Social Capital for Development: What Does it Mean if There Isn't Any? A Case Study of Agricultural Producers in Dmitrov Rayon, Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Social capital was the development “buzz word” of the 1990s. Numerous studies identified the importance of social capital for civic and democratic society (for a summary, see Wall, Ferrazi and Schryer 1998), inevitably decrying its gradual disappearance from North American society and its under-recognition in international development initiatives. In this paper, the author takes the discussion of diminishing social capital a step further, addressing the development implications of an absence of social capital. Preliminary fieldwork by the author among agricultural producers in Dmitrov Rayon, Russia, found no evidence of overt forms of social capital—no community organizations, formal co-operation or volunteer activity. Although further investigation of the case study site found seeds of community activity in urban areas and a social assistance structure embedded in the region's rural businesses, the apparent absence of social capital among study respondents raised questions about the universality and utility of current social capital theory. The author uses the profile of social capital in rural Dmitrov Rayon generated through her field research to discuss the influence of a command society on social capital formation. She raises issues related to the implications of limited, absent and unexpected forms of social capital for international development initiatives in general and for democratic development in particular.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".