BIBLIOGRAPHY MONANG, JOAN K. APRIL 2010....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MONANG, JOAN K. APRIL 2010. Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Jovita M. Sim, MSc.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the Social Capital among members of
Kabayan Multi – Purpose Cooperative in Poblacion, Kabayan as to the demographic
profile, level of social capital among members through informal networks, trust, poverty
perception, participation in the cooperative and in the community and life satisfaction of
members; the relationship of social capital variables and educational attainment,
sociability variables and ethno-linguistic group, position in household and poverty
perception, position in cooperative and poverty perception; and to suggest specifications
to improve social capital for the cooperative. Study was conducted in Poblacion, Kabayan
from December 8 to February 2009 with fifty members as respondents.
The finding shows that majority of the respondents were household head
members, females, married, and all of them were regular member of the cooperative.
Most of them finished elementary, secondary education and had reached college level,
and most of them were ibaloi; the respondents often participate in community activities;
They are confident with their relatives and friends whom they can turn to; they give much
trust to their family, relatives, friends, co- members, neighbors and cooperative leaders;
the members perceive that they will be somewhat better off and more confident that there
household would cope in times of crisis; As to their life satisfaction they claimed that
they are happy and somewhat satisfied with their lives. As to the sociability and
educational attainment, the educational attainment of the member is significant in relation
to the Bayanihan activities.
It is recommended that more cooperation among members and officers of the
cooperative. Furthermore, activities related to social capital should be conducted and
recruit more members in order to expand area of operation.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Social Capital as Defined
By Several Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Key Features: Norms, Network
and Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Measuring Social Capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Three Main Strategies in the Formation
of Social Capital. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Locale and Time of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Respondents of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Research Instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Method of Data Collection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Demographic Profile of the Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
Informal Groups/Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Participation in the Cooperative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
iii
Participation in Social Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Level of Trust of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Level of Confidence of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Agreement on Expectation Statement
Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Poverty Perception.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Life Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Support Given to People
by Respondents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Support Received from People
By Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Sociability and Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Sociability and Ethno Linguistic Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Position in Household and Poverty Perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Position in Cooperative and Poverty Perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . 31
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
A. Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
iv
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Social capital is the trust, reciprocity, norms and networks of civic engagement in
a society that facilitate coordinated action to achieve desired goals. It is the cumulative
capacity of a social group to cooperate and work together for the common good
(Montgomery, 1998).
In a cooperative social capital is important because this will help to strengthen
the relationship of members of the society, community and cooperative because in a
community with an active neighborhood watch and which neighbors patrol and trust one
another they benefit irrespective of their individual trust worthiness and participation in
the neighborhood because of this public good characteristics social capital is said to be
undervalued does not attract private investment and is often a by product of other
activities.
This study on social capital will be done at Kabayan, Benguet. Kabayan is one of the
Municipalities of Benguet provinces it is composed of 13 barangays and the population is
approximately 12,344 and 2,068 household as of 2000 census. Most of the residents are
Ibaloi and Kalanguya by ethnicity while there are also migrants from the lowlands.
Kabayan is an Agricultural municipality where most of the people depend on vegetable
production for income.
Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative (KMPC) was established on November 27,
1972 with 25 original members or incorporators. The starting capital of Kabayan Multi-
purpose Cooperative was P600 and the founder of the said cooperative was Mr.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
2
Florentino Merino. The main service of the cooperative were merchandising and lending
they also offer fixed, savings, time deposits, regular salary pension, special emergency
instant appliances, mutual death assistance program (MUDAP) and lodging. At present
the total asset of the cooperative is P3 Million.
The purpose of organizing the Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative is to
strengthen economic, social, political and cultural conditions of members to increase their
income, to provide financial and technical assistance to its members and to develop social
relationships among members that will help them to get along with each other.
Objectives of the Study
This study aimed to determine the level of social capital among the members of
Kabayan multi-purpose Cooperative. Specifically, it aimed to:
1. Determine the demographic profile of respondents.
2. Determine what are the levels of social capital among the members of the
Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative.
a. Informal networks
b. Trust
c. Poverty perception
d. Participation
-in the cooperative
-in social activities
e. Life satisfaction
3. Determine the relationship of social capital variables in:
a. Relationship between sociability variables and educational attainment
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
3
b. Relationship between sociability and ethno linguistic group
c. Relationship between position in household and poverty perception
d. Relationship between position in cooperative and poverty perception
4. Suggest specifications to improve social capital for the cooperative.
Importance of the Study
This study will help develop the social relationships of members of the society,
community and cooperative because in a community with active neighborhood watch and
which neighbors and trust one another they benefit irrespective of their individual
trustworthiness and participation in the neighborhood because of the good characteristics
social capital is said to be undervalued does not attract private investments and is often a
by products of other activities. This will also improve our lot by widening our awareness
of the many ways in which our fates are linked. People who have active and trusting
connections to others whether family members, friends or relatives to develop or
maintain character traits that are good for the society.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The research will focus on determining the level of social capital among the
cooperative member of Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative. This will be conducted in
the locality of Kabayan, Benguet, Philippines from December 2008 to March 2009.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Social Capital as Defined by
Several Authors
a) The cumulative capacity of social groups to cooperate and work together for
the common good” (Montgomery, 1998).
b) The aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to
possession of a durable network of more or less institutional relationships of mutual
acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu,1983).
c) Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other. These
relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which will think of the
other when something needs to be done (Putnam, 2000).
c) A variety of different entities having two characteristics in common they all
consist of some aspects of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of
individual who are within the structure (Coleman, 1994).
Key Features: Norms, Network
and Trust
The World Bank (1999) identified social norms and networks as widely accepted
core elements of social capital with trust being seen either as an additional element of
social capital or as a close proxy for the level of social capital present in a community.
Social norms are shared understanding, informal rules and conventions that
Prescribe or modulate certain behaviors in various circumstances. Generalized social
norms can include honesty, law abidingness, the work ethic, respect for elders, tolerance
and acceptance of diversity, and helping people in need.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
5
Network is an interconnected group of people who usually have an attribute in
common.
Trust refers to the level of confidence that people have that others will act as they
say or are expected to act or that what they say is reliable. A person’s level of trust in
another depends largely on the person’s perception of the others’ trustworthiness
although people can also invest trust in others while trust can relate to individuals, it can
relate to groups and institutions within a society, including government.
Measuring Social Capital
Measuring social capital may be difficult but it is not impossible. The World Bank
(1999) suggested three approaches to social capital measurement. First, quantitative
studies approach. The second method involves comparative analysis and the last method
is the qualitative approach.
Grootaert and Bastelaer in Milagrosa and Slangen (2007) recognize that social
capital measurement occurs along a continuum from the micro to the macro dimensions.
Micro social capital captures horizontal networks and norms that motivate these
associations. Meso social capital describes vertical and horizontal interaction. Macro
level social examines the wider institutional and political sphere.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
6
Three Main Strategies in the
Formation of Social Capital
Bonding strategies that build trust and cooperation among individuals and within
communities.
Bridging strategies that break down barriers across groups and communities and
enable collaborative action on shared objectives.
Scaling –up strategies that connect communities in collective action for social
change and development at the and or system levels.
The economic function of social capital is to reduce the transaction cost
associated with formal mechanism like contracts, hierarchies, bureaucratic rules, and the
like. It is of course possible to achieve coordinated action among a group of people
possessing no social capital, but this would presumably entail additional transaction cost
of monitoring, negotiating, litigating, and enforcing formal agreements. In contracts can
possibly specific every contingency that arises between the parties; most presuppose a
certain amount of goodwill that prevents the parties from taking advantage of unforeseen
loopholes. Contracts that seek to try to specify all contingencies like the job control labor
pacts negotiated in the auto industry that ere as thick as telephone books end up being
very inflexible and costly to enforced (Fukuyama, 1995).
Definition of Terms
Social. the interaction of individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings
as member of society.
Social capital. it is the trust, reciprocity, and norms and networks of civic
engagement in a society that facilitate coordinated action to achieve desired goals.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
7
Reciprocity. A mutual or cooperative interchange of favors or privileges,
especially the exchange of rights or privilege of trade between nations.
Trust. An expectation about an action of others that have a bearing on one’s own
choice of action.
Norms. The rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values,
beliefs, attitudes and behaviors.
Network. An interconnected group of people who usually have an attribute in
common.
Poverty perception. An imaginative extension of thought that conceives of
poverty as an agent of pollution.
Life satisfaction. Being contented with what you have.
Ethnicity. Social groups or category of the population that in a larger society, is
set apart and bond together by common ties of nationality, language, or culture.
Mutuality. Having or involving the same feeling towards each other.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
8
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
This study was conducted at Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative located at
Barangay Poblacion, Kabayan, Benguet. The study was conducted on the second
semester of the school year 2008-2009.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of this study were the members, officers and non members of the
cooperative. Fifty (50) members were chosen at random.
Methods of Data Collection
A survey questionnaire was used as a tool in collecting the necessary
information. A key informant interviews was done with the manager and other key
officers of the cooperative to provide other information that is important for the study.
Data Analysis
The data gathered were tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted using descriptive
statistics such as frequencies, percentage and mean. As to mean range, 1 – 1.74= 1; 1.75
– 2.54= 2; 2.55 – 3.34= 3; 3.35 – 4.14= 4; 4.14 – 5= 5 were used.
One – way analysis of variance was used to determine relationships between the
respondents profile with social capital variables at <.05 level of significance.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic Profile of the Respondents
Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the respondents such as head of
household, sex, civil status, age, educational attainment, occupation, religious affiliation,
ethno-linguistic group, type of membership and the number of years being a member of
the cooperative.
Head of household. Twenty six (52%) of the respondents consider themselves as
household heads being the main breadwinner and decision maker in their household
Sex. Most (78%) of the respondents were females while (22%) were males.
Age. The youngest was twenty (20) years old while the oldest was seventy six
(76) years old. Majority of the respondents (54%) had age ranging from 36-50 years old,
followed by 14% whose age range from 66-85 years old, while 14% each had age ranging
from 20-35 and 51-65 years of age. The mean age of the respondents was 48.50 years.
Civil status. With regards to the civil status of the respondents majority (70%) of
were married, and 30% were single. This implies that married persons are interested in
joining cooperatives.
Educational attainment. Results revealed that 30% had finished a secondary level,
and (28%) were elementary graduate, another 28% had reached college level, 8% were
vocational/technical while 2% did not respond.
Occupation. Among the 50 respondents, most of them (40%) were housewife,
18% were farmers, and 26% were composed of students, vendor, teacher, government
employee, and businessman/woman while the other 6% did not respond.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
10
Religious affiliation. As to religious affiliation most 88% of them were Catholic,
6% were born again, and another 6% were Baptist.
Ethno-linguistic group. Most (76%) of the responders were Ibaloi fallowed by 9%
which is the Kalanguya ethno-linguistic group.
Type of membership. All of the respondents were regular members of the
cooperative.
Number of years as member. Most (74%) had been a member for 1-10 years, 18%
had been a member for 10-20 years, 6% were 20-30 years membership and 2% did not
respond.
Table 1. Profile of the respondents
PARTICULARS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Household heads
26
52
Sex
Male
11
22
Female
39
78
TOTAL
50
100
Civil Status
Married
35
70
TOTAL
50
100
Age
20-35
7
14
36-50
27
54
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
11
Table 1 continued. . .
PARTICULARS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
51 - 65
7
14
66 - 85
9
18
TOTAL
50
100
MEAN AGE
45.8
Educational Attainment
Primary
2
4
Elementary
14
28
Secondary
15
30
University/college
14
28
Vocational/technical
4
8
No response
1
2
TOTAL
50
100
Occupation
Housewife
20
40
Student
1
2
Vendor
4
8
Farmer
9
18
Teacher
3
6
Gov't employee
2
4
Businessman/woman
3
6
No response
8
16
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
12
Table 1 continued. . .
PARTICULARS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Religious affiliation
Catholic
44
88
Born again
3
6
Baptist
3
6
TOTAL
50
100
Ethno-linguistic group
Ilokano
1
2
Kankanaey
2
4
Ibaloi
38
76
Kalanguya
9
18
TOTAL
50
100
Membership
Regular member
50
100
TOTAL
50
100
Number of years as member
1 - 10
37
74
10 - 20
9
18
20 - 30
3
6
No respond
1
2
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
13
Informal Group/Networks
Table 2 presents the group/network and participation of members towards
religion, social groups, sports group, basic services groups, ethnic based groups,
production group, political party, professional association and other coop.
Religious affiliation. Majority (56%) of the respondents were not member of any
religious affiliation. While (44%) belong to religious group. Those with religious
affiliation belonged to Catholic, Born Again and Baptist. The mean monetary
contribution of the respondents to the religious group were they are affiliated was 68.82
pesos per month while the participation to mean to decision making is 2.19 which implies
that they are very active.
Social cultural group. Most (74%) of them do not belong to a group and 13%
were active in the social, cultural group. Sixteen percent of the respondents were senior
citizen, (4%) belong to BIBAK while (2%) belong to woman’s group. The monetary
contribution mean per month is P107.60 and the participation mean in decision making is
2.53, which implies that respondents are very active in participating in group decision
making on social cultural aspects.
Sports group. All of the respondents do not belong to any sports group.
Basic services group. Almost all (82%) of the respondents do not belong to any
basic services group however there are 18% of the respondents who were active members
of the group. The 82% composed those respondents who did not responded and the
respondents who do not belong to any basic services group.
Ethnic based group. Six percent of the respondents belonged to ethnic based
group, 4% belong to the indigenous group and 2% for the Parent-Teachers, Children
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
14
Association (PTCA). The participation in decision making mean is 2.66 and the monetary
contribution mean is P2. This result implies that the monetary contribution is low and the
respondents were very active in participating in decision making.
Production group. As to production group almost all (96%) of the respondents did
not respond while 2% belong to vegetable farmers group and 2% were Rice farmers
association group. The participation in decision making is 2.5, which means, the
respondents are very asctive.
Political party. Out of the 50 respondents only 1(2%) belonged to political group
which is the LAKAS and the participation in decision making is 3.0.
Professional association. All the respondents them do not belong to any
professional association group.
Other cooperatives. Twenty two percent of the respondents were member of
RIC/RFC and 10% were member of Gusaran Multi-Purpose Cooperative (GMPC). The
results showed that 68% of the respondents did not respond. The mean contribution of the
group is P106.76 and participation mean in decision making is 2.26. This means the
respondents are very active in participating.
Table 2. Membership in group/networks
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Religious Affiliation
With religious affiliation
22
44
Non religious affiliation
28
56
TOTAL
50
100
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
15
Table 2 continued. . .
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Cultural, Social group
Senior citizen
8
16
BIBAK
2
4
BARP
2
4
Women’s
1
2
Non-Cultural, Social group
37
74
Participation in decision making mean
2.19
Monetary Contribution mean
68.82
TOTAL
50
100
Participation in decision making mean
2.53
Contribution mean
P107.600
Sports group
Non-sports group
50
100
TOTAL
50
100
Basic services group
Punong barangay/barangay kagawad
1
2
Barangay health worker
2
4
Lupon ng barangay
2
4
Tanod
1
2
Mothers classes
3
6
Non-basic services group
41
82
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
16
Table 2 continued. . .
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
TOTAL
50
100
Participation in decision making mean
2.55
Contribution mean
P43.33
Ethnic based group
Indigenous
2
4
PTCA
1
2
Non-ethnic based group
47
94
TOTAL
50
100
Participation in decision making mean
2.66
Contribution mean
P2.00
Production group
Farmers association
1
2
Rice general association
1
2
Non production group
48
96
TOTAL
50
100
Participation in decision making mean
2.5
Contribution mean
P50
Political party
LAKAS
2
2
Non political party
48
98
TOTAL
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
17
Table 2 continued. . .
GROUPS/NETWORKS
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Participation in decision making mean
3
Professional association
Non professional association
50
100
Other cooperatives
RIC/RFC
11
22
GMPC
5
10
Other cooperatives
34
68
TOTAL
50
100
Participation in decision making mean
2.26
Contribution mean
P106.76
Participation in Cooperative
Table 3 presents the participation of the respondents to cooperative. The mean
amount deposited by the respondents within a month is P252. One half (50%) of the
respondents participate in cooperative activities only once a year while 34% participate
more than two activities and 10% participate twice. Fifty six of the respondents had
helped someone in the last six months by being a co-maker, giving/providing advice and
approved loan. Almost all (98%) of the respondents stated that their cooperative is active
because of its strong leadership, strong sense of cooperativism, good governance, and the
desire to get ahead economically.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
18
Table 3. Participation in cooperative
PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
No. of respondents deposited on
33
252.3
the cooperative
Frequency of participation in
Cooperative activities in a year
Once
25
50
Twice
5
10
More than twice
17
34
No response
3
6
TOTAL
50
100
Help/assistance provided to members in the last six months
Provided help/assistance
28
56
Type of help/assistance provided
As co-maker
3
6
Give advice
5
10
Approve loan
1
2
No response
41
82
TOTAL
50
100
Evaluation on the activeness of the
cooperative
Active
50
100
Why Cooperative was rated as active
Strong leadership
49
98
Strong sense of
40
80
cooperativism
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
19
Table 3 continued. . .
PARTICIPATION IN COOPERATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENTAGE
Politics/Politician
10
20
Government
21
41
support/management
Desire to get ahead
32
64
economically
Good governance
46
92
Participation in Social Activities
Table 4 presents participation of the respondents within the cooperative and
within the community. The sociability of the respondents as manifested by their
relationship with co-members of the cooperative and community is rated low. This means
that that the respondents rarely visit co-members in their homes and rarely attend
recreational activities which include sports fest, film showing and liga.
A higher rating of 3.87 was given to community activities. This means that the
respondents often participate in the community activities like fiesta and Christmas.
Level of Trust of Respondents
Level of trust of the respondents to cooperative officer, staff and members were
rated by the respondents. Coop manager got the highest mean rating of 4.20 Which
means the respondents/members trust the manager very much, this was followed by the
coop board of directors with the mean rating of 4.12 which means trust very much. The
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
20
rating to other officers, staff, members and friend in the cooperative is rated with 3.47-4
which means the respondents give much trust
Level of Confidence of Respondents
Another trust variable measured was the confidence of the respondents that they
can turn to relatives, friends, informal credit groups, government banks and cooperative
and co-members in times of financial difficulty. The respondents gave the highest mean
trust rating of 4.18 to cooperative and co-members, this means that they are very
confident to turn to cooperative and to their co members in times of financial difficulty.
Table 4. Participation in social activities
SOCIABILITY VARIABLES
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Visit co-members in their homes
49
2.42
Seldom
Get together with co-members
48
2.77
Sometimes
Participate in coop's decision making
50
3.52
Often
Canao
48
3.39
Often
community activities
49
3.87
Often
recreations
49
2.36
Sometimes
clan reunion
50
3.66
Often
Bayanihan
50
3.06
Sometimes
Legend: 1-Never; 2-Seldom; 3-Sometimes; 4-Often; 5-Always
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
21
Table 5. Level of trust of respondents
TRUST VARIABLES
FREQUENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
Families/relatives that are member of the
same cooperative
50
3.86
Much
Friends that are member of the same coop
50
3.54
Much
Co-tribes that are a member of the sane
coop
48
3.47
Much
Neighbors
49
3.44
Much
Coop manager
49
4.2
Much
Coop Board of directors
49
4.12
Much
Coop bookkeeper/secretary
49
3.93
Much
Coop treasure
48
3.75
Much
Coop collector
49
3.73
Much
Coop audit committee
48
3.83
Much
Coop credit committee
48
4
Much
Legend: 1-not trust; 2-; 3-neutral; 4-much; 5- Very much
Table 6. Level of confidence of respondents
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
Family/relatives friends, neighbors
49
4.06
Confident
Moneylender, informal credit groups,
association
49
3.55
Confident
Government bank
49
3.44
Confident
Cooperative and co members
50
4.18
Very Confident
Legend: 1-not confident; 2-little confident; 3-neutral; 4-confident; 5-very confident
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
22
Agreement on Expectation Statements about Cooperative
A mean rating of 3.56 (agree) was given to the statement “it is generally expected
that people will volunteer or help in cooperative activities” and 3.55 to statement “most
coop members will contribute to coop activities”. The respondents disagree the rules,
laws and policies that affect the cooperative economic well being changes without
warning. This means that members should be warned or informed on any changes in the
rules, laws and policies affecting the cooperative.
Poverty Perception
The respondents gave a mean rating of 2.82 meaning (neither poor nor rich) to
their household but they are more confident (3.86) that their household would cope in a
crisis since they became a member of the cooperative. As to being a member of the coop,
they gave a mean rating of 3.14 which means neutral as to their power. The respondents
also gave a mean rating of 3.6 which means that they are somewhat secure if they incur
crisis in the future such as poor crops, loss of jobs or illness.
Table 7. Agreement on expectation statements about coop
ECPECTATION STATEMENT
FREQUENCY MEAN
It is generally expected that people will volunteer or help
in coop activities
50
3.56
People who did not volunteer in coop activities are likely
to be criticized/fined
50
3.1
Most coop members contribute to coops activities
49
3.55
Rules, laws and policies that affect your coop's economic
well being changes w/o warning
49
2.93
Members like you generally have to do favors to coop
49
3.04
officers from time to get things done.
Legend: 1-strongly disagree; 2-disagree; 3-neutral; 4-agree; 5-strongly agree
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
23
Table 8. Poverty perception
POVERTY PERCEPTION VARIABLES FREQUENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
How do you rate your household
50
2.82
Neutral
Thinking about the future while still a 50
3.76
Somewhat
member, do you and your household will
better off
be
Being a member of coop, were would you 50
3.14
Neutral
put yourself
If there is crisis, how would you rate your 50
3.26
Neutral
household's ability to survive such crisis
How confident would you say that you 50
3.86
More
and your household would cope in crisis
Confident
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
Life Satisfaction
On life satisfaction the respondents indicated that they were happy (3.26) and
somewhat satisfied (3.06) with their life as a whole these days. The respondents gave a
high rating of 3.46 somewhat close on the feelings of togetherness and belongingness in
the cooperative and perceived to have a moderate impact (3.32) in making the
cooperative a better one.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
24
Support Given to People by Respondents
Table 10 shows the support given to people as rated by the respondents. They
rated support given to children as 5.51 (lot of support), support given to parents as 5.52
(lot of support) and 2.73 which means neutral support is given to the relatives.
Table 9. Life satisfaction of the respondents
LIFE SATISFACTION VARIABLES
FREQUENCY MEAN DESCRIPTION
Taking all things together, would you say
you are…
50
3.62 Happy
How much impact do you think members
like you can have in making your coop a
better one
50
3.32 Neutral
How would you rate your togetherness or
Somewhat
feeling of belongingness in your coop
50
3.46 close
How satisfied are you with your life as a
whole these days
50
3.6
Neutral
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
Table 10. Support given to people by respondents
SUPPORT GIVEN
FREQUENCY MEAN
DESCRIPTION
To parents
48
5.25
Lot of support
To children
49
5.51
Lot of support
To relatives
49
2.73
Neutral
Legend: 1-no support; 2-little support; 3-netral; 4-just enough support; 5-lot of support
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
25
Support Received from People by Respondents
The mean ratings of the respondents of support received/ getting from parents and
children were 4.42 and 4.45 which is interpreted as lot of support while support received
from other relatives is 2.77 which means neutral.
Sociability and Educational Attainment
Table 12 presents the data gathered regarding sociability in relation to educational
attainment Based on the results, those who were high school graduates had the highest
mean equal to 3.28 and those who had vocational training had the lowest mean of 3.03
(sometimes). In general, the members seldom visit co-members, get together with co-
members, and recreations; they often participate in the cooperative’s decision-making,
cañao, community activities, and clan reunion; they sometimes involve in Bayanihan
activities. Among the identified sociability variables, the perceptions of the members
regarding Bayanihan differ significantly as seen in the significance value of 0.041 lower
than 0.05; this means that the educational attainment of the member of the cooperative is
a significant factor relation to participating or not in Bayanihan activities. As for the other
indicators, the members have similar views.
Table 11. Support received from people by respondents
SUPPORT RECEIVED
FREQUENCY
MEAN
DESCRIPTION
From Parents
49
4.42
Lot of support
From Children
48
4.45
Lot of support
From Relatives
48
2.77
Neutral
Legend: 1-no support; 2-little support; 3-neutral; 4-just enough support; 5-lot of support
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
26
Table 12: Sociability and educational attainment
COLL
SOCIABILITY
PRIM ELEM SEC EGE
VOC
WM
DE
SIG
VARABLES
Visit co-members in their
homes
1.5
2.14 2.93
2.38
2.25
2.24 Seldom 0.201
Get together with co-
members
2
3
3.08 2.64
2.25
2.59 Seldom 0.489
Participate in coop's
decision-making
3.5
3.79
3.53 3.21
3.75
3.56
Often 0.575
Canao
4
3.57
3.29 3.23
4
3.62
Often 0.543
Community activities
4
3.93
3.71
4
3.75
3.88
Often 0.917
Recreations
2.5
1.64
3
2.5
2.25
2.38 Seldom 0.081
Clan reunion
4
3.71
3.47 3.71
3.75
3.73
Often
0.87
Bayanihan
3
2.71
3.2
3.5
2.25
2.93 Some- 0.041
times
Legend: Prim-Primary; Elem-Elementary; Sec-Secondary; Voc-Vocational; WM-
Weighted mean; DE-Description; Sig-Significance
Sociability and Ethno Linguistic Group
Table 13 presents the data gathered regarding sociability in relation to ethno
linguistic group. Based on the results, the kankanaeys had the highest mean equal to 3.75
(often) and the Ilokanos had the lowest mean of 2.75 (sometimes). In general, the
members seldom visit co-members, sometimes get together with co-members, have
recreations, conduct Bayanihan projects; they often participate in the cooperative’s
decision-making, cañao, community activities. Among the identified sociability variables,
the perceptions of the members regarding Bayanihan differ significantly as seen in the
significance value of 0.024 lower than 0.05; this means that the ethnic background of the
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
27
members of the cooperative is a significant factor relation to participating or not in
Bayanihan activities. As for the other indicators, the members have similar views.
Position in Household and Poverty Perception
Table 14 presents the data gathered regarding poverty perception in relation to
position in household (whether head or not). Based on the results, the coop members
(whether or not head of the household) perceive that their household is neither poor nor
rich (neutral); they see their future as somewhat better off when they became members of
the cooperative; they were neutral in self-evaluation and in crisis survival; more confident
in coping with crisis. The perceptions of the head of the household and those who were
not head do not differ significantly; both are similar in their views.
Table 13: Sociability and ethno linguistic group
SOCIABILITY
VARIABLES
ILOKANO KANKANAEY IBALOI KALANGUYA WM SIG
Visit co-members in
1
2.5
2.43
2.56
2.12 0.596
their homes
Get together with
1
4
2.78
2.67
2.61 0.182
co-members
Participate in coop's
3
3.5
3.45
3.89
3.46 0.574
decision-making
Canao
4
3.5
3.33
3.56
3.60 0.877
Recreations
4
4
2.3
2.11
3.10 0.14
Clan reunion
3
4.5
3.63
3.67
3.70 0.439
Bayanihan
2
4.5
3.11
2.67
3.07 0.024
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
28
Table 14. Position in household and poverty perception
POVERTY PERCEPTION
VARIABLES
YES
DESC
NO
DESC
SIG.
1. How do you rate your
household?
2.88
Neutral
2.75
Neutral
0.402
2. Being a member of the 3.54 Somewhat
4
Somewhat 0.027
cooperative, how do you rate your
better off
better off
(and with your household) future?
3. Being a member of the coop,
where would you put yourself?
3.12
Neutral
3.17
Neutral
0.78
4. If there was a crisis like poor
crops, loss of job, or illness, how 3.35
Neutral
3.17
Neutral
0.517
would you rate your household's
ability to survive the crisis?
5. How confident would you say
that you and your household 3.92
More
3.79
More
0.45
would cope in a crisis since you
confident
confident
became a coop member?
Position in Cooperative and Poverty Perception
Table 15 presents the data gathered regarding poverty perception in relation to
position in the cooperative (whether officer or not an officer)). Based on the results, the
cooperative members perceived that their household is neither poor nor rich (neutral);
they see their future as somewhat better off when they became members of the
cooperative; they are neutral in self-evaluation and in crisis survival; more confident in
coping with crisis. The perceptions of the head of the household and those who are not
head of the household do not differ significantly; both are similar in their views regarding
the poverty indicators.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
29
Table 15: Position in the cooperative and poverty perception
POVERTY PERCEPTION
OFFICER
DESCR
MEMBER
DESCR
SIG.
How do you rate your
household?
3
Neutral
2.8
Neutral
0.455
Being a member of the
cooperative, how do you
rate your
4
Somewhat
3.73
Somewhat
0.453
(and with your household)
better off
better off
future?
Being a member of the
coop, where would you put
3.8
Somewhat
3.067
Neutral
0.13
yourself?
powerful
If there was a crisis like
poor crops, loss of job, or
Somewhat
illness, how would you rate
your household's ability to
3.4
secure
3.24
Neutral
0.736
survive the crisis?
How confident would you
say that you and your
household would cope in a
Much
crisis since you became a
4.2
more
More
coop member?
confident
3.82
confident
0.189
Legend; DESCR-Description; SIG-Significance
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
30
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study aimed to determine the level of Social capital among the members of
Kabayan Multi-purpose Cooperative. The salient findings include the following: a)
majority of the respondents are household head members, females, married, and all of
them were regular member of the cooperative. Most of them finished elementary,
secondary education and had reached college level, and most of them were ibaloi. b) the
respondents often participate in community activities; c) They are confident with their
relatives and friends whom they can turn to; d) They give much trust to their family,
relatives, friends, co members, neighbors and cooperative leaders; d) the members
perceive that they will be somewhat better off and more confident that there household
would cope in times of crisis; e) As to their life satisfaction they claimed that they are
happy and somewhat satisfied with their lives. f) As to the sociability and educational
attainment, the educational attainment of the member is significant in relation to the
Bayanihan activities.
Conclusions
The following conclusions were arrived at:
1) The officers and the members have similar views with respect to poverty
perception.
2) Social capital of members needs enhancement and improvement in the area of
sociability.
3) There is a strong leadership in the cooperative.
4) There is better economic growth in the cooperative with good social capital.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
31
Recommendations
The cooperative should enhance and improve the sociability of members through
trainings, seminars, or conducting more Social activities and encouraging members to
participate. To invite participation maybe the cooperative should provide incentives to
those who will join whether in monetary or non-monetary.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
32
LITRATURE CITED
BOURDIEU, P.
1983,
Retrieved
September 22,
2008
http://www.infed.org/biblio/Social-capital.
COLEMAN, J.1994. Social Capital. Retrieved September 23, 2008
http://www.answers.com/Social-Capital?hl=Social&hll=assets.
FUKUYAMA,
1995
F.200
access September 22, 2008
http://www.info.org/external/pubs/ft/sem/1995/fukuyama.
MILAGROSA, A and Slangen L. 2007. The Social Capital of Indigenous Agricultural
communities in Benguet, Northern Philippines: Socio-cultural implications and
consequences to local vegetable trade.
MONTGOMERY. 1998 retrieved September 25, 2008
http://www.adb.org/Doc/Books/Socia-Capital/Chapter01.pdf.
PUTNAM, R. 2000 Retrieved September 23, 2008 http://www.infed.org/biblio/Social-
Capital.htm.
WORLD BANK, 1999 Retrieved September 22, 2008 http//www.infed.org/biblio/Socia-
Capital.htm.
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
33
APPENDIX A
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. Please indicate if you belong to any of the following groups by answering the
appropriate columns
Group
Name of
How much
How actively do you
Organization
money do
participate in this
or Group
you
group’s decision-
contribute to
making
this group in 1 = Leader
a month
2 = Very active
3 = Somewhat active
4 = Does not
participate in
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)
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
34
Professional association (such as
Rotary, Lion’s , Chamber of
Commerce; specify
Other Cooperatives, specify
name
Political Engagement
10. In the past year, how often have you done any of the following?
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Alway
s
Attended coop’s meeting (regular and 1
2
3
4
5
emergency)
Participated party list election
1
2
3
4
5
Participated in coop election
1
2
3
4
5
Sociability
11. Please rate your participation in the following activities?
Never
2
3
4.
5.
(1)
Alway
s
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
12. On average, how much money do you deposit in your coop in a month?
_______________________________
13. On average, how often do you participate in your coop’s activities in a year?
____(Once); _____(Twice);______(More than twice)
Specify ____________
14. Have you helped someone of the coop members in the last 6 months? ____ Yes
____ No: If yes how?___________________
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
35
15. 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 the
members)
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
____ 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
____ h. Physically remote/isolated
____ i. Lack resources
C. TRUST
16. How much do you trust the following:
Not
Little
Neutral Much
Very
trust
trust
(3)
(4)
much
(1)
(2)
(5)
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
17. In times of financial difficulty, how confident are you that you can turn to these
different groups for a help?
Not
Little
Neutral Confide
Very
confiden confiden
(3)
nt (4)` confiden
t (1)
t (2)
t (5)
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
36
Family/
relatives, friends,
neighbors,
Moneylender, Informal credit,
groups, associations
Government, Bank
Cooperatives and co-members
18. How much do you agree or disagree with each one of the statement.
Stron Disag Neutr Agree Stron
gly
ree
al (3) (4)
gly
disagr (2)
agree
ee (1)
(5)
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
19. How would you rate your household?
____ Very poor (1)
____ Poor (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Somewhat powerful (4)
____ Very powerful (5)
20. 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)
21. 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 Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
37
22. 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)
23. 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)
24. Taking all things together, would you say you are…
____ Very unhappy (1)
____ Unhappy (2)
____ Neutral (3)
____ Happy (4)
____ Very happy (5)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. 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)
28. 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
Little
Neutral
Just
Lot of
support support
(3)
enough support
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
38
(1)
(2)
support
(5)
(4)
Parents
Children
Other relatives
29. 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
Little
Neutral
Just
Lot of
support support
(3)
enough support
(1)
(2)
support
(5)
(4)
Parents
Children
Other relatives
30. People have different opinions about the most important problems that need to be
fixed to make the coop better. In your opinion, what is the BIGGEST problem facing
you, rank as 1? What is the SECOND biggest problem, rank as 2? What is the THIRD
biggest problem, rank as 3,
a. Management
b. Coop leaders
c. Members
___ Incompetence
___ Corruption
___ Negative Values
___ Lack of Skills
___ Lack of Capability
___ Cooperation
___ Others, specify
___ Negative Values
___ Others, specify
31. How proud are you about who you are in the coop you belong to?
____ Very ashamed
____ Ashamed
____ Neither proud nor ashamed
____ Proud
____ Very proud
36. 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
37. How much formal schooling have you had?
____ None
____ Primary
____ Elementary
____ Secondary
____ University/ College or more
____ Vocational/technical
38. How many of the following live in your household?
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
39
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
39. What is your occupation?
____ Housewife
____ Student
____ Self employed: please specify _______________
____ Others: Please specify: _________________
40. What language/s and dialect/s do you speak?
____ English
____ Tagalog
____ Iloko
____ Ibaloi
____Kankanaey
____ Kalanguya
____Others,specify ________
41. What is your ethno-linguistic group?
____ Ilokano
____ Kakanaey
____ Ibaloi
____ Kalanguya
____ Others, specify _____________________
42. What is your religious affiliation?
____ Catholic
Others,specify ______________
____ Born Again
____ Iglesia ni Cristo
____ Islam
Social Capital among Members of Kabayan
Multi – Purpose Cooperative / Joan K. Monang. 2010
Document Outline
- Social Capital among Members of KabayanMulti � Purpose Cooperative
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITRATURE CITED
- APPENDIX