Themes in the Literature
Emerging themes in the Literature on Social Capital:
1. Participation in networks
A key concept of social capital is the notion of more or less dense interlocking
networks of relationships between individuals and groups. People engage with others
through a variety lateral associations. These associations must be both voluntary and
equal. Social capital cannot be generated by individuals acting on their own. It depends
on their propensity for sociability, a capacity to form new associations and networks
(Bullen and Onyx, 1999).
2. Reciprocity
Social capital does not imply the immediate and formally accounted exchange of
the legal or business contract, but a combination of short term altruism and long term self
interest (Taylor, 1982). The individual provides a service to others, or acts for the benefit
of others at a personal cost. They do this in the general expectation that this kindness will
be returned at some undefined time in the future they might need themselves. In a
community where reciprocity is strong, people care for each other’s interests (Bullen and
Onyx, 1999).
3. Trust
Trust entails a willingness to take risk in a social context. We act this way based
on the on confidence that others will respond as expected and will act in mutually
supportive ways, or at least that others do not intend harm. Fukuyama defined trust as:
“Trust is the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest and
cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of the other
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
8
members of that community (Bullen and Onyx, 1999).
Those norms can be deep ‘value’ questions like the nature of God or justice but
they, but they also encompass secular norms like professional standards and codes of
behaviour” (Fukuyama, 1995).
4. Social Norms
Social norms provide a form of informal social control that removes the need for
formal, institutionalized legal sanctions. Social norm are generally unwritten but
commonly understood formula. They determine what patterns of behaviour are expected
in a given social context, and define what forms of behaviour are valued or socially
approved. Some people argue that where social capital is high, there is little crime, and
little need for formal policing.
On the other hand, where there is a low level of trust and few social norms, people
will cooperate in joint action only under formal rules and regulations. These have to be
negotiated, agreed to, litigated and enforced, sometimes by coercive means, leading to
expensive legal transaction costs (Fukuyama, 1995).
5. The Commons
The combined effect of trust, networks, norms and reciprocity creates a strong
community, with shared ownership over resources known as ‘the commons’. As longs as
community is strong, it removes the problem of the opportunist who would use the
community resource without contributing to it.
The commons refers to the creation of pooled community resources, owned by
no-one, used by all. The short term self interest of each, if unchecked, would render the
common resource overused, and in the long term it would be destroyed. Only where there
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
9
is a strong ethos of trust, mutuality and effective informal social sanctions against “free-
riders” can the common be maintained indefinitely and to the mutual advantage of all
(Putnam, 2000).
6. Proactivity
Implicit in the several of the ideas above is a sense of personal and collective
efficacy. The development of social capital requires the active and willing engagement of
citizens within a participative community. This is quite different from the receipt of
services, or even of human rights to the receipt of services, though these are
unquestionably important.
Social capital refers to people as creators, not as victims.
Importance of Social Capital
First, social capitals allow citizens to resolve collective problems more easily…..
People often might be better off if they cooperate, with each doing her share. But each
individual benefits more shirking their responsibility, hoping that others will do the work
for her….. [Resolving this dilemma is] best served by an institutional mechanism with
the power to ensure compliance with the collectively desirable behaviour. Social norms
and the networks that enforce them provide such a mechanism. Second, social capital
greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly. Where people are
trusting and trustworthy, and where they are subject to repeated interactions with fellow
citizens, everyday business and social transactions are less costly. A third way is which
social capital improves our lot is by widening our awareness of the many ways in which
our fates are linked. People who have active and trusting connections to others whether
family members, friends or fellow bowlers- develop or maintain character traits that are
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
10
good for the rest of our society. Joiners become more tolerant, less cynical, and more
empathetic to the misfortunes of others. When people lack connection to others, they are
unable to test the veracity of their own views, whether in the give or take of casual
conversation or in more formal deliberation. Without such an opportunity, people are
more likely to be swayed by their worse impulses. The networks that constitute the social
capital also serve as conduits for the flows of helpful information that facilitates
achieving our goals. Social capital also operates through psychological and biological
processes to improve individual’s lives. Mounting evidence suggests that people whose
lives are rich in social capital copes better with traumas and fight illness more effectively.
Community connectedness is not just warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable
and more documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference to our lives
(Putnam, 2000).
Definition of Terms
Social capital - refers to the ability of the people to work together for common
purposes in groups and or organizations. It also refers to the institutions, relationships,
and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions.
Reciprocity - a mutual or cooperative interchange of favours or privileges,
especially the exchange of rights or privileges of trade between two parties.
Mutuality - referring to anything in which both parties have reciprocal rights,
understanding or agreement.
Trust - a charge or duty imposed in faith or confidence or as a condition of some
relationship.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
11
Informal networks - shows the strong positive correlation of getting along with
people in community.
Poverty perception - two factors loaded heavily for this component: poverty
because of laziness and poverty because of lack of life opportunities.
Common goals - measure of community aspirations, set of initiatives and
interventions aimed.
Cooperative - autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their
common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned
and democratically-controlled enterprise.
Life satisfaction - it is an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s
life at a particular point in time ranging from negative to positive.
Interpersonal trust - it is the feeling that you can depend upon the other person
that meet your expectations when you are not able to control or monitor the other
behaviour.
Ethno linguistic - studies the relationship between language and culture, and the
way different ethnic groups perceive the world.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
12
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was conducted at Lepanto Consumers Cooperative, Lepanto,
Mankayan, Benguet on December 2009 to January 2010. The study site is about 120
kilometers away from Baguio City, and 4 hours ride by bus. It is located at Lepanto,
Mankayan, Benguet.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the manager, officers and members of Lepanto
Consumers Cooperative, 50 respondents were chosen through random sampling.
Collection of Data
A survey questionnaire was used as a tool in gathering data. This was given
personally to the respondents by the researcher. Personal interview was also done to
satisfy information needed in the study and validate answers given.
Data Analysis
Social capital components were measured using a five points Likert Scale. For
example: participation in the cooperative and community activities used of a scale 1 to 5,
where 1 represents never and the other extreme point represents always. For trust, 1-
represents not trust and 5-trust very much. Frequencies and means was obtained using
software Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 describes the profile of the respondents. The information included were
the position in household, civil status, age, educational attainment, occupation, religious
affiliation, ethno-linguistic group, type of membership, position in the coop, the number
of years of membership of the respondents, as well as the average number of household
members.
Position in household. Fifty-two percent (52%) of the respondents consider
themselves as head of the household, and 48% were not.
Sex. Out of the fifty respondents, majority sixty percent (60%) were female and
forty percent (40%) were male. This shows that the female have the highest number of
respondent than the male respondent.
Age. The computed mean of age of the respondents was 40.1 years. As to
distribution two percent (2%) of the respondents belonged to age bracket of 22-26; eight
percent (8%) belonged to the age 27-31; twenty-four percent (24%) belonged to the age
32-36; thirty four percent (34%) belonged to the age 37-41; ten percent (10%) belonged
to the age 42-46; eight percent belonged to 47-51 and fourteen percent (14%) belonged to
52-56.
Civil status. Majority (76%) were married, sixteen percent (16%) were widower
and eight percent (8%) were single.
Highest educational attainment. In terms of educational attainment forty-six
percent had finished college degree, sixteen percent (16%) finished vocational, eighteen
percent (18%) of the respondents reached secondary and two percent (2%) reached
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
14
elementary. The finding of the study implies that majority of the respondents had
attended formal education.
Occupation. Thirty percent were housewife, eight percent (8%) were midwife,
four percent (4%) nurse and security guard, twelve percent (12%) miner and janitress and
(2%) vendor, ten percent (10%) were driver and twenty-eight percent (28%) were
company employee. As to the occupation of the respondents there were more number of
housewives the study found out that their husbands works as miner but it is the wife who
were members of the cooperative.
Religious affiliation. Most (40%) of the respondents were Catholic, eighteen
percent (18%) were Iglesia ni Cristo, six percent were Anglican and the rest were Born
Again, Bethel, Free Believers and United Church of Christ in the Philippines.
Ethno-linguistic group. Majority sixty percent (60%) were kankana-ey, (30%)
were Ilokano, eight percent (8%) were Ibaloi and Kapampangan and (2%) were
Kalanguya.
Type of membership. Majority ninety-eight percent (98%) of the respondents
were regular members and two percent (2%) were associate member.
Position in the cooperative. Majority of the respondents were a member while ten
percent (10%) were an officer of the coop.
Number of years of membership. The computed mean year of the respondents as
member of the cooperative was 11.4 years. As to distribution, twenty-eight percent (28%)
belonged to the bracket 2-6 years, thirty-four percent (34%) belonged to the 7-11 years,
twenty-four percent (24%) belonged to 12-16 years, two percent (2%)belonged to 17-21
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
15
years, four percent (4%) 22-26 years, (4%) belonged to 27-31 years and also four percent
(4%) belonged to 32-36 years being a member of the cooperative.
Table 1. Profile of the respondents
CHARACTERISTICS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Position in the household
Head of household
26
52.0
Not a household head
24
48.0
TOTAL
50
100
Civil status
Single
4
8.0
Married
38
76.0
Widower
8
16.0
TOTAL
50
100
Position in the cooperative
Officer
5
10.0
Member
45
90.0
TOTAL
50
100
Membership
Associate
1
2.0
Regular
49
98.0
TOTAL
50
100
Educational Attainment
Elementary
1
2.0
Secondary
18
36.0
College
23
46.0
Vocational
8
16.0
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
16
Table 1 continued. . .
CHARACTERISTICS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Occupation
Housewife
15
30.0
Security Guard
2
4.0
Midwife
4
8.0
Nurse
2
4.0
Miner
6
12.0
Janitress
1
2.0
Driver
5
10.0
Vendor
1
2.0
Company Employee
14
28.0
TOTAL
50
100
Languages and dialects
English
43
86.0
Tagalog
47
94.0
Kankanaey
36
72.0
Ibaloi
6
12.0
Kalanguya
6
12.0
Ethnolinguistic group
Ilokano
15
30.0
Kankana-ey
30
60.0
Ibaloi
2
4.0
Kalanguya
1
2.0
Kapampangan
2
4.0
TOTAL
50
100
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
24
48.0
Born Again
5
10.0
Iglesia ni Cristo
9
18.0
Bethel
2
4.0
Free Believer
2
4.0
Anglican
3
6.0
United Church of Christ in
the Philippines
5
10.0
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
17
Table 1 continued. . .
CHARACTERISTICS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Age
22-26
1
2.0
27-31
4
8.0
32-36
12
24.0
37-41
17
34.0
42-46
5
10.0
47-51
4
8.0
52-56
7
14.0
TOTAL
50
100
Mean Age = 40.1 years old
No. of years being a member
2-6
14
28.0
7-11
17
34.0
12-16
12
24.0
17-21
1
2.0
22-26
2
4.0
27-31
2
4.0
32-36
2
4.0
TOTAL
50
100
Mean = 11.4 years
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
18
Household Population
Table 2 presents the number of members living in the household of the
respondents. The population were classified into adult men (16 years old and over), adult
women (16 years old and over), boys (15 years old and under), girls (15 years old and
under).
Out of 34 respondents who responded, majority (79.4%) had 1-2 number of adult
men in their household, and 20.5% had 2-4 adult members. As to the number of adult
women in the household, 80.4% of the 41 respondents have 1-2 members, 17% have 3-4
members and 2.4% have 5-6 members. For boy members, 86.1% said they have 1-2 and
only 13.0% have 3-4 members. As to girl members, 93.1% have 1-2 members and 6.9%
have 3-4 members. This finding shows that there were more respondents with adult
female than respondents with adult male. As to the boys and girls there are more boys
members than girls.
The total members of the respondents’ households were 18% with 3-4 members,
44% with 5-6, 22% with 7-8, and 8% each with 1-2 and 9-10 household members.
Eighteen percent of the respondent had 3-4 members, 44% with 5-6 members,
22% with 7-8 members, and 8% each with 1-2 and 9-10 household members.
This finding shows that many of the respondents have large household members.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
19
Table 2. Household population
POPULATION
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Adult men (16 years old and above)
1-2
27
79.4
3-4
7
20.5
TOTAL
34
100
Adult women (16 year old and above)
1-2
33
80.4
3-4
7
17.0
5-6
1
2.4
TOTAL
41
100
Boys (15 years old and under)
1-2
31
86.1
3-4
5
13.8
TOTAL
36
100
Total members
1-2
4
8.0
3-4
9
18.0
5-6
22
44.0
7-8
11
22.0
9-10
4
8.0
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
20
Level of Social Capital
Groups/networks and participation. Table 3 presents the groups/network and
participation of members towards religious, cultural/social groups, sport group, basic
service group, ethnic based groups, production groups, professional associations, and
with other cooperatives.
Majority (86%) of the respondents belonged to religious or spiritual group and the
largest population, 40% were the Roman Catholic group. The second largest populations
were the Iglesia ni Cristo (14%), followed by Born Again (10%) and Protestant group
(6%). The least were the Bethel (4%), Free Believers (4%), Anglican (4%) and the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines group (4%). The contribution mean per month
that each respondent is giving to their respective churches was P31.56. The respondents’
participation in group decision making had a mean of 2.37 which was interpreted as very
active. The rest of the respondents who did not answer might not belong to any religious
group.
For the cultural, social, emotional/support group, almost all of the respondents do
not belong to any group. There were only 7 (14%) of them who were active members.
Four (8%) of them were member of the BIBAK group, two (4%) were members of the
senior citizens group while one (2%) of them belonged to women’s group. The
respondents contributed an average of P5.71 per month to their groups. When it comes to
participation in decision making in their group they have the mean of 2.0 shows that they
are very active.
The finding reveals that only 14 (28%) of the total respondents were members of
sports group while the majority (72%) were not. Six (12%) belonged to volleyball league
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
21
members, three (6%) belonged to basketball league and one (2%) each to chess, sipa,
badminton, tennis and bowling players group. The participation in decision making mean
is 2.21 which shows that they are very active.
Table 3. Group/network and participation
CHARACTERISTIC
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Church Group Network
Bethel
2
4.0
Free Believers
2
4.0
Anglican
2
4.0
Roman Catholic
20
40.0
Iglesia ni Cristo
7
14.0
Born Again
5
10.0
United Church of Christ in the Philippines
2
4.0
Protestant
3
6.0
No religious group network
7
14.0
TOTAL
50
100
Cultural, and social group
Women’s
1
2.0
Senior Citizen
2
4.0
BIBAK
4
8.0
No cultural and social group
43
86.0
TOTAL
50
100
Sports Group
Basketball league
3
6.0
Volleyball league
6
12.0
Chess
1
2.0
Sipa
1
2.0
Badminton
1
2.0
Tennis
1
2.0
Bowling
1
2.0
Non-sports group
36
72.0
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
22
Table 3. continued . . .
CHARACTERISTIC
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Basic Services Group
BHW
8
16.0
Tanod
5
10.0
Lupon
1
2.0
Non-basic services group
36
72.0
TOTAL
50
100
Ethnic based groups
Community organization
1
2.0
Kankanaey group
3
6.0
Tocucan organization
1
2.0
Bauko organization
1
2.0
Non-ethnic groups
44
88.0
TOTAL
50
100
Production group
Farmers group
7
14.0
Vendors group
7
14.0
Non-production group
36
72.0
Professional Association
Rotary
2
4.0
LWA
1
2.0
Non-professional Association
47
94.0
TOTAL
50
100
As to basic services groups, there were 14 (28%) among the respondents who
were members of Barangay Health Worker, Tanod, and Lupon with a participation in
decision making mean of 3.0 (somewhat active). Majority (72%) of the respondents do
not belong to any basic services group.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
23
When it comes to membership to ethnic based groups, six (12%) of the
respondents belonged to a group. Three (6%) belonged to Kankana-ey group and one
(2%) each belonged to community organization, Tocucan organization and Bauko
organization. The respondents contributed an average of P8.33 per month to their groups.
Their level of participation in decision making had a mean of 2.0 (very active).
As to production group, thirty-six (72%) do not belong to any group while the rest
14 (28) were members of the different production groups. Seven (14%) belonged to
farmers group and 17% also were vendors group. The contribution per month mean is
P24.14 while the participation in decision making mean is 2.50 (very active).
For the professional’s association, out of 50 respondents, almost all (94%) do not
belong to any group. There were two (4%) who belonged to Rotary Club and one (2%)
belonged to Lepanto Women’s Association (LWA). The participation in decision making
mean is 2.0 (very active), and the contribution per month mean is P10.00.
As to membership in other cooperative all of the respondents do not belong to any
other cooperative.
Level of Trust Among Respondents
The respondents were asked to rate whether they have no trust, have little trust,
neither have trust nor have no trust, much trust and very much trust the families/relatives,
friends, co-tribes and neighbors that were of the same cooperative so as with the
cooperative officers and staffs such as the manager, BOD’s bookkeeper/secretary,
treasurer, collector, audit committee and the credit committee. Table 4 shows that the
mean level of trust among the respondents with co-members is just neutral. This means
that they do not know if they are going to trust or not to trust these people.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
24
Table 4. Level of trust of respondents
TRUST VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Families/Relatives
50
4.28
Very much
Friends
50
3.6
Neutral
Co-tribes
50
3.28
Neutral
Neighbors
50
3.22
Neutral
Coop Manager
50
3.18
Neutral
Coop BOD’s
50
3.24
Neutral
Coop Bookkeeper
50
3.36
Much
Coop Treasurer
50
3.26
Neutral
Coop Collector
50
3.38
Much
Audit Committee
50
3.3
Neutral
Credit Committee
50
3.28
Neutral
Legend: 1 – not trust
Mean rating: 1 – 1.74 = 1
2 – little trust
1.75 – 2.54 = 2
3 – neutral
2.55 – 3.34 = 3
4 – much
3.35 – 4.14 = 4
5 – very much
4.15 – 5 = 5
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
25
Level of Confidence of Respondents
Another trust variable measured was the confidence of the respondents that they
could turn to their family/relatives, friends, neighbors, money lender/informal credit,
groups associations, government bank, co-members and the cooperative itself in times of
financial difficulty. In times of difficulties the respondents were very confident that they
can turn to relatives, friends and government bank, co-members and cooperative with a
confident rating of 4 (confident).
Table 5. Level of confidence
TRUST VARIABLE
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Family/relatives, friends, neighbors
50
4.26
Very confident
Money lender, informal credit groups
50
3.62
Confident
Associations
Government Bank
50
3.38
Confident
Cooperative and co-members
50
3.64
Confident
Legend: 1 – not confident
2 – little confident
3 – neutral
4 – confident
5 – very confident
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
26
Poverty Perception
Table 6 presents the perceptions of respondents towards poverty. The respondents
rated their household as 3.1 meaning neutral (neither poor nor rich) but were confident
(3.84) that they will be somewhat better off in the future.
Table 6. Poverty perception
POVERTY VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
How do you rate your household
50
3.1
Neutral
Thinking about the future while still a
50
3.84
Somewhat better
member of the coop, do you think you
off
and your household will be.
Being a member of a coop, where
50
3.58
Somewhat
would you put yourself.
powerful
If there is, a crisis, how would rate
50
3.58
Somewhat
your households ability to survive
secure
such crisis
How confident would you say that you
50
3.82
More confident
and your household would cope in a
crisis since you became a member of
the coop
Legend: a. 1 – very poor
2 – poor
3 – neutral
4 – rich
5 – very rich
b. 1 – much worse off
2 – somewhat worse off
3 – about the same
4 – somewhat better off 5 – much better off
c. 1 – totally powerless
2 – somewhat powerless
3 – neutral
4 – somewhat powerful 5 – very powerful
d. 1 – very unsecured
2 – somewhat unsecured
3 – neutral
4 – somewhat secure
5 – very secure
e. 1 – much less confident 2 – less confident
3 - same
4 – more confident
5 – much more confident
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
27
Being a member of the cooperative, the respondents gave a rating of 3.30
(somewhat powerful) as to their power. They also gave a rating of 3.50 (somewhat
secure) to their household to cope in a crisis since they became members of the
cooperative. The results show that they could turn to the cooperative in times of crisis.
Participation in the Cooperative
Table 7 shows the participation of respondents in the activities of the cooperative.
As mentioned by Putnam (2000), people often might be better of if they cooperate with
each other in doing their shares because social capital allows citizen to resolve collective
problems more easily. Findings show that fifty two percent (52%) of the respondents
participated once a year, 38 % responded twice a year and 10% responded more than
twice in a year.
Table 7 also shows whether the respondents have helped in the last six (6) months
or not at all. Six percent (6%) responded that they helped as guarantor, twenty-percent
(20%) helped as to donation, three (6%) of the respondent helped through solicitation,
eight percent (8%) helped through solving problems and advisory and sixteen percent
(16%) helped through collecting death-aid.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
28
Table 7. Participation in the cooperative
PARTICIPATION VARIABLE
FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE
Frequency in participation in coop
activities in a year
Once
26
52.0
Twice
19
38.0
More than twice
5
10.0
TOTAL
50
100
Support provided to the coop in the
last 6 months
Guarantor
3
6.0
Donation
10
20.0
Solicitation
3
6.0
Solving problems and advisory
4
8.0
Death-aid
8
16.0
No support provided in last 6 months.
22
44.0
TOTAL
50
100
Sociability of the Respondents
The sociability of the members within the cooperative, organization, and within
the community, is shown in Table 8. The mean was derived to get the ratings of the
respondents towards particular sociability.
Based on the mean ratings the respondents sometimes visit co-members in their
homes; seldom get together with other members; sometimes participate in the
cooperatives decision making, seldom joined canao, seldom participate in community
activities, sometimes had recreations with other members, seldom clan reunion and
seldom joined bayanihan activities.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
29
Table 8. Sociability of respondents
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Visit co-members in their homes
50
2.58
Sometimes
Get together with co-members
50
2.54
Seldom
Participate in coop’s decision making
50
2.64
Sometimes
Cañao
50
2.06
Seldom
Community activities
50
2.88
Seldom
Recreation
50
3.1
Sometimes
Clan Reunion
50
2.48
Seldom
Bayanihan
50
2.3
Seldom
Legend: 1- never
Mean rating: 1 – 1.74 =1
2 – seldom
1.75 – 2.54=2
3 – sometimes
2.55 – 3.34=3
4 – often
3.35 – 4.14=4
5 – always
4.15 – 5 =5
Life Satisfaction
The life satisfaction rating of respondents are shown in Table 9. The respondents
perceived that they are happy (mean = 3.74), have moderate impact (mean = 3.78) in
making their cooperative a better one, have neutral feeling of belongingness to their coop
(mean = 3.5), and somewhat satisfied with their life as a whole these days (mean = 3.66).
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
30
Table 9. Life satisfaction
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Taking all things together, would you
50
3.74
Happy
say you are… (a)
How much impact do you think
50
3.78
Moderate Impact
members like you can have in making
your coop a better one…(b)
How would you rate your togetherness
50
3.5
Neutral
of feeling of belongingness in your
coop…(c)
How satisfied are you as a whole these
50
3.66
Somewhat
days…(d)
satisfied
Legend: a. 1 – very unhappy
b. 1 – no impact
2 – unhappy
2 – little impact
3 – neutral
3 – neutral
4 – happy
4 – moderate impact
5 – very happy
5 – big impact
c. 1 – not close at all
d. 1 – very dissatisfied
2 – not very close
2 – somewhat dissatisfied
3 – neutral
3 – neutral
4 – somewhat close
4 – somewhat satisfied
5 – very close
5 – very satisfied
Relationships of Social Capital Variables
This is to determine the relationships of social variables with the respondents as to
the officers and the members.
Relationship of Sociability and Position in Coop
Table 10 presents eight statements to compare the sociability among cooperative
officers and members. Officers often visit co-members in their homes (mean = 3.48)
while the member seldom do (mean = 2.35). This means that they view this activity very
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
31
difficultly. It may be that the officers take this activity as a responsibility because they are
the leaders in the cooperative. Besides, it is the members who elected them as officers.
For the members, they do not feel it as a responsibility but rather a voluntary action.
Officers often get together with members (mean = 4.3) while members seldom do (mean
= 2.41).
The officers always participate in the cooperative’s decision-making (mean =
4.44) while the members sometimes do (mean = 3.13). Finding shows that they have
different view to this activity. This expected because the officers are the ones responsible
Table 10. Relationship of sociability and position in coop
SOCIABILITY
OFFICER DESCRIPTION MEMBER DESCRIPTION
VARIABLES
Visit co-members in their
3.48
Often
2.35
Seldom
homes
Get together with co-
4.3
Often
2.41
Seldom
members
Participate in coop’s
4.44
Always
3.13
Sometimes
decision making
Cañao
2.38
Seldom
2.16
Seldom
Community activities
4.44
Always
3.58
Often
Recreation
2.71
Sometimes
2.33
Seldom
Clan Reunion
2.36
Seldom
2.28
Seldom
Bayanihan
3.56
Often
2.68
Sometimes
Legend: 1 – never 2 – seldom
3 – sometimes
4 – often
5 – always
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
32
in making policies while the members only participate in decision making when issues
are presented during the general assembly meeting, conducted once a year.
Both the officers and members seldom participate in community activities (mean
= 4.44) while the members often do (mean = 3.58); officers sometimes joined recreations
and members seldom do; officers often joined bayanihan projects while the members
sometimes do.
Relationship of Poverty Perception and Position in Coop
The relationship between poverty perception of the respondents and their position
in the coop was shown in Table 11. Both the officers and members have a neutral view
regarding the economic status of their household, this means that they rated their
households as neither poor nor rich, they have also the same view as to ability to survive
crisis that is somewhat secure and the confidence to cope up with a crisis as a member of
the cooperative that is they have more confident. As to future economic status of the
household officers believed that while they are members of the cooperative, their
household will be much better off while members viewed their household to be about the
same. Findings show that the officers and the members have different perception as to the
future economic status of their household. Furthermore, officers recognized themselves
as somewhat powerful (mean = 3.44) if there is a crisis while the members are neutral
(mean = 3.27).
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
33
Table 11. Relationship of poverty perception and position in coop
POVERTY
OFFICER
DESCRIPTION MEMBER DESCRIPTION
PERCEPTION
Current economic
3.15
Neutral
3.02
Neutral
status of the
household
Future economic
4.31
Much better
3.14
About the same
status of the
household
Ability to cope up
3.44
Somewhat
3.27
Neutral
with coming crisis
powerful
Ability to survive
3.47
Somewhat secure
3.44
Somewhat
crisis
secure
Confidence to cope
4.11
More confident
3.71
More confident
up with a crisis, as a
member of the
cooperative
Legend: a. 1 – very poor
b. 1- much worse off
c. 1 – totally powerless
2 – poor
2 – somewhat worse off 2 – somewhat powerless
3 – neutral 3 – about the same
3 – neutral
4 – rich
4 – somewhat better off 4 – somewhat powerful
5 – very rich
5 – much better off
5 – very powerful
d. 1 – very unsecured
e. 1 – much less confident
2 – somewhat unsecured
2 – less confident
3 – neutral
3 – same
4 – somewhat secure
4 – more confident
5 – very secure
5 – much more confident
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
34
Relationship of Life Satisfaction and
Position in the Cooperative
Four items presented in Table 12 to rate the life satisfaction among members and
officers. Taking all things together, the officers and members have the same view as to
life satisfaction they rated themselves as happy when it comes to self-evaluation of
happiness, they have moderate impact as to level of impact to cooperative. Feeling of
belongingness in the cooperative they have neutral and as to current life satisfaction they
rated themselves as somewhat satisfied.
Table 12. Relationship of life satisfaction and position in coop
LIFE SATISFACTION OFFICER DESCRIPTION MEMBER DESCRIPTION
Self evaluation of
3.61
Happy
3.44
Happy
happiness
Level of impact to the
4.14
Moderate
3.67
Moderate Impact
cooperative
Impact
Feeling of
3.14
Neutral
3.03
Neutral
belongingness in the
cooperative
Current life satisfaction
4.13
Somewhat
3.66
Somewhat
satisfied
satisfied
Legend: a. 1 – very unhappy
b. 1 – no impact
2 – unhappy
2 – little impact
3 – neutral
3 – neutral
4 – happy
4 – moderate impact
5 – very happy
5 – big impact
c. 1 – not close at all
d. 1 – very dissatisfied
2 – not very close
2 – somewhat dissatisfied
3 – neutral
3 – neutral
4 – somewhat close
4 – somewhat satisfied
5 – very close
5 – very satisfied
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
35
Relationship of Trust and Position in Coop
Eleven indicators were presented in Table 13 to rate the relationship of
trustworthiness among members and officers of the cooperative. Officers and members
have very much trust to their families and relatives. To their friends that is a member of
the cooperative, officers have much trust while the members have neutral trust, to their
co-tribes officers have neutral (mean = 3.28) while members have little trust (mean =
2.44). Both of the respondents have much trust to their neighbors. Moreover, the officers
have much trust to the manager, bookkeepers/secretary, collector, audit committee and
the credit committee but they have a neutral trust to the BOD’s and the Treasurer. On the
other hand, members have much trust to the manager, little trust to the treasurer and the
rest they have that neutral trust.
Table 13. Relationship of trust and position in the cooperative
TRUST
OFFICER DESCRIPTION MEMBER DESCRIPTION
Families/relatives that
4.28
Very much
4.15
Very much
are member of the same
coop
Friends that are member
3.36
Much
2.58
Neutral
of the same coop
Co-tribes
3.28
Neutral
2.44
Little Trust
Neighbors
4.12
Much
3.56
Much
Coop Manager
4.11
Much
3.47
Much
Coop BOD’s
3.15
Neutral
2.66
Neutral
Coop
3.36
Much
3.15
Neutral
bookkeepers/secretary
Coop treasurer
3.34
Neutral
2.38
Little trust
Coop collector
4.12
Much
3.27
Neutral
Coop audit committee
3.38
Much
2.56
Neutral
Coop credit committee
3.44
Much
3.24
Neutral
Legend: 1 – not trust 2 – little trust 3 – neutral
4 – much
5 – very much
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
36
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the social capital among members of
Lepanto Consumers Cooperative (LCC).
A questionnaire was used to gather information and data needed. The data
gathered were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted based on the objectives of the study
using descriptive analysis such as frequency counts, percentage and mean. There were
fifty (50) respondents that were chosen through random sampling.
Majority of the respondents were female, and a great majority were married.
Many of the respondents have obtained college education.
The sociability of members within the cooperative and within the community and
so with participation in the cooperative and within other groups/network is low.
However, respondents believed that their cooperative is active.
Respondents trust very much the families and relatives who are member of the
cooperative. On the part of their confidence, the respondents were confident that they can
turn to families/relatives, friends, neighbors, the cooperative and co-members in times of
financial difficulty. On the personal side respondents were happy and somewhat satisfied
with their life.
Conclusions
The sociability of the respondents within the cooperative and within the
community and so with participation in the cooperative and within other groups/networks
is low.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
37
The low result on participation and sociability mean rating of the respondents
within the cooperative and within the community indicates that the respondents are
lacking in personal building that which social capital is all about.
Recommendations
It is recommended that a seminar on values analysis should be provided for the
members to further develop a smooth relationship in the cooperative.
Adding cooperative activity in a year that require members appearance is
recommended to the cooperative, so that closeness awareness and feeling of
belongingness in the coop will be better.
It is also recommended that relationship building activities among members of the
cooperative is to be done in order to enhance participation in decision-making and in their
activities of the cooperative.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
38
LITERATURE CITED
BOURDIEU, P. 1986. Forms of Social Capital. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from http:
// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/socialcapital.
BULLEN, P. and ONYX, J. 1999. Social Capital: Family Support Services and
Neighbourhood and Community Centrism NSW. Retrieved September 16, 2008
from http://www.mapl.com.au/Socialcapital/Soccapl.htm.
COLEMAN, J. 1994. Forms of Social Capital. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital retrieved on
September 19, 2008.
DEKKER, P. and USLANER, E. 2001. Forms of Social Capital. Retrieved September 19,
2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social capital.
FUKUYAMA, F. 1995. Social Capital and Civil Society. The Institute of Public Policy.
George Mason University. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from http://inf.org/
external.
PUTNAM, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
New York Retrieved September 16, 2008 from http://www.infed.org/biblio/social
capital.htm.
SAMPSON, R. J. 2005. Social Capital: Civic Community and Education. Retrieved
December 9, 2009 from http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.html.
SANDER, J. 2002. Social Capital. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from
http://www.gnudung.com/literature/definition.html.
TAYLOR, M. 1982. Social Capital. Retrieved December 3, 2009 from
http://www.mapl.com.au/social capital/soccap 1.html.
VENKATESH, S. A. 2006. Social Capital: Civic Community and education. Retrieved
December 3, 2009 from http://www.infed.org/biblio/Social_capital.html.
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
39
APPENDIX A
Communication Letter
Benguet State University
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
La T rinidad, Benguet
Sir/ Madam:
Greetings!!
The undersigned is fourth year Bachelor of Science in Agribusiness (BSAB)
student majoring in Cooperative Management presently conducting a research entitled:
“SOCIAL CAPITAL AMONG MEMBERS OF LEPANTO CONSUMERS
COOPERATIVE”, a partial requirement for graduation.
In this regard, may I ask a portion of your precious time to answer all the
questions to complete the research undertaking. Rest assured that all information you will
give be treated utmost confidentially.
Thank you very much for sharing me a part of your time. God Bless!
Respectfully yours,
JOAN S. AYAN
(Researcher)
Noted:
JOVITA M. SIM
Adviser
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
40
APPENDIX B
Survey Questionnaire
A. General Information
1. Name of Cooperative: ____________________ Location:_________________
2. Is the respondent the head of household? ________ Yes ________ No
3. Sex of respondent? _______ male _______ female
4. Age of respondent? ___________
5. Civil Status? ________ single ________ married _______ widow/er
6. How long has respondent a member of their cooperative? __________
7. Position in cooperative: _________ officer _________ member
8. Membership: ________ associate member _________ regular member
B. Groups/Networks and Participation
9. Please indicate if you belong to any of the following groups by answering the
appropriate columns.
Group
Name of
How much
How actively do you
organization money do you participate in this groups
or group
contribute to
decision making (specify)
this group in a 1= active, 2= very active,
month
3=somewhat active, 4=
Does not participate in
decision making
1. Religious or spiritual group
(specify)
2.Cultural, social,
emotional/support group (such as
BIBAK, Senior Citizen)
3. Sports group, (specify)
4. Basic services group (such as
Barangay health worker, tanod),
(specify)
5. Ethnic group (such as tribe,
indigenous, community
organization), (specify)
6. Production group (such as
farmers, fishermen, vendors
group), (specify)
7. Production group (such as
farmers, fishermen, vendors
group), (specify)
8. Professional Association (such
as LION’s, Rotary…), (specify)
9. Other Cooperatives , (specify)
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
41
Sociability
10. Please rate your participation in the following activities:
Never
Always
1
2
3
4
5
I do the following informal activities
a. visit co-member in their home
b. Get together with co-members
(recreational, parties etc…)
I participate in our coops decision making
I attend the following activities
a. cañao
b. community activities (fiesta,
Christmas)
c. Recreations (sport fest, film
showing)
d. clan reunion
e. Bayanihan
Participation in Cooperative
11. On average, how much money do you deposit in your coop in a month?
__________
12. ON average, how often do you participate in your coops activities in a year?
________once __________ twice _________ more than twice
13. Have you helped someone of the coop members in the last 6 months?
______ yes ________ no
If Yes how? _____________________________________________________
14. Please indicate how you rate your coop whether active or inactive. Rank the
reason why you choose your specific answer (1 is the most important and 5 the least
important.
I. Active
Rate
a. strong leadership
_________
b. A strong sense of cooperativism
_________
c. Politics/politicians
_________
d. Government Support
_________
e. Desire to get ahead economically
_________
f. Good governance
_________
II. Inactive
Rate
a. No strong leadership
_________
b. No sense of cooperativism
_________
c. Mismanagement of coop officers
_________
d. Conflict between different groups in village/neighborhood
_________
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
42
e. Coop members care only about themselves/selfish
_________
f. There is no government support for groups
_________
g. Coop member’s delinquency on loans
_________
h. Lack of resources
_________
C. Trust
15. How much do you trust the following?
No
Little Neutra Much Very
trust
2
l
4
Much
(1)
3
5
a. Families/relatives that are member of
the same coop
b. Friends that are a member of the same
coop
c. Co-tribes that are a member of the
same coop
d. Neighbors
e. Coop Employees
e1. Manager
e2. Board of Directors
e3. Bookkeeper/Secretary
e4. Treasurer
e5. Collector
e6. Audit committee
e7. Credit Committee
16. In times of financial difficulty, how confident are you that you can turn to these
different groups for help?
Not
Little
Neutral Confident Very
confident confident
confident
1
2
3
4
5
Family/relatives, friends
neighbors
Moneylender, informal
credit groups, associations
Government bank
Cooperatives and co-
members
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
43
D. Poverty Perception
16. How would you rate your household?
_______ very poor (1)
_______ poor (2)
_______ neutral (3)
_______ rich (4)
_______ very rich (5)
17. Thinking about the future while still a member of the coop, over all do you think
that you and your household will be…
_______ much worse off (1)
_______ somewhat worse off (2)
_______ about the same (3)
_______ somewhat better off (4)
_______ much better off (5)
18. Being a member of the coop, where would you put yourself?
_______ totally powerless (1)
_______ somewhat powerless (2)
_______ neutral (3)
_______ somewhat powerful (4)
_______ very powerful (5)
19. If these were a crisis, such as poor crops, loss of job or illness, how would you
rate your household ability to survive such crisis?
_______ very unsecured (1)
_______ somewhat powerless (2)
_______ neutral (3)
_______ somewhat better off (4)
_______ much better off (5)
20. How confident would you say that you and your household could cope in a crisis
since you became a member of the coop?
_______ much less confident (1
_______ less confident (2)
_______ same (3)
_______ more confident (4)
_______ much more confident (5)
E. Life Satisfaction
21. Taking all things together, would you say you are…
_______ very unhappy (1)
_______ unhappy (2)
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
44
_______ neutral (3)
_______ happy (4)
_______ very happy (5
22. Overall, how much impact do you think members like you, can have in making
your coop a better one?
_______ no impact (1)
_______ moderate impact (4)
_______ little impact (2)
_______ big impact (5)
_______ neutral (3)
23. How would you rate the togetherness or feeling of belonging in your coop?
_______not close at all (1) _______ somewhat close (4)
_______ not very close (2) _______ very close (5)
_______ neutral (3)
24. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?
_______ very dissatisfied (1)
_______ somewhat satisfied (4)
_______ somewhat dissatisfied (2) _______ very satisfied (5)
_______ neutral (3)
25. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
Reason
_______ very ashamed
_________________
_______ ashamed
_________________
_______ neither proud nor ashamed
_________________
_______ proud
_________________
_______ very proud
_________________
F. Demographic
26. How much formal schooling have you had
_______ none
_______ secondary
_______ primary
_______ college
_______ elementary
_______ vocational
27. How many of the following live in your household?
_______ a. adult men (16 and over)
_______ b. adult women (16 and over)
_______ c. Boys (15 and under)
_______ d. Girls (15 and under)
_______ e. Total members
28. What is your occupation?
_______ Housewife
_______student
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
45
_______ self-employed
_______ others (specify)
29. What language/s and dialects do you speak?
_______ Ilokano
_______ Iloko
_______ Tagalog
_______ Kankanaey
_______ ibaloi
_______ kalanguya
30. What is your ethno-linguistic group?
_______ Iloko
_______ Kalanguya
_______ Kankanaey
_______ others, specify ________
_______ Ibaloi
31. What is your religious affiliation?
_______ catholic
_______ Islam
_______ born again
_______ other (specify) ________
_______ Iglesia ni Cristo
Social Capital Among Members of Lepanto Consumers Cooperative
in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet / Joan S. Ayan. 2010
Document Outline
- Social Capital Among Members of LepantoConsumers Cooperative in Lepanto, Mankayan, Benguet
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Rationale
- Statement of the Problem
- Objectives of the Study
- Importance of the Study
- Scope and Delimitations of the Study
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Definitions of Social Capital
- Benefits Associated with Social Capital
- Themes in the Literature
- Importance of Social Capital
- Definition of Terms
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Profile of the Respondents
- Household Population
- Level of Social Capital
- Level of Trust Among Respondents
- Level of Confidence of Respondents
- Poverty Perception
- Participation in the Cooperative
- Sociability of the Respondents
- Life Satisfaction
- Relationships of Social Capital Variables
- Relationship of Sociability and Position in Coop
- Relationship of Poverty Perception and Position in Coop
- Relationship of Life Satisfaction andPosition in the Cooperative
- Relationship of Trust and Position in Coop
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- Summary
- Conclusions
- Recommendations
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDIX