BIBLIOGRAPHY KIANG, KIMBERLY A. APRIL 2009....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KIANG, KIMBERLY A. APRIL 2009. Social Capital among members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Dr. Marie Klondy T. Dagupen
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the Social Capital among the members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). A sample of
fifty (50) respondents was chosen at random from the various offices in Benguet
Provincial Government.
A questionnaire – checklist with Likert – type scale was constructed and served as
the main instrument for gathering the needed data.
Social Capital components were measured using a five point Likert – scale. Data
were tabulated using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage and
mean.
Frequencies, percentage, and means were obtained using the Software Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
One way - Analysis of Variance was used to determine the relationships between
the respondents profile with Social Capital variables.
The sociability of members with in the cooperative and with in the community is
and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other groups/networks is low.
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 behavior 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
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Definitional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
5
Evaluating Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
7
Basic Components of Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
8
Social Capital Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Locale and Time of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Respondents of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Method of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Profile of the Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Level of Social Capital among Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
19
Informal Groups/Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
19
Level of Trust of Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
iii
Level of Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
24
Level of Agreement of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….
24
Poverty Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
25
Participation in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …
26
Participation in Social Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
29
Life Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
30
Support Given and Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
31
Pride in Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
32
Relationship between Social Capital Variable
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
33
Relationship between Sociability Variables
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
33
Relationship between Poverty Perceptions
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
34
Relationship between Trusts Variables
35
and Position in the coop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Relationship between Confidence Variables
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
36
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . …
38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
41
Letter to the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
42
Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
iv
1
INTRODUCTION
Social capital is an informal norm that promotes co-operation between
individuals. In the economic sphere it reduces transaction costs and in the political sphere
it promotes the kind of associational life which is necessary for the success of limited
government and modern democracy. While it often arises from iterated Prisoner’s
Dilemma games, it also is a byproduct of religion, tradition, shared historical experience
and other types of cultural norms. Thus, while awareness of social capital is often critical
for understanding development, it is difficult to generate through public policy. Building
social capital has typically been seen as a task for ‘second generation’ economic reform;
but unlike economic policies or even economic institutions, social capital cannot be so
easily created or shaped by public policy.
Social capital is a concept in business, economics, organizational behavior,
political science, public health, sociology and natural resources management that refers to
connections within and between social networks.
The concept and theory of social capital dates back to the origins of social
science; however, recent scholarship has focused on social capital as a subject of social
organization and a potential source of value that can be harnessed and converted for
strategic and gainful purposes. According to Putnam (2000), the central premise of social
capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of
all "social networks" and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for
each other.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
2
A cooperative is a social network. The International Cooperative Alliance (1937)
defines a cooperative as an 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. In a narrower but commonly accepted
sense, mutually beneficial cooperative behavior is the essence of social capital concept.
This study will focus on the study of social capital among members and officers
of Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative.
The Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative was registered
as a consumers’ cooperative on January 18, 1970 with Mr. Vicente Guerrero as its first
president. Because of the clamor of the members, a credit cooperative was organized
combining it with the consumers. A consumer store of the cooperative was first
established at Km. 5 public market but was transferred to the capitol in 1973. As required
by Presidential Decree No. 175 and letter of instruction No. 23, the cooperative was re -
registered on August 10, 1978,
The Articles of cooperation and the by – laws were amended changing the name
of the cooperative to Benguet Government Kilusang Bayan ng Mamimili, Inc. on October
11, 1979. The credit cooperative was then phase out because the officers at that time
transferred to different agencies or offices. Because of this, the cooperative was
reorganized in June 1989. The new set of officers, headed by Mrs. Margaret P.
Lumigued worked very hard in order to activate it. The board of directors started to
buckle down to work. All the canteen personnel were terminated and new employees
taken. The business started zero balance or in the red and so the canteen personnel has
been supplied on consignment basis. A continuous supervision of the canteen personnel
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
3
had been taken by the board of directors taking turns.
At the end of the year 1991, the unpaid debts to suppliers, including the lost
capital shares of the members were all restituted. In October 1994, the credit service was
opened granting a one – month salary loan but not exceeding to P5, 000.00 payable in
one year. In 1995, the cooperative reached its million-peso mark in total assets. Before
the credit service started, Provincial Treasurer Mauricio B. Ambanloc accepted the
collection or amortization of loans thru payroll deduction as approved by the Provincial
Board.
On November 26, 1996, the amendment of the Articles of cooperation and the by
– laws was approved changing the name to Benguet Government employees Multi –
purpose Cooperative operating on two services – consumers (canteen) and credit (loans).
Since then, there have been several amendments approved by the General Assembly and
subsequently approved by the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA).
The study will be done in order to determine levels of trust of members of
Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). This study
will provide recommendations or suggestions on specific actions in order to improve
social capital within the organization.
This study sought to find out the following:
1. To determine the demographic profile of respondents.
2. To determine the level of Social Capital among the members of Benguet Government
Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative.
a. Informal Networks
b. Trust
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
4
c. Poverty Perception
d. Participation
1 Participation in the Cooperative
2 Participation in the Social Activities
e. Life Satisfaction
3. To determine the relationship of the Social Capital variables and position in the coop.
1 Relationship between Sociability variables and position in the coop.
2 Relationship between Poverty Perceptions and position in the coop.
3 Relationship between Trust variables and position in the coop.
4 Relationship between Confidence variables and position in the coop.
4. To suggest specific actions to improve Social Capital for the cooperatives.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Definitional Issues
The term “Capital” is used by analogy with other forms of economic capital as
such capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits. However, the
analogy with capital is misleading to the extent that, unlike traditional forms of capital,
social capital is depleted by use, but in fact depleted by non – use (use it or lose it).
In the forms of social capital, Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms
of capital: economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. He defines social capital
as “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
and recognition”. His treatment of the concept is instrumental, focusing on the
advantages to possessors’ of social capital and the “deliberate construction of sociability
for the purpose of creating this resource”
Social capital does not have a clear, undisputed meaning, for substantive and
ideological reasons (Dolfsma and Dannreuther 2003, Foley and Edwards 1997). For this
reason, there is no set and commonly agreed upon definition of social capital and the
particular definition adopted by a study will depend on the discipline and level of
investigation (Robinson, et al). Not surprisingly considering the different frameworks for
looking at social capital, authors tend to discuss the concept, its intellectual origin, its
diversity of applications and some of its unresolved issues before adopting a school of
thought and adding their own definition (Adamson and Roncevic 2003). Other authors
have identified that definitions vary depending on whether they focus on the substance,
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
6
the sources, or the effects of social capital (Adler and Kwoon 2002; field et al. 2002;
Robinson et al. 2002). Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002b) supported this view
identifying that the main cause of variance in definition is caused by focusing on the
farm, source or consequences of social capital. Social capital is multidimensional and
must be conceptualized as such to have any explanatory valve (Eastis 1998).
Robert David Putnam, if not the first one to write on the issue, is considered as the
major author on the concept of social capital. He is a U.S. political scientist and professor
at Harvard University, and is well known for his writings on civic engagement and civil
society along with social capital. However, his work is concentrated on the United States
only. His most famous (and controversial) work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United
States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and
political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences. Though
he measured this decline in data of many varieties, his most striking point was that
virtually every traditional civic, social, and fraternal organization had undergone a
massive decline in membership.
Social capital is the web of cooperative relationships between citizens that
facilitate resolution of the collection problems (Brehm and Rahn, 1997). According to
Fukuyama 1995, social capital is the ability of people to work together for common
purposes in groups and organizations.
In the broadest sense, the term encompasses those social capital relationships that
help people to get along with each other and act more effectively than they could as
isolated individuals. In this view, patterns of social organization, especially, trust,
mutuality and reciprocity, are seen as important resources, which can result in benefits to
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
7
individual, groups and society.
Social capital is the cumulative capacity of social groups to cooperate and work
together for the common good (Montgomery, 1998).
James Coleman defined social capital functionally as “a variety of entities with
two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they
facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure” – that is social capital is anything
that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships,
reciprocity, trust and social norms.
Evaluating Social Capital
Though Bourdieu (1986) might agree with Coleman that social capital in the
abstract is a neutral resource, his work tends to show how it can be used practically to
produce or reproduce inequality, demonstrating for instance how people gain access to
powerful positions through the direct and indirect employment of social connections.
Robert Putnam has used the concept in a much more positive light: though he was at first
careful to argue that social capital was a neutral term, stating “whether or not shared are
praiseworthy is, of course, entirely another matter”, and also a broad societal measure of
communal health.
As editors of a special edition of the American Behavioral Scientist on Social
Capital, Civic Society and Contemporary Democracy, Edwards and Foley (1996) raised
two key issues in the study of social capital. First, social capital is not equally available to
all, in much the same way that other forms of capital are differently available.
Geographic and social isolation limit access to this resource. Second, not all-social capital
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
8
is created equally. The value of specific source of social capital depends in no small part
on the socio – economic position of the source with society. Here, it is important to note
the distinction between “bonding” vis – a – vis “bridging” social capital when in balance
with its necessary antecedent, “bonding”.
Edwards and Foley, as editors of a special edition of American Behavioral
Scientist on Social capital, Civic society and Contemporary democracy, raised two key
issues in the study of social capital. First, social capital is not equally available to all, in
much the same way that other forms of social capital are differently available.
Geographic and social isolation limit access to this resource. Second, not all social capital
is created equally. The value of a specific source of social capital depends in no small
part on the socio – economic position of the source with society. On top of this, Portes
has identified four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion of outsider’s excess
claims on group members; restrictions on individual freedom; and downward leveling
norms.
Finally, social capital is often linked to the success of democracy and political
involvement. Robert Putnam, in his book Bowling Alone makes the argument that social
capital is linked to the recent decline in American political participation as well an
increased tendency towards more conservative, right – wing politics.
Basic Components of Social Capital
Social capital is about the value of social networks, bonding similar people, with
norms of reciprocity (Dekker and Uslaner 2001; Uslaner 2001). Sander 2002 stated that
‘the folk wisdom that more people get their jobs from whom they know, rather than what
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
9
they know, turns out to be true. Social Capital refers to the collective value of all ‘social
networks’ and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other
(Robert Putnam, 1993).
According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to
building and maintaining democracy. Putnam believes that social capital can be measured
by the amount of trust and reciprocity in a community or between individuals.
Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: bonding social capital
and bridging social capital. Bonding refers to the value assigned to social networks
between socially heterogeneous groups. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of
other benefits for societies, government, individuals and communities.
Without “bridging” social capital, “bonding” groups can become isolated and
disenfranchised from the rest of the society and, most importantly, from groups with
which bridging must occur in order to denote an ‘increase’ in social capital. Bonding
social capital is a necessary antecedent for the development of the more powerful form of
bridging social capital. Bonding and bridging social can work together productively if in
balance, or they may work against each other. As social capital bonds and stronger
homogeneous groups form, the likelihood of bridging social capital is attenuated.
Bonding social capital can also perpetuate sentiments of a certain group, allowing for the
bonding of certain individuals together upon a common radical ideal. The strengthening
of insular ties can lead to a variety of effects such as ethnic marginalization or social
isolation. In extreme cases, ethnic cleansing may result if the relationship between
different groups is so strongly negative.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
10
Social Capital Importance
Social capital is an important concept for multinational firms. Firms operating in
global markets rarely have adequate resources to compete effectively in global markets;
they access the needed resources through formal and informal relationships with other
firms. The cultures in Asian countries have emphasized relationships much more strongly
than Western firms. Thus, relational capital, based on guanxi (China), kankei (Japan) and
inmak (Korea), provides the framework for business dealings in many Asian countries.
As a result, the social capital of many Asian firms gives them a potential competitive
advantage in global markets. Western firms must develop social capital and learn to
manage relational networks to gain and sustain a competitive advantage in global
markets. Western firms can learn how to develop and manage social capital from Asian
firms. Alternatively, social capital has some disadvantages. Firms are limited by their
networks and thus experience opportunity costs and path dependence. Additionally, while
Asian firms often have strong network ties in their domestic markets, they have to
develop many more ties globally to operate effectively in global markets. As a result, the
development and management of social capital has become of critical importance for
competitive advantage in global markets (Forms of capital, Bourdieu 1986).
Measurement
There is no widely held consensus on how to measure social capita, which is on of
its weaknesses. One can usually intuitively sense the level or amount of social capital
present in a given relationship, but quantitatively measuring it has proven somewhat
complicated. In measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of
society’s membership of its group. Groups with higher membership (such as political
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
11
parties) contribute more to the amount of capital than groups with lower membership,
although many groups with low membership (such as communities) still add up to be
significant.
The level of cohesion of a group also affects social capital. However, thee is no
one quantitative way of determining the level of cohesiveness, but rather a collection of
social network models that researchers have used over the decades to operational social
capital. One of the dominant methods is Ronald Burt’s constraint measure, which taps
into the role of tie strength and group cohesion.
The World Bank (WB) asserts that no standard measure of social capital can be
achieved, since social capital measurements are dependent on the definition rendered by
researchers. However, the WB suggested three approaches to social capital measurement.
Quantitative studies such as those conducted by Knack and Keefer (1997) in their World
Values Survey belong to the first approach. The second method involves the Comparative
analysis, such as the approach used by Putnam (1993). The last method is the qualitative
approach as used by Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993), Gold (1995) and Heller (1996).
No approach is superior to others in measuring social capital. Social capital studies in
Tanzania and Indonesia (Narayan and Pritchett, 199, in Grootaert and Bastelaer 2002)
calculated social capital from a quantitative – multiplicative approach.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
12
Definition of Terms
Cooperative · is an 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 · is an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s
life at a particular point in time ranging from negative to positive.
Mutuality · the doctrine that specific performance must be available to both
parties to a transaction in order for either to obtain it.
Perception of Poverty · it is an imaginative extension of thought that conceives of
poverty as an agent of pollution.
Reciprocity · refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action,
and responding to a negative action with another negative one.
Social Capital · referred to as the set of trust, institutions, social norms, social
networks, and organizations that shape the interactions of actors within a society and are
an asset for the individual and collective production of well-being.
Trust · defined formally as expectation about the actions of others that have a
bearing on ones own choice of action.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
13
METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes the locale and time of the study, respondents of the
study, research instrument, method of data collection and data analysis.
Locale and Time of the Study
This study was conducted in Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose
Cooperative (BGEMPC) located at Provincial Capitol, Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet.
This study was conducted during the second semester of school year 2008 – 2009.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the officers and members of Benguet
Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). A sample of fifty (50)
respondents was chosen through purposive random sampling.
Research Instruments
The needed information to answer the stipulated objectives in chapter two was
generated using structured questionnaire-checklist with five point Likert-type scale with
open minded questions was constructed and served as the main instrument for gathering
data. An introductory letter accompanied every questionnaire explaining the purpose of
the study and confidentiality of the information given. The survey questionnaire was pre -
tested to the selected five (5) members of the cooperative and it was being edited to come
up to a more simple but easily understood by the respondents.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
14
Method of Data Collection
The researcher visited various offices of Benguet Provincial Government. The
questionnaires were distributed and given personally to the chosen respondents allowing
ample time for them to answer each question completely. The researcher asked
permission to the manager and BOD – chairman of the cooperative in order to gather the
needed information and data.
Data Analysis
Social Capital components were measured using a five point Likert – scale. For
example, participation in the cooperative and in the community activities make use of a
scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents never and the other extreme point 5
represents always. For trust, 1 represents not trust; 2 – little trust; 3- neutral; 4- much
trust; 5- very much trust.
The data gathered were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted based on the
objectives of the study using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage,
and mean.
As to the mean range, 1 – 1.74= 1; 1.75 – 2.54= 2; 2.55 – 3.34= 3; 3.35 – 4.14= 4;
4.15 – 5= 5.
Frequencies, percentage, and means were obtained using the Software Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
One way - Analysis of Variance was used to determine the relationships between
the respondents profile with Social Capital variables. The cut-off point for significance is
assigned at <0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile of Respondents
In order to appreciate this study, information about the respondents is
presented and summarized in this section. 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. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the respondents consider
themselves as head of the household.
Sex. Out of fifty respondents, majority (60%) was female and forty percent (40%)
are male.
Civil Status. It can be seen from Table 1.c. that eighty-six percent (86%) were
married and fourteen percent (14%) were single.
Age. The computed mean age of the respondents was 45.48 years. As to
distribution, fifty-four percent of the respondents belong to the bracket of 36-45; thirty-
four percent (34%) belonged to the age 46-55; six percent (6%) belonged to 25-35 and
six percent (6%) belonged to56-45.
Highest Educational Attainment. Table 1.d. shows that all of the respondents had
finished a university/college degree.
Occupation. All of the respondents were a government employee.
Religious Affiliation. Table 1.f. shows the religious affiliation of the respondents.
Most (76%) of the respondents were Catholic, four percent (4%) were Iglesia ni Cristo,
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
16
and so as (4%) were Anglican, and the rest were Baptist, Born Again, Lutheran,
Protestant, Jesus’ Witnesses and Church of Christ.
Ethno-linguistic group. Table 1.g shows that about fifty-four percent (54%) were
Ibaloi, thirty-six percent (36%) were Kankana-ey, and ten percent (10%) were Ilokano.
Type of membership. All of the respondents were regular members of the
cooperative.
Position in coop. table 1.i. shows that a great 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’
being a member of the cooperative was 12.84 years. As to distribution, sixty-two percent
(62%) belonged to the bracket 11-20 years, thirty-six percent (36%) belonged to 1-10
years and two percent (2%) belonged to 21-30 years being a member of the cooperative.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Household Head
33
66
Sex
Male
20
40
Female
30
60
TOTAL
50
100
Civil Status
Single
7
14
Married
43
86
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
17
Table 1. Continued…
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Age
25-35
3
6
36-45
27
54
46-55
17
34
56-65
3
6
TOTAL
50
100
MEAN
45.48
Educational Attainment
University/College
50
100
Occupation
Government Employee
50
100
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
38
76
Born Again
1
2
Iglesia ni Cristo
2
4
Lutheran
1
2
Anglican
2
4
Baptist
2
4
Protestant
1
2
Jesus' Witnesses
1
2
Church of Christ
2
4
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
18
Table 1. Continued…
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Ethno-linguistic group
Ilokano
5
10
Kankanaey
18
36
TOTAL
50
100
Type of Membership
Regular
50
100
Position in Cooperative
Officer
5
10
Member
45
90
TOTAL
50
100
No. of years being a member
1-10
18
36
11-20
31
62
21-30
1
2
TOTAL
50
100
MEAN
12.84
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
19
Level of Social Capital among Members
The Social Capital among members of Benguet Government Employees Multi-
purpose Cooperative was assessed in terms of their sociability, participation in the
cooperative and other groups/networks, level of trust among members, poverty
perception, life satisfaction of members, level of support given by members to others as
well as the level of support given by members to the same, and the pride of members
belonging to Benguet Government Employees Multi-purpose Cooperative.
Informal Groups/Networks
In this section, the respondents were asked if they are participating in any
groups/networks such as religious/spiritual group, sports group, ethnic based group,
production group, political party, professional association and other cooperatives.
As to religious groups presented in Table 2a, fourteen percent (14%) responded
that they are participating such that these groups were the knights of Colombus (6%),
FAMILIA Community (2%), Church of Christ (2%), Padre Pio C.C. (2%), and Worlwide
Church of God (2%), while eighty-six percent (86%) did not respond.
In Table 2.b, eight percent (8%) answered “yes” as to cultural/social group which
is the Bibak, on the other hand, one answered “yes” as to sports group which is the
Philippine Sports committee (Table 2.c). As to basic services group shown in Table 2.d,
four percent (4%) answered “yes” while forty-six (46%) did not respond. The basic
services that were mentioned by those who respond were the Wangal Women’s
Association and ACI Family Planning Consultants. So as to Ethnic based groups shown
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
20
in Table 2.e, four percent (4%) answered “yes” that which these groups were the Ethnic
Chinese group and Purok ASSU.
On production group shown in Table 2.f, only one responded that which is the
“Go for IT-CAR” while ninety-eight percent (98%) did not respond. So as to political
party none of the respondents did respond (Table 2.g).
Six percent (6%) responded “yes” as to professional association (Table 2.h.) that
were the Philippine Mental Association, Philippine Association of Social Worker’s Inc.,
and COSTRAPHIL while ninety-four percent (94%) did not respond. On the other hand,
fourteen percent (14%) responded that they are a member of other cooperative like
BBCCC while eighty-six percent (86%) did not respond (Table 2.i.). With the results
presented, this means that almost all of the respondents have no any participation in
groups/networks.
Table 2. Groups/Networks participation
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Religious Group
Yes
7
14
Religious Name
Knights of Columbus
3
6
FAMILIA Community
1
2
Padre Pio C.C.
1
2
Worldwide Church of God
1
2
No response
43
2
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
21
Table 2. Continued…
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Cultural, Social Group
yes
4
8
Cultural, Social Name
BIBAK
4
8
No response
46
92
TOTAL
50
100
Sports Group
yes
1
2
Sports Name
Phil. Sports Committee
1
2
No response
49
98
TOTAL
50
100
Ethnic Based Group
yes
2
4
Ethnic Based Name
Ethnic Chinese Group
1
2
Purok ASSU
1
2
No response
48
96
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
22
Table 2. Continued…
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Production Group
yes
1
2
Production Name
Go for IT-CAR
1
2
No response
49
98
TOTAL
50
100
Political Party
No response
50
100
Professional Ass'n
yes
3
6
Professional Name
Phil. Mental Health Ass'n
1
2
Phil. Ass'n of Social Worker's Inc.
1
2
COSTRAPHIL
1
2
No response
47
94
TOTAL
50
100
Other Cooperative
yes
7
14
Cooperative Name
BBCCC
7
14
No response
43
86
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
23
Level of Trust of Respondents
In this section, 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 which are 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.
Topping the list were the families/relatives that are of the same coop rated as
“much” presented in Table 3. This shows that they trust much the officers and staffs of
the cooperative and of their consanguinity.
Table 3. Level of trust of respondents
TRUST VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Families/Relatives
50
3.64
much
Friends
50
3.34
neutral
Co-tribes
50
3.24
neutral
Neighbors
50
2.84
neutral
Coop Manager
50
3.9
much
Coop BOD's
50
3.94
much
Coop Bookkeeper
50
3.88
much
Coop Treasurer
50
3.9
much
Coop Collector
50
3.82
much
Audit Committee
50
3.84
much
Credit Committee
50
3.8
Much
Legend: 1-not trust; 2-; 3-neutral; 4-much; 5- Very much
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
24
As shown in Table 4, another trust variable measured was the confidence of the
respondents that they could turn to their family/relatives, friends, neighbors,
moneylender/informal credit groups, government, banks, co-members and the
cooperative itself in times of financial difficulty. This is similar to the statement of
Dequit (2003) that membership trusts and confidence in the cooperative are factors
indicates the importance of the cooperative meeting the needs of the members so that
they would put all their trust in the cooperative.
From the result, the respondents have confidence that they can turn to relatives,
friends and neighbors, the cooperative and co-members by giving the higher confidence
rating of 4 (confident).
Level of agreement of respondents in statements about cooperative is shown in
Table 5. In this section, the respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with
the statements about the cooperative. A higher mean rating of 4 (agree) was given to the
statements “it is not generally expected that people will volunteer or help in cooperative
activities”, “people who do not volunteer in coops’ activities are likely to be
criticized/fined” and “most of coop members contribute to coops’ activities.
Table 4. Level of confidence
CONFIDENCE VARIABLES
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Family/Relatives, friends, neighbors
50
3.92
Confident
Money Lender, Informal Credit
Grps, Ass'ns
50
3.34
neutral
Government, Bank
50
3.16
neutral
Cooperative and co-members
50
4
confident
Legend: 1-not confident; 2-little confident; 3-neutral; 4-confident; 5-very confident
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
25
Table 5. Level of agreement of respondents
EXPECTATION STATEMENTS
FREQUENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
It is generally expected that people will
50
3.88
Agree
volunteer/help in coops' activities…
People who did not volunteer in coop
activities are likely to be
50
3.86
Agree
criticized/fined…
Most coop members contribute to coops
50
3.82
Agree
activities…
Rules, laws & policies that affect your
50
2.16
Disagree
coops economic well-being changes
without warning…
Member's like you generally have to do
50
2.02
Disagree
favors to coop officers from time to time
to get things done…
Legend: 1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-neutral; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree
Poverty Perception
Table 6 presents the perceptions of respondents towards poverty. The respondents
rated their household as 3.0 meaning neutral (neither poor nor rich) but are confident
(3.68) that they will be somewhat better off in the future.
Being a member of the cooperative, the respondents gave a rating of 3.22
(neutral) as to their power. They also gave a rating of 3 (neutral) to their household to
cope in a crisis since they became a member of the cooperative. The results show that
they could turn to the cooperative in times of crisis.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
26
Table 6. Poverty perception
POVERTY PERCEPTION
FREQUENCY
MEAN
How do you rate your household…ª
50
3.04
Thinking about the future while still a member of
50
3.68
the coop, do you think you and your household
will be…
Being a member of a coop, where would you put
50
3.22
yourself..
If there is a crisis, how would you rate your
50
3
household's ability to survive such crisis
How confident would you say that you and your
50
3.38
household would cope in a crisis since you
became a coop member
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 secures; 5-
very secured
e 1-much less confident; 2-less confident; 3-neutral; 4-more confident; 5-much
more confident
Participation in the Cooperative
In this section, the respondents were asked questions relating to their participation
in the cooperative. Table 7.a. shows how much the respondents were depositing in the
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
27
cooperative. The computed mean average was 180 being deposited in a month.
Table 7.b. presents how often the respondents participate in the activities of the
cooperative. Sixty-two percent (62%) responded that they only participate once in a year,
fourteen percent (14%) responded twice and five percent (5%) responded more than
twice in a year.
Table 7.c. shows whether the respondents have helped in the last six (6) months or
not at all. Fifty percent responded such that they had helped as a co-maker of their loan
application (40%), give advice (4%), lend money (4%), and the rest helped through
voluntary contributions for the demise of members or their family member, through
processing of their loans (an officer) and as a guarantor.
Table 7.d. shows the perception of the respondents whether the cooperative is
active or not. All (100%) of the respondents says that it is active. In addition, they were
asked to determine some reasons why they would say it is active like strong leadership,
strong sense of cooperativism, politics/politician, government support, desire to get ahead
economically, and good governance. Sixteen percent (16%) says that politics/politician is
a factor, sixty-six percent (66%) in government support and seventy percent in desire to
get ahead economically. ZOn the other hand, all of the respondents said strong
leadership; strong sense of cooperativism and good governance is a factor. Above all, the
participation of most of the members were low, however, they believe that the
cooperative they belong to is active.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
28
Table 7. Participation in the cooperative
PARTICIPATION VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
On average, how much money do you deposit
50
100
in your coop in a month?
MEAN
180
On average, how often do you participate in your coop's activities in a year?
Once
31
62
Twice
14
28
More than twice
5
10
TOTAL
50
100
Have you helped someone of the coop members' in the last 6 months?
yes
27
54
How
co-maker
20
40
death-aid
1
2
guarantor
1
2
give advice
2
4
lend money
2
4
processing of loans
1
2
no response
23
46
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
29
Table 7. Continued…
PARTICIPATION VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Active
yes
50
100
Reasons
Strong leadership
50
100
Strong sense of cooperativism
50
100
Politics/politician
50
16
Government support
50
66
Desire to get ahead economically
50
70
Good governance
50
100
Participation in Social Activities
Table 8 shows the sociability of the members within the cooperative and within
the community. Of all sociability variables, based on the mean ratings ranging from 1.44
to 3.54, the higher mean rating of 3.54 was given to participation in Clan Reunion while
visit co-members in their homes has the least mean rating. This shows that the
respondents never visit co-members in their homes. However, the respondents also
revealed that they rarely participate in cooperative decision-making, get together with co-
members, in caňao, community activities, bayanihan, and recreations. Recreations
include film showing, sports fest and/or liga.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
30
Table 8. Sociability of respondents
SOCIABLITY VARIABLES
FREQUENCY
MEAN
Visit co-members in their homes
50
1.44
Get together with co-members
50
2.6
Participate in coop's decision -making
50
2.58
Caňao
50
3
Community Activities
50
3.1
Recreations
50
2.8
Clan Reunion
50
3.54
Bayanihan
50
3
Legend: 1-Never; 2-Seldom; 3-Sometimes; 4-Often; 5-Always
Life Satisfaction
On life satisfaction, the respondents indicated that they are happy (3.68) and
somewhat satisfied (3.54) with their life as a whole as shown in Table 9. They also
perceived to have a big impact (4.28) on the cooperative. This shows that respondents
very much believe that they are a great impact to the cooperative as a member in making
the cooperative a better one. However, their feeling of togetherness and belongingness in
the cooperative is somewhat close.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
31
Table 9. Life satisfaction
LIFE SATISFACTION VARIABLES
FREQUENCY MEAN
Taking all things together, would you say you are..ª
50
3.68
How much impact do you think members like you can
50
4.28
have in making your coop a better one
How would you rate your togetherness or feeling of
50
3.78
belongingness in your coop
How satisfied are you with your life as a whole…
50
3.54
Legend: a 1-very unhappy; 2-unhappy; 3-neutral; 4-happy; 5-very happy
b 1-no impact; 2-little impact; 3-neutral; 4-moderate impact; 5-big impact
c 1-not close at all; 2-not very close; 3-neutral; 4-somewhat close; 5-very close
d 1-very dissatisfied; 2-somewhat dissatisfied; 3-neutral; 4-somewhat satisfied;
5-very satisfied
Support Given and Received
Table 10 and Table 11 present the support given to and support from people as
rated by the respondents. They rated support given to children as 4.22 (lot of support), to
parents as 3.54 (just enough support) and other relatives as neutral (2.88). The mean
ratings of respondents of their support received from children and parents were 3.34 and
2.96 respectively interpreted as neutral. However, having the least mean rating of 2.54
(little support) was the support received from other relatives.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
32
Table 10. Support given
SUPPORT RECEIVED
FREQUENCY
MEAN
To parents
50
3.54
To children
50
4.22
Other relatives
50
2.88
Table 11. Support received
SUPPORT RECEIVED
FREQUENCY
MEAN
Getting from parents
50
2.96
Getting from children
50
3.34
Getting from relatives
50
2.54
Legend: 1-no support; 2-little support; 3-neutral; 4-just enough support; 5-lot of support
Pride in Cooperative
Finally in this section (Table 12), the respondents were asked to rate about who
they are in the cooperative. A higher mean rating of 5 (very proud) that was indicated by
the respondents. This shows that the respondents are very proud about who they are in the
cooperative they belong to
Table 12. Pride in the cooperative
PRIDE IN COOPERATIVE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
How proud are you about who you are in the coop
you belong to…
50
4.26
Legend: 1-very ashamed; 2-ashamed; 3-neutral; 4-proud; 5-very proud
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
33
Relationship Between Social Capital Variable
and Position of Respondents in the Cooperative
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to check for significance in the
differences. The cut-off point for significance is assigned at <0.05. Indicators-pairs with
significance values less than 0.05 means there is a significant between the two variables.
Relationship Between Sociability Variables
and Position in the Cooperative
Table 13 shows relationship between the respondents’ position in the coop and
their sociability within the cooperative and within the community.
The relationship and sociability variables were computed as follows 0.232, 0.041,
0.006, 0.392, 0.826, 0.639, 0.783, and 0.658 respectively. Between the position in the
coop and the sociability variable that is “get together with co-members with a computed
significance of 0.041. This shows that there is significant difference in the mean rating pf
officers and members. On the other hand, the position in coop and sociability variable
that is “participate in coop’s decision-making, the computed significance was 0.006.
They sometimes participate in coop’s decision-making (WM=2.58) and their perceptions
according to position in coop are highly significant from one another since 0.006 <0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
34
Table 13. Sociability variables and position in coop
MEAN
SOCIABILITY VARIABLES
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Visit co-members in their homes
1.8
1.4
0.232
Get together with co-members
3.6
2.48
0.041*
Participate in coop's decision -making
3.8
2.44
0.006**
Caňao
3.4
2.95
0.392
Community Activities
3.2
3.08
0.826
Recreations
3
2.77
0.639
Clan Reunion
3.4
3.55
0.783
Bayanihan
3.2
2.97
0.658
Legend: * significant **highly significant
Relationship Between Poverty Perceptions
and Position in the Cooperative
The relationship between poverty perception of the respondents and their position
in the coop was shown in Table 14.
The computed significance between poverty perceptions were as follows 0.028,
0.72, 0.053, 0.415, and 0.009. As notice in the table, the poverty perception with a
statement “if there is a crisis, how would you rate your household’s ability to survive
such crisis” was 0.415. However, the computed correlation of the statements “thinking
about the future while still a member of the coop, do you think you and your household
will be…” and “being a member of a coop, where would you put yourself” were 0.072
and 0.053. This shows that there is no significant difference in their perception according
to their position in the cooperative since 0.415, 0.072, and 0.053 >0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
35
Table 14. Poverty perception and position in coop
MEAN
POVERTY PERCEPTION VARIABLES OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
How do you rate your household..ª
3.6
2.97
0.028*
Thinking about the future while still a
4.2
3.62
0.072
member of the coop, do you think you and
your household will be…
Being a member of a coop, where would
3.6
3.17
0.053
you put yourself
If there is a crisis, how would you rate
2.8
3.02
0.415
your household's ability to survive such
crisis
How confident would you say that you
4
3.31
0.009**
and your household would cope in a crisis
since you became a coop member
Legend: * significant **highly significant
Relationship Between Trusts
and Position in the Cooperative
Table 15 and 16 shows the computed significance between social trust variable
and position of respondents in the cooperative. Trust variables includes families/relatives,
friends, co-tribes that are of the same coop, neighbors, cooperative manager, BOD’s,
bookkeeper/secretary, treasurer, collector, audit committee, and credit committee was
shown in Table 15. Significant relation between trusts to co-tribes that are a member of
the same coop with 0.016 computed significance. Furthermore, between members’ trust
in neighbors and their position in coop with 0.014 computed significance shows that it is
significantly different from one another.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
36
On the other hand, confidence variables includes family/relatives, friends,
neighbors, moneylender, informal credit groups, government, bank, the cooperative and
co-members was shown in Table 16. The computed significance between position and
trust in the cooperative and co-members was 0.001. This shows that there is a highly
significant different in the mean ratings of the officers and members.
Table 15. Trust and position in coop
MEAN
TRUST VARIABLES
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Families/relative that are of the same coop
3.8
3.62
0.556
Friends that are of the same coop
3.8
3.28
0.067
Co-tribes that are of the same coop
3.8
3.17
0.016*
Neighbors
3.6
2.75
0.014*
Coop Manager
4
3.88
0.752
BOD's
4
3.93
0.838
Bookkeeper/Secretary
4
3.86
0.672
Coop Treasurer
4.4
3.84
0.11
Coop Collector
4
3.8
0.561
Audit Committee
4
3.82
0.585
Credit Committee
4
3.77
0.523
Legend: * significant
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
37
Table 16. Confidence variable
MEAN
CONFIDENCE VARIABLE
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Family/Relatives, friends, neighbors
3.8
3.93
0.66
Money Lender, Informal Credit Groups,
3.8
3.28
0.229
Associations
Government, Bank
3.8
3.08
0.081
Cooperative and co-members
4.8
3.91
0.001**
Legend: **highly significant
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
38
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the social capital among members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi-purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC).
The specific objectives of the study were the following (1) to determine the
demographic profile of the respondents (2) to determine the level of social capital among
members of BGEMPC (3) and to determine the relationship of Social Capital variables
and the position of respondents in the coop.
A questionnaire-checklist was used to gather information and data needed. The
data gathered was 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 purposive random sampling.
As to profile of the respondents, majority of the respondents is female, and a great
majority is married. All of the respondents also obtained university/college education.
It was found out that the sociability of members with in the cooperative and with
in the community and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other
groups/networks is low. However, the respondents believe that their cooperative is active.
For the level of trust, respondents trust much the officers and staffs of the
cooperative and their families/relatives of the same coop. on the part of their confidence,
the respondents are 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 are happy and somewhat satisfied with their life. However, the feeling of
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
39
togetherness and belongingness of respondents in the cooperative is quite.
Finally on the part of members, they claimed that they are very proud in the
cooperative as much that they are of great impact as a member in making the cooperative
a better one.
Conclusions
The sociability of members with in the cooperative and with in the community is
and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other groups/networks is low.
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.
Recommendations
It is recommended that a seminar on behavior 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.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
40
LITERATURE CITED
ADAMSON, F. & RONCEVIC, B. 2003. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
ADLER, P. S. & Kwoon, S.W., 2002. "Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept",
Academy of Management Review.
BREHM, J. & RAHN, W. 1997. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social-
_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
BOURDIEU, P. 1986. Forms of capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
COLEMAN, J. 1990. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
DEKKER, P. and E. Uslaner. 2001. Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
DEQUIT, F.J. 2003. Attitudes of members of selected cooperatives in La Trinidad,
Benguet towards borrowing and repaying of loans. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.20.
DOLFSMA, W. and DANNREUTHER, C. 2003. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
EASTIS, C. 1998. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved
on September 19, 2008.
EDWARDS, B. and FOLEY, M. 1997. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
FUKUYAMA, F. 1995. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
GOLD, J. 1995. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on
September 19, 2008.
GROOTAERT, C. et al. 2004. Measuring Social Capital, An Integrated Questionnaire.
World Bank Working Paper No. 18. Washington D.C. USA
HELLER, E. 1996. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved
on September 19, 2008.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
41
MONTGOMERY, J.D. 1998. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
NARAYAN, D. and PRITCHETT, L. 1999. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
PORTES, A. and SENSENBRENNER, J. 1993. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
PUTNAM, R. (2000) at http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm retrieved on
September 23, 2008.
ROBINSON, et al. 1997. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
Social Capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19,
2008.
Social Capital importance at http://www.springerlink.com/content/wvnjv0qhpwdbh31g/
retrieved on September 2, 2008.
Social Capital at http://portal.ku.edu.tr/~dyukseker/fukuyama-socialcapital.pdf retrieved
on September 2, 2008.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
42
APPENDIX A
Letter to the respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet Sate University
La Trinidad, Benguet
Department of Agriculture Economics and Agribusiness Management
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am a fourth year student of Benguet State University, taking up Bachelor of Science in
Agribusiness major in Cooperative Management. Presently, I am conducting my
undergraduate thesis entitled: Social Capital among members of Benguet Government
Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative as partial requirement for graduation.
In this connection, may I request a part of your time to answer the attached questionnaire.
Your kind assistance will enable me to complete all the requirements in due time. Please
give your honest answer for the success of this research. Rest assured that all the
information you provide will be treated with confidentiality.
Kimberly A. Kiang
Researcher
Noted by:
Marie Klondy T. Dagupen
Thesis Adviser
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
43
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 been a member of this cooperative? ____
7. Position in cooperative: _____ Officer _____ Member
8. Membership: _____ Associate member _____ Regular member
B. GROUPS/ NETWORKS AND PARTICIPATION
9. Pls. indicate if you belong to any of the ff. groups by answering the appropriate columns
Group
Name of
How
How actively do you
Organizatio
much
participate in this group’s
n or Group
money
decision-making
do you
1 = Leader
contribut 2 = Very active
e to this 3 = Somewhat active
group in 4 = Does not participate in
a month decision-making
Religious or spiritual group;
specify
Cultural, social, emotional/support
group such as BIBAK, senior
citizen; specify
Sports groups; specify
Basic services groups such as
Barangay Health Worker, Mothers’
classes, Tanod; specify
Ethnic based groups such as tribe,
indigenous, community
organizations; specify
Production group such as farmers,
vendors groups; specify
Political party (Lakas NUCD,
Anakpawis, Bayan muna)
Professional association (such as
Rotary, Lion’s , Chamber of
Commerce; specify
Other Cooperatives, specify name
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
44
Sociability
10. Please rate your participation in the following activities?
Never (1) 2
3
4.
5. Always
I do the following informal
activities
a. Visit co-members
in their homes
b. Get together with
co-members (for
recreation, parties
etc.)
I participate in our coop’s
decision making
I attend the following
activities
a. Cañao
b. Community
activities (fiesta,
Christmas)
c. Recreations (sports
fest, film showing,
liga)
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 coop’s activities in a year?
____(Once); _____(Twice);______(More than twice) Specify ____________
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 reasons
why you chose your specific answer (1 is the most important and 5 is the least
important)
I. ACTIVE (serves 50% or more of the II. INACTIVE ( serves less than 50% of
members)
the members)
____ a. Strong leadership
____ a. No strong leadership
____ b. Strong sense of cooperativism
____ b. no sense f cooperativism
____ c. Politics/politicians
____ c. Mismanagement of coop
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
45
____ d. Government support/
____ d. Conflict between groups
management
____ e. Desire to get ahead economically ____ e. Coop members think only about
themselves (selfish)
____ f. Good governance
____ f. No government
support/connections
____ g. Coop members’ delinquency on
loans
____ i. Lack resources
C. TRUST
15. How much do you trust the following?
Not trust
Little
Neutral Much Very much (5)
(1)
trust (2)
(3)
(4)
a. families/ relatives that
are a 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 a help?
Not
Little
Neutral Confident
Very
confident confident
(3)
(4)
confident
(1)
(2)
(5)
Family/ relatives, friends,
neighbors,
Moneylender, Informal
credit, groups, associations
Government, Bank
Cooperatives and co-
members
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
46
17. How much do you agree or disagree with each one of the statement.
Strongl Disagre Neutr Agree Strongly
y
e (2)
al (3)
(4)
agree (5)
disagre
e (1)
In your coop, it is generally expected
that people will volunteer or help in
coop activities
People who do not volunteer or
participate in coop’s activities are
likely to be criticized or fined
Most of the coop members contribute
to coop’s activities
The rules, laws and policies that
affect your coop’s economic well-
being change without warning
Members like you generally have to
do favors to coop officers from time
to time to get things done
D. POVERTY PERCEPTION
18. How would you rate your household?
____ Very poor (1)
____ Poor (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ rich (4)
____ Very rich (5)
19. Thinking about the future while still a member of the coop, overall 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)
20. 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)
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
47
21. If there was a crisis, such as poor crops, loss of job, or illness, how would you rate
your household's ability to survive such crisis?
____ Very unsecured (1)
____ Somewhat unsecured (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat secure (4)
____ Very secure (5)
22. How confident would you say you that you and your household would 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 (Please check the appropriate number corresponding to your
answer)
23. Taking all things together, would you say you are…
____ Very unhappy (1)
____ Unhappy (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Happy (4)
____ Very happy (5)
24. Overall, how much impact do you think members like you, can have in making your
coop a better one?
____ No impact (1)
____ Little impact (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Moderate impact (4)
____ Big impact (5)
25. How would you rate the togetherness or feeling of belonging in your coop?
____ Not close at all (1)
____ Not very close (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat close (4)
____ Very close (5)
26. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?
____ Very dissatisfied (1)
____ Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat satisfied (4)
____ Very satisfied(5)
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
48
27. How would you rate the support you are giving to parents, children or other relatives,
either living with you or living elsewhere since you became a member of the coop?
No support
Little
Neutral
Just enough Lot of support
(1)
support (2)
(3)
support (4)
(5)
Parents
Children
Other
relatives
28. How would you rate the support you are getting from parents, children or other
relatives, either living with you or living elsewhere since you became a member of the
coop?
No support Little support Neutral Just enough
Lot of support
(1)
(2)
(3)
support (4)
(5)
Parents
Children
Other
relatives
29. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
Reason (s)
____ Very ashamed ______________________________
____ Ashamed
______________________________
____ Neither proud nor ashamed
______________________________
____ Proud
______________________________
____ Very proud
______________________________
30. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
____ Very ashamed
____ Ashamed
____ Neither proud nor ashamed
____ Proud
____ Very proud
G. DEMOGRAPHIC
31. How much formal schooling have you had?
____ None
____ Primary
____ Elementary
____ Secondary
____ University/ College or more
____ Vocational/technical
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
49
32. How many of the following live in your household?
a. Adult men (16 and over): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
b. Adult women (16 and over) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
c. Boys (15 and under) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
d. Girls (15 and under) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
e. Total Members: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
33. What is your occupation?
____ Housewife
____ Student
____ Self-employed: please specify _______________
____ Others, Please specify: _________________
34. What language/s and dialect/s do you speak?
____ English
____ Tagalog
____ Iloko
____ Ibaloi
____ Kankanaey
____ Kalanguya
____ others, specify___________________
35. What is your ethno-linguistic group?
____ Ilokano ____ Ibaloi ____ others, specify______________
____ Kakanaey ____ Kalanguya
36. What is your religious affiliation?
____ Catholic
____ Islam
____ Born Again others, specify ______________
____ Iglesia ni Cristo
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
KIANG, KIMBERLY A. APRIL 2009. Social Capital among members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Dr. Marie Klondy T. Dagupen
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the Social Capital among the members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). A sample of
fifty (50) respondents was chosen at random from the various offices in Benguet
Provincial Government.
A questionnaire – checklist with Likert – type scale was constructed and served as
the main instrument for gathering the needed data.
Social Capital components were measured using a five point Likert – scale. Data
were tabulated using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage and
mean.
Frequencies, percentage, and means were obtained using the Software Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
One way - Analysis of Variance was used to determine the relationships between
the respondents profile with Social Capital variables.
The sociability of members with in the cooperative and with in the community is
and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other groups/networks is low.
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 behavior 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
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Definitional Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
5
Evaluating Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
7
Basic Components of Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
8
Social Capital Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Locale and Time of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13
Respondents of the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Method of Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Profile of the Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Level of Social Capital among Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
19
Informal Groups/Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
19
Level of Trust of Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
iii
Level of Confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
24
Level of Agreement of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ….
24
Poverty Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
25
Participation in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …
26
Participation in Social Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
29
Life Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
30
Support Given and Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
31
Pride in Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
32
Relationship between Social Capital Variable
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
33
Relationship between Sociability Variables
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
33
Relationship between Poverty Perceptions
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
34
Relationship between Trusts Variables
35
and Position in the coop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Relationship between Confidence Variables
and Position in the Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
36
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . …
38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
39
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
41
Letter to the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
42
Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
iv
1
INTRODUCTION
Social capital is an informal norm that promotes co-operation between
individuals. In the economic sphere it reduces transaction costs and in the political sphere
it promotes the kind of associational life which is necessary for the success of limited
government and modern democracy. While it often arises from iterated Prisoner’s
Dilemma games, it also is a byproduct of religion, tradition, shared historical experience
and other types of cultural norms. Thus, while awareness of social capital is often critical
for understanding development, it is difficult to generate through public policy. Building
social capital has typically been seen as a task for ‘second generation’ economic reform;
but unlike economic policies or even economic institutions, social capital cannot be so
easily created or shaped by public policy.
Social capital is a concept in business, economics, organizational behavior,
political science, public health, sociology and natural resources management that refers to
connections within and between social networks.
The concept and theory of social capital dates back to the origins of social
science; however, recent scholarship has focused on social capital as a subject of social
organization and a potential source of value that can be harnessed and converted for
strategic and gainful purposes. According to Putnam (2000), the central premise of social
capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of
all "social networks" and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for
each other.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
2
A cooperative is a social network. The International Cooperative Alliance (1937)
defines a cooperative as an 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. In a narrower but commonly accepted
sense, mutually beneficial cooperative behavior is the essence of social capital concept.
This study will focus on the study of social capital among members and officers
of Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative.
The Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative was registered
as a consumers’ cooperative on January 18, 1970 with Mr. Vicente Guerrero as its first
president. Because of the clamor of the members, a credit cooperative was organized
combining it with the consumers. A consumer store of the cooperative was first
established at Km. 5 public market but was transferred to the capitol in 1973. As required
by Presidential Decree No. 175 and letter of instruction No. 23, the cooperative was re -
registered on August 10, 1978,
The Articles of cooperation and the by – laws were amended changing the name
of the cooperative to Benguet Government Kilusang Bayan ng Mamimili, Inc. on October
11, 1979. The credit cooperative was then phase out because the officers at that time
transferred to different agencies or offices. Because of this, the cooperative was
reorganized in June 1989. The new set of officers, headed by Mrs. Margaret P.
Lumigued worked very hard in order to activate it. The board of directors started to
buckle down to work. All the canteen personnel were terminated and new employees
taken. The business started zero balance or in the red and so the canteen personnel has
been supplied on consignment basis. A continuous supervision of the canteen personnel
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
3
had been taken by the board of directors taking turns.
At the end of the year 1991, the unpaid debts to suppliers, including the lost
capital shares of the members were all restituted. In October 1994, the credit service was
opened granting a one – month salary loan but not exceeding to P5, 000.00 payable in
one year. In 1995, the cooperative reached its million-peso mark in total assets. Before
the credit service started, Provincial Treasurer Mauricio B. Ambanloc accepted the
collection or amortization of loans thru payroll deduction as approved by the Provincial
Board.
On November 26, 1996, the amendment of the Articles of cooperation and the by
– laws was approved changing the name to Benguet Government employees Multi –
purpose Cooperative operating on two services – consumers (canteen) and credit (loans).
Since then, there have been several amendments approved by the General Assembly and
subsequently approved by the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA).
The study will be done in order to determine levels of trust of members of
Benguet Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). This study
will provide recommendations or suggestions on specific actions in order to improve
social capital within the organization.
This study sought to find out the following:
1. To determine the demographic profile of respondents.
2. To determine the level of Social Capital among the members of Benguet Government
Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative.
a. Informal Networks
b. Trust
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
4
c. Poverty Perception
d. Participation
1 Participation in the Cooperative
2 Participation in the Social Activities
e. Life Satisfaction
3. To determine the relationship of the Social Capital variables and position in the coop.
1 Relationship between Sociability variables and position in the coop.
2 Relationship between Poverty Perceptions and position in the coop.
3 Relationship between Trust variables and position in the coop.
4 Relationship between Confidence variables and position in the coop.
4. To suggest specific actions to improve Social Capital for the cooperatives.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Definitional Issues
The term “Capital” is used by analogy with other forms of economic capital as
such capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits. However, the
analogy with capital is misleading to the extent that, unlike traditional forms of capital,
social capital is depleted by use, but in fact depleted by non – use (use it or lose it).
In the forms of social capital, Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms
of capital: economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital. He defines social capital
as “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
and recognition”. His treatment of the concept is instrumental, focusing on the
advantages to possessors’ of social capital and the “deliberate construction of sociability
for the purpose of creating this resource”
Social capital does not have a clear, undisputed meaning, for substantive and
ideological reasons (Dolfsma and Dannreuther 2003, Foley and Edwards 1997). For this
reason, there is no set and commonly agreed upon definition of social capital and the
particular definition adopted by a study will depend on the discipline and level of
investigation (Robinson, et al). Not surprisingly considering the different frameworks for
looking at social capital, authors tend to discuss the concept, its intellectual origin, its
diversity of applications and some of its unresolved issues before adopting a school of
thought and adding their own definition (Adamson and Roncevic 2003). Other authors
have identified that definitions vary depending on whether they focus on the substance,
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
6
the sources, or the effects of social capital (Adler and Kwoon 2002; field et al. 2002;
Robinson et al. 2002). Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002b) supported this view
identifying that the main cause of variance in definition is caused by focusing on the
farm, source or consequences of social capital. Social capital is multidimensional and
must be conceptualized as such to have any explanatory valve (Eastis 1998).
Robert David Putnam, if not the first one to write on the issue, is considered as the
major author on the concept of social capital. He is a U.S. political scientist and professor
at Harvard University, and is well known for his writings on civic engagement and civil
society along with social capital. However, his work is concentrated on the United States
only. His most famous (and controversial) work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United
States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and
political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences. Though
he measured this decline in data of many varieties, his most striking point was that
virtually every traditional civic, social, and fraternal organization had undergone a
massive decline in membership.
Social capital is the web of cooperative relationships between citizens that
facilitate resolution of the collection problems (Brehm and Rahn, 1997). According to
Fukuyama 1995, social capital is the ability of people to work together for common
purposes in groups and organizations.
In the broadest sense, the term encompasses those social capital relationships that
help people to get along with each other and act more effectively than they could as
isolated individuals. In this view, patterns of social organization, especially, trust,
mutuality and reciprocity, are seen as important resources, which can result in benefits to
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
7
individual, groups and society.
Social capital is the cumulative capacity of social groups to cooperate and work
together for the common good (Montgomery, 1998).
James Coleman defined social capital functionally as “a variety of entities with
two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they
facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure” – that is social capital is anything
that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships,
reciprocity, trust and social norms.
Evaluating Social Capital
Though Bourdieu (1986) might agree with Coleman that social capital in the
abstract is a neutral resource, his work tends to show how it can be used practically to
produce or reproduce inequality, demonstrating for instance how people gain access to
powerful positions through the direct and indirect employment of social connections.
Robert Putnam has used the concept in a much more positive light: though he was at first
careful to argue that social capital was a neutral term, stating “whether or not shared are
praiseworthy is, of course, entirely another matter”, and also a broad societal measure of
communal health.
As editors of a special edition of the American Behavioral Scientist on Social
Capital, Civic Society and Contemporary Democracy, Edwards and Foley (1996) raised
two key issues in the study of social capital. First, social capital is not equally available to
all, in much the same way that other forms of capital are differently available.
Geographic and social isolation limit access to this resource. Second, not all-social capital
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
8
is created equally. The value of specific source of social capital depends in no small part
on the socio – economic position of the source with society. Here, it is important to note
the distinction between “bonding” vis – a – vis “bridging” social capital when in balance
with its necessary antecedent, “bonding”.
Edwards and Foley, as editors of a special edition of American Behavioral
Scientist on Social capital, Civic society and Contemporary democracy, raised two key
issues in the study of social capital. First, social capital is not equally available to all, in
much the same way that other forms of social capital are differently available.
Geographic and social isolation limit access to this resource. Second, not all social capital
is created equally. The value of a specific source of social capital depends in no small
part on the socio – economic position of the source with society. On top of this, Portes
has identified four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion of outsider’s excess
claims on group members; restrictions on individual freedom; and downward leveling
norms.
Finally, social capital is often linked to the success of democracy and political
involvement. Robert Putnam, in his book Bowling Alone makes the argument that social
capital is linked to the recent decline in American political participation as well an
increased tendency towards more conservative, right – wing politics.
Basic Components of Social Capital
Social capital is about the value of social networks, bonding similar people, with
norms of reciprocity (Dekker and Uslaner 2001; Uslaner 2001). Sander 2002 stated that
‘the folk wisdom that more people get their jobs from whom they know, rather than what
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
9
they know, turns out to be true. Social Capital refers to the collective value of all ‘social
networks’ and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other
(Robert Putnam, 1993).
According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to
building and maintaining democracy. Putnam believes that social capital can be measured
by the amount of trust and reciprocity in a community or between individuals.
Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: bonding social capital
and bridging social capital. Bonding refers to the value assigned to social networks
between socially heterogeneous groups. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of
other benefits for societies, government, individuals and communities.
Without “bridging” social capital, “bonding” groups can become isolated and
disenfranchised from the rest of the society and, most importantly, from groups with
which bridging must occur in order to denote an ‘increase’ in social capital. Bonding
social capital is a necessary antecedent for the development of the more powerful form of
bridging social capital. Bonding and bridging social can work together productively if in
balance, or they may work against each other. As social capital bonds and stronger
homogeneous groups form, the likelihood of bridging social capital is attenuated.
Bonding social capital can also perpetuate sentiments of a certain group, allowing for the
bonding of certain individuals together upon a common radical ideal. The strengthening
of insular ties can lead to a variety of effects such as ethnic marginalization or social
isolation. In extreme cases, ethnic cleansing may result if the relationship between
different groups is so strongly negative.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
10
Social Capital Importance
Social capital is an important concept for multinational firms. Firms operating in
global markets rarely have adequate resources to compete effectively in global markets;
they access the needed resources through formal and informal relationships with other
firms. The cultures in Asian countries have emphasized relationships much more strongly
than Western firms. Thus, relational capital, based on guanxi (China), kankei (Japan) and
inmak (Korea), provides the framework for business dealings in many Asian countries.
As a result, the social capital of many Asian firms gives them a potential competitive
advantage in global markets. Western firms must develop social capital and learn to
manage relational networks to gain and sustain a competitive advantage in global
markets. Western firms can learn how to develop and manage social capital from Asian
firms. Alternatively, social capital has some disadvantages. Firms are limited by their
networks and thus experience opportunity costs and path dependence. Additionally, while
Asian firms often have strong network ties in their domestic markets, they have to
develop many more ties globally to operate effectively in global markets. As a result, the
development and management of social capital has become of critical importance for
competitive advantage in global markets (Forms of capital, Bourdieu 1986).
Measurement
There is no widely held consensus on how to measure social capita, which is on of
its weaknesses. One can usually intuitively sense the level or amount of social capital
present in a given relationship, but quantitatively measuring it has proven somewhat
complicated. In measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of
society’s membership of its group. Groups with higher membership (such as political
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
11
parties) contribute more to the amount of capital than groups with lower membership,
although many groups with low membership (such as communities) still add up to be
significant.
The level of cohesion of a group also affects social capital. However, thee is no
one quantitative way of determining the level of cohesiveness, but rather a collection of
social network models that researchers have used over the decades to operational social
capital. One of the dominant methods is Ronald Burt’s constraint measure, which taps
into the role of tie strength and group cohesion.
The World Bank (WB) asserts that no standard measure of social capital can be
achieved, since social capital measurements are dependent on the definition rendered by
researchers. However, the WB suggested three approaches to social capital measurement.
Quantitative studies such as those conducted by Knack and Keefer (1997) in their World
Values Survey belong to the first approach. The second method involves the Comparative
analysis, such as the approach used by Putnam (1993). The last method is the qualitative
approach as used by Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993), Gold (1995) and Heller (1996).
No approach is superior to others in measuring social capital. Social capital studies in
Tanzania and Indonesia (Narayan and Pritchett, 199, in Grootaert and Bastelaer 2002)
calculated social capital from a quantitative – multiplicative approach.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
12
Definition of Terms
Cooperative · is an 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 · is an overall assessment of feelings and attitudes about one’s
life at a particular point in time ranging from negative to positive.
Mutuality · the doctrine that specific performance must be available to both
parties to a transaction in order for either to obtain it.
Perception of Poverty · it is an imaginative extension of thought that conceives of
poverty as an agent of pollution.
Reciprocity · refers to responding to a positive action with another positive action,
and responding to a negative action with another negative one.
Social Capital · referred to as the set of trust, institutions, social norms, social
networks, and organizations that shape the interactions of actors within a society and are
an asset for the individual and collective production of well-being.
Trust · defined formally as expectation about the actions of others that have a
bearing on ones own choice of action.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
13
METHODOLOGY
This section summarizes the locale and time of the study, respondents of the
study, research instrument, method of data collection and data analysis.
Locale and Time of the Study
This study was conducted in Benguet Government Employees Multi – purpose
Cooperative (BGEMPC) located at Provincial Capitol, Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet.
This study was conducted during the second semester of school year 2008 – 2009.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the officers and members of Benguet
Government employees Multi – purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC). A sample of fifty (50)
respondents was chosen through purposive random sampling.
Research Instruments
The needed information to answer the stipulated objectives in chapter two was
generated using structured questionnaire-checklist with five point Likert-type scale with
open minded questions was constructed and served as the main instrument for gathering
data. An introductory letter accompanied every questionnaire explaining the purpose of
the study and confidentiality of the information given. The survey questionnaire was pre -
tested to the selected five (5) members of the cooperative and it was being edited to come
up to a more simple but easily understood by the respondents.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
14
Method of Data Collection
The researcher visited various offices of Benguet Provincial Government. The
questionnaires were distributed and given personally to the chosen respondents allowing
ample time for them to answer each question completely. The researcher asked
permission to the manager and BOD – chairman of the cooperative in order to gather the
needed information and data.
Data Analysis
Social Capital components were measured using a five point Likert – scale. For
example, participation in the cooperative and in the community activities make use of a
scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represents never and the other extreme point 5
represents always. For trust, 1 represents not trust; 2 – little trust; 3- neutral; 4- much
trust; 5- very much trust.
The data gathered were tabulated, analyzed and interpreted based on the
objectives of the study using descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentage,
and mean.
As to the mean range, 1 – 1.74= 1; 1.75 – 2.54= 2; 2.55 – 3.34= 3; 3.35 – 4.14= 4;
4.15 – 5= 5.
Frequencies, percentage, and means were obtained using the Software Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
One way - Analysis of Variance was used to determine the relationships between
the respondents profile with Social Capital variables. The cut-off point for significance is
assigned at <0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Profile of Respondents
In order to appreciate this study, information about the respondents is
presented and summarized in this section. 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. Sixty-six percent (66%) of the respondents consider
themselves as head of the household.
Sex. Out of fifty respondents, majority (60%) was female and forty percent (40%)
are male.
Civil Status. It can be seen from Table 1.c. that eighty-six percent (86%) were
married and fourteen percent (14%) were single.
Age. The computed mean age of the respondents was 45.48 years. As to
distribution, fifty-four percent of the respondents belong to the bracket of 36-45; thirty-
four percent (34%) belonged to the age 46-55; six percent (6%) belonged to 25-35 and
six percent (6%) belonged to56-45.
Highest Educational Attainment. Table 1.d. shows that all of the respondents had
finished a university/college degree.
Occupation. All of the respondents were a government employee.
Religious Affiliation. Table 1.f. shows the religious affiliation of the respondents.
Most (76%) of the respondents were Catholic, four percent (4%) were Iglesia ni Cristo,
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
16
and so as (4%) were Anglican, and the rest were Baptist, Born Again, Lutheran,
Protestant, Jesus’ Witnesses and Church of Christ.
Ethno-linguistic group. Table 1.g shows that about fifty-four percent (54%) were
Ibaloi, thirty-six percent (36%) were Kankana-ey, and ten percent (10%) were Ilokano.
Type of membership. All of the respondents were regular members of the
cooperative.
Position in coop. table 1.i. shows that a great 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’
being a member of the cooperative was 12.84 years. As to distribution, sixty-two percent
(62%) belonged to the bracket 11-20 years, thirty-six percent (36%) belonged to 1-10
years and two percent (2%) belonged to 21-30 years being a member of the cooperative.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Household Head
33
66
Sex
Male
20
40
Female
30
60
TOTAL
50
100
Civil Status
Single
7
14
Married
43
86
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
17
Table 1. Continued…
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Age
25-35
3
6
36-45
27
54
46-55
17
34
56-65
3
6
TOTAL
50
100
MEAN
45.48
Educational Attainment
University/College
50
100
Occupation
Government Employee
50
100
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
38
76
Born Again
1
2
Iglesia ni Cristo
2
4
Lutheran
1
2
Anglican
2
4
Baptist
2
4
Protestant
1
2
Jesus' Witnesses
1
2
Church of Christ
2
4
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
18
Table 1. Continued…
PARTICULAR
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Ethno-linguistic group
Ilokano
5
10
Kankanaey
18
36
TOTAL
50
100
Type of Membership
Regular
50
100
Position in Cooperative
Officer
5
10
Member
45
90
TOTAL
50
100
No. of years being a member
1-10
18
36
11-20
31
62
21-30
1
2
TOTAL
50
100
MEAN
12.84
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
19
Level of Social Capital among Members
The Social Capital among members of Benguet Government Employees Multi-
purpose Cooperative was assessed in terms of their sociability, participation in the
cooperative and other groups/networks, level of trust among members, poverty
perception, life satisfaction of members, level of support given by members to others as
well as the level of support given by members to the same, and the pride of members
belonging to Benguet Government Employees Multi-purpose Cooperative.
Informal Groups/Networks
In this section, the respondents were asked if they are participating in any
groups/networks such as religious/spiritual group, sports group, ethnic based group,
production group, political party, professional association and other cooperatives.
As to religious groups presented in Table 2a, fourteen percent (14%) responded
that they are participating such that these groups were the knights of Colombus (6%),
FAMILIA Community (2%), Church of Christ (2%), Padre Pio C.C. (2%), and Worlwide
Church of God (2%), while eighty-six percent (86%) did not respond.
In Table 2.b, eight percent (8%) answered “yes” as to cultural/social group which
is the Bibak, on the other hand, one answered “yes” as to sports group which is the
Philippine Sports committee (Table 2.c). As to basic services group shown in Table 2.d,
four percent (4%) answered “yes” while forty-six (46%) did not respond. The basic
services that were mentioned by those who respond were the Wangal Women’s
Association and ACI Family Planning Consultants. So as to Ethnic based groups shown
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
20
in Table 2.e, four percent (4%) answered “yes” that which these groups were the Ethnic
Chinese group and Purok ASSU.
On production group shown in Table 2.f, only one responded that which is the
“Go for IT-CAR” while ninety-eight percent (98%) did not respond. So as to political
party none of the respondents did respond (Table 2.g).
Six percent (6%) responded “yes” as to professional association (Table 2.h.) that
were the Philippine Mental Association, Philippine Association of Social Worker’s Inc.,
and COSTRAPHIL while ninety-four percent (94%) did not respond. On the other hand,
fourteen percent (14%) responded that they are a member of other cooperative like
BBCCC while eighty-six percent (86%) did not respond (Table 2.i.). With the results
presented, this means that almost all of the respondents have no any participation in
groups/networks.
Table 2. Groups/Networks participation
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Religious Group
Yes
7
14
Religious Name
Knights of Columbus
3
6
FAMILIA Community
1
2
Padre Pio C.C.
1
2
Worldwide Church of God
1
2
No response
43
2
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
21
Table 2. Continued…
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Cultural, Social Group
yes
4
8
Cultural, Social Name
BIBAK
4
8
No response
46
92
TOTAL
50
100
Sports Group
yes
1
2
Sports Name
Phil. Sports Committee
1
2
No response
49
98
TOTAL
50
100
Ethnic Based Group
yes
2
4
Ethnic Based Name
Ethnic Chinese Group
1
2
Purok ASSU
1
2
No response
48
96
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
22
Table 2. Continued…
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Production Group
yes
1
2
Production Name
Go for IT-CAR
1
2
No response
49
98
TOTAL
50
100
Political Party
No response
50
100
Professional Ass'n
yes
3
6
Professional Name
Phil. Mental Health Ass'n
1
2
Phil. Ass'n of Social Worker's Inc.
1
2
COSTRAPHIL
1
2
No response
47
94
TOTAL
50
100
Other Cooperative
yes
7
14
Cooperative Name
BBCCC
7
14
No response
43
86
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
23
Level of Trust of Respondents
In this section, 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 which are 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.
Topping the list were the families/relatives that are of the same coop rated as
“much” presented in Table 3. This shows that they trust much the officers and staffs of
the cooperative and of their consanguinity.
Table 3. Level of trust of respondents
TRUST VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Families/Relatives
50
3.64
much
Friends
50
3.34
neutral
Co-tribes
50
3.24
neutral
Neighbors
50
2.84
neutral
Coop Manager
50
3.9
much
Coop BOD's
50
3.94
much
Coop Bookkeeper
50
3.88
much
Coop Treasurer
50
3.9
much
Coop Collector
50
3.82
much
Audit Committee
50
3.84
much
Credit Committee
50
3.8
Much
Legend: 1-not trust; 2-; 3-neutral; 4-much; 5- Very much
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
24
As shown in Table 4, another trust variable measured was the confidence of the
respondents that they could turn to their family/relatives, friends, neighbors,
moneylender/informal credit groups, government, banks, co-members and the
cooperative itself in times of financial difficulty. This is similar to the statement of
Dequit (2003) that membership trusts and confidence in the cooperative are factors
indicates the importance of the cooperative meeting the needs of the members so that
they would put all their trust in the cooperative.
From the result, the respondents have confidence that they can turn to relatives,
friends and neighbors, the cooperative and co-members by giving the higher confidence
rating of 4 (confident).
Level of agreement of respondents in statements about cooperative is shown in
Table 5. In this section, the respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with
the statements about the cooperative. A higher mean rating of 4 (agree) was given to the
statements “it is not generally expected that people will volunteer or help in cooperative
activities”, “people who do not volunteer in coops’ activities are likely to be
criticized/fined” and “most of coop members contribute to coops’ activities.
Table 4. Level of confidence
CONFIDENCE VARIABLES
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Family/Relatives, friends, neighbors
50
3.92
Confident
Money Lender, Informal Credit
Grps, Ass'ns
50
3.34
neutral
Government, Bank
50
3.16
neutral
Cooperative and co-members
50
4
confident
Legend: 1-not confident; 2-little confident; 3-neutral; 4-confident; 5-very confident
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
25
Table 5. Level of agreement of respondents
EXPECTATION STATEMENTS
FREQUENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
It is generally expected that people will
50
3.88
Agree
volunteer/help in coops' activities…
People who did not volunteer in coop
activities are likely to be
50
3.86
Agree
criticized/fined…
Most coop members contribute to coops
50
3.82
Agree
activities…
Rules, laws & policies that affect your
50
2.16
Disagree
coops economic well-being changes
without warning…
Member's like you generally have to do
50
2.02
Disagree
favors to coop officers from time to time
to get things done…
Legend: 1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-neutral; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree
Poverty Perception
Table 6 presents the perceptions of respondents towards poverty. The respondents
rated their household as 3.0 meaning neutral (neither poor nor rich) but are confident
(3.68) that they will be somewhat better off in the future.
Being a member of the cooperative, the respondents gave a rating of 3.22
(neutral) as to their power. They also gave a rating of 3 (neutral) to their household to
cope in a crisis since they became a member of the cooperative. The results show that
they could turn to the cooperative in times of crisis.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
26
Table 6. Poverty perception
POVERTY PERCEPTION
FREQUENCY
MEAN
How do you rate your household…ª
50
3.04
Thinking about the future while still a member of
50
3.68
the coop, do you think you and your household
will be…
Being a member of a coop, where would you put
50
3.22
yourself..
If there is a crisis, how would you rate your
50
3
household's ability to survive such crisis
How confident would you say that you and your
50
3.38
household would cope in a crisis since you
became a coop member
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 secures; 5-
very secured
e 1-much less confident; 2-less confident; 3-neutral; 4-more confident; 5-much
more confident
Participation in the Cooperative
In this section, the respondents were asked questions relating to their participation
in the cooperative. Table 7.a. shows how much the respondents were depositing in the
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
27
cooperative. The computed mean average was 180 being deposited in a month.
Table 7.b. presents how often the respondents participate in the activities of the
cooperative. Sixty-two percent (62%) responded that they only participate once in a year,
fourteen percent (14%) responded twice and five percent (5%) responded more than
twice in a year.
Table 7.c. shows whether the respondents have helped in the last six (6) months or
not at all. Fifty percent responded such that they had helped as a co-maker of their loan
application (40%), give advice (4%), lend money (4%), and the rest helped through
voluntary contributions for the demise of members or their family member, through
processing of their loans (an officer) and as a guarantor.
Table 7.d. shows the perception of the respondents whether the cooperative is
active or not. All (100%) of the respondents says that it is active. In addition, they were
asked to determine some reasons why they would say it is active like strong leadership,
strong sense of cooperativism, politics/politician, government support, desire to get ahead
economically, and good governance. Sixteen percent (16%) says that politics/politician is
a factor, sixty-six percent (66%) in government support and seventy percent in desire to
get ahead economically. ZOn the other hand, all of the respondents said strong
leadership; strong sense of cooperativism and good governance is a factor. Above all, the
participation of most of the members were low, however, they believe that the
cooperative they belong to is active.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
28
Table 7. Participation in the cooperative
PARTICIPATION VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
On average, how much money do you deposit
50
100
in your coop in a month?
MEAN
180
On average, how often do you participate in your coop's activities in a year?
Once
31
62
Twice
14
28
More than twice
5
10
TOTAL
50
100
Have you helped someone of the coop members' in the last 6 months?
yes
27
54
How
co-maker
20
40
death-aid
1
2
guarantor
1
2
give advice
2
4
lend money
2
4
processing of loans
1
2
no response
23
46
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
29
Table 7. Continued…
PARTICIPATION VARIABLE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Active
yes
50
100
Reasons
Strong leadership
50
100
Strong sense of cooperativism
50
100
Politics/politician
50
16
Government support
50
66
Desire to get ahead economically
50
70
Good governance
50
100
Participation in Social Activities
Table 8 shows the sociability of the members within the cooperative and within
the community. Of all sociability variables, based on the mean ratings ranging from 1.44
to 3.54, the higher mean rating of 3.54 was given to participation in Clan Reunion while
visit co-members in their homes has the least mean rating. This shows that the
respondents never visit co-members in their homes. However, the respondents also
revealed that they rarely participate in cooperative decision-making, get together with co-
members, in caňao, community activities, bayanihan, and recreations. Recreations
include film showing, sports fest and/or liga.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
30
Table 8. Sociability of respondents
SOCIABLITY VARIABLES
FREQUENCY
MEAN
Visit co-members in their homes
50
1.44
Get together with co-members
50
2.6
Participate in coop's decision -making
50
2.58
Caňao
50
3
Community Activities
50
3.1
Recreations
50
2.8
Clan Reunion
50
3.54
Bayanihan
50
3
Legend: 1-Never; 2-Seldom; 3-Sometimes; 4-Often; 5-Always
Life Satisfaction
On life satisfaction, the respondents indicated that they are happy (3.68) and
somewhat satisfied (3.54) with their life as a whole as shown in Table 9. They also
perceived to have a big impact (4.28) on the cooperative. This shows that respondents
very much believe that they are a great impact to the cooperative as a member in making
the cooperative a better one. However, their feeling of togetherness and belongingness in
the cooperative is somewhat close.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
31
Table 9. Life satisfaction
LIFE SATISFACTION VARIABLES
FREQUENCY MEAN
Taking all things together, would you say you are..ª
50
3.68
How much impact do you think members like you can
50
4.28
have in making your coop a better one
How would you rate your togetherness or feeling of
50
3.78
belongingness in your coop
How satisfied are you with your life as a whole…
50
3.54
Legend: a 1-very unhappy; 2-unhappy; 3-neutral; 4-happy; 5-very happy
b 1-no impact; 2-little impact; 3-neutral; 4-moderate impact; 5-big impact
c 1-not close at all; 2-not very close; 3-neutral; 4-somewhat close; 5-very close
d 1-very dissatisfied; 2-somewhat dissatisfied; 3-neutral; 4-somewhat satisfied;
5-very satisfied
Support Given and Received
Table 10 and Table 11 present the support given to and support from people as
rated by the respondents. They rated support given to children as 4.22 (lot of support), to
parents as 3.54 (just enough support) and other relatives as neutral (2.88). The mean
ratings of respondents of their support received from children and parents were 3.34 and
2.96 respectively interpreted as neutral. However, having the least mean rating of 2.54
(little support) was the support received from other relatives.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
32
Table 10. Support given
SUPPORT RECEIVED
FREQUENCY
MEAN
To parents
50
3.54
To children
50
4.22
Other relatives
50
2.88
Table 11. Support received
SUPPORT RECEIVED
FREQUENCY
MEAN
Getting from parents
50
2.96
Getting from children
50
3.34
Getting from relatives
50
2.54
Legend: 1-no support; 2-little support; 3-neutral; 4-just enough support; 5-lot of support
Pride in Cooperative
Finally in this section (Table 12), the respondents were asked to rate about who
they are in the cooperative. A higher mean rating of 5 (very proud) that was indicated by
the respondents. This shows that the respondents are very proud about who they are in the
cooperative they belong to
Table 12. Pride in the cooperative
PRIDE IN COOPERATIVE
FREQUENCY
MEAN
How proud are you about who you are in the coop
you belong to…
50
4.26
Legend: 1-very ashamed; 2-ashamed; 3-neutral; 4-proud; 5-very proud
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
33
Relationship Between Social Capital Variable
and Position of Respondents in the Cooperative
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to check for significance in the
differences. The cut-off point for significance is assigned at <0.05. Indicators-pairs with
significance values less than 0.05 means there is a significant between the two variables.
Relationship Between Sociability Variables
and Position in the Cooperative
Table 13 shows relationship between the respondents’ position in the coop and
their sociability within the cooperative and within the community.
The relationship and sociability variables were computed as follows 0.232, 0.041,
0.006, 0.392, 0.826, 0.639, 0.783, and 0.658 respectively. Between the position in the
coop and the sociability variable that is “get together with co-members with a computed
significance of 0.041. This shows that there is significant difference in the mean rating pf
officers and members. On the other hand, the position in coop and sociability variable
that is “participate in coop’s decision-making, the computed significance was 0.006.
They sometimes participate in coop’s decision-making (WM=2.58) and their perceptions
according to position in coop are highly significant from one another since 0.006 <0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
34
Table 13. Sociability variables and position in coop
MEAN
SOCIABILITY VARIABLES
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Visit co-members in their homes
1.8
1.4
0.232
Get together with co-members
3.6
2.48
0.041*
Participate in coop's decision -making
3.8
2.44
0.006**
Caňao
3.4
2.95
0.392
Community Activities
3.2
3.08
0.826
Recreations
3
2.77
0.639
Clan Reunion
3.4
3.55
0.783
Bayanihan
3.2
2.97
0.658
Legend: * significant **highly significant
Relationship Between Poverty Perceptions
and Position in the Cooperative
The relationship between poverty perception of the respondents and their position
in the coop was shown in Table 14.
The computed significance between poverty perceptions were as follows 0.028,
0.72, 0.053, 0.415, and 0.009. As notice in the table, the poverty perception with a
statement “if there is a crisis, how would you rate your household’s ability to survive
such crisis” was 0.415. However, the computed correlation of the statements “thinking
about the future while still a member of the coop, do you think you and your household
will be…” and “being a member of a coop, where would you put yourself” were 0.072
and 0.053. This shows that there is no significant difference in their perception according
to their position in the cooperative since 0.415, 0.072, and 0.053 >0.05.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
35
Table 14. Poverty perception and position in coop
MEAN
POVERTY PERCEPTION VARIABLES OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
How do you rate your household..ª
3.6
2.97
0.028*
Thinking about the future while still a
4.2
3.62
0.072
member of the coop, do you think you and
your household will be…
Being a member of a coop, where would
3.6
3.17
0.053
you put yourself
If there is a crisis, how would you rate
2.8
3.02
0.415
your household's ability to survive such
crisis
How confident would you say that you
4
3.31
0.009**
and your household would cope in a crisis
since you became a coop member
Legend: * significant **highly significant
Relationship Between Trusts
and Position in the Cooperative
Table 15 and 16 shows the computed significance between social trust variable
and position of respondents in the cooperative. Trust variables includes families/relatives,
friends, co-tribes that are of the same coop, neighbors, cooperative manager, BOD’s,
bookkeeper/secretary, treasurer, collector, audit committee, and credit committee was
shown in Table 15. Significant relation between trusts to co-tribes that are a member of
the same coop with 0.016 computed significance. Furthermore, between members’ trust
in neighbors and their position in coop with 0.014 computed significance shows that it is
significantly different from one another.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
36
On the other hand, confidence variables includes family/relatives, friends,
neighbors, moneylender, informal credit groups, government, bank, the cooperative and
co-members was shown in Table 16. The computed significance between position and
trust in the cooperative and co-members was 0.001. This shows that there is a highly
significant different in the mean ratings of the officers and members.
Table 15. Trust and position in coop
MEAN
TRUST VARIABLES
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Families/relative that are of the same coop
3.8
3.62
0.556
Friends that are of the same coop
3.8
3.28
0.067
Co-tribes that are of the same coop
3.8
3.17
0.016*
Neighbors
3.6
2.75
0.014*
Coop Manager
4
3.88
0.752
BOD's
4
3.93
0.838
Bookkeeper/Secretary
4
3.86
0.672
Coop Treasurer
4.4
3.84
0.11
Coop Collector
4
3.8
0.561
Audit Committee
4
3.82
0.585
Credit Committee
4
3.77
0.523
Legend: * significant
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
37
Table 16. Confidence variable
MEAN
CONFIDENCE VARIABLE
OFFICER MEMBER SIGNIFICANCE
Family/Relatives, friends, neighbors
3.8
3.93
0.66
Money Lender, Informal Credit Groups,
3.8
3.28
0.229
Associations
Government, Bank
3.8
3.08
0.081
Cooperative and co-members
4.8
3.91
0.001**
Legend: **highly significant
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
38
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the social capital among members of
Benguet Government Employees Multi-purpose Cooperative (BGEMPC).
The specific objectives of the study were the following (1) to determine the
demographic profile of the respondents (2) to determine the level of social capital among
members of BGEMPC (3) and to determine the relationship of Social Capital variables
and the position of respondents in the coop.
A questionnaire-checklist was used to gather information and data needed. The
data gathered was 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 purposive random sampling.
As to profile of the respondents, majority of the respondents is female, and a great
majority is married. All of the respondents also obtained university/college education.
It was found out that the sociability of members with in the cooperative and with
in the community and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other
groups/networks is low. However, the respondents believe that their cooperative is active.
For the level of trust, respondents trust much the officers and staffs of the
cooperative and their families/relatives of the same coop. on the part of their confidence,
the respondents are 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 are happy and somewhat satisfied with their life. However, the feeling of
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
39
togetherness and belongingness of respondents in the cooperative is quite.
Finally on the part of members, they claimed that they are very proud in the
cooperative as much that they are of great impact as a member in making the cooperative
a better one.
Conclusions
The sociability of members with in the cooperative and with in the community is
and so with participation in the cooperative and with in other groups/networks is low.
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.
Recommendations
It is recommended that a seminar on behavior 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.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
40
LITERATURE CITED
ADAMSON, F. & RONCEVIC, B. 2003. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
ADLER, P. S. & Kwoon, S.W., 2002. "Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept",
Academy of Management Review.
BREHM, J. & RAHN, W. 1997. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social-
_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
BOURDIEU, P. 1986. Forms of capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
COLEMAN, J. 1990. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
DEKKER, P. and E. Uslaner. 2001. Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
DEQUIT, F.J. 2003. Attitudes of members of selected cooperatives in La Trinidad,
Benguet towards borrowing and repaying of loans. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P.20.
DOLFSMA, W. and DANNREUTHER, C. 2003. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
EASTIS, C. 1998. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved
on September 19, 2008.
EDWARDS, B. and FOLEY, M. 1997. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
FUKUYAMA, F. 1995. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
GOLD, J. 1995. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on
September 19, 2008.
GROOTAERT, C. et al. 2004. Measuring Social Capital, An Integrated Questionnaire.
World Bank Working Paper No. 18. Washington D.C. USA
HELLER, E. 1996. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved
on September 19, 2008.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
41
MONTGOMERY, J.D. 1998. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
NARAYAN, D. and PRITCHETT, L. 1999. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
PORTES, A. and SENSENBRENNER, J. 1993. Social capital at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19, 2008.
PUTNAM, R. (2000) at http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm retrieved on
September 23, 2008.
ROBINSON, et al. 1997. Social capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital
retrieved on September 19, 2008.
Social Capital at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/social_capital retrieved on September 19,
2008.
Social Capital importance at http://www.springerlink.com/content/wvnjv0qhpwdbh31g/
retrieved on September 2, 2008.
Social Capital at http://portal.ku.edu.tr/~dyukseker/fukuyama-socialcapital.pdf retrieved
on September 2, 2008.
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
42
APPENDIX A
Letter to the respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet Sate University
La Trinidad, Benguet
Department of Agriculture Economics and Agribusiness Management
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am a fourth year student of Benguet State University, taking up Bachelor of Science in
Agribusiness major in Cooperative Management. Presently, I am conducting my
undergraduate thesis entitled: Social Capital among members of Benguet Government
Employees Multi – purpose Cooperative as partial requirement for graduation.
In this connection, may I request a part of your time to answer the attached questionnaire.
Your kind assistance will enable me to complete all the requirements in due time. Please
give your honest answer for the success of this research. Rest assured that all the
information you provide will be treated with confidentiality.
Kimberly A. Kiang
Researcher
Noted by:
Marie Klondy T. Dagupen
Thesis Adviser
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
43
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 been a member of this cooperative? ____
7. Position in cooperative: _____ Officer _____ Member
8. Membership: _____ Associate member _____ Regular member
B. GROUPS/ NETWORKS AND PARTICIPATION
9. Pls. indicate if you belong to any of the ff. groups by answering the appropriate columns
Group
Name of
How
How actively do you
Organizatio
much
participate in this group’s
n or Group
money
decision-making
do you
1 = Leader
contribut 2 = Very active
e to this 3 = Somewhat active
group in 4 = Does not participate in
a month decision-making
Religious or spiritual group;
specify
Cultural, social, emotional/support
group such as BIBAK, senior
citizen; specify
Sports groups; specify
Basic services groups such as
Barangay Health Worker, Mothers’
classes, Tanod; specify
Ethnic based groups such as tribe,
indigenous, community
organizations; specify
Production group such as farmers,
vendors groups; specify
Political party (Lakas NUCD,
Anakpawis, Bayan muna)
Professional association (such as
Rotary, Lion’s , Chamber of
Commerce; specify
Other Cooperatives, specify name
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
44
Sociability
10. Please rate your participation in the following activities?
Never (1) 2
3
4.
5. Always
I do the following informal
activities
a. Visit co-members
in their homes
b. Get together with
co-members (for
recreation, parties
etc.)
I participate in our coop’s
decision making
I attend the following
activities
a. Cañao
b. Community
activities (fiesta,
Christmas)
c. Recreations (sports
fest, film showing,
liga)
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 coop’s activities in a year?
____(Once); _____(Twice);______(More than twice) Specify ____________
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 reasons
why you chose your specific answer (1 is the most important and 5 is the least
important)
I. ACTIVE (serves 50% or more of the II. INACTIVE ( serves less than 50% of
members)
the members)
____ a. Strong leadership
____ a. No strong leadership
____ b. Strong sense of cooperativism
____ b. no sense f cooperativism
____ c. Politics/politicians
____ c. Mismanagement of coop
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
45
____ d. Government support/
____ d. Conflict between groups
management
____ e. Desire to get ahead economically ____ e. Coop members think only about
themselves (selfish)
____ f. Good governance
____ f. No government
support/connections
____ g. Coop members’ delinquency on
loans
____ i. Lack resources
C. TRUST
15. How much do you trust the following?
Not trust
Little
Neutral Much Very much (5)
(1)
trust (2)
(3)
(4)
a. families/ relatives that
are a 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 a help?
Not
Little
Neutral Confident
Very
confident confident
(3)
(4)
confident
(1)
(2)
(5)
Family/ relatives, friends,
neighbors,
Moneylender, Informal
credit, groups, associations
Government, Bank
Cooperatives and co-
members
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
46
17. How much do you agree or disagree with each one of the statement.
Strongl Disagre Neutr Agree Strongly
y
e (2)
al (3)
(4)
agree (5)
disagre
e (1)
In your coop, it is generally expected
that people will volunteer or help in
coop activities
People who do not volunteer or
participate in coop’s activities are
likely to be criticized or fined
Most of the coop members contribute
to coop’s activities
The rules, laws and policies that
affect your coop’s economic well-
being change without warning
Members like you generally have to
do favors to coop officers from time
to time to get things done
D. POVERTY PERCEPTION
18. How would you rate your household?
____ Very poor (1)
____ Poor (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ rich (4)
____ Very rich (5)
19. Thinking about the future while still a member of the coop, overall 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)
20. 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)
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
47
21. If there was a crisis, such as poor crops, loss of job, or illness, how would you rate
your household's ability to survive such crisis?
____ Very unsecured (1)
____ Somewhat unsecured (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat secure (4)
____ Very secure (5)
22. How confident would you say you that you and your household would 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 (Please check the appropriate number corresponding to your
answer)
23. Taking all things together, would you say you are…
____ Very unhappy (1)
____ Unhappy (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Happy (4)
____ Very happy (5)
24. Overall, how much impact do you think members like you, can have in making your
coop a better one?
____ No impact (1)
____ Little impact (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Moderate impact (4)
____ Big impact (5)
25. How would you rate the togetherness or feeling of belonging in your coop?
____ Not close at all (1)
____ Not very close (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat close (4)
____ Very close (5)
26. All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?
____ Very dissatisfied (1)
____ Somewhat dissatisfied (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat satisfied (4)
____ Very satisfied(5)
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
48
27. How would you rate the support you are giving to parents, children or other relatives,
either living with you or living elsewhere since you became a member of the coop?
No support
Little
Neutral
Just enough Lot of support
(1)
support (2)
(3)
support (4)
(5)
Parents
Children
Other
relatives
28. How would you rate the support you are getting from parents, children or other
relatives, either living with you or living elsewhere since you became a member of the
coop?
No support Little support Neutral Just enough
Lot of support
(1)
(2)
(3)
support (4)
(5)
Parents
Children
Other
relatives
29. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
Reason (s)
____ Very ashamed ______________________________
____ Ashamed
______________________________
____ Neither proud nor ashamed
______________________________
____ Proud
______________________________
____ Very proud
______________________________
30. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
____ Very ashamed
____ Ashamed
____ Neither proud nor ashamed
____ Proud
____ Very proud
G. DEMOGRAPHIC
31. How much formal schooling have you had?
____ None
____ Primary
____ Elementary
____ Secondary
____ University/ College or more
____ Vocational/technical
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
49
32. How many of the following live in your household?
a. Adult men (16 and over): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
b. Adult women (16 and over) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
c. Boys (15 and under) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
d. Girls (15 and under) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
e. Total Members: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 __
33. What is your occupation?
____ Housewife
____ Student
____ Self-employed: please specify _______________
____ Others, Please specify: _________________
34. What language/s and dialect/s do you speak?
____ English
____ Tagalog
____ Iloko
____ Ibaloi
____ Kankanaey
____ Kalanguya
____ others, specify___________________
35. What is your ethno-linguistic group?
____ Ilokano ____ Ibaloi ____ others, specify______________
____ Kakanaey ____ Kalanguya
36. What is your religious affiliation?
____ Catholic
____ Islam
____ Born Again others, specify ______________
____ Iglesia ni Cristo
Social Capital among m
embers of Benguet Government Employees
Multi – purpose Cooperative / Kimberly A. Kiang. 2009
Document Outline
- Social Capital among members ofBenguet Government Employees Multi � purpose Cooperative
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDIX