Social Capital and Local Government Capacity

Abstract

Local authorities vary considerably in their capacity for governance. The dimensions of this capacity can only be developed by drawing on local stocks of social capital. The seminal theories of social capital tend to conceive it as a community resource that is built up through a long tradition of civic engagement. We take issue with the laissez–faire implications of these theories, highlighting ways in which local governments can positively contribute to social capital formation by opening their ‘political opportunity structure’ and engaging voluntary organisations and community groups in trust–based partnership arrangements.

Sport, Localism and Social Capital in Rural Western Australia

“…The idea of local authorities having the capacity to assist rural sports clubs was actually mentioned some years ago by Cheers (1998) as part of rural social care and development. Wallis and Dollery (2002) also believe that there are avenues for local authorities to engage with voluntary organisations in ways that can encourage social capital formation. They claim that local authorities can provide opportunities for citizens to influence decisions about facilities and types of infrastructure, and that they can also provide assistance through grants, advice and training, particularly in the development of local service delivery networks.…”

Local Government Capacity in Australia

“…Wallis and Dollery (2002) . Australia is thus an example of a 'coming together' federation in the sense that it was formed through aggregation of previously existing governments (Fenna and Hollander 2013: 222).…”

Bonding and Bridging Associational Social Capital and the Financial Performance of Local Authorities in Israel

“…Wallis and Dollery (2002) present a taxonomy of minimal, intermediate and activist governments, which they relate to stocks of social capital. Activist governments are those that assume many functions, design innovative policies and coordinate publicprivate partnerships.…”