A Study
On
“Social capital and relation with Good Governance (GG)”.

Tanzina Ferdous
Department of Public Administration
University of Dhaka.

Preamble
One of the most striking developments in social science over the last decade is the rise of interest in social capital as a mechanism for understanding socioeconomic phenomena. “Social Capital”, it’s a sociological concept, which refers to connection within and between social networks. Ours is an age of modern democracy. And this democracy is much more related to the term Social
Capital. Social Capital stands for network building with one another in the society and mutual trust and belief among the people in the society. And democracy runs smoothly in that society where the Norms, Values and Networks that mean the bondage among the general people is much more strong. The term good governance is an adjective of “governance”; governance can be defined as power which exercises for effective conduct of country’s economy and social resources. The governance is good when it is able to attain this theoretical objective. Good governance can play a vital role for a healthy and independent economy and culture. And Good
Governance can be ensured only when the Social Capital is strong in any society. So it can be obviously said that there is a potential relationship among Social Capital and Good Governance in the modern world perspective.

Concept of Social Capital
Social Capital is a Buzzword in the recent phenomenon. A growing body of research now identifies how social capital can be beneficial to individuals and their communities both socially and also economically. So where social capital is high, individuals and their communities tend to be healthier, happier and more productive. The concept of social capital refers to the qualities that are inherent or can be derived from people´s social relationship. Information, reputation and credit are just few examples of this capital. Social capital takes into account how human relationships affect the economic, social and political life of society. The importance of social capital is that, since it can be considered as a resource like money, land or even the market “it can be used to enhance one´s wealth and status, to marginalize others, or both”,
During the early 1990’s, however, the debate of the concept of Social Capital became specifically framed Robert Putnam’s 1993 book was a case study of regional politics in Italy. By helping citizens to overcome collective action problems, trust and membership in voluntary

associations are identified as important factors in building the basis for responsive governance
(Putnam 1993, 2000). Professor Robert Putnam, whose book “Bowling Alone” was in part responsible for generating wider interest in the topic, defined Social Capital as, “features of social organization — such as social networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”. In Bowling Alone, Putnam identified 4 of the most important outcomes social capital. Social capital:


allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily, increased cooperation;



“greases” the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly, increased levels of trust and solidarity;



widens the collective awareness of the many ways in which our biographies linked;



Works as conduits for the flow of information that facilitates the achievement of individual and collective goals.

According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. It can be measured by the amount of trust and “reciprocity” in a community or between individuals.
Similarly, Bowles and Gintis (2002) state “Social capital generally refers to trust, concern for one’s associates, a willingness to live by the norms of one’s community and to punish those who do not.”(p. 1)
World Bank (2000) says about Social Capital as, “….institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions.”
James S. Coleman in Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital (1988) and
Foundations of Social Theory (1990) used the concept to discuss the social context of education focusing on the utility of concept in social theory as well. Coleman defined social capital by its function as “a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain action of actors – whether persons or corporate actors within the structure” (Coleman 1988, p. 32). That is, social capital is anything that facilities individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust and social norms.

In sum, social capital is an essential indicator for the development of solidarity and social inclusion, which, in the form of trust, norms and networks, helps to overcome collective action problems through facilitating norms of reciprocity, allowing people to work together and through lowering transaction costs and decreasing the costs of cooperation.

Study on Social Capital
A "glue that holds societies together" is generally recognized as necessary to a functioning social order, along with a certain degree of common cultural identifications, a sense of "belonging," and shared behavioral norms. This internal coherence helps to define social capital. Without it, society at large would collapse, and there could be no talk of economic growth, environmental sustainability, or human well-being-as Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda painfully illustrate.
More positively, social capital can be identified indirectly in countries where similar stocks of natural, produced, and human capital have turned in very different economic performances.

East Asia: Conventional factors such as investments in human and physical capital and technology only partially explain the high growth rates of the East Asian "miracle" economies.
These governments have also invested in social capital by creating policies that provide an enabling environment for growth. Institutional arrangements and organizational designs that enhance efficiency, facilitate the exchange of information, and promote cooperation between government and industry characterize this environment.

Northern Italy: In a study of Italy, Putnam, Leonardi, and Nanetti (1993) argue that the large number of voluntary associations among people in Northern Italy explains the region's economic success. These associations provide the north with the social capital that the south, where the associations are far less common, does not have.

Somalia: After the fall of Somalia's government in 1991, the country was plagued with civil disorder and declining incomes. An exception was the port city of Boosaaso, where a local warlord supported by local residents organized a security force and a council of clan elders. With this investment in social capital, trade flourished and incomes increased (Buckley 1996).

India: In the state of Gujarat, violent confrontations between local people and government officials over forest management led to economic stagnation. But once the communities were mobilized and joint forest management was instituted, conflicts declined and land productivity and village incomes rose (Pathan, Arul, and Poffenberger 1993). In this case, the investment in social capital was a joint effort by local governments and communities.
Examples of social capital are easier to provide than one specific definition. The term is used differently depending on the field of study, for instance. In the literature of political science, sociology, and anthropology, social capital generally refers to the set of norms, networks, and organizations through which people gain access to power and resources that are instrumental in enabling decision-making and policy formulation.

Core Elements of Social Capital
There are three central aspects of Social Capital which can be defined as core elements of Social
Capital. These are:
1. Networks (Bridging, Bonding, Linking)
2. Reciprocity & Trust
3. Norms & Values.

1. Networks: These bond individuals in groups to each other, bridge the divides between groups and vertically link different level of power and influence. There is found 3 types of
Networks. Here these are.

i) Bonding Social Capital: Bonding social capital focused on strengthening already existing or more “natural” social relationships tends to be more inward looking. It’s a strong supportive ties which occur within a group be it a family, club, religious group etc.

‘’Bonding social capital refers to the links between like-minded people, or the reinforcement of homogeneity. It builds strong ties, but can also result in higher walls excluding those who do not qualify, American college fraternities being a prominent example of such bonding." (Schuller,
Baron, & Field, 2000).

Bonding social capital born and is nurtured in: racial/ethnic organizations and associations, religious associations, gender-based groups, regional-based groups. The potential that bonding social capital strengthens norms of reciprocity and solidarity among people who already have a high level of trust between and among themselves. The limit that bonding social capital tends to be exclusive and, therefore, can undermine integrative goals associated with the larger society.

ii)Bridging Social Capital : "The bridging social capital refers to cooperative connections with people from different walks of life, more valuable than 'bonding social capital'." (Edwards)
"Bridging social capital … refers to the building of connections between heterogeneous groups; these are likely to be more fragile, but more likely also to foster social inclusion." (Schuller,
Baron, & Field, 2000)’’
Bridging social capital is more outward looking, promotes social interaction and associations between heterogeneous groups of people, between people and groups across the usual social divides. If bonding social capital provides a type of superglue between highly trusted individuals and groups, then, bridging social capital reduces friction and increases movement between unrelated and, often, unknown groups of people. Bridging social capital should be understood as open networks that are “outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages” (Putnam, 2000). This is in contrast to no meeting places and segregation of individuals and groups leading to ‘bonding’ social capital. So the social bridging forms the basis for social integration between heterogeneous groups (gender, ethnic, age, religion, income, etc.).

iii) Linking Social Capital: These ties occur vertically across boundaries of power and
Kudos. They connect people that may have similar ideals but who move in different “circles”.
Linking ties are important for strategic outcomes.

2. Reciprocity & Trust: These two concepts are also the key variables used (usually) in measuring the presence of social capital in a given society. If the norms of trust and reciprocity are strongly present in society, it can be said that there is a high level of social capital. Both reciprocity and trust can be understood in the individual and general sense. That is, they both

have meaning when explaining the acts of individuals, and the cohesive nature of society as a whole. Trust is the highest level of information and resource exchange takes place in relationships of trust. Trust on an individual level is the presence of trust between individuals. In a society characterized by a high level of social capital, people tend to trust one another to not do them any harm, or to uphold their end of a transaction or contract. Where this norm is not present, individual agency can be hampered as shall be investigated below. Generalized trust describes a level of trust not just towards another individual, but towards many individuals, organizations and institutions that make up society. In particular, trust of political officials, including elected officials. In this sense it has a direct impact on the fortunes of democracy.
Reciprocity occurs when a person gives to someone else, expecting a fair and tangible return at some undefined future date. Norms of reciprocity are often the result of high levels of trust.
Reciprocity can also be seen on an individual and general level. For instance, two farmers, one who has a surplus of eggs, might make a deal with the other farmer, who has a dairy farm, to supply him eggs in exchange for an equal value of milk. In this way they are benefitting each other by giving the other something they can easily afford in exchange for something they do not have or would otherwise have to buy elsewhere.

3. Norms & Values: The basis for underlying culture of any group or community, norms & values dictate the kind of relationships, and hence networks, being developed.

Concept of Governance
Governance has been variously defined as “the management of society by the people” or “the exercise of authority or control to manage a country’s affairs and resources” or “as a complex system of interactions among structures, traditions, functions (responsibilities) and processes
(practices) characterized by three key values of accountability, transparency and participation.” The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
(UN ESCAP, 2005, p. 1) define governance as “the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented).”

According to World Bank, Governance is defined as the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources. The World Bank has identified three distinct aspects of governance:
1) The form of political regime,
2) The process by which authority is exercised in the management of a country of governments to design,
3) The process to formulate and implement policies and discharge functions.
Governance can be conceived broadly as “the process of decision making and the exercise of authority and control in a society in relation to the management of its resources for social and economic development”.

Concept of Good Governance
“Good Governance is perhaps the single most important factor in eradicating poverty and promoting development”.- UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.
Good Governance is a recent used term introduced by the developed countries, increasingly used in the development literature. ‘Good governance’ means competent management of a country’s resources and affairs in a manner that is open, transparent, accountable, equitable and responsive to people’s needs.”
Good governance is not only for a type of government and it’s related political values but also for certain kinds of additional components. It implies government that is democratically organized within a democratic political culture and with efficient administrative organizations, plus the right policies, particularly in the economic sphere (Smith, 2007). At the constitutional level good governance requires changes that will strengthen the accountability of political leaders to the people, ensure respect for human rights, strengthen the rule of law and decentralize political authority.

According to the OECD (2001) definition framework for good governance can be discussed under four categories which includes standards of Behavior, Organization Structure and
Process, Control and External Reporting. Also this framework can be constructed in to a house of governance as basic building blocks for reviewing governance arrangement (APSC, 2007).
The UNDP defined good governance as: “The exercise of political, economic and administrative authority to manage a nation’s affairs is the complex mechanisms, processes, relationships and groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights and obligations and mediate their differences” (Ncube, 2005).
Good governance is based on the following principles :
a. Good governance is focusing on the organization’s purpose and on outcomes for citizens and service users.
b. Good governance is performing effectively in clearly defined functions and roles.
c. Good governance is promoting values for the whole organization and demonstrating the values of good governance through behavior.
d. Good governance is making informed, transparent decisions and managing risk.
e. Good governance is developing the capacity and capability of the governing body to be effective. f. Good governance is engaging stakeholders and making accountability real.
In sum, it can be said that Good Governance is the term that symbolizes the paradigm shift of the role of the government. Good governance means an ideal governing system that is inevitable for political, economic, social and cultural development of a country. It is the ideal orientation of a state that works best to achieve self-reliance, sustainable development and social justice.

Indicators of Good Governance
Remy Herrera said that, democratic and impartial institutions, efficient management of resources, transparency in decision-making and accountability are the hallmarks of good governance. Apart from being an instrument of public affairs management, or a gauge of

political development, governance has become a useful mechanism to enhance the legitimacy of the public realm.
Governance For Sustainable Human Development,the UNDP acknowledges the following as core characteristics of Good Governance.
1. Participation
2. Rule of Law
3. Transparency
4. Responsiveness
5. Consensus Orientation
6. Equity
7. Effectiveness and Efficiency
8. Accountability
9. Strategic Vision
Here is given a brief discussion about these core characteristics of Good Governance.

1. Participation: People should have a say in decision-making, either directly or through legitimate intermediate institutions that affects their life and represent their interests. Such broad participation is built on freedom of association and speech, as well as capacities to participate constructively. Popular participation as a mechanism for promoting good governance has been on the rise in Sub-Saharan Africa since the early 1980s when it was mostly dubbed the ‘bottomup’ approach. In Kenya, for instance, the envisaged District Focus captured the bottom-up approach for Rural Development where the district was envisaged to be the focal point of all development activities.

2. Rule of law: Legal frameworks should be fair and enforced impartially, particularly the laws on human rights. Rule of law is ensured in every sphere. People’s human rights and fundamental freedom are respected, allowing them to live with dignity. For Example, At the heart of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) is the desire to implement rule of law, good governance, and economic reform. Unfortunately, the continental body needs external financing in order to achieve these lofty ideals.

3. Transparency: Transparency is built on the free flow of information. Processes, institutions and information are directly accessible to those concerned with them, and enough information is provided to understand and monitor them. People are only comfortable once they know that government programs are well managed. These conditions of necessity require greater openness and transparency between the politicians, the government and public service officials. Internetbased technologies are already bringing important changes in the nature of governance; leading to the phenomenon of e-government-that is Great Britain’s new Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) is one such example (Roberts, 2005). The act is intended to empower citizens by granting a right to government documents.

4. Responsiveness: In a government exercising good governance, agencies promptly serve and respond to the needs of its constituents. The government of any country, whether developed or developing, has to be responsive to the citizens through their activities. Indeed, the starting point of any responsive program of action or management should always be the budget. The budget of a country represents a statement of its priorities and plans. A proper deployment of the budget should ensure sustainable development with a proper social bias. Social issues such as gender, human rights, and political equality can be addressed through the budget. For example, gender-responsive budgets have been deployed effectively amongst some of the rich nations of the North successfully to promote gender-equitable resource allocation and revenue generation

5. Consensus orientation: Good governance mediates differing interests to reach a broad consensus on what is in the best interests of the group and, where possible, on policies and procedures. Sub-Saharan Africa has witnessed a sporadic and impermanent rise of vigilante groups the proper way to begin mass concretization of civic virtue is probably through

neighborhood councils in urban areas as well as community councils in rural areas. Such a move would be carried out with the intention of increasing citizen participation in governance and make government agencies more responsive to local needs.

6. Equity: People are free from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, class, gender or any other attribute. All men and women have opportunities to improve or maintain their well-being.
Women are equal partners with men in private and public spheres of life and decision-making. In performing the policy implementation activities through the bureaucrats’, facilities should be provided to male and female equally and in this regard, equity should be ensured.

7. Effectiveness and efficiency: A government exercising good governance produces results that meet the needs of its people while making the best use of resources. For Example: If the Bureaucrats of Bangladesh perform effectively and efficiently, then it would be easier to ensure good governance by the politicians.

8. Accountability: Decision-makers in government, the private sector and civil society organizations are accountable to the public, as well as to institutional stakeholders. This accountability differs depending on the organization and whether the decision is internal or external to an organization. Government must be accountable for their deeds to the citizens and they should provide a clear annual report to the mass people to watch out their performance and it’s a must to ensure good governance.

9. Strategic vision: Leaders and the public have a broad and long-term perspective on good governance and human development, along with a sense of what is needed for such development.
There is also an understanding of the historical, cultural and social complexities in which that perspective is grounded and the needs of future generations are reflected in current policies.For
Example: In Bangladesh, Govt. has taken a strategic vision that is “Digital Bangladesh: Vision
2021”.It means that Bangladesh will be do a progressive development within 2021 in the field of
E-Governance.
So, it can be said that to ensure good governance, all the mentioned indicators have to be present otherwise, good governance can’t be totally ensured.

Social Capital and Good Governance
From different studies by the scholars, it has been noticed that Social Capital has different impact on good governance and democracy. Investigating the social conditions that foster Democracy in
America, Alexis de Tocqueville, one of the renowned forefathers of the concept of social capital, emphasizes the beneficial relation between social capital formed in civic associations and the stability of democracy. In line with him, John Stuart Mill also emphasizes the importance of social organization and civic participation for the conduct of good governance. For him good governance is greatly determined by society and the “good qualities” of its members.
Accordingly , this leads him to argue that:
“If we ask ourselves on what causes and conditions good government in all its senses, from the humblest to the most exalted, depends, we find that the principal of them, the one which transcends all others, is the qualities of human beings composing the society over which government is exercised” (Representative Government, p. 206).
Building upon these classical foundations, more recent approaches point out internal and external benefits of social capital, which could be linked with governance.
At the internal or individual level, members not only learn to speak in public or write letters emphasizing their demands but also to run meetings, organize projects and debate public issues.
Consequently, members of voluntary organizations have been found to display more political sophistication, political participation and civic competence. These individual social and civic skills can be linked to the societal level and to the possible political consequences of social capital. Externally, social capital enables citizens to overcome their collective action problems and allows them to react in concert to issues concerning their governments. Thus, enabling people to express their interest and demands on government more clearly and strongly, social capital can be viewed as an important control mechanism on the accountability of political processes.
The politics of service delivery is such that citizens are increasingly demanding not only responsiveness but also collaboration. The concept of social capital offers good governance an opportunity to make progress towards higher levels of cooperation and collaboration with various social players such as the private sector, the third sector, and citizens. This is because, as
Vigoda-Gadot (2004) citing examples from the experiences of the Israeli government

demonstrates, a collaborative approach in the delivery of public services is in the end a socially desirable trend with meaningful benefits that reach far beyond the important idea of responsiveness. In sum, it can be argued that in societies with rich social capital, “watchful citizens” are likely to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, and that these leaders, in turn, are more likely to believe that their acts will be monitored.

Governance can influence social capital
No scholar can popularize social capital than Robert Putnam and, from his earliest work on the subject; he made a connection between the properties of social capital and the effectiveness of governance. By his reckoning, more social capital equals better governance. In a study of governance in Italy, he concluded that the existence of vibrant civic engagement and dense networks of associations cutting across traditional social cleavages explained why governance in the North of the country had been more successful than in the South, which lacked this civic infrastructure. But other studies have shown that the causal relationship between governance and social capital is not straightforward or one-way – the two interact. The institutional design of governance in turn shapes the development of social capital. For example, giving grants or signing service-level agreements with the community and voluntary sector, offering capacity-building support or promoting social inclusion policies can all shape the creation of social capital. As Marilyn Taylor puts it, ‘Government can create the conditions in which social capital can thrive or not, as the case may be’.

Involving people in governance can potentially build Social Capital to
Ensure Good Governance
One of the most important ways governance can influence social capital is through creating institutions and opportunities for public engagement and participation. By involving people in the governance of services, participants build relationships with public institutions or officials

that give their community access to valuable external resources like money, support or political leverage. These relationships between communities and those in formal, hierarchical positions of power are sometimes described as ‘linking’ social capital. It is linking social capital that policies to promote community participation in governance have the best chance of influencing. And this kind of social capital can ensure good governance.

Social Capital And Governmental Performance
Some governments are more stable, efficient, innovative and well-managed than others. The traditional answers to this question focus on such factors as electoral competitiveness, institutional design, political polarization, bureaucratic capacity and socioeconomic modernity.
Theorists of social capital have provided us with a powerful additional explanation in this regard.
The logic of how social capital produces governmental effectiveness, which can be defined as good governance, however, is underspecified. Social Capital scholars demonstrate that how social capital facilitates the cooperation that makes it possible for actors to achieve superior social outcomes. But it leaves us without an explicit articulation of the mechanism by which the ability of people in society to cooperate affects the performance of the governmental institutions.
In other words, there is an aggregation problem. Thus far, social capital theory has not specified the logic of the micro linkages that tie a community's cooperative capacity to the achievement of good governance. To fill this gap, here are discussed five models of the relationship between the cooperative capacity of society and the performance of its political institutions.

Rational Voters and Competitive Elites
The first model refers the image of a perfectly competitive democracy where voters are well informed, prompt to mobilize and eager to punish under-performing elected representatives at the ballot box. Recognizing this, representatives are anxious to please voters and govern according to their wishes. They work hard to implement policies preferred by a majority of their constituents and press bureaucrats to deliver the goods as efficiently as they can.
Since, as this model assumes, the effective operation of political institutions depends on the ability of citizens to hold elected representatives accountable for the quality of the governance they provide, social capital will produce good governance to the extent that it makes citizens

"sophisticated consumers of politics." Active participation in community associations will help to do this by providing opportunities for citizens to discuss civic affairs, increase their awareness of political issues and argue about whether or not the government is doing everything that it should to improve their welfare. Knowing that their constituents are monitoring and discussing their behavior, elected political elites will work harder to govern effectively, lest they be removed from office at election-time.
In addition to making citizens better in formed and building their qualities of judgment, social capital contributes to effective governance by facilitating the articulation of their demands. The more that the government is made aware of the wishes of the community, it is assumed, the greater the likelihood that its policies will reflect them.

Bureaucratic Efficiency
Social capital promotes institutional effectiveness through its effects on the behavior of policymaking and bureaucratic elites. It does so in two ways. First, it fosters the ability of government bureaucrats to cooperate with one another in the course of carrying out their duties. To the extent that the political elites and bureaucrats responsible for writing reform legislation, administering day-care centers or responding to citizens’ queries are members of a larger social capital-rich society, they will be able to compromise with one another and work together efficiently. The quality of governance will therefore rise.
Second, social capital increases the capacity of governmental officials to manage public agencies. In modern societies, the production and delivery of goods and services requires complex institutional arrangements to structure and coordinate the work of individual agents.
Senior managers (Principals) are responsible for monitoring the work of a very large number of employees or middle managers and low-rank administrative personnel (agents), and by doing so the High Officials can minimize the amount of time and resources to make the organization more efficient and productive.
The traditional way that principals reduce monitoring costs is by developing formal institutions
(like hierarchies or markets) that create disincentives for agents to act opportunistically. High levels of social capital among organization members constitute an informal institution that can substitute for or fortify such measures. In communities rich in social capital, public agencies will therefore have lower monitoring costs. By contrast communities, poor in social capital, will have

to overcome the presence of widespread opportunistic behavior within their government machineries by introducing expensive monitoring and sanctioning devices.

Rule Compliance
A similar argument linking social capital and governmental efficiency would emphasize the way that social capital reduces the costs of enforcing and implementing governmental policies and regulations. But whereas the previous model focuses on social capital's role in minimizing transaction costs in intra-governmental interactions, this model emphasizes its role in reducing costs in the arena of citizen-government relations.
Governments impose costs on citizens and provide valuable benefits. They levy taxes to pay for schools, police, roads and other public services impose expensive regulations to provide for safer workplaces, a cleaner environment and safer foods and medicines. Because the benefits that such measures deliver are public goods, people have incentives to shirk. To secure compliance, governments must create complex and costly mechanisms of enforcement.
Social capital reduces the need for such mechanisms by shaping the expectations citizens have about the behavior of others. If people expect their fellow taxpayers or waste producers to pay their taxes or comply with environmental regulations, then these costs are more likely to be borne willingly and the cost of enforcing compliance will be low. By giving citizens more optimistic expectations about the behavior of their fellow citizens, social capital can relieve the government from the burden of enforcing compliance and free up resources for these other ends.

Civic Virtue
Social capital may also affect the nature of citizens’ preferences. Social capital may indeed foster civic virtue among the citizenry, much as Tocqueville saw in Democracy in America and contemporary proponents of "civic republicanism" argue in their works.
In modern parlance, social capital promotes good governance by shifting community tastes from particularistic interests (how can I get richer) to more community-oriented concerns (how can our neighborhood be improved). By enhancing citizens preferences for collective benefits developing the "I" into the "we" in Putnam's terms - social capital encourages the articulation of demands on government which are to everyone's benefit rather than helping some members of

society at the expense of others. For the same reasons, the presence of abundant stocks of social capital in a community may also cause citizens to play down demands for short-term consumption-oriented expenditures and encourage them to support the sorts of investments in the future which will dramatically improve the lives of community members in the long run.

Elite Accommodation
A fifth model links social capital and good governance through the former’s ability to foster accommodative practices among otherwise antagonistic elites. This model applies to a special subset of countries and institutional arenas in which problems of good governance are compounded by the fact that citizens are frozen in antagonistic ethnic, religious and class sectors.
The presence of low levels of social capital may reinforce such communal divisions; high levels of social capital may be consistent with a greater willingness to bridge social cleavages in the interest of securing common benefits like well-functioning political institutions.
To the extent that this is true, social capital makes democracy work by making consociational democracy possible. The preferred institutional solution for such situations, the introduction of consociational institutions, has a mixed track record. While consociationalism has flourished in
Belgium, Switzerland, Malaysia and the Netherlands, it has foundered in Lebanon and Cyprus and been still-born in Northern Ireland. One of the great difficulties with consociational democracy is the fact that, in addition to its several institutional requirements, its success also depends on the intangible and difficult to quantify commitment of elites to making the system work. The social capital research program may contribute to the consociational democracy research program by providing a readily quantifiable index of this key underlying factor. The relative commitment of elites to achieving particularistic goals or to making the system work may be a function of the degree of social capital that they and the communities they represent possess. In social capital-rich environments, like the Netherlands, consociational solutions may be possible. In environments where the overall density of associational life is still low and the aggregate levels of social capital are slight, as in much of the developing world, political solutions dependent on elite accommodation will be less likely. So, it’s clear that Elite
Accommodation can play a vital role to ensure good governance.

Lastly, it can be easily said that the measurement of the relation between Social Capital and
Governmental Effectiveness, in another word, good governance can be ensured through the above models and then the relation between Social Capital and Good Government can become smoother and effective.

Development of Social Capital for Building Good Governance
Social capital as a concept has gained enormous interest in postmodernist countries over the past decade. Its importance lies in its reference to resources of civil society, which are used to upgrade government's capability of public services. Development of social capital will create social equilibrium with high levels of cooperation, trust, reciprocity, civic engagement, and collective well-being. Apparently, social capital can be additional resources which may effectively supplement government to carry out public service delivery. In particularly, social capital is able to reinforce democratic civic engagement in public services, particularly in social and rural development. Conversely, civil society without social capital may be less possible to directly engage in or indirectly involve provision of public services. Hence, social capital if properly activated by both private and public organizations may be instrumental to keep the government effective and responsive. Therefore, social capital is important because it constitutes a force that helps to bind society together by transforming individuals from self seeking into members of community with shared interests, shared assumptions about social relations and a sense of the common good. The governments need social capital both in shape of capacities and as supportive sentiments or motivations.

Social Capital and Rural Development Governance in Taiwan
Social capital may indeed be a function of social groups enhanced by the growth of civic society.
Nevertheless, social groups based on social capital are different from interest groups existing in democratic societies. Social capital developed in Taiwan, exist in many social groups based on birthplace, relative, marital relationship, kinship, or various associations. They involve in civic engagement and provision of public service. Sometimes they play a specific role in public policy implementation. These groups with social capital are often mobilized by the state or political participation process. Individuals and collective actors of specific social groups play an agent

and support governments to promote modernization in rural areas in Taiwan. Since 1960s, social capital which has been embedded on Farmers Associations originally formed in 1899 represent a specific kind of resources available to the governments and useful to the modernization process in the rural areas in Taiwan. Farmers Associations' (hereafter FAT) participation in rural development reveals that civic groups with their resources characterized with social capital can improve governing capabilities. In Taiwan, FATs' cooperative relationships with public organizations have substantially complimented and enhanced agricultural policy implementation effectiveness. Cooperation and partnership exists between local governments and FAT reveal a governance model which has effectively fostered rural modernization in this island state.

Social Capital in Making Decentralized Governance Effective: A Case
Of India
In the Indian Context, it has been noticed that Social Capital has a crowding effect on effective as good governance. The “Synergy” of the state and “Class Mobilization” have produced 2 forms of Social Capital that resulted in redistributive goods and class co-ordination. These ensure
Kerala’s successful development in various sector like deepening grassroots democracy, education, health, rural infrastructure etc. Many studies show that Social Capital is elixir to bring together a segment of society (different castes, classes, languages and ethnic group) by interaction of both conflict and consensus, negotiation and bargaining which also ensures responsible and democratic functioning of the Panchayets. Peoples’ organization termed as
Social Capital, has a powerful base, which can play a significant role in enhancing the ability of decentralized governance. Both in idea and actions, this institution gives the lead and also extends support to the local bodies. The Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) in Kerala, the peoples’ movement in Moharashtra and the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in
Rajasthan are examples of successful organizations. They have been playing a significant role in strengthening local governance.

Relation of Social Capital and Good Governance: Bangladesh
Perspective
From the above analysis of different countries, it is clear that a strong civil society and social capital is essential for establishing good governance. The existence of low social capital, like low trust or a small radius of trust in a society, are obstacles to good governance and developments, with a resulting failure to achieve economic growth of the country. In fact, the declining of trust decreases democratic governance in practice which tends towards ineffective development. On the other hand, a strong civil society as Social Capital helps to ensure good governance for establishing effective development through users’ participation. Thus it is shown that social capital has a relation with the development of good governance. But it’s a matter of concern that how much social capital and how strong a civil society is optimum in achieving good governance particularly in a developing society like Bangladesh.
By analyzing the context of rural Bangladesh, it is found that the existent distrust among all the actors in the whole society is hindering the formation of a strong civil society or Social Capital.
Again, for the absence of civil society groups as Social Capital, good governance is not flourishing as expected. Thus there is a potential relation between social capital and good governance. In a situation where social capital is low, civil society is low; people need to be empowered through continuous participation in contributing to good governance. Because of low social capital, people keep themselves away from local government affairs; consequently they fail to see the impact of development in their lives. Hence they do not organize themselves in a network to protest against any ineffective development. In contrast, in a society where social capital is high, people usually join together to respond to any development program that has an effect on them. In this case, simply informing the local communities about the program is enough. Thus we see that where social capital is high and civil society is high, simply informing is enough to ensure effective participation, that is, good governance in the society. For instance, while public hearing is a long-time and effective practice during project implementation in different US societies, it is found to be ineffective in a developing society, for example, like in
Thailand (Manowong & Ogunlana 2006). The main reason is that social capital and civil society are not equally distributed in the local societies in the USA and in Thailand. Trust between the governing agencies and people, that is, social capital is found very crucial to make the public

hearing effective in Thai societies (Manowong & Ogunlana 2006). Simple information may be effective for participation if people in that society are well aware about their citizenry rights and have high social capital. Thus we see that stages of people’s participation for achieving good governance depend on the levels of social capital and civil society. For example, in Bangladesh context, from a study it has been found local people joined with the school management committee at Bhajanpur to force the contractor to provide a better service, though they were simply informed by their SMC’s President. Practically it became possible due to trustworthy relations between the student guardians and the SMC President, which ultimately helped in the formation of a strong civil society in that remote area. This finding reveals that people’s participation even could be a ‘one size fits all’ for different local government institutions in rural
Bangladesh if equally trustworthy relations i.e. social capital prevail between the local people and their elected representatives, which can sufficiently empower local stakeholders i.e. civil society. Unfortunately, this type of relation of trust that ‘lubricates’ cooperation’ rarely happens in rural Bangladesh. Thus, people in rural Bangladesh need to join directly with the full lifecycle of the local programs which have an impact on their lives, to be empowered and to develop networks for achieving development according to their choice. Initiatives to form civil society groups and Social Capital and training about developing awareness of citizenry rights will also help rural Bangladeshis to be sufficiently empowered.

Conclusion
Social capital is understood as a determinant and, at the same time, consequence of an effective governance model. From the above discussion it can better be understood that the higher the social Capital, the higher the Social networks, trust and reciprocity among the general people, the higher the good governance. And this network can easily be build up a strong community to give pressure to the governmental institution if there is found any irregularity in providing services by the govt. And as Government of any country is elected by the voting of the people, so the representatives of the political party become more conscious and aware of their duty and the services they are bound to provide only for the strong Social Capital. But if Social Capital isn’t strong in a society, then the Govt. becomes autocratic and they forget about their responsiveness and political commitment.
An effective governance arrangement demand a particular attention to four domains: a clear understanding of the role of the state, market and civil society; the necessary institutional design, particularly taking into account the consequences of scale; the existence of high levels of social capital; and, not the least, the indispensable political will.
The presence of civil society and social capital should be considered as the most influential factors for planning strategies in achieving good governance in a particular society. Without developing social capital, especially trust in leadership, people’s participation would not be effective in developing societies. Adequate legal frameworks are also essential to develop trust among different actors and make the participation process perfect.
So after all, it can be easily said that in Bangladesh, this Social Capital is not quite strong, for which the government sometimes perform their duties as their own will which is sometimes defined as bad governance. But nowadays for the interference of the Electronic and Print media,
Govt. has to prove their responsiveness to the citizens. But this matter of responsiveness can be more, if there is a strong Social Capital. So, it’s a prime duty of the mass people as well as the
Govt. of Bangladesh to grow more and more Social capital for the betterment of the citizens and for the development of the country as well. And this can make a potential and crucial linkage between Social capital and Good Governance.

Reference
1.“Social Capital, Public Provisioning And Democratic Governance” By Collins
Ogutu Miruka and Alfred Odhiambo Omenya
2. “Development of Social Capital and Effective Local Governance”- Kun-Jung
Liao, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Director, Research
Center for Public Policy and Management, Chung Cheng University, Taiwan.
3. Social Capital And Good Governance: The Impact Of Civil Society On
Government Performance- By Sarah Denise Eberle.
4. Making Social Capital Work: A Review of Robert Putnam's Making
Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy –By Carles Boix* and
Daniel N. Posner
5.Social Capital in Making Decentralised Governance Effective:A Study In West
Bengal – By Md. Nazrul Islam.
6. Local Governance, Identity And Social Capital: A Framework For
Administrative Reform - Filipe TELES ,University of Aveiro, Campus de
Santiago,3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal ,filipe.teles@ua.pt.
7. People’s Participation for Good Governance: A Study of Rural Development
Programs in Bangladesh- Waheduzzaman, BSc Ag (Hons), MSc (Agriculture),
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Master of Business in Management
Practice (Victoria University).
8. Impact of Good Governance on Development in Bangladesh: A Study- By S.
M. Anowar Uddin.