INTRODUCTION
In New Zealand’s Westland District the closure of the local indigenous timber industry alongside rapid growth of the dairy and tourism sectors has produced dilemmas for families and communities as they attempt to adjust to the social consequences of rapid industry change. Drawing on a social capital perspective and a case study of 12 Westland families, this project examines how rural families bring balance to aspects of the three actions defined by Arendt as being essential to “the human condition”: family, work and community life. The findings reveal significant insights into how social capital is effectively reproduced in times of change. These insights are discussed in terms of their social policy implications.

Fifty years ago Hannah Arendt (1958) published The Human Condition. In this work she contended that there are three types of action required to be “fully human”. The first two of these actions, engagement in family life and paid work, are necessary for human existence in contemporary society. The third action she called vita activa, or public life: a life that is actioned within jointly built civil spaces. Within these spaces we are capable of debate, we share actions and we resolve collective dilemmas (Arendt 1958). Arendt reminds us that the absence of, or over-attention to, any one aspect of the human condition is likely to be problematic.

A half a century on from Arendt’s original thesis, public policy continues to debate aspects of vita activa and democratic governments still seek to engage vita activa in economically and socially productive ways. Working out the shifting balance between family life, paid work and vita activa is a crucial aspect of responding effectively to significant social change, be it local issues (such as natural disaster relief) or meeting the challenges that arise as a consequence of external or global forces (such as the loss of a core industry). The concept of social capital has been used as a way to recognise and gauge vita activa (Cox 1995).
The term “social capital” originated, in part, in an attempt to understand how “those features of social organisation, such as trust, norms and networks can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions” (Putnam 1993). Voluntary or joint social actions provide the opportunity to resolve collective dilemmas. Individuals achieve this through the development and use of social bonds and networks as resources to facilitate productive activity (Coleman 1988). By maintaining the social relationships and structures necessary for collective activity, individuals, families and communities are able to realise some of these benefits, and in doing so can resolve some of the issues they face in common.

Collective social activity relies upon networks made up of social ties. Close friends (strong ties) have frequent and overlapping contact within the social cluster or group, forming a “densely knit clump of social structure” (Granovetter 1983:202). On the other hand, acquaintances (weak ties) are often diverse and heterogeneous in experiences and social location. They are not known by all within one’s social circle, and the level of engagement with them is often much less (Granovetter 1983). Both types of ties are important for co- operative social action. Weak ties allow access to a different set of resources, ideas or people that may be necessary to address issues or resolve problems. Strong ties provide networks imbued with social memories of successful past collaboration, which function as a kind of “cultural template” for future collective action (Putnam 1995). Strong bonding ties allow individuals to “get by”, while weak bridging ties enable them to “get ahead” (Woodhouse 2006:86).
The networks that are drawn on to enable response to shared dilemmas are generally qualified in terms of the extent to which trust and reciprocity characterise them and guide the actions of individuals. The social norm of trust describes the willingness on the part of the individual to “take risks in a social context based on a sense of confidence that others will respond as expected and will act in mutually supportive ways” (Onyx and Bullen 2000:24). High levels of trust enable co-operative action, and this in turn facilitates the expectation of mutuality. Thus, in this model, high levels of those constituent parts of social capital generate increasing “amounts” of social capital. In short, social capital feeds on its own success.
As a conceptual tool, social capital focuses explicitly on the interstices of family, work and community in ways that can reveal policy-relevant insights about how communities, both rural and urban, effectively cope with New Zealand’s rapidly shifting socio-economic environment.

THE CONTEXT OF INDUSTRY CHANGE
The communities of interest to this study are Whataroa (pop. 405 in 2006) and Hari Hari (pop. 351 in 2006). They are situated on the South Island’s West Coast, just north of the tourist destination of Franz Josef Glacier (see Figure 1). The area has a history built largely upon timber and dairy farming. Both communities remained small (around 400 people) until he 1950s, when the sawmilling industry expanded and the New Zealand Forest Service (NZFS) extended its presence in the area, providing increased employment opportunities and encouraging steady population growth. The post-World War II housing boom meant that Whataroa and Hari Hari were well positioned to receive a good share of forestry prosperity.

However, from the 1970s through the 1980s, rationalisation of timber processing and state sector restructuring resulted in the loss of the NZFS and considerable forestry jobs from the area (Pawson and Scott 1992). By the mid-1990s both townships had lost their timber- processing mills, workers were laid off, and local communities were forced to find ways of absorbing the ongoing effects of timber industry decline. A proportion of workers moved on, but many stayed, mainly taking up lower-paid jobs in the growing tourism and farming sectors (Sampson et al. 2007). Finally, in 2002, came the complete cessation of logging from nearby Crown-owned land, as its status was shifted from production to conservation management. By the time the decision was implemented fewer than 20 people were directly employed in a timber felling, hauling or processing capacity (Sampson 2003), a far cry from the vibrant timber industry operating in Westland in the 1970s and 1980s.
As forestry has declined, dairy farming and tourism have become pivotal to the local economy. The growing economic significance of dairying and tourism for this rural West Coast area directly reflects the importance of these industries to the national economy: tourism and dairying compete with each other as the country’s leading export earners (Statistics New Zealand 2009). Alongside forestry decline, the farming sector underwent considerable change and growth. Drystock farming has almost entirely ceased, with many farms converted to more lucrative dairy units. The number of dairy units in the area has increased markedly. There are currently 33 dairy farms in Hari Hari and 30 in Whataroa, anincrease of around 20 farms since 1970.2 While this number has increased steadily, in the last five years the rate of increase has slowed, with the addition of only three new units. Despite this, milk production figures indicate more intensive farming practice. Since 2002 production has increased by about 25% per dairy unit per day. This growth has been marked by farm conversions to dairy, farm amalgamations, increased herd size and intensification of production. These changes have generated the need for more labour units, both seasonal and year round. The farming community reports that these changes have necessitated working longer hours.
Tourism in the region has also steadily grown. Tourist figures show that visitor numbers have risen steadily since the 1960s (Narayan 1995), with significant increases in tourists since the 1990s (Simmons and Fairweather 2001). Total visits by travellers to West Coast Regional Tourism Organisations are forecast to rise from 2.32 million in 2008 to 2.53 million in 2015 – an increase of 9.1% (212,100) or 1.3% p.a. (Ministry of Tourism 2009). Figures supplied by the Department of Conservation of the numbers who walk the Franz Josef Glacier3 access track show an increase of 26% between 2001 and 2007, with almost 460,500 walkers recorded in 2007.4 Although it is not known what proportion of tourists visiting the region walk the track, the Department of Conservation considers that these numbers reflect an overall increase in visitor numbers in the area.
This increase in visitors has created both seasonal opportunities and costs. Opportunities include drawing tourist dollars into accommodation and passing trade and provision, and associated employment. However, the costs include increased seasonal pressure on infrastructure, and an increase in younger transient workers required to service this growth. In the context of wider industry change, this industry has also contributed to the shifting demographic profile of the area, not only in population size but also in composition.
The loss of key industries and the rise in new industries have placed shifting sets of demands on local family and community resources. This is a common scenario in many rural areas in New Zealand and presents the intractable policy problem of how to improve communities’ capacities to cope effectively with economic transition. There have been a range of government initiatives to support rural communities undergoing significant change. These include an increasing concern in government with “joined up government and joint working between agencies and across sectors in order to address ‘wicked’ social problems and improve policy outcomes” (Walker 2004:1). Nationwide policy initiatives include Heartland Services and the Working for Families package. Infrastructure support includes e-government initiatives to raise the profile and accessibility of existing social services through Ministry websites.5 More targeted support includes the West Coast Economic Development Fund. However, as existing policy strategies, these have tended to focus on the provision of formal social services and economic support as a means to support the reproduction of social capital. An appreciation of the ways in which social capital is informally reproduced at the nexus of family, paid work and community participation in a context of shifting economic contexts is sadly missing.
In terms of the New Zealand-focused social capital literature, an enduring “wicked problem” has been the lack of fit between values and legislation (see, for instance, Robinson and Williams 2001). Robinson and Williams’s discussion of the different ways in which voluntary activity, giving and sharing are understood in Māori and non-Māori society highlights the fact that there are culturally distinct differences in how community participation is practised and understood. This can cause difficulties when initiatives and legislation are developed out of one cultural perspective, which is then laid over all cultures within the land. This is relevant to the current discussion because it makes the point that it is crucial to know how people understand and practise social capital.
In response, relatively recent research suggests that policy initiatives that seek to bridge the gap between policy and community value-based practices through collaborative and devolved decision-making do have a positive impact on social capital (see, for instance, Casswell 2001, Taylor 2004, Walker 2004). Yet no New Zealand research has (until now) attempted to decipher how rural communities effectively reproduce social capital through times of economic upheaval. This study focuses directly on how 12 rural families living in adjacent rural communities have attempted to resolve this dilemma, and so it directly engages with this “wicked” policy problem.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
This paper has examined social capital and community response to industry adjustment and change within the rural sector. Rural communities and families are an important part of New Zealand society, and the New Zealand economy is highly dependent on rural-based activities. When significant changes have an impact on rural economic activities, the communities they support will inevitably be affected.
The research has raised a number of issues, both for policy makers and for the future implementation of social capital policy initiatives.  It is worth focusing on social capital as a site of policy intervention because when effectively reproduced it helps generate a sense of belonging and wellbeing, even in contexts of economic flux.  It is worth supporting informal community-determined initiatives. These are likely to be effective and therefore to support rural communities in times of change.  This kind of support needs to be given in a way that best fits people’s own existing and evolving community participation practices.
A sense of ownership and pride is critical in effecting meaningful action. As we have seen, developing social ties and bonds with others in the community is a critical precursor for participation in the accrual of social capital. Social networks that are open and can tolerate the ideas of others, including those new to the community, stand a greater chance of co- ordinating and facilitating reciprocity, mutuality and community mindedness at both the formal and informal levels, down to the level of the street, the neighbours, and the family household.
We strongly suggest that for social capital to work well it has to emerge from the “bottom up” and that policy initiatives must be developed with this in mind. Moreover, these need to speak to shared assumptions regarding appropriate resolutions for collective dilemmas. The jointly built civil spaces referred to by Arendt (1958), in which vita activa is actioned, are the property of all within the community. As a resource of the collective, social capital is expressed within the everyday lives of individuals, families and communities. Hence, effective policy directives should facilitate access to resources through the fostering of bridging opportunities and the provision of financial and technical/advisory support. Policy initiatives that embrace the norms inherent in social capital itself, such as trust, reciprocity and mutuality, will be advantaged in their capacity to “bring along community”.

REFERENCES
Arendt, H. (1958) The Human Condition, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Casswell, S. (2001) “Community capacity building and social policy: What can be achieved?” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 17:22–35. Cohen, A.P. (1985) The Symbolic Construction of Community, Tavistock Publications,
Chichester. Coleman, J.S. (1988) “Social capital in the creation of human capital” American Journal of
Sociology, 94:95–120. Corbin, J. and A. Strauss (1990) “Grounded theory research: Procedures, cannons and evaluative criteria” Qualitative Sociology, 13(1):3–21. Cox, E. (1995) “A truly civil society” Boyer Lecture Series, Australian Broadcasting
Commission, Sydney. Furstenburg, F.F. (2005) “Banking on families: How families generate and distribute social capital” Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4):809–821. Furstenburg, F.F. and S.B. Kaplan (2004) “Social capital and the family” in J.L. Scott, J.
Treas and M. Richard (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Granovetter, M. (1983) “The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited” Sociological Theory, 1:201–233.
Hofferth, S.J. and J. Iceland (1998) “Social capital in rural and urban communities” Rural Sociology, 63(4):574–598.
Ministry of Tourism (2009) New Zealand Regional Tourism Forecasts 2009-2015 West Coast RTO, Ministry of Tourism, www.tourismresearch.govt.nz, www.tourismresearch.govt.nz/Documents/RTO%20Forecasts/2009/West%20Coast %202009.pdf [accessed November 2009].
Narayan V. (1995) Tourism and Tourism Impacts – The West Coast, West Coast Regional Council, Greymouth.
Offer, S. and B. Schneider (2007) “Children’s role in generating social capital” Social Forces, 85(3):1125–1142.
Onyx, J. and P. Bullen (2000) “Measuring social capital in five communities” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1):23–42.
Pawson, E. and G. Scott (1992) “The regional consequences of economic restructuring: The West Coast New Zealand (1984–1991)” Journal of Rural Studies, 8(4):373–386. Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ. Putnam, R. (1995) “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital” Journal of
Democracy, 6(1):65–78. Robinson, D. and T. Williams (2001) “Social capital and voluntary activity” Social Policy
Journal of New Zealand, 17:52–71. Ryan, V.R., K.A. Agnitsch, L. Zhao and R. Mullick (2005) “Making sense of voluntary participation: A theoretical synthesis” Rural Sociology, 70(3):287–313. Sampson, K. (2003) Industry Adjustment and Community Change: Impacts of the Cessation of Indigenous Production Forestry in Rural Resource Communities of South Westland, New Zealand, unpublished master’s thesis, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch.