Social Capital and Education Outcomes in Urban and Rural Peru · 1.1 Social capital 2 1.2 Social...
Transcript of Social Capital and Education Outcomes in Urban and Rural Peru · 1.1 Social capital 2 1.2 Social...
W O R K I N G P A P E R N O . 2 8
Social Capital and Education Outcomes in Urban and Rural PeruSantiago CuetoGabriela GuerreroJuan LeonMary De SilvaSharon HuttlyMary E PennyClaudio F LanataEliana Villar
Although enrolment in primary schools in Peru is very high, more than half of primary school children are one or more grades below the norm for their age. Furthermore, evaluations have shown that, when tested, Peruvian school children score well below the norms expected for their age. Their scores are also below the average levels of countries with similar socio-economic circumstances. The role of social capital in explaining these findings has not been studied, although research in the USA has suggested positive associations between social capital and educational achievement. Social organisations that focus on childcare are one example of strong community networking resources in Peru. The Young Lives study offers an opportunity to investigate whether social capital is associated with educational progress and achievement.
The results of the study confirmed poor educational outcomes for many Peruvian school children. High proportions were unable to master simple tasks and were in a lower school grade than they should have been for their age group. There is a clear negative association between educational achievement and poverty. Overall, rural students are poorer and are thus more prone to low achievement (lower results in tests) and falling behind their expected grade. However, there seem to be no significant differences between boys and girls in these outcomes.
The results do not support the hypothesis of a positive association between the social capital available to the family and the educational outcomes of their children, except for the association between cognitive social capital (at the community level) and children being in the correct grade for their age. This means that communities which experience more quality in their social relationships (e.g. trust) are more likely to have children who are in the correct school grade for their age. This result applies to how children are progressing at school (whether they are in the correct grade for age) but does not extend to children’s achievement (results in tests).
Perhaps the main interventions to improve the quality of the Peruvian education system are not to be found in the quality and quantity of social relationships within communities, but in improving educational inputs and processes within schools and breaking the strong association found between socio-economic status and educational performance. On the other hand, it might be that the types of instruments (objective questionnaires) and analysis (quantitative) used in this study do not offer the best way to capture the importance of social capital. If this is the case, then qualitative designs and analyses should be used to explore these issues.
Published by
Young Lives Save the Children UK 1 St John's Lane London EC1M 4AR
Tel: 44 (0) 20 7012 6796 Fax: 44 (0) 20 7012 6963 Web: www.younglives.org.uk
ISBN 1-904427-29-4 First Published: 2005
All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, though not for resale, providing the usual acknowledgement of source is recognised in terms of citation. For copying in other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable.
Designed and typeset by Copyprint UK Limited
Young Lives is an international longitudinal study of childhood poverty, taking place in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam, and funded by DFID. The project aims to improve our understanding of the causes and consequences of childhood poverty in the developing world by following the lives of a group of 8,000 children and their families over a 15-year period. Through the involvement of academic, government and NGO partners in the aforementioned countries, South Africa and the UK, the Young Lives project will highlight ways in which policy can be improved to more effectively tackle child poverty.
The Young Lives Partners Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), India
Department of Economics, University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
General Statistical Office, Government of Vietnam
Grupo de Análisis para el Desarrollo (GRADE), Peru
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK
Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN), Peru
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
London South Bank University, UK
Medical Research Council of South Africa
RAU University, Johannesburg, South Africa
Research and Training Centre for Community Development, Vietnam
Save the Children UK
Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading, UK
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
Social capital and Education outcomes in urban and rural peruSantiago cuetoGabriela GuerreroJuan leonmary de SilvaSharon Huttlymary E pennyclaudio F lanataEliana Villar
WorKinG papEr no.28
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
ii
ii
prefaceThispaperisoneofaseriesofworkingpaperspublishedbytheYoungLivesproject,aninnovativelongitudinalstudyofchildhoodpovertyinEthiopia,India(AndhraPradeshState),PeruandVietnam.Between2002and2015,some2,000childrenineachcountryarebeingtrackedandsurveyedat3–4yearintervalsfromwhentheyare1until14yearsofage.Also,1,000olderchildrenineachcountryarebeingfollowedfromwhentheyareaged8years.
YoungLivesisajointresearchandpolicyinitiativeco-ordinatedbyanacademicconsortium(composedoftheUniversityofReading,theLondonSchoolofHygieneandTropicalMedicine,LondonSouthBankUniversityandtheSouthAfricanMedicalResearchCouncil)andSavetheChildrenUK,incorporatingbothinterdisciplinaryandNorth-Southcollaboration.
YoungLivesseeksto:
producelong-termdataonchildrenandpovertyinthefourresearchcountries
drawonthisdatatodevelopanuancedandcomparativeunderstandingofchildhoodpovertydynamicstoinformnationalpolicyagendas
traceassociationsbetweenkeymacropolicytrendsandchildoutcomesandusethesefindingsasabasistoadvocateforpolicychoicesatmacroandmesolevelsthatfacilitatethereductionofchildhoodpoverty
activelyengagewithongoingworkonpovertyalleviationandreduction,involvingstakeholderswhomayuseorbeimpactedbytheresearchthroughouttheresearchdesign,datacollectionandanalyses,anddisseminationstages
fosterpublicconcernabout,andencouragepoliticalmotivationtoacton,childhoodpovertyissuesthroughitsadvocacyandmediaworkatbothnationalandinternationallevels.
Initsfirstphase,YoungLiveshasinvestigatedthreekeystorylines–theeffectsonchildwell-beingofi)accesstoanduseofservices,ii)socialcapital,andiii)householdlivelihoods.Thisworkingpaperisoneofaserieswhichconsideranaspectofeachofthesestorylinesineachcountry.Asaworkingpaper,itrepresentsworkinprogressandtheauthorswelcomecommentsfromreaderstocontributetofurtherdevelopmentoftheseideas.
TheprojectreceivedfinancialsupportfromtheUKDepartmentforInternationalDevelopmentandthisisgratefullyacknowledged.
Forfurtherinformationandtodownloadallourpublications,visitwww.younglives.org.uk.
•
•
•
•
•
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
iiiiii
acknowledgementsTheauthorsaregratefulforthecommentsprovidedbyTrudyHarphamonapreviousdraftofthispaper.Thisprojectwouldnothavebeenpossiblewithouttheextremeeffortandprofessionalismofthefieldteamsandlocalhelpers,underthesupervisionofSofíaMadrid.TheauthorswishalsotothankHéctorVerásteguiforhisdatabasemanagementassistance.
the authorsSantiagoCuetoisSeniorResearcherandExecutiveDirectoratGRADE,Lima.GabrielaGuerreroandJuanLeonareAssistantResearchersatGRADE.MaryDeSilvaandSharonHuttlyarefromtheUniversityofLondonSchoolofHygieneandTropicalMedicine.MaryEPennyisDirectorof,andClaudioFLanataisPrincipalInvestigatorat,theInstitutodeInvestigaciónNutricional,Lima,andElianaVillaristheNationalCo-ordinatorforYoungLivesPeru,SavetheChildrenUK.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
iv
abstract AlthoughenrolmentinprimaryschoolsinPeruisveryhigh,morethanhalfofprimaryschoolchildrenareoneormoregradesbelowthenormfortheirage.Furthermore,evaluationshaveshownthat,whentested,Peruvianschoolchildrenscorewellbelowthenormsexpectedfortheirage.Theirscoresarealsobelowtheaveragelevelsofcountrieswithsimilarsocio-economiccircumstances.Theroleofsocialcapital1inexplainingthesefindingshasnotbeenstudied,althoughresearchintheUSAhassuggestedpositiveassociationsbetweensocialcapitalandeducationalachievement.SocialorganisationsthatfocusonchildcareareoneexampleofstrongcommunitynetworkingresourcesinPeru.TheYoungLivesstudyoffersanopportunitytoinvestigatewhethersocialcapitalisassociatedwitheducationalprogressandachievement.
TheresultsofthestudyconfirmedpooreducationaloutcomesformanyPeruvianschoolchildren.Highproportionswereunabletomastersimpletasksandwereinalowerschoolgradethantheyshouldhavebeenfortheiragegroup.Thereisaclearnegativeassociationbetweeneducationalachievementandpoverty.Overall,ruralstudentsarepoorerandarethusmorepronetolowachievement(lowerresultsintests)andfallingbehindtheirexpectedgrade.However,thereseemtobenosignificantdifferencesbetweenboysandgirlsintheseoutcomes.Theresultsdonotsupportthehypothesisofapositiveassociationbetweenthesocialcapitalavailabletothefamilyandtheeducationaloutcomesoftheirchildren,exceptfortheassociationbetweencognitivesocialcapital(atthecommunitylevel)andchildrenbeinginthecorrectgradefortheirage.Thismeansthatcommunitieswhichexperiencemorequalityintheirsocialrelationships(egtrust)aremorelikelytohavechildrenwhoareinthecorrectschoolgradefortheirage.Thisresultappliestohowchildrenareprogressingatschool(whethertheyareinthecorrectgradefortheirage)butdoesnotextendtochildren’sachievement (resultsintests).
PerhapsthemaininterventionstoimprovethequalityofthePeruvianeducationsystemarenottobefoundinthequalityandquantityofsocialrelationshipswithincommunities,butinimprovingeducationalinputsandprocesseswithinschoolsandbreakingthestrongassociationfoundbetweensocio-economicstatusandeducationalperformance.Ontheotherhand,itmightbethatthetypesofinstruments(objectivequestionnaires)andanalysis(quantitative)usedinthisstudydonotofferthebestwaytocapturetheimportanceofsocialcapital.Ifthisisthecase,thenqualitativedesignsandanalysesshouldbeusedtoexploretheseissues.
1 SeeSection1.1foradiscussionofdefinitions.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�
contents
Preface ii
Acknowledgements iii
Theauthors iii
Abstract iv
�. Introduction 2
1.1 Social capital 2
1.2 Social capital and education 4
1.3 community organisations in peru 6
2. Methods ��
2.1 design 11
2.2 Sample characteristics 11
2.3 Variables and procedures 14
3. Results 15
3.1 Social capital in peru 15
3.2 achievement 18
3.3 multivariate analysis 21
4. Discussion 28
References 32
Appendix:Factoranalysisforderivationofsummarysocialcapitalvariables 35
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
2
1. introductionEventhoughmostchildrenoldenoughtoattendprimaryeducationinPeruaregoingtoschool,morethanhalfofthemareoneormoregradesbelowthenormfortheirage.Theyareclassifiedas‘overage’,resultingfromenteringschoollate(aftertheageofsix)orrepeatingagrade.Asecond,probablyrelated,problemiswithachievement.Atleastonenationalandtwointernationalevaluationshaveshownthatstudentsscorewellbelowthenormsexpectedfortheirage,orbelowtheaveragesofcountrieswithsimilarsocio-economicstatus(egtheUNESCOevaluation,seeUMCandGRADE,2001;PISA,2003).
Althoughtherehavebeenafewstudiesthathavetriedtoexplainthisphenomenonofoverageschoolchildren(INEI,1995;Cortez,2000;Cueto,2004)andachievement(Benavides,2002),nonehaslookedattheimpactofsocialcapital(atleastnotusingthisspecificnamefortheconstruct).TheYoungLivesprojecthasincludedamongitsinstrumentsasetofquestionsrelatedtosocialcapital.Thestudydescribedinthispaperhasincludedthesesocialcapitalvariablesinthe7.5to8.5-year-oldcohorttotrytoexplaintwodependentvariables:(a)schoolgrade(whetherornotthechildisinthegradecorrespondingtoher/hisage),and(b)achievementinmathematicsandlanguage.Thegeneralhypothesisisthathigherlevelsofsocialcapitalwillbeassociatedwithhigherresultsforbothdependentvariables.
Thepaperisdividedintothefollowingsections:firstthereisadefinitionanddiscussionofthetermsocialcapital,includingareviewofrelevantstudies(thoserelatingsocialcapitaltoeducation).ThisisfollowedbyadescriptionofsomeofthenetworksandcommunityorganisationsthatcouldbelinkedtosocialcapitalinPeru(usingdatatakenfromnationalsurveys).EventhoughatpresentwedonothavevariablesrelatedtothesenetworksandorganisationsintheYoungLivesquestionnaire,thedescriptionofthemwillhelpputtheresultsintocontext.ItisexpectedthatfutureroundsoftheYoungLivesprojectwillincludevariablesrelatedspecificallytosocialcapitalorganisationsinPeru.Section2describesthemethodsusedinthestudyandSection3presentstheresults.Thefinalsectiondiscussestheresultsandprovidesananalysisofsomeimplicationsforfutureresearch.
�.�SocialcapitalAccordingtoPortes,theFrenchsociologistPierreBourdieuisresponsibleforthefirstcontemporarydefinitionofsocialcapital,understandingitas‘theaggregateoftheactualorpotentialresourceswhicharelinkedtopossessionofadurablenetworkofmoreorlessinstitutionalizedrelationshipsofmutualacquaintanceorrecognition’(Bourdieu,1980,citedinPortes,1998,p.3).Bourdieu’streatmentoftheconceptisinstrumental,asPortespointsout.Hefocusedon‘thebenefitsaccruingtoindividualsbyvirtueofparticipationingroupsandonthedeliberateconstructionofsociabilityforthepurposeofcreatingthisresource’(ibid,p.3).
JamesColeman’sworkisalsoamongtheearly,moderndefinitionsofsocialcapital.Hedefinessocialcapitalbyitsfunction:‘Itisnotasingleentitybutavarietyofdifferententities,withtwoelementsincommon:theyallconsistofsomeaspectofsocialstructures,andtheyfacilitatecertainactionsofactors–whetherpersonsorcorporateactors–withinthestructure’(Coleman,1988,p.S98).Colemanidentifiedthreeformsofsocialcapital:(a)obligations,expectationsandtrustworthinessofstructures,
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
3
(b)informationchannels,and(c)normsandeffectivesanctions.Theproblemwiththisclassificationisthatitincludes,underthetermsocialcapital,boththemechanismsthatgenerateit(reciprocityexpectationsandgroupenforcementofnorms,forinstance)andtheconsequencesofpossessingit(suchasaccesstoinformation).
Despitethisfact,Coleman’sworkisveryimportantandhasthemeritofdescribingsomeofthemechanismsthroughwhichsocialcapitalisgenerated.Hepointedouthowcertaintypesofsocialstructureareespeciallyimportantinfacilitatingcertainformsofsocialcapital.Amongthese,hedistinguishedstructureswith‘closure’.Thisistheexistenceofenoughlinksbetweenacertainnumberofpeopletoguaranteetheobservanceofnormsandtherewardofgoodactions(Coleman,1988).AlsoimportantinprovidingsocialcapitaliswhatColemanreferstoas‘appropriablesocialorganisation’.Thegeneralideaisthatanorganisation‘oncebroughtintoexistenceforonesetofpurposes,canalsoaidothers,thusconstitutingsocialcapitalavailableforuse’(ibid,p.S108). Putnam(1995)hassuggestedthatWesterndemocracies,especiallytheUSA,haveseenadeclineinrecentyearsinthecivilsocietymovement(‘civicengagement’),andthusinsocialcapital.Hebasesthisstatementonthedeclineofactivitiessuchasvoting,participatinginpublicorpoliticaleventsand,ratherfamously,bowling:‘ThemostwhimsicalyetdiscomfitingbitofevidenceofsocialdisengagementincontemporaryAmericathatIhavediscoveredisthis:moreAmericansarebowlingtodaythaneverbefore,butbowlinginorganizedleagueshasplummetedinthelastdecadeorso.WhetherornotbowlingbeatsballotingintheeyesofmostAmericans,bowlingteamsillustrateyetanotherformofsocialcapital’(ibid, p.70).Putnamstatesthatlifeis‘easierinacommunityblessedwithasubstantialstockofsocialcapital’(ibid,p.67).
Inamorerecentdevelopmentoftheconcept,JackandJordan(1999)understandsocialcapitalasthe‘culturalpractices,norms,networks,links,know-howandtraditionthroughwhichpeopleconductinformalinteractionsofallkinds.Forinstance,socialcapitalisthetrustthatenablespeopletomakecontracts,ratherthanthecontractsthemselves;theteamworkthatmakesgroupsfunctioneffectively,ratherthantherolesandstructuresofthegroups’(p.243).
Harpham, GrantandThomas(2002)complementthisdefinitionbyhighlightingtheimportanceofthequalityofsocialrelationsindefiningsocialcapital,understandingitas‘thedegreeofconnectednessandthequalityandquantityofsocialrelationsinagivenpopulation’(p.106).
Ascanbeseen,thereisnosetdefinitionoftheconcept,andauthorsoftendefineitslightlydifferently.Perhapsthecommonfeatureofallthedefinitionsistheintangiblecharacterofsocialcapital.AsPortes(1998,p.7)states:‘whereaseconomiccapitalisinpeople’sbankaccountsandhumancapitalisinsidetheirheads,socialcapitalinheresinthestructureoftheirrelationships.Topossesssocialcapital,apersonmustberelatedtoothers,anditisthoseothers,nothimself,whoaretheactualsourceofhisorheradvantage’.Itisbecauseofthisfactthatsocialcapitalisconsideredapublicgoodthat‘existsonlywhenitisshared’(Narayan,1999,p.6).
Differentmodelsofsocialcapitalhaveappearedinrecentyears.In1998,BainandHicksproposedamodelofsocialcapitalconsideringtwocomponents:structuralandcognitive(Harpham,GrantandThomas,2002).Thestructuralcomponentreferstotheextentandintensityofassociationallinksoractivities,citizenshipandsocialsupport,whilethecognitivecomponentincludestrust,reciprocityand
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
4
sharing.Structuralsocialcapitalissometimesreferredtoasthequantityofsocialrelationships,whilecognitivesocialcapitalisreferredtoasthequalityofthese(DeSilvaet al,2004a).
Narayan(1999)describesanimportantadditionalclassification:thedifferencebetween‘bonding’and‘bridging’socialcapital.Bondingsocialcapitalreferstothesocialcohesionwithinthegroupstructure,whilebridgingcapitalisdescribedasthetypeofsocialcapitalthatconnectsdifferentcommunitiesorgroups.AccordingtoHarpham,GrantandThomas(2002)thebondingandbridgingconstructpartiallyoverlapswiththehorizontal/verticalconstructofsocialcapital,whichunderstandssocialcapitalaseitherhorizontallybased,becauseitisbasedontherelationshipsbetweensimilarindividualsorgroupsinthesamesocialcontext(egbetweencommunities),orverticallybased,meaningitisbasedontherelationshipsbetweendifferentlevelsofsociety(egcommunity,localgovernment).
AsHarpham,GrantandThomas(ibid)pointout,thebonding/bridgingdistinctionisanimportantonesinceithighlightstheroleofgovernmentandthestatewithinsocialcapital–andthereforetheimportanceofpoliticalcontext–anddemonstratestheneedtobalancebothcomponents.Withoutlinksbetweencommunitiesandlocalgovernmentorgroupswithresources(verticalsocialcapital),socialnetworks,normsandtrustmaynotactuallybeabletoimproveanyaspectofacommunity’swell-being.Likewise,withouthorizontallinksbetweengroupsorcommunities,importantinformationsources,supportchannelsorotheradvantagesofsolidaritywillbelost.
Finally,itisimportanttodifferentiateindividualandecologicalsocialcapital.Individualsocialcapitalreferstothesocialcapitalavailabletooneindividual,whileecologicalsocialcapitalreferstotherelationshipsatthecommunitylevelwheretheindividualsaregathered(DeSilvaet al,2004b).Ecologicalsocialcapitalisusuallyestimatedbyaggregatingindividualsocialcapitaltothecommunitylevel.InPeru,DeSilvaet al(ibid)identifiedninepapersthatexplicitlyincludedsomeformofindividualsocialcapital,2butnoneanalysedecologicalsocialcapital.Theoretically,therehasbeenarecenttrendinthesocialsciencestoanalysesocialprocessesathierarchicallevels,suchasindividual,community,provinceandcountrylevels.Inthefieldofeducation,severalstudieshavefoundthattheindividual-levelvariablesarecorrelatedwhentheindividualscomefromthesamecommunity(BrykandRaudenbush,1992).Hierarchicalanalysisallowstheimportanceofthevariablesatdifferentlevelstobeestimated,andweplantoadoptsuchaframeworkinthisstudybymeasuringbothindividualandecologicalsocialcapital.
Inthepast15to20years,socialcapitalhasbecomeanimportantconceptininternationalresearch,beinglinkedtochildandyouthwelfare(JackandJordan,1999;Runyanet al,1998;FurstenbergandHughes,1995)andself-reportedhealth(Lindstrom,2004).Butnotallsocialcapitalisgood.Authorsfrequentlycitecriminalnetworks,suchasthemafia,asexamplesofnegativeformsofsocialcapital.Inthenextsectionthereisabriefdescriptionofthestudiesrelatingsocialcapitalandeducationintheinternationalliterature,thoughnonewerefoundforPeru.
�.2SocialcapitalandeducationWeidentifiedsixpapersthathaveexploredtherelationshipbetweensocialcapitalandeducation.Teachman,PaaschandCarver(1996)usedtheNationalEducationLongitudinalSurveyfromtheUSAtoexplorethelinksbetweensocialcapitalanddroppingoutofschool.Theyfoundthathaving
2 Sincesocialcapitalisarelativelynewconstruct,itisnotsurprisingthatthereareonlyafewstudiesaboutit.However,thereisalongtraditionofresearchinPeruandotherLatinAmericancountriesaboutsocialmovementsandnetworks,whichwouldincludewhatisnowcalledsocialcapital.See,forexample,EscobarandAlvarez(1992)forstudiesinLatinAmerica,includingPeru,andBlondet(1986)foracasestudyinLima.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
5
adivorcedmother,havingastepfatherorfrequentlychangingschoolincreasedthechancesofachilddroppingoutofschool,whileahigherlevelofchild-parentconnectivitydecreasedtheprobabilityofdroppingout.Thisstudyshowsaninterestingcharacteristiccommoninseveralofthestudiesmentionedbelow:theyrefertosocialcapitalastheirmainconstruct,butonlymeasuresomeaspectsofit.Furthermore,itcouldbearguedthattheyarenotmeasuringsocialcapitalatall,butpotentialdeterminantsofsocialcapital,suchashavingadivorcedmother.
Pong(1997)relatedfamilystructure,schoolcontextandeighth-grademathematicsandreadingachievementinarandomnationalUSsample(usingdatafrom1988).Shefoundanegativeassociationbetweenmathematicsandreadingachievementandhavingastepfatherorasingleparent,andapositiveassociationwiththenumberofacquaintedrelatives.Again,itcouldbearguedthatthevariablesincludedinPong’sanalysisarenotstrictlywhattheliteraturewoulddefineassocialcapitalbutareinsteaddeterminantsofsocialcapital.
Israel,BeaulieuandHartless(2001)usedtheUSNationalEducationLongitudinalSurveytoexploretheinfluenceoffamilyandcommunitysocialcapitaloneducationalachievement.Familysocialcapitalwasestimatedthroughananalysisofthenumberofparentspresentinthehousehold,thenumberofsiblings,andthenumberofsiblingswhohaddroppedoutofsecondaryschool.Theyalsoestimatedfamilyprocessesthroughparentalexpectationsfortheirchild’seducation,discussionofschoolmattersbetweenparentsandchildren(referredtoasnurturingactivities),parentalcheckingofhomework,parentallimitsforwatchingTV,andtheamountoftimethechildspentathomewithnoparentalsupervision(referredtoasmonitoringefforts).Communitysocialcapitalwasestimatedthroughananalysisofthesocio-economiccapacityofthecommunity,measuredthroughsixindicators:communityisolation(location);instabilityofthepopulation(iepercentagewhohadmovedinthepastfiveyears);percentageofthestudentpopulationfromaminorityethniccommunity;voterparticipationrate(tomeasureinequalityanddisaffectioninthecommunity);andextentofsocialintegrationinthecommunity;andthedegreetowhichparentsknowtheparentsoftheirchild’sclosestfriend.Theyusedamultilevelmodeltoanalyseachievementinmathematicsandreadingcomprehension(combiningthemintoasinglescore)anddroppingoutofschool.Theirgeneralconclusionisthatbothfamilyandcommunitysocialcapitalhaveaninfluenceoneducationalachievement,althoughtheimpactoffamilysocialcapitalisgreaterthanthatofcommunitysocialcapital.
Horvat,WeiningerandLareau(2003)analysedtherelationshipsbetweenfamiliesandschoolsindifferentsocio-economicgroupsintheUSA.Thisstudyisdifferentfromthepreviousoneinthattheauthorsusedanethnographicapproach.Theirconclusionspointoutthepositiveimpactofthequantityandqualityoffamilynetworksoneducationalachievement.Parentsfrommiddle-classfamiliesweremorelikelythanworking-classparentstousethesenetworkstotheiradvantagewhenconflictsaroseinschool.Also,theyweremorelikelytousethesenetworksinacollectiveway.Theauthorsfoundnodifferencesrelatedtorace.Goddard(2003)analysedthesocialcapitalinasampleofUSschoolstudents.Socialcapitalwasdefinedattheschoollevelbasedon11itemsadministeredtotheteachers.Theitemswereaimedatmeasuring:relationalnetworksthatconnectparents,communityandstudents;trustingrelationshipsbetweenstudentsandparents;andnormsthatsupportstudentlearning.Itwasfoundinthemultilevelanalysisthatfourth-gradestudentsinschoolswithhigherlevelsofsocialcapitalweremorelikelytopassmathematicsandwritingassessmentsthatweremandatory
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�
atthestatelevel,eventhoughthesewereschoolswithahighconcentrationofpoorstudents.Thisanalysisisinterestingbecausetheauthorconceptualisedsocialcapitalattheschoollevel,butalsoincludedindividualvariablesintheanalysis.Theauthorsuggestsfurtherstudiestoanalysewhethersocialcapitalisindependentofsocio-economicstatusandwhetheritcanbedevelopedinschoolsservingpoorpopulations.
Ream(2003)usedamixed-methodsapproach(iequantitative,usinglongitudinaldata,andqualitative,performingsemi-structuredfieldinterviewswithstudents)toanalysetheimpactofthesocialmobilityofMexican-Americansoneducationalachievement.Theauthorusedschool-levelsocialcapitalvariables:academicallyrelevantteacher/studentinteraction(fouritems)andschool-initiatedinteractionwithstudents’parents(threeitems).HefoundthatMexican-Americanstudentstendtomovehousemoreoftenthannon-Latino/whitestudents,andthishasanegativeimpactontwelfth-grademathematicsperformance.Furthermore,theauthorfoundthatwhileMexican-Americanshadaslightadvantageonacademicallyrelevantteacher-studentinteractions,thismeasurehadanegativeimpactonreadingperformance,whilethesamevariablehadapositiveimpactforwhitestudents.HenceReamsuggeststhattheremightbesomeformof‘counterfeitsocialcapital’forMexican-Americans.Theauthorrecognisesthattheremightbeotherexplanationsforthisfinding,suchasdifferencesinperceptionbetweenwhiteandMexican-Americanstudents,orthefactthatthetwogroupsmighthavedifferentteachers.Nevertheless,thestudysuggestsinterestingtheoreticalpossibilitiesforinteractionsbetweencultureandtherelevanceofsocialcapital.
Inconclusion,itcouldbesaidthatmoststudiesthathaveanalysedtherelationshipbetweensocialcapital(atthefamily,communityorschoollevel)andeducationalachievementhavefoundapositiveassociation.However,noneofthestudiesusesmorewidelyacceptedmeasuresofsocialcapitalsuchascivicparticipation,trustandreciprocity,whichareusedintheYoungLivesstudy.Instead,measuresrelatingtofamilystructureandthequalityofparent-childandteacher-childinteractionarecommonlyused–reflectingtheworkofColeman(1988)–whichmanyresearcherswouldarguearenotsocialcapitalmeasuresatall.
ThestudiesreviewedherehaveallbeenperformedintheUSA.Itisnotknown,therefore,whetherthesameconclusionwouldbetrueindevelopingcountriessuchasPeru.Furthermore,noexperimentaldesignswereusedinthesestudies(suchdesignswouldmakeforastrongercause-effectargument).Someofthestudiesalsosuggestthattheeffectofsocialcapitalmightbedifferentaccordingtotheenvironmentinwhichthestudentsliveandstudy(seeforexampleBlackwellandMcLaughlin,1999,forurban/ruraldifferences).Beforeturningtomethodsandresults,thefollowingsectionpresentssomebackgroundoncommunityorganisationsinPeru,whichwillprovideageneralframeworkforunderstandingthesocialcapitaldatapresentedlater.
�.3CommunityorganisationsinPeruInrecentdecades,severalcommunityorganisationshaveappearedandhavesolidifiedtheirworkinPeru,mostlyinimpoverishedcommunitiesandoftenrunbylocalmothers.Yetthereisverylittleresearchontheimpactthesemayhaveoutsidetheirspecificrangeofobjectives(whichareusuallyrelatedtolocalfeedingorgovernanceprogrammes).Thissectionprovidesabriefdescriptionofthesituationoftheseorganisationsaroundthecountry.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�
Atthebeginningofthe1980s,duetotheseriouseconomicandsocialcrisis,diversesocialgrass-rootsorganisationsbegantoemerge.Theseorganisationswereformedbyindividualsorgroupswiththegeneralgoaloffightingpoverty,buteachhadspecificaims.Mostoftheseorganisationsarecomposedofandrunbylocalwomen,withthepurposeofmeetingtheirfamilies’feedingneeds.Therearethreetypesoforganisationsrelatedtofeeding–communalkitchens,glass-of-milkcommitteesandmothers’clubs–andtheyemergedinbothruralandurbanareasofPeru.Inaddition,neighbourhoodorganisationsappeared,aimedatimprovinglocallivingconditions,suchaselectricityandwatersupplies,andschools.Finally,self-defencecommitteeswerecreated,inbothruralandurbanareas,devotedtodefendingthecommunityfromthethreatofterrorismthathasaffectedthecountrysince1980.3
Thecommunityorganisationsaimedatfeeding–mothers’clubs,glass-of-milkcommitteesandcommunalkitchens–arethemostnumerous.BlondetandMontero(1995)definedsuchcommunityorganisationsasorganisationsthathaveincommonthecollectiveactionofthedailypurchase,preparationanddistributionoffood,withthepurposeofreducingthecostoffamilyfeeding.Theauthorsalsopointoutthattheseorganisationsreducethetimewomeninvestindomesticactivitiesandconstituteasourceofsocialisation,trainingand,eventually,incomegeneration.
Communalkitchensemergedinthe1980sasaninitiativeofgroupsofmothers(onaverage20to30womenpergroup)whoorganisedthemselvesjointlytopreparethemealsfortheircommunity.Themealswerethensoldatlowprices,makingthemavailabletoeverybody.Lowpriceswerepossiblebecauseofthedonationofsomeofthesupplies,thewholesalepurchaseoftherest,andtheunpaidworkofthemothers(CuevaandMillán,2000).Communalkitchensemergedasawomen’sinitiativetodealwiththesevereeconomiccrisissufferedbylow-incomefamilies.Inaddition,thistypeoforganisationallowedthememberstosavetimeoncookingwhichtheycouldtheninvestinotheractivities(studying,working,etc).
Glass-of-milkcommitteesarealsoanimportantsourceofsocialcapitalamongcommunities.TheGlass-of-MilkProgrammeisawelfareprogrammewiththeobjectiveofdeliveringmilkandoatstochildren,seniorcitizens,andpregnantandnursingmothers.Thecommittees,encouragedbythelocalcouncilsandcomposedofmothersfromthecommunity,areinchargeofthedailypreparationanddeliveryofthemilktothebeneficiaries.Itisimportanttopointoutthatthecommitteesreceivepowderedmilkandhavetoprepareitbeforedelivery,aconditionthatguaranteesthecontinuityofthecollectivework.
Mothers’clubsarethethirdtypeofwomen’s organisationdevotedtofeeding.Theyaredefinedasgroupsofmotherswhoorganisethemselvestochannelthebenefitsfromcharitiesandfromwelfareactivitiesorganisedbyreligiousinstitutionsandwealthypersons,andbypoliticalpartiesinterestedinexpandingtheirgrass-rootsorganisations.
AnotherimportantsocialorganisationworthcommentistheWawa Wasidaycareprogramme.Itbeganasalocalmothers’initiative,andbecauseofitssuccessthePeruvianGovernmentdecidedtoturnitintoasocialprogramme.Forasmallfee,workingparentsleavetheirunder-threesinadaycarecentre,wherethereisa‘mother-in-charge’whoistrainedinhealthcare,earlychildhoodstimulationand
3 Inthe1980sandthefirsthalfofthe1990sterrorismwasaseriousprobleminPeru.Therewereatleasttwomajorarmedgroups: Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) and MRTA (Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru).The number of deathsaftertwodecadesofterrorismwasrecentlyestimatedtobe69,000(CVR,2003).Nowadays,terroristactivityhasdeclinedconsiderably.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
8
basicnutrition.MealsintheWawa Wasiareorganisedthroughcommunalkitchensorglass-of-milkcommittees,whichtakestheburdenofcookingawayfromthemaincaregivers.
Thereareotherimportantsocialorganisationsatthecommunitylevel,forinstancepeasantcommunities,especiallyinruralareassuchasCuscoandPuno,inthePeruvianhighlands.Peasantcommunitiesare‘territorialunits’ofclansorgroupsrelatedbykinshiporhistoricalneighbourhood,whoseekthewell-beingofalltheirmembers.Thecommunityistheownerofthelandonwhichitislocatedandmustberegisteredinordertohavelegalrecognition.Peasantcommunitiesareimportantbecausetheyenablethesocial,culturalandeconomicdevelopmentofalargesectorofthepopulation,usuallymarginalisedbystatepolicies.Forinstance,insomeruralareascommunitieshavebuiltmoreschoolsandruralroadswiththeirownresources,thanthestate.
Thetwoothersocialorganisationsdevotedtoimprovingcommunitywell-beingareneighbourhoodorganisationsandself-defencecommittees.Theformerisdevotedtoimprovingthequalityoftheservicesofferedinthecommunity,suchaselectricityandwater,andalsothequalityoftheschoolsandotherimportantinstitutionswithinthecommunity.Self-defencecommitteesemergedwithincommunitieswiththepurposeofprotectingtheirlandandfightingagainstviolence,especiallyterrorism.Thesesocialorganisationscontributetothedevelopmentoftheircommunities,andprovidesecurityfortheirmembers.
Table1showsthepercentageofhouseholdsthathaveatleastonememberwhobelongsto,participatesin,orisregisteredinagroup,organisation,associationand/orsocialprogramme.Twenty-threepercentofhouseholdshaveamemberwhoparticipatesintheGlass-of-MilkProgramme.Itisimportanttonotethatparticipationinthisprogrammeismorefrequentinruralareas(34.8percent)thaninurbanareas(17.4percent),andthatmostofthehouseholdswithmemberswhoparticipateare‘extremelypoor’or‘non-extremelypoor’.4
Table 1: Percentage of households that have at least one member who belongs to, participates in, or is registered in a group, organisation, association and/or social programme
Group, organisation, association and/or social programme
Rural Urban National
EP NEP NP Total EP NEP NP Total
Sports club and associations 5.4 6.3 8.6 6.6 5.3 3.8 7.9 6.6 6.6
Cultural associations (dance, music etc) 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 2.2 1.7 1.3
Neighbourhood associations 3.9 4.0 4.3 4.0 2.4 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.7
Peasant groups (peasant self-defence organisations) 12.2 10.3 7.0 10.1 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 3.9
Irrigation associations 5.7 8.3 13.6 8.9 0.8 1.8 1.0 1.2 3.9
Professional associations 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 4.4 2.9 2.0
Labour unions 0.3 1.1 2.8 1.3 1.0 2.1 4.5 1.2 2.8
Mothers' clubs 7.9 7.2 4.7 6.7 4.8 3.2 1.1 1.9 3.6
Parents association 4.8 3.3 2.1 3.6 1.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 2.0
Glass of milk 44.2 35.9 21.0 34.8 35.3 28.9 10.6 17.4 23.5
4 The poverty variable was constructed according to households’ per capita expenditure. Extremely poor households arethosethatcannotaffordabasicfoodbundle(orrequirements),andnon-extremelypoorarethosethatcannotaffordabasicconsumptionbundle.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�
Group, organisation, association and/or social programme
Rural Urban National
EP NEP NP Total EP NEP NP Total
Communal kitchen 5.9 7.0 5.3 6.0 5.8 6.2 2.1 3.5 4.4
Participative roundtable (mesa de concertación) 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2
Local Administrative Health Committee 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Temporary (urban) employment A Trabajar Urbano 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.7 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4
Temporary (rural) employment A Trabajar Rural 4.4 3.5 1.8 3.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2
Other 28.0 21.0 14.9 22.0 13.5 7.0 6.6 7.2 12.3
Source: EnaHo, 2002 (national survey of homes, database) – iV trimester note: Ep = extremely poor; nEp = non-extremely poor; np = non-poor
Therearesomeformsofsocialorganisation,suchaspeasantself-defenceorganisationsandirrigationassociations,thatareconsiderablymorecommoninruralareas.However,participationinpeasantself-defencecommitteesisgreateramongtheextremelypoor,whileparticipationinirrigationassociationsisgreateramongthenon-poor(inruralareas).Ingeneral,participationinmostofthesocialprogrammesororganisationslistedinTable1ismorecommoninruralareas.ThismightberelatedtothefactthatthereisalonghistoryofcollectiveworkamongthePeruvianruralpopulation,andpovertyismoreprevalentinruralareas.Participationincommunityorganisationsaimedatfeedingisgreateramongtheextremelypoorandthenon-extremelypoor,especiallyinurbanareas.
Finally,itisimportanttonotethatmosthouseholdsdonothaveamemberwhoparticipatesinprofessionalassociationsorlabourunions,especiallyamongtheextremelypoorandthenon-extremelypoor,bothinruralandurbanareas.Onlythenon-poorfromurbanareashavearelativelyhighlevelofparticipationinthiskindofsocialorganisation,possiblybecausetheyhaveformaljobswhereastheextremelypoorandnon-extremelypoorareinformalworkers.
SofarwehavereviewedthecurrentsituationofsomeofthemostimportantsocialorganisationsinPeruandprovidedabriefdescriptionofthem.Aswehaveseen,communityorganisationsaimedatfeedingareimportantsourcesofnetworking,especiallyinruralareasandamongtheextremelypoor.Sincethesetypesoforganisationscanenablemembersofthecommunitytoimprovetheirqualityoflife,forinstance,byimprovingtheirnutrition,itwouldbeinterestingtofindoutiftheseorganisationsalsohaveanimpactonspecificeducationaloutcomes,suchasachievementandtheproblemofoveragestudents.Noneoftheabove-mentionedorganisations,however,hasanobjectivetoimprovetheeducationaloutcomesofthecommunity’schildrenwhoareenrolledinprimaryorsecondaryeducation.TheYoungLivesquestionnaire,forthefirstround,includedsomequestionsonsocialcapital.Inthecurrentstudywewilltakeintoaccountwhethertheindividuallivesinanurbanoraruralarea,giventhattherearelargesocio-economic,languageandculturaldifferencesbetweenurbanandruralareasinPeru.
HowcouldsocialcapitalaffecteducationaloutcomesforPeruvianstudents?EventhoughthisisthefirststudyweareawareofthatusesthesocialcapitalconstructinPeruinrelationtoeducation,internationalliteraturesuggestssomepossiblemechanisms.Harpham(2002)proposesatheoreticalmodel,wheresocialcapitalinsideandoutsidethefamily(suchastheextentofnetworks,support
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�0
receivedfromnetworks,perceivedtrust,reciprocityandsharednorms)wouldhaveanimpactonintermediatevariables.Thesewouldincludetheparents,suchasanincreaseinresourcestoinvestinthechild,parentaldecisionstoinvestinthechild,andthevalueparentsgivetoeducation.Inturn,intermediatevariableswouldhaveanimpactonchildwelfareoutcomes,suchasthosestudiedhere.Thecurrentstudy,however,willnottesttheseprocesses,onlytheassociationsbetweensocialcapitalandeducationaloutcomes.ThereisstrongevidenceinPerutosupporttheideathateducationishighlyvaluedbythepopulation,eveninimpoverishedareas(seeforexampleAnsiónet al,1998).Inthiscontextitisreasonabletoassumethatmoreclose-knitcommunities(iethosewithhigherlevelsofsocialcapital)wouldcaremorefortheeducationofalllocalchildrenthancommunitieswheresocialtiesaremoreloose.Again,however,thespecificprocessesbywhichthiswouldoccurwerenotlookedatinthecurrentstudy.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
��
2. methods
2.�DesignThedatapresentedherewasgatheredinthefirstroundoftheYoungLivesprojectinPeru,betweenAugustandDecember2002.Thereweretwocohortsintheproject;thecurrentreportreferstothechildrenwho,atthetimeofdatacollection,wereaged7.5–8.5years.Asmentionedbefore,theYoungLivesprojectisplannedasalongitudinalstudythatshouldlastuntil2015;thesecondroundofdatacollectionshouldoccurin2006.Thus,thedatapresentedhereiscross-sectionalandtheanalysisshouldbeinterpretedintermsofassociationsbetweenvariablesandnotcause-effectrelationships.Mostoftheanalysisseparatesoutthedataforurbanandruralchildren,and,withinthesegroups,separatesboysfromgirls.
2.2SamplecharacteristicsThePeruYoungLivesdatasetusedhereconsistsofanationwidesampleof704childrenagedbetween7.5and8.5yearsatenrolment.ChildrenwereenrolledforthefirstphaseoftheprojectbetweenAugustandDecember2002.Thesamplewasdistributedbetween20sentinelsitesinurbanandruraldistricts.All1,818districtsofPeruwererankedaccordingtotheirpovertylevel.Eliminatingthewealthiestfivepercent,asampleofdistrictswastakenacrossthepovertyspectrum.Withineachdistrictsampled,arandomdwellingwasselectedandthenalldwellingsnearbyweresystematicallycheckedtoidentifychildrenoftherelevantage.Inafewcases,aftercoveringthewholecommunityoreventhewholedistrict,therewerefewerchildrenthanrequired,sochildrenlivingincontiguouscommunitiesanddistrictsweresurveyed.AdetaileddescriptionofthedatasetandsamplingprocedurecanbefoundinEscobalet al(2003).Table2presentssomecharacteristicsofthesample.
Table 2: Number and percentage of children in the sample, by school grade and area
Area
TotalRural Urban
First grade 26 (14%) 27 (5%) 53 (8%)
Second grade 119 (66%) 271 (52%) 390 (55%)
Third grade 34 (19%) 215 (41%) 249 (35%)
Fourth grade 2 (1%) 10 (2%) 12 (2%)
Total 181 (100%) 523 (100%) 704 (100%)
Aswouldbeexpectedfromnationalstatistics,itismorelikelythatruralchildrenwillbeinalowergradefortheirage(ieoverage).InPeruitiscompulsoryforsix-year-oldstoattendfirstgrade,buttherearenolegalconsequencesforanybodyifachildfailstodoso.TheschoolyearinPerurunsfrommid-MarchorearlyApriltoearlyormid-December;childrenshouldbeatleastsixyearsofageby30Junetoenrolinfirstgradeinagivenyear.Usingtheaboveinformation,weestimatedthegradeinwhichthechildshouldhavebeenstudying.ThisinformationispresentedinTable3.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�2
Table 3: Students’ status by sex and area (number and percentage)
Students’ status
TotalOverage On-age Below the age for
their grade
Rural Female 23 (28%) 51 (61%) 9 (11%) 83 (100%)
Male 30 (31%) 60 (61%) 8 (8%) 98 (100%)
Total 53 (29%) 111 (61%) 17 (9%) 181 (100%)
Urban Female 35 (15%) 174 (73%) 30 (13%) 239 (100%)
Male 54 (19%) 181 (64%) 49 (17%) 284 (100%)
Total 89 (17%) 355 (68%) 79 (15%) 523 (100%)
All children
Female 58 (18%) 225 (70%) 39 (12%) 322 (100%)
Male 84 (22%) 241 (63%) 57 (15%) 382 (100%)
Total 142 (20%) 466 (66%) 96 (14%) 704 (100%)
Arelativelysmallgroupofchildrenarebelowtheagefortheirgrade.Thisisbecause,insomecases,schoolswillallowyoungerchildrentoenrolinfirstgrade.Table3showsaslightlyhigherpercentageof‘on-age’girlsthanboys.Thisisaninterestingtrendalsofoundinotherstudies.WhileamongtheolderpopulationinPerumostnon-educatedpeoplearewomen,theyoungergenerationsseemtobemovingtowardseducationalequalityforboysandgirls(atleastintermsofenrolmentandschoolgrade).Infurtheranalysis,theon-ageandbelow-agegroupswillbecombinedandcalled‘on-age’.
Table4presentssomeofthegeneralcharacteristicsofthesample(itwastestedwhethertherewerestatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenon-ageandoveragechildrenineachgroup).
Table 4: On-age and overage children’s characteristics by area
Rural(N = 181)
Urban(N = 523)
All children(N = 704)
Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
Height-for-age (z-score) -2.3** -2.0** -1.7** -1.3** -1.9** -1.4**
Weight-for-age (z-score) -1.4** -1.0** -0.8** -0.4** -1.0** -0.5**
Body mass index 16.2 16.3 16.8 17.1 16.6 16.9
The child attended school in 2001 (%) 88** 98** 86** 99** 87** 99**
Family size 5.5* 4.9* 4.9 4.5 5.1** 4.6**
Student’s age when he/she first went to school 6.2** 6.0** 6.2** 5.7** 6.2** 5.8**
He/she goes to public school (%) 98 99 97** 87** 97** 90**
The child attended preschool (%) 81 88 79** 91** 80** 90**
Mother speaks indigenous language (%) 42* 28* 9** 3** 21** 9**
Mothers with at least secondary education (%) 16 22 44** 69** 33** 58**
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�3
Theinformationaboveshowsthatmostchildrenoldenoughtoattendprimaryschooldoso.Theproblemisthatabouthalfofthemwillnotfinishsecondaryeducation(Guadalupe,2002).ThisissomethingthatcouldbestudiedinfutureroundsoftheYoungLivesproject.
Table4shows,ingeneralterms,thatchildrenfromruralenvironmentsarepoorer(asshownbytheanthropometricandmothers’educationvariables)thanchildreninurbanenvironments.Withineachgroup,overagechildreningeneralcomefrompoorerenvironmentsthanon-agechildren.On-agechildrenwereyoungerwhentheystartedschool.Overagechildrenaremostlikelytohavemotherswhospeakanindigenouslanguage.On-agechildreninurbanenvironmentsaremorelikelytoattendprivateschoolsthananyothergroup(around87percentofthenationalpopulationattendspublicschool:Guadalupe,2002).
Theanthropometricindicatorsshow,asexpected,thatruralchildrentendtohavepoorernutritionalstatusthanurbanchildren.Inbothruralandurbanareas,overagechildrenshowpoorermeanheight-for-ageandweight-for-agez-scoresthanon-agechildren.However,nodifferencesbetweengroupswerefoundforbodymassindex,anindicatorofacutemalnutrition.
Table5presentsinformationonthecharacteristicsofthechild’shomeandhouseholdassets,producingasimilarpatterntoTable4.Urbanchildrenshowgenerallyhigherindicators,and,withineachgroup,on-agechildrenshowhigherindicators(althoughthepatternisclearerinurbanchildren).
Table 5: Fixed household assets and house infrastructure (percentage)
Rural(N = 181)
Urban(N = 523)
All children(N = 704)
Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
Has a television 40 36 69** 83** 58** 72**
Has an iron 9 16 28** 61** 21** 51**
Has a gas stove 9 15 38** 66** 27** 55**
Has a plough 47 52 17** 8** 29** 18**
Has a machete 94 91 36** 24** 58** 39**
Has an axe 92 85 39** 25** 59** 39**
Wall material: brick/concrete 2 5 28** 53** 18** 42**
Roof material: concrete/cement/tiles/slates 25 20 21** 41** 23** 36**
Floor material: cement/laminated material 4 9 31** 58** 21** 47**
Has piped water into dwelling/yard/plot 64 67 69** 86** 67** 82**
Uses gas/electricity for cooking 0* 6* 31** 54** 20** 43**
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�4
2.3VariablesandproceduresThevariableswereobtainedfromthequestionnairesadministeredtothechildren,theirparentsandcommunityleaders.Achievementwasmeasuredthroughthereading,writingandnumeracyitemsdescribedbelow.Socialcapitalvariableswereanalysedaccordingtotheframeworkdevelopedforthisstudy.Thisframeworkusedthedistinctionbetweenstructuralandcognitivesocialcapitaldescribedabove(Harpham,GrantandThomas,2002).Thedistinctionbetweenbondingandbridgingsocialcapital(Narayan,1999)wasnotintroduced,giventhatallquestionswererelatedtointra-communityrelationships(bondingsocialcapital),andnotinter-communityrelationships(bridgingsocialcapital).Thespecificquestions(tobefoundinthe7.5-8.5year-oldquestionnaire,availableontheYoungLiveswebsitehttp://www.younglives.org.uk/)usedtomeasurethestructuralandcognitivesocialcapitalaredescribedbelow.Fieldworkincludedseveralverificationprocedurestoassurethevalidityoftheinformation.
TheinstrumentusedisashortenedversionoftheAdaptedSocialCapitalAssessmentTool(A-SCAT).DeSilvaet al(2004b)conductedastudyonthevalidityofthisinstrumentinthePeruviancontext.Forthis,theyanalysedthedatafromtheYoungLivesproject(specificallycheckingforcriterion-relatedvalidity)andalsoconductedin-depthqualitativeinterviewswithrespondentswhowererepresentativeofthoseenrolledintheYoungLivesproject.Ingeneral,theresultssupportthevalidityofthequestionnaire,althoughproblemswiththeinterpretationofspecificquestionswerefound(seeSection4formoredetails).Thestudyalsoshowed,throughafactoranalysis,thattheindividualitemswerecapturedbysummaryitemsrepresentingstructuralsocialcapital(includingmeasuresforgroupmembership,socialsupportandcitizenship)andcognitivesocialcapital(iemeasuresoftrust).Thesefactorswillbedescribedlaterinthisanalysis.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�5
3. results
3.�SocialcapitalinPeruThesocialcapitalquestionsweredividedintoquestionsoncognitivesocialcapitalandquestionsonstructuralsocialcapital.Thefirstresultspresentbivariateanalysis,toshowafirstlevelofassociations.Animportantissuetoconsiderinallanalysisiswhorespondedtothesocialcapitalquestions.Theproceduresspecifiedthatthemothershouldrespond,butifshewasnotavailablethequestionsweredirectedtoanothermemberofthefamily.Thisdistinctionisimportantsincetheresultsforaparticularfamilyregardingsocialcapitalmightvarydependingontheinformant.Table6givesdetailsofwhotherespondentswere.
Table 6: Person providing information in response to social capital questions
Frequency Percentage
Father 53 8
Mother 602 86
Stepfather 1 0
Stepmother 7 1
Grandfather 6 1
Grandmother 19 3
Other 15 2
Total 703 100
Whilethemajorityofrespondentswerethemothersofthechildren(asexpected),justover14percentoftherespondentswereotherfamilymembers(mostlyfathers).Inthenextsectionswepresentresultsforallrespondentstogether,butinthemultivariateanalysiswepresentresultsbothforsituationswhereonlythemothersareconsideredasrespondents,andwhereweincludedallrespondents.Table7presentstheresultsforcognitivesocialcapitalquestions.
Table 7: Cognitive social capital in Peru by area and child’s status (percentage)
Rural(N = 181)
Urban(N = 523)
All children(N = 704)
Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
Can the majority of people in this community be trusted? 51 47 44** 26** 47** 31**
Do you consider yourself similar to most other households in this community? 29** 63** 56** 69** 46** 67**
Do the majority of people in this community generally get along with each other? 88** 73** 72** 60** 78** 63**
Do you feel as though you are part of this community? 91 90 88* 79* 89** 81**
Would the majority of people in this community try to take advantage of you if they got the chance? 38 42 47 50 44 48
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
��
Thereisaninterestingtrend:caregiversofon-agechildren,inbothcontexts,considerthemselvesmoresimilartoothermembersofthecommunitythancaregiversofoveragechildrendo.Ontheotherhand,thecaregiversofoveragechildrenaremorelikelytobelievethatthemajorityofpeopleinthecommunitygetalongwitheachother.Table8presentstheresultsforstructuralsocialcapitalquestions.
Table 8: Structural social capital (participation in community-level organisations) in Peru, by area and child’s status (percentage)
Rural(N = 179)
Urban(N = 512)
All children(N = 691)
Respondent belongs to: Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
Labour union/trade union 2 4 1 2 1 3
Community associationa/co-op 11 5 6** 1** 8** 2**
Women’s group 11 13 16 10 14 11
Political group 4 1 1 2 2 1
Religious group 17 13 9 8 12 9
Credit/funeral group 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clubs/sport association 0 2 2 4 1 3
Health, water, school association or committee 2** 11** 8 8 6 9
Other 11 5 4 4 7 4
** significant at 5% a community group or association
Overall,participationincommunityassociationsisquitelow.Table9presentsthedataforthestructuralsocialcapitalquestionsrelatedtosupport.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
��
Table 9: Structural social capital (support), by area and child’s status (percentage)
Rural(N = 179)
Urban(N = 513)
All children(N = 692)
Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
Received support from family and relatives 30 29 52 46 44 42
Received support from household members 42 36 53 47 49 45
Received support from neighbours 19 17 22 18 21 18
Received support from friends who are not neighbours 11 17 20 22 16 21
Received support from community leaders 4 6 8** 2** 6** 3**
Received support from religious leader 15 12 16* 10* 16* 10*
Received support from politicians 0 3 5* 2* 3 2
Received support from government officials/civil servants 2 6 5 2 4 3
Received support from charitable organisation/NGO 2 2 1 2 1 2
Received support from other groups 0 2 1 1 1 2
* significant at 10%; ** significant at 5%
Therearethreesignificantdifferencesinsupport,allinurbanareas.Overagechildrenaremorelikelythanon-agechildrentoreceivesupportfromcommunitymembers,religiousleadersorpoliticians.Overall,supportseemstocomemostlyfromrelatives(includingmembersofthehousehold),followedbyneighbours,friendsandreligiousgroups.
Table10presentstheresultsforadifferentsetofquestionsinthestructuralsupportcategory:citizenship.
Table 10: Structural social capital (citizenship), by area and child’s status (percentage)
Rural(N = 181)
Urban(N = 523)
All children(N = 704)
Overage On-age Overage On-age Overage On-age
You have joined with other community members to address a problem of common concern
34 34 19 19 25 22
You have talked with a local authority or governmental organisation about problems in this community
30 30 13 14 20 18
Therearenostatisticallysignificantdifferencesbetweenthecitizenshiplevelsofcaregiversofon-ageandoveragechildren.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
�8
3.2AchievementAsalreadymentioned,reading,writingandnumeracyassessmentitemswereadministeredtothechildren.Thereadingitemsrequiredthechildrentoreadthreeletters(N,A,P);oneword(‘pan’,whichisSpanishfor‘bread’);andonesentence(‘El pan es rico’,whichisSpanishfor‘thebreadisdelicious’).TheresultsarepresentedinTable11.
Table 11: Reading achievement by child’s status, area and sex Overage (%) On-age (%) Total
Rural
Female
Cannot read or reads only letters 65 28 36
Reads words 0 0 0
Reads sentences 35 72 64
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot read or reads only letters 54 23 32
Reads words 0 5 4
Reads sentences 46 72 64
Total 100 100 100
Urban
Female
Cannot read or reads only letters 27 9 11
Reads words 0 1 0
Reads sentences 73 91 88
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot read or reads only letters 31 4 9
Reads words 2 3 2
Reads sentences 67 93 89
Total 100 100 100
Thepercentageofstudentswhocouldreadwordsandsentencesismuchlowerforruralstudents.ThisisacommonpatterninallPeruvianevaluations.Theresultsarealsopoorerforoveragechildrenthanforon-agechildren.Resultsforboysandgirlsareverysimilar.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
��
Table12presentstheresultsofthewritingassessment.Thisitemrequiredchildrentowritethesentence‘me gustan los perros’ (whichisSpanishfor‘Ilikedogs’).
Table 12: Writing achievement by child’s status, area and sex
Overage (%) On-age (%) Total
Rural
Female
Cannot write or writes with difficulty 81 55 62
Writes without difficulty 19 45 38
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot write or writes with difficulty 78 66 70
Writes without difficulty 22 34 30
Total 100 100 100
Urban
Female
Cannot write or writes with difficulty 61 28 33
Writes without difficulty 39 72 67
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot write or writes with difficulty 62 33 39
Writes without difficulty 38 67 61
Total 100 100 100
Theaboveshowsbetterresultsforurbanthanforruralchildren,foron-agethanforoveragechildren,andforfemalethanformalechildren.
Table13presentstheresultsforthenumeracyassessmentitem.Thisitemrequiredchildrentosolveabasicmultiplication(2x4).
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
20
Table 13: Numeracy achievement by child’s status, area and sex
Overage (%) On-age (%) Total
Rural
Female
Cannot solve or incorrect 95 57 67
Correct 5 43 33
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot solve or incorrect 79 47 56
Correct 21 53 44
Total 100 100 100
Urban
Female
Cannot solve or incorrect 83 31 38
Correct 17 69 62
Total 100 100 100
Male
Cannot solve or incorrect 73 23 32
Correct 27 77 68
Total 100 100 100
Theresultsshowbetterperformanceforurbanthanforruralchildren,foron-agethanforoveragechildren,andformalethanforfemalechildren.
Table14presentsthecorrelationsamongthedependentvariables.
Table 14: Spearman correlations between dependent variables
Reading Numeracy Writing
Numeracy 0.366
N 599
Writing 0.405 0.356
N 612 655
Overage -0.284 -0.521 -0.254
N 611 653 666
All correlations significant at 1% (two-tailed)
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
2�
Thehighestcorrelationisbetweennumeracyandoverage,followedbyreadingandwriting(forthestrengthofthecorrelationthesigndoesnotmatter,thesignonlyindicatesdirection).Overall,giventhateachachievementareahadonlyoneitem,andthecorrelationsbetweenthemwerepositiveasexpected,afactoranalysiswasperformedtogenerateasingleachievementscore,composedofthethreeareastested.Moreinformationonthisispresentedbelow.
3.3 MultivariateanalysisTheresultspresentedsofarhavecomefrombivariateanalysisonly.Themultivariateanalysispresentedbelowintroducesseveralpredictors,includingcognitiveandstructuralsocialcapitalvariables,toestablishtheuniqueassociationofeachwiththedependentvariables(achievement,andon-ageversusoverage).Fortheanalysisofsocialcapitalwecombinedvariablesbyusingafactoranalysis(seeAppendixfordetails).Theliteratureonthistopicsuggeststhattheeffectofsocialcapitalmightnotcomefromseveralindependentvariables,butfromacombinedeffect.
Threefactorswereidentified,broadlyconcurringwithwhattheoreticalconsiderationswouldpredict.Factor1groupsthequestionsrelatedtocognitivesocialcapital;factor2referstostructuralsocialcapital,specificallycitizenship;andfactor3alsoreferstostructuralsocialcapital,specificallyparticipation.
Themultivariateanalysisincludedinformationattheindividuallevel(childorchild’sfamily)andatthecommunitylevel.5Themodelsusedtoexploretherelationshipbetweeneducationalsuccessandsocialcapitalvariableswereordinaryleastsquares(forchildachievementresults)andlogisticregression(foron-ageresults).Thisoptionallowsustoobtainrobuststandarderrorsandtoindicatethatobservationsareclusteredintocommunities.Inthiscase,weassumethattheobservationscanbecorrelatedwithincommunitiesandareindependentbetweencommunities.Thenumberofchildrenperlocation(community)wasnotlargeenoughforahierarchicallinearmodel.Itisimportanttonotethenumberofchildrenfromthesamelocation(community6)inthesample.Overall,thesampleincluded75communities.Theanalysispresentedintheprevioussectionincludedallchildren,butthemultivariateanalysisincludesonlychildrenwholivedinacommunitywhereatleasttwochildrenlived,sothattheaverageforthecommunityhadsomesense.Thisprocedureresultedintheexclusionfromtheanalysisof20children,fromasmanycommunities(seeTable15forthedistributionofnumbersofchildrenpercommunity).
Table 15: Number of children per community
Number of children Communities Percentage of communitiesOne 20 27Two 10 13Three 9 12Four 7 9Five 3 4Six or more 26 35Total 75 100
5 The community level refers to the average of responses of children within the same locality. Entered as a cluster intothe regressions, the Stata software allows the cluster option to be introduced into the estimation.This option allows theidentificationofgroups–communities–ofcorrelatedobservationsandgivestheadjustmentforthislevel.
6 Communitiescorrespondtoadministrativeareas.FordetailsseetheYoungLivescommunityquestionnaire,whichcontainsthedefinitionof‘community’(availablefromwww.younglives.org.uk).
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
22
Thecovariatesinthemodelwereselectedbasedontheliteraturereviewpresentedinthispaper.
Ordinary least squaresChildachievementcouldbeassociatedwithchildcharacteristics(egsex,height-for-age,schoolgrade);familycharacteristics(egparents’education,numberofpersonsperroomathome);socio-economiccharacteristics(egnumberofpossessionsathome,agriculturaltools,housematerial);andsocialcapital(egnumberofgroupsthatthehouseholdparticipatesin).
Yj = Bo + B1Xj + B2Cj + B3Ĉ + Ej Ej~N(0, σ2)
Yj = child achievement
Xj = child and family background
Cj = household social capital
Ĉ = community social capital (aggregated from individual level)
Ej = random component
Logistic regressionSincetheoutcomevariableon-age/overageisbinary,logisticregressionwasusedforthismultivariateanalysis.
ln [p/(1-p)] = Bo + B1 Xj + B2Cj + B3Ĉ
p = probability that the event Y occurs, p(Y=1)
p/(1-p) = odds ratio
ln [p/(1-p)] = log-odds ratio (logit)
Xj = child and family background
Cj = household social capital
Ĉ = community social capital (aggregated from individual level)
Variables included in the analysis
Dependent variables
Achievement:thisvariablewascreatedusingthreescores.Thefirstonereferstothechild’sreadinglevel.Thescoresassignedwere1ifthechildcouldreadsentencesand0iftheycouldnot.Thesecondreferstothechild’swritinglevel.Thescoreswere1ifthechildcouldwritecorrectlyand0ifthechildcouldnotwrite,orwrotethespecifiedtextincorrectly.Thelastonereferstonumeracy.Thescorewas1iftheexercisewascompletedcorrectlyand0ifincorrectorblank.Theachievementvariablewasbuiltthroughafactoranalysisthatcombinedthesescoresandprovidedastandardisedscorethatcombinedachievementinreading,writingandnumeracy.Thesinglefactoraccountedfor58percent
a)
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
23
ofthetotalvariance.Theweightsofthevariableswere0.45forreading,0.44forwritingand0.43fornumeracy.
On-age:thisvariablewascoded1ifthechildwasthecorrectageoryoungerfortheirgrade,and0iftheywereolder.
Predictor variables
Sex:thiswascoded1formalesand0forfemales.
Height-for-age: thisvariableisthestandardisedz-score.Itisanindicatorofchronicmalnutrition.
Child works: thisvariablewascoded1ifthechildwasinvolvedinanyactivityaimedatobtainingmoneyorothercommoditiesand0ifnot.Thisdatawasgatheredthroughthechildquestionnaire.
Crowding index: thisvariablereferstotheratioofthenumberofpeopleperroomathome.
The mother has at least secondary education: thisdatawasgatheredinthehouseholdsurveyandwascoded1ifthemotherhadatleastsecondaryeducationand0ifshehadalowerlevelofeducation.
Mother speaks an indigenous language: thisvariablewascoded1ifthemotherspokeanindigenouslanguageashermothertongue,7and0ifsheonlyspokeSpanish.
Child’s age when she/he first went to school: thisreferstothecaregiver’sanswerwhenaskedtheageatwhichthechildbeganher/hisprimaryeducation.
Type of school:thiswascoded1forpublicschoolsand0forprivateschools.InPeru,moststudieshavefoundhigherachievementforstudentsinprivateschools(egUMCandGRADE,2001).
Both biological parents present at home: thisvariablewascoded1ifthebiologicalparentslivedwiththechildand0ifonlyoneornoparentslivedathome.
Parents help with the child’s homework: thisvariablewascoded1ifatleastoneoftheparentshelpedwiththehomeworkand0ifnot.
The child attended preschool: thiswascoded 1forchildrenwhohadattendedpreschooland0forchildrenwhohadnot.
Socio-economic indices: thesearevariablesconstructedfromseveralindicators,includinghouseholdpossessions,agriculturaltoolsandhousematerials.ThisinformationwasprovidedbytheindividualslistedinTable6.Thevariableswereincludedinafactoranalysiswithvarimaxrotation.Fourfactorsresultedfromthisanalysis,whichaccountedfor62percentofthevariance.Theresultingfactorswere:
7 InPeru,QuechuaandAymaraarethemostwidelyspokenindigenouslanguages,butthereareover40acrossthecountry(Pozzi-Escot,1998).
b)
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
24
Household assets index:thisfactorgroupedseveralindicatorsrelatedtohouseholdpossessions–radio,bicycle,television,iron,blenderandgasstove.Itaccountedfor20percentofthetotalvariance.
Agricultural index:thisfactorgroupedseveralindicatorsrelatedtothehousehold’sagriculturaltools–plough,wheelbarrow,spade,rake,macheteandaxe.Italsoaccountedfor20percentofthetotalvariance.
House infrastructure index:thisfactorgroupedseveralindicatorsrelatedtohousematerials–brickorconcretewall,cementortiledroof,andcementorlaminatedfloor(weassignedascoreof1forthemoreexpensivematerialand0forthecheaper).Thisfactoraccountedfor12percentofthetotalvariance.
Basic services index:thisfactorgroupedtwovariables–whetherthehousehadelectricity,andwhetherthehousehadpipedwaterinthedwelling.Itaccountedfor10percentofthetotalvariance.
Social capital
Asnotedbefore,thehouseholdsurveyincludedasectionrelatingtostructuralandcognitivesocialcapital.Foreachvariable,aspecifichypothesisofassociationisraised,basedonthegeneralhypothesisthatthehigherthequantityandqualityofsocialcapitalavailabletothefamilyandthecommunity,thehighertheeducationaloutcomes.
Thestructuralsocialcapitalvariablesaddressedwere:
You have joined with other community members to address a problem of common concern: thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Itishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
You have talked with a local authority or governmental organisation about problems in this community: thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Thisvariableishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
Number of groups the respondent/primary caregiver participated in:theorganisationsincludedwere:labourunion,communityassociation,women’sgroup,politicalgroup,religiousgroup,creditorfuneralgroup,clubsorsportassociation,health/water/schoolassociationorcommittee,andothertypeoforganisation.Eachwasscoredwith1foryesand0forno,thusproducingasumscore.Thisvariableishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
Number of persons or institutions that give support to the household: thisvariablerepresentsthenumberofpersonsorinstitutions(family,neighbours,friends,communityleaders,religiousleaders,politicians,governmentofficialsandcharitableorganisation)thatgivesometypeofsupporttothehousehold.Thisvariableishypothesisedtohaveapositiveassociationwitheducationaloutcomes.
•
•
•
•
a)
b)
c)
d)
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
25
Thecognitivesocialcapitalvariableswere:
The majority of people in this community can be trusted:thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Itishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
You consider yourself similar to most other households in this community: thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Itishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
The majority of people in this community generally get along with each other:thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Thisvariableishypothesisedtohaveapositiverelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
You feel you are a part of this community:thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Again,therelationshipishypothesisedtobepositive.
The majority of people in this community would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance: thisvariablewascoded1foryesand0forno.Itishypothesisedtohaveanegativerelationshipwitheducationaloutcomes.
BasedonthefactorloadingspresentedinTableA1intheAppendix,threesocialcapitalvariablesweregeneratedforeachindividual:
Factor 1: thisfactorgroupsthevariablesrelatedwithcognitivesocialcapital.
Factor 2:thisfactorgroupsthevariablesrelatedwithstructuralsocialcapital,specificallycitizenship.
Factor 3: thisfactorgroupsthevariablesrelatedwithstructuralsocialcapital,specificallythegroupsthatthecaregiverisamemberofandthenumberofindividualsorinstitutionsthatgiveher/himsupport.
Allarehypothesisedtohaveapositiveassociationwitheducationaloutcomes.
Theregressionspresenttheresultsforallrespondentsandalsoformothers’responsesonly.Thejustificationforthisisthatresultsmightdifferdependingonthesocialcapitalofthefamilymemberresponding(forinstance,therespondentmayhaveprovidedinformationonsocialcapitalavailableforhimorherself,notforthewholefamily).Theanalysisisperformedfirstfortheindividuallevelonly,adjustingthenforthecommunitylevel(Table16).
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
•
•
•
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
2�
Tabl
e 16
: Coe
ffic
ient
s in
line
ar r
egre
ssio
ns fo
r so
cial
cap
ital
var
iabl
es, a
t ind
ivid
ual a
nd c
omm
unit
y le
vel,
for
child
ren’
s ac
hiev
emen
ta
Who
le sa
mpl
e (in
divi
dual
leve
l onl
y)W
hole
sam
ple
(add
ing
com
mun
ity
vari
able
s)M
othe
rb(in
divi
dual
leve
l onl
y)M
othe
r(a
ddin
g co
mm
unit
y va
riab
les)
Coe
f.C
IC
oef.
CI
Coe
f.C
IC
oef.
CI
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Soci
al ca
pita
l var
iabl
es (
indi
vidu
al le
vel)
Fact
or 1
(cog
nitiv
e)-0
.035
-0.1
140.
044
-0.0
45-0
.127
0.03
7-0
.043
-0.1
250.
039
-0.0
51-0
.136
0.03
3
Fact
or 2
(str
uctu
ral –
citiz
ensh
ip)
-0.0
65*
-0.1
360.
006
-0.0
31-0
.120
0.05
8-0
.053
-0.1
330.
027
-0.0
17-0
.123
0.09
0
Fact
or 3
(str
uctu
ral –
mem
bers
hip)
0.02
4-0
.049
0.09
7-0
.006
-0.0
840.
072
0.04
9-0
.033
0.13
10.
027
-0.0
500.
104
Soci
al ca
pita
l var
iabl
es (c
omm
unit
y lev
el)
Fact
or 1
(cog
nitiv
e)0.
133
-0.1
700.
436
0.13
7-0
.187
0.46
1
Fact
or 2
(str
uctu
ral –
citiz
ensh
ip)
-0.2
02-0
.549
0.14
5-0
.224
-0.6
110.
163
Fact
or 3
(str
uctu
ral –
mem
bers
hip)
0.17
7-0
.051
0.40
40.
134
-0.0
980.
366
Con
stan
t-1
.745
***
-2.9
16-0
.573
-1.7
71**
*-2
.974
-0.5
67-1
.804
***
-3.0
29-0
.579
-1.8
80**
*-3
.207
-0.5
54
Num
ber o
f obs
erva
tions
463
463
420
420
R-s
quar
ed0.
360.
370.
340.
35
Num
ber o
f com
mun
ities
5353
5151
* si
gnifi
cant
at
10%
; **
sign
ifica
nt a
t 5%
; ***
sig
nific
ant
at 1
%
No
tes
a t
he r
egre
ssio
n co
ntro
lled
for
the
follo
win
g va
riab
les
at t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l: se
x, g
rade
, hei
ght-
for-
age,
chi
ld w
orks
, cro
wdi
ng in
dex,
mot
her’s
edu
catio
n, m
othe
r’s la
ngua
ge, c
hild
’s ag
e w
hen
he/s
he fi
rst
wen
t to
sch
ool,
livin
g w
ith b
iolo
gica
l par
ents
, par
ents
hel
p w
ith c
hild
’s ho
mew
ork
at h
ome,
att
ende
d pr
esch
ool,
type
of s
choo
l, ar
ea a
nd s
ocio
-eco
nom
ic s
tatu
s.
b
the
sam
ple
for
thes
e re
gres
sion
s on
ly in
clud
ed o
bser
vatio
ns fo
r ch
ildre
n w
hose
mot
hers
res
pond
ed t
o th
e so
cial
cap
ital s
ectio
n in
the
You
ng l
ives
que
stio
nnai
re.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
2�
Onl
ystr
uctu
rals
ocia
lcap
ital(
citiz
ensh
ip)w
asfo
und
tob
esig
nific
anta
tthe
indi
vidu
alle
vel(
atth
ete
npe
rcen
tsig
nific
ance
leve
l).T
he
effe
ctd
isapp
eare
dw
hen
the
com
mun
ityle
velw
asin
trodu
ced,
and
was
not
seen
ata
llw
hen
resp
onse
swer
eco
nfin
edto
mot
hers
.The
mod
els
acco
unte
dfo
rbet
wee
n34
and
37
perc
ento
fthe
var
ianc
ein
the
depe
nden
tvar
iabl
e.
Tabl
e17
pre
sent
sthe
resu
ltsfo
rthe
mod
ele
xpla
inin
gth
eod
dso
fac
hild
bei
ngo
n-ag
eat
scho
ol.N
ova
riabl
esw
ere
foun
dsig
nific
anta
tthe
in
divi
dual
leve
l,bu
tatt
hec
omm
unity
leve
lcog
nitiv
eso
cial
cap
italh
ada
pos
itive
rela
tions
hip
with
bei
ngo
n-ag
e,a
spre
dict
ed.T
hiss
eem
slik
ea
robu
stef
fect
,giv
enth
atit
app
ears
bot
hfo
rthe
who
lesa
mpl
ean
dfo
rthe
mot
hers
asr
espo
nden
tson
ly,a
ndis
sign
ifica
nta
tthe
five
per
ce
ntle
vel.
Tabl
e 17
: Log
-odd
s co
effic
ient
s fo
r so
cial
cap
ital
var
iabl
es in
logi
stic
reg
ress
ion
for
on-a
ge (
=1)
vers
us o
vera
ge (
=0)
child
rena
Who
le sa
mpl
e (in
divi
dual
leve
l onl
y)W
hole
sam
ple
(add
ing
com
mun
ity
vari
able
s)M
othe
rb(in
divi
dual
leve
l onl
y)M
othe
r(a
ddin
g co
mm
unit
y var
iabl
es)
Coe
f.C
IC
oef.
CI
Coe
f.C
IC
oef.
CI
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Low
erU
pper
Soci
al ca
pita
l var
iabl
es (i
ndiv
idua
l lev
el)
Fact
or 1
(cog
nitiv
e)-0
.039
-0.3
400.
261
-0.1
58-0
.503
0.18
7-0
.011
-0.3
150.
294
-0.1
18-0
.466
0.23
0
Fact
or 2
(str
uctu
ral –
citiz
ensh
ip)
0.10
6-0
.177
0.39
00.
173
-0.1
390.
484
0.11
9-0
.177
0.41
50.
193
-0.1
310.
517
Fact
or 3
(str
uctu
ral –
mem
bers
hip)
-0.1
54-0
.382
0.07
4-0
.161
-0.4
150.
093
-0.1
14-0
.367
0.14
0-0
.127
-0.3
990.
144
Soci
al ca
pita
l var
iabl
es (c
omm
unit
y lev
el)
Fact
or 1
(cog
nitiv
e)0.
682*
*0.
066
1.29
80.
683*
*0.
038
1.32
8
Fact
or 2
(str
uctu
ral –
citiz
ensh
ip)
-0.3
33-0
.824
0.15
8-0
.354
-0.8
850.
177
Fact
or 3
(str
uctu
ral –
mem
bers
hip)
-0.0
06-0
.466
0.45
30.
029
-0.4
830.
542
Con
stan
t12
.183
***
7.42
616
.940
12.1
95**
*7.
556
16.8
3310
.959
***
6.41
715
.502
10.9
84**
*6.
530
15.4
37
Num
ber o
f obs
erva
tions
534
534
488
488
Pseu
do r–
squa
re0.
190.
200.
170.
18
Log
likel
ihoo
d-2
08.2
1-2
05.7
3-1
96.3
9-1
94.0
5
* si
gnifi
cant
at
10%
; **
sign
ifica
nt a
t 5%
; ***
sig
nific
ant
at 1
%
No
tes
a t
he r
egre
ssio
n co
ntro
lled
for
the
follo
win
g va
riab
les
at t
he in
divi
dual
leve
l: se
x, h
eigh
t-fo
r-ag
e, c
hild
wor
ks, c
row
ding
inde
x, m
othe
r’s e
duca
tion,
mot
her’s
lang
uage
, chi
ld’s
age
whe
n he
/she
firs
t w
ent
to s
choo
l, liv
ing
with
bio
logi
cal p
aren
ts, p
aren
ts h
elp
with
chi
ld’s
hom
ewor
k at
hom
e, a
tten
ded
pres
choo
l, ty
pe o
f sch
ool,
area
and
soc
io-e
cono
mic
sta
tus.
b t
he s
ampl
e fo
r th
ese
regr
essi
ons
only
incl
uded
obs
erva
tions
for
child
ren
who
se m
othe
rs r
espo
nded
to
the
soci
al c
apita
l sec
tion
in t
he Y
oung
liv
es q
uest
ionn
aire
.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
28
4. discussionEducationinPeruisindeedasourceofgreatconcern.In2003,thePeruvianGovernmentdeclarededucationtobeinastateofemergency,duemostlytothefactthattheProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessmentstudyinthatyearshowedaround80percentof15-year-oldsinschoolinPeruwereatthelowestornexttolowestreadinglevel(ietheyexperienceddifficultyinterpretingevenverysimpletexts).Thisresultwasinperfectagreementwiththenationalevaluationcarriedoutin2001andtheinternationalevaluationcarriedoutbyUNESCO(UMCandGRADE,2001)whichshowedverypoorachievementforstudentsatdifferentgradelevels.Yetthesuccessofthemeasuresderivedfromthisemergencyisstillunknown,morethantwoyearsafteritwasdeclared.Tobeginwith,theemergencydidnotresultinspecificactionsforoverayear.Later,2,500schoolsinimpoverishedareas(100ineachofthe25departmentsofPeru)weredeclaredasprioritiesforintervention.Theinterventionconsistedoftrainingteachersonreadingandmathematicstechniques.Itisunclear,though,whethertheprogrammehasindeedbeenimplementedinallschoolsorhashadanyimpact.
TheresultsofthisstudyshowpooreducationaloutcomesformanyPeruvianstudents,whocannotmastersimpletasksandarebehindthegradefortheirage.ManyPeruvianstudentsinsecond,thirdorfourthgradecannotsolveasimplemathematicscomputation,orreadorwriteasentence.Thisfindingisconsistentamongseveralstudies.MostchildreninPerudoattendschool,butitisobviousthattheydonotlearnwhatisprescribedinthecurriculumnoradvancethroughthegradelevelsatthepacetheyshould.Thecurrentstudyalsoshowsthatthereisaclearnegativeassociationbetweeneducationalachievementandpoverty.Overall,ruralstudentsarepoorer,andthusmorepronetolowachievementandfallingbehindtheirexpectedgrade.Withinurbanandruralareas,thereseemtobenostrongdifferencesbetweenboysandgirlswithregardtoenrolmentorachievementinliteracy,buttherearesomedifferenceswithnumeracy,infavourofboys.Nevertheless,themainproblemswithineducationinPeruarelowachievementbystudentsinstandardisedevaluationsandhighinequality,associatedwithsocio-economicindicators,forbothboysandgirls.
Thispaperanalysedtherelationshipbetweenstructuralandcognitivesocialcapitalandeducationaloutcomes.Theresultsdonotsupportthehypothesisthatthereisapositiveassociationbetweenthequalityandquantityofsocialcapitalavailabletothefamilyandeducationalresults,exceptfortheassociationbetweencognitivesocialcapital(atthecommunitylevel)andbeingon-ageinschool.Thismeansthatcommunitieswithmorequalityintheirsocialrelationships(egtrust)aremorelikelytohavechildrenwhoareon-ageinschool.Thisresultappliestohowchildrenareprogressingatschoolbutdoesnotextendtochildren’sachievement.
Wewillnowreturntothequestionofhowsocialcapitalvariablescouldaffecteducationaloutcomes.InPeru,parentsmaychoosetosendtheirchildrentoanyschool(publicorprivate),butprivateschoolsregardedas‘highquality’arealsoexpensive(chargingUS$300permonthormore).Publicschoolsaremostlyfree(exceptforafeefortheparents’association,aroundUS$14peryear,whichmaybewaived),butthereareothercostsinattendingschool,suchastransportation,uniforms,extrabooks,Englishlessons,etc.Thus,whenparentsdecidewheretosendtheirchildrentoschool,theytendtochooseaschoolthatfitsthefamily’ssocio-economiccharacteristics.Forinstance,inurbanareassomepublicschoolsmaydemandmoreworkoradditionalresourcesfromparents,andinruralareasusually
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
2�
thereisonlyoneschoolthechildmaygoto(thenextschoolbeingseveralkilometresaway,withnopublictransportationavailable).Overall,schoolsarerunbyteachers,withverylittleornoparticipationfromtheparentsorparents’representatives.Theretendstobelessintra-schoolvariabilitythaninter-schoolvariability,hencethestrongassociationbetweenthesocio-economicstatusofthestudentandhis/hereducationaloutcomes.(ForareviewofthePeruvianliteratureondeterminantsofachievementinPeruseeCuetoandRodriguez,2003.)Arecentstudy(AgüeroandCueto,2004)showedstrongpeereffectsinachievementinPeruvianclassrooms(peereffectsweredefinedastheachievementresultsofanygivenstudent’sclassmates).Thisstudysuggeststhattheaverageachievementcouldbeincreasedbymixingstudentsofhighandloweducationalachievementinthesameclassrooms.
InthePeruviansystemtherearenopubliclyprovidedprogrammestohelpstudentscomingfrompoorereducationalenvironments,norprogrammestargetedatstudentswho,forwhateverreason,fallbehindtheirpeers.Infact,studentswhofailagivencourseandwanttotakeremedialcourseworkoverthesummermustpayforit.Somestudies(egCueto,RamirezandLeon,inpress)suggestthattheopportunitiestolearninsidetheclassroomarealsomarkedbysocio-economicdifferences(forinstance,childrenfrompoorerfamiliessolvefewermathematicsexercisesandreceivelessfeedbackfromtheirteachers).Thesystemissetupsothatthepoorerstudentsaremorepronetolowachievementandeventuallytodroppingoutofschool.Ithasbeendubbeda‘Darwinian’system,inthatonlythe‘fittest’willsurvivebyadaptingtotheenvironmentintheschools,whicharemoreorlessinflexibleinstitutions(Cueto,2004).Thusitwouldseemthatthepossibilitiesofsocialcapitalvariableshavingamarkedinfluenceoneducationaloutcomesare,indeed,limitedbythecharacteristicsofaneducationsystemthatismarkedbylowqualityandhighinequality.Itmustalsoberememberedthatnoneofthecommunity-basedorganisations,describedearlierinthispaper,hasasoneofitsgoalstheimprovementofeducationaloutcomesforprimaryschoolagedchildren.TheemergencyineducationdeclaredbytheGovernmentin2003didnotincludetheparticipationofcommunity-basedorganisationsorfamiliesinanyway;itwasdesignedasapurelyeducationalintervention(iefocusingonteachertraining).Ontheotherhand,itmightbethatsocialcapitaldoesimpactonsomeoutcomes(egnutrition,localsecurity,daycare),butnotoneducation,whichmaybeperceivedasafamily,notasocial,concern.
FromourreviewoftheliteratureofdeterminantsofeducationinPeruandotherLatinAmericancountries(egMurillo,2003),interventionsforimprovingthequalityofthesystemsthemselvesaremostlycomingfromwithintheeducationsystems,andthebiggestchallengesareaboutbreakingthestrongassociationbetweeneducationlevelandsocio-economicstatus.Indifferentcontexts,interventionsaimedatimprovingthequalityofteaching,educationalmaterials,activelearningtimeandschoolautonomy(undertheleadershipoftheschoolprincipal)haveproveneffective.Thisisnottosaythatinterventionsatthecommunitylevel,includingsocialcapital,couldnothaveanimpactonpooreducationaloutcomes.However,itishardtoimaginethatsocialcapitalper sewouldresultin,say,animprovementineducationalachievementamongthestudents,ifteachersdidnotalsoimprovetheirteachingmethodsorincreasethetimespentonactivelearningwithintheclassroom.Forexample,Cuetoet al(2004)haveshownthatstudentsfrompoorercontextshavefeweropportunitiestolearnmathematicsthanchildreninrichercontexts(bothinpublicschools).Alongitudinalanalysisshowedthattheachievementgapbetweenpoorerandricherstudentstendedtoincreaseovertime,andopportunitiestolearnwasanexplanatoryvariableforhigherachievement.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
30
AnumberofissuestoconsiderregardingtheanalysisperformedhereandthepossibilitiesforfutureroundsoftheYoungLivesprojectarenowexplored.
The design in this first round was cross-sectional, not longitudinalThecovariates,therefore,mightnothavebeensufficienttocontrolforthepovertylevelofthefamily.Inotherwords,itmightbethatfamiliesareindeedgettingbettereducationaloutcomesbecauseoftheirsocialcapital,butthedesignandanalysiswasnotstrongenoughtocapturethis.
Validity of the social capital questions in the questionnaireThequestionsbelongtotheA-SCATinstrument,developedbytheWorldBank.However,theinstrumentwasnotusedinitscompleteform.DeSilvaet al(2004b)carriedoutavaliditystudyoftheinstrumentandfoundthat,ingeneral,itpresentedacceptablefacevalidity.However,someitemsmighthavebeenmisunderstood.Forinstance,DeSilvaet al foundthatwhenaskedabout‘theircommunity’respondentshaddifferentinterpretationsofwhatthismeant.Inaddition,groupmembershipmighthavebeenunder-reportedbecausepeoplewouldnotconsidersomeoftheirgroupstobelongtothespecificcategoriesposedbythequestionnaire.Socialsupportmayalsohavebeenunderestimatedbecause,whenasked,peopleapparentlythoughtmostlyofeconomicsupport,althoughitwasintendedthatemotionalandinstrumentalsupportwouldalsobeconsidered.Finallythequestionsregardingtrustweredifficultforpeopletoanswer,becausetheywerenotwillingtocommentonmembersoftheircommunitywhomtheydidnotknowpersonally.DeSilvaet almakeseveralsuggestionstobeconsideredinfutureroundsofthestudy.Itmightbethatobjectivequestions,suchasthoseposedbytheinstrumentused,arenotthebestwaytoexploresocialcapital–duetodifferencesininterpretations–oratleastthatmorequalitativemethodsshouldbeusedwiththequestionnairetoexploretheimportanceofsocialcapitalinPeru.Asmentionedintheliteraturereview,thestudiesthatdidfindassociationsbetweensocialcapitalandeducationintheUSAdidnotapplytheinstrumentusedinthecurrentstudy,butusedlimiteddefinitionsofsocialcapital(egpresenceofbothbiologicalparentsathome).
The questionnaires did not include questions about social capital at schoolThereisinternationalevidenceshowingtheimportanceofschoolsinexplainingeducationaloutcomes,andthereissomeliteraturethatsuggeststhatsocialcapitalatschoolisimportant(Goddard,2003).Socialcapitalatschoolmaybemorerelevantthanfamilysocialcapital,especiallyinearliergradeswhenthebasicskillsofreading,writingandmathematicsarebeinglearned.
There is no exploration of the mechanisms by which social capital could explain educational outcomes
Isitadditionalresources,familyvalues,orthecollaborationofcommunitymembersintheeducationoflocalchildrenthatwouldexplaineducationaloutcomes?BasedonthetheoreticalmodelpresentedbyHarpham(2002)andothers,wesuggestperformingqualitativeinterviewstoexplorehowitisthatsocialcapital(especiallysocialcapitalatthecommunitylevel)mighthaveaninfluenceoneducationaloutcomes,beforeembarkingonfurtherresearchonthisissue.
Fromtheresultsofasinglestudyitwouldbecarelesstoaffirmthatsocialcapitalshouldnotbeamongthepotentiallybeneficialpolicyinterventionsineducation–especiallysincesocialcapitalappearstobe
1.
2.
3.
4.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
3�
importantinimprovingthequalityoflifeofchildreninothercountries,andgiventheimportanceofnetworkingamongpoorcommunitiesinurbanandruralPeru.Wedosuggest,however,thatdifferentinstrumentsanddesignsbeused,inadditiontoanalysisbasedpurelyonobjectivedatacomingfromquestionnaires.
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
32
referencesAgüero,JandSCueto(2004)‘Dimeconquiénestudiasytedirécómorindes:Peer-effectscomodeterminantesdelrendimientoescolar’,Lima,unpublishedresearchreportpreparedforthe Economic and Social Research Consortium
Ansión,J,ALazarte,SMatos,JRodríguezandPVegaCenteno(1998)Educación: La Mejor Herencia,Lima,PontificiaUniversidadCatólicadelPerú
Benavides,M(2002)‘ParaexplicarlasdiferenciasenelrendimientoenmatemáticadecuartogradoenelPerúurbano:Análisisderesultadosapartirdeunmodelobásico’,inJRodríguezandSVargas(eds)Análisis de Resultados y Métodos de las Pruebas Crecer 98,MinisteriodeEducación,DocumentosTécnicos13,83–108,February
Blackwell,DLandDKMcLaughlin(1999)‘Doruralyouthattaintheireducationalgoals?’,Rural Development Perspectives,13(3),37–44
Blondet,C(1986)Muchas Vidas Construyendo una Identidad. Las mujeres pobladoras de un barrio limeño,Documentodetrabajo(workingpaper)Nº9,Lima,InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos
Blondet,CandCMontero(1995)Hoy: Menú popular,Lima,InstitutodeEstudiosPeruanos;UNICEF
Bryk,AandSRaudenbush(1992)Hierarchical Linear Models,NewburyPark,California,Sage
Coleman,JS(1988) ‘Socialcapitalinthecreationofhumancapital’, American Journal of Sociology, 94SupplementS95-S-120
CVR(ComisióndelaVerdadylaReconciliación)(2003)Informe Final,Lima,consultedinMarch2004atwww.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php
Cortéz,R(2000)‘Acumulacióndecapitalhumano:EldesempeñoescolarenelPerú’,Lima,DepartamentodeEconomía,UniversidaddelPacífico,unpublished
Cueto,S(2004)‘FactoresPredictivosdelRendimientoEscolar,DesercióneIngresoaEducaciónSecundariaenunaMuestradeEstudiantesdeZonasRuralesdelPerú’,Education Policy Analysis Archives,12(35),28July,availableathttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n35/
Cueto,S,CRamírezandJLeón(inpress)‘OpportunitiestolearnandachievementinasampleofsixthgradestudentsinLima,Peru’,Educational Studies in Mathematics
Cueto,S,CRamírez,JLeónandGGuerrero(2004)‘OportunidadesdeaprendizajeyrendimientoenmatemáticadelosestudiantesdetercerycuartogradosdeprimariaenLimayAyacucho’,inMBenavides(ed)Educación, Procesos Pedagógicos y Equidad(pp.15–68),Lima,GRADE
Cueto,SandJRodríguez(2003)‘EstudiosempíricossobredeterminantesdelrendimientoescolarenelPerú’,inJMurillo(ed)La Investigación sobre Eficacia Escolar en Iberoamérica(pp.419–50),Bogota,ConvenioAndrésBello&CentrodeInvestigaciónyDocumentaciónEducativa
Cueva,HandAMillán(2000)Las Organizaciones Femeninas para la Alimentación y su Relación con el Sector Gubernamental,Lima,CentrodeInvestigacióndelaUniversidaddelPacífico
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
33
DeSilva,MJ,THarpham,SHuttly,RBartoleni,MEPennyandJEscobal(2004a)‘UnderstandingSourcesandTypesofSocialCapitalinPeru’,Community Development Journal.AdvanceElectronicAccess
DeSilva,MJ,THarpham,SHuttly,RBartoleni,MEPennyandJEscobal(2004b)‘ValidationofaSocialCapitalMeasurementToolforUseinPeru’,Social Science and Medicine. AdvanceElectronicAccess
Escobal,J,CFLanata,SMadrid,MEPenny,JSaavedra,PSuárez,HVerástegui,EVillarandSHuttly(2003)Young Lives Preliminary Country Report: Peru,London,YoungLives
Escobar,AandSAlvarez(1992)The Making of Social Movements in Latin America,Colorado,WestviewPress
Furstenberg,FFJrandMEHughes(1995)‘Socialcapitalandsuccessfuldevelopmentamongat-riskyouth’,Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,580–92
Goddard,RD(2003)‘Relationalnetworks,socialtrust,andnorms:Asocialcapitalperspectiveonstudents’chancesofacademicsuccess’,Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25(1),59–74
Guadalupe,C(2002)La Educación Peruana a Inicios del Nuevo Siglo,ProgramaEspecialMejoramientodelaCalidaddelaEducaciónPeruana,DocumentodeTrabajo(workingpaper)12,Lima,MinisteriodeEducación
Harpham,T(2002)Measuring the Social Capital of Children, WorkingPaperNo.4,London,SouthBankUniversity
Harpham,T,EGrantandEThomas(2002)‘Measuringsocialcapitalwithinhealthsurveys:Keyissues’,Health Policy and Planning,17(1),106–11
Horvat,EM,EBWeiningerandALareau(2003)‘Fromsocialtiestosocialcapital:Classdifferencesintherelationsbetweenschoolsandparentnetworks’,American Educational Research Journal,40(2),319–51
INEI(1995)Atraso y Deserción Escolar en Niños y Adolescentes,Lima,INEIandWorldFoodProgramme
Israel,GD,LJBeaulieuandGHartless(2001)‘Theinfluenceoffamilyandcommunitysocialcapitaloneducationalachievement’,Rural Sociology,66(1),43–68
Jack,GandBJordan(1999)‘Socialcapitalandchildwelfare’, Children and Society,13,242–56
Lindstrom,M(2004)‘Socialcapital,theminiaturizationofcommunityandself-reportedglobalandpsychologicalhealth’,Social Science and Medicine,59,595–607
Murillo,J(ed)(2003)La Investigación sobre Eficacia Escolar en Iberoamérica,Bogota,ConvenioAndrésBello&CentrodeInvestigaciónyDocumentaciónEducativa
Narayan,D(1999) Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty, Washington,DC,WorldBank
PISA(2003)Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow. Further Results from PISA 2000,ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment,OECD-UNESCO,June
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
34
Pong,S(1997)‘Familystructure,schoolcontext,andeighth-grademathandreadingachievement’,Journal of Marriage and the Family,59, 734–46
Portes,A(1998)‘Socialcapital:Itsoriginsandapplicationsinmodernsociology’,Annual Review of Sociology,24,1–24
Pozzi-Escot,I(1998)El Multilingüismo en el Perú,Cusco,PROEIBAndes,CentrodeEstudiosRegionalesAndinos‘BartolomédelasCasas’
Putnam,RD(1995)‘Bowlingalone:America’sdecliningsocialcapital’, Journal of Democracy,6(1),65–78
Ream,RK(2003)‘CounterfeitsocialcapitalandMexican-Americanunderachievement’,Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25(3),237–62
Runyan,DK,WMHunter,RRSSocolar,LAmaya-Jackson,DEnglish,JLandsverk,HDubowitz,DBrowne,SIBangdiwalaandRMMathew(1998)‘Childrenwhoprosperinunfavorableenvironments:Therelationshiptosocialcapital’,Pediatrics,101(1),12–18
Teachman,JD,KPaaschandKCarver(1996)‘Socialcapitalanddroppingoutofschoolearly’,Journal of Marriage and Family,58(3),773–83
UMC(UnidaddeMedicióndelaCalidadEducativa)andGRADE(2001)‘ElPerúenelprimerestudiointernacionalcomparativodelaUNESCOsobrelenguaje,matemáticayfactoresasociadosentercerycuartogrado’,Boletín UMC 9,Lima,MinisteriodeEducación
Social capital and Education outcomES in urban and rural pEru
35
appendix: Factor analysis for derivation of summary social capital variables
Thefactoranalysisdescribesthecovariancerelationshipamongallthesocialcapitalquestions.Theresultsofthefactoranalysisshowthattherearethreefactorsdescribingdifferentdimensionsofsocialcapital.Thefirstfactordescribescognitivesocialcapital;themajorityofloadingsarepositiveexceptforthevariablethatisanegativeitemanditexplainsalmost23percentofthevariance.Thesecondfactorgroupstogethervariablesrelatedtocitizenship,andalltheloadingsarepositive.Thelastfactorbringstogethervariablesrelatedtothenumberofgroupsorinstitutionsofwhichthecaregiverisamemberandthesupportthecaregiverreceivesfromindividualsorinstitutions.Alltheloadingsarepositive.Fortherotationofthefactorsweusedthevarimaxrotation,andthemethodofextractionusedwasprincipalcomponents.Thevarianceaccountedforbythethreefactorswas57.42percentofthetotalvariance.TableA1presentstherotatedloadingfactorshigherthan0.4orlowerthan-0.4fromthefactoranalysisandthevarianceaccountedforbyeachfactor.
Table A1: Estimated rotated factor loadings Components
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
You have joined with other community members to address a problem of common concern 0.82
You have talked with a local authority or governmental organisation about problems in this community 0.85
Can the majority of people in this community be trusted? 0.71
Do the majority of people in this community generally get along with each other? 0.76
Do you feel as though you are part of this community? 0.61
Would the majority of people in this community try to take advantage of you if they got the chance? -0.61
Number of groups the respondent/primary caregiver participated in 0.71
Number of persons or institutions that give support to the household 0.83
Total variance explained 22.92 18.97 15.53
The Young Lives Partners Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS), India
Department of Economics, University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Ethiopian Development Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
General Statistical Office, Government of Vietnam
Grupo de Análisis Para El Desarrollo (GRADE), Peru
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK
Instituto de Investigación Nutricional (IIN), Peru
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
Medical Research Council of South Africa
Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford
RAU University, Johannesburg, South Africa
Research and Training Centre for Community Development, Vietnam
Save the Children UK
South Bank University, UK
Statistical Services Centre, University of Reading, UK
W O R K I N G P A P E R N O . 2 8
Social Capital and Education Outcomes in Urban and Rural PeruSantiago CuetoGabriela GuerreroJuan LeonMary De SilvaSharon HuttlyMary E PennyClaudio F LanataEliana Villar
Although enrolment in primary schools in Peru is very high, more than half of primary school children are one or more grades below the norm for their age. Furthermore, evaluations have shown that, when tested, Peruvian school children score well below the norms expected for their age. Their scores are also below the average levels of countries with similar socio-economic circumstances. The role of social capital in explaining these findings has not been studied, although research in the USA has suggested positive associations between social capital and educational achievement. Social organisations that focus on childcare are one example of strong community networking resources in Peru. The Young Lives study offers an opportunity to investigate whether social capital is associated with educational progress and achievement.
The results of the study confirmed poor educational outcomes for many Peruvian school children. High proportions were unable to master simple tasks and were in a lower school grade than they should have been for their age group. There is a clear negative association between educational achievement and poverty. Overall, rural students are poorer and are thus more prone to low achievement (lower results in tests) and falling behind their expected grade. However, there seem to be no significant differences between boys and girls in these outcomes.
The results do not support the hypothesis of a positive association between the social capital available to the family and the educational outcomes of their children, except for the association between cognitive social capital (at the community level) and children being in the correct grade for their age. This means that communities which experience more quality in their social relationships (e.g. trust) are more likely to have children who are in the correct school grade for their age. This result applies to how children are progressing at school (whether they are in the correct grade for age) but does not extend to children’s achievement (results in tests).
Perhaps the main interventions to improve the quality of the Peruvian education system are not to be found in the quality and quantity of social relationships within communities, but in improving educational inputs and processes within schools and breaking the strong association found between socio-economic status and educational performance. On the other hand, it might be that the types of instruments (objective questionnaires) and analysis (quantitative) used in this study do not offer the best way to capture the importance of social capital. If this is the case, then qualitative designs and analyses should be used to explore these issues.
Published by
Young Lives Save the Children UK 1 St John's Lane London EC1M 4AR
Tel: 44 (0) 20 7012 6796 Fax: 44 (0) 20 7012 6963 Web: www.younglives.org.uk
ISBN 1-904427-29-4 First Published: 2005
All rights reserved. This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, though not for resale, providing the usual acknowledgement of source is recognised in terms of citation. For copying in other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher and a fee may be payable.
Designed and typeset by Copyprint UK Limited
Young Lives is an international longitudinal study of childhood poverty, taking place in Ethiopia, India, Peru and Vietnam, and funded by DFID. The project aims to improve our understanding of the causes and consequences of childhood poverty in the developing world by following the lives of a group of 8,000 children and their families over a 15-year period. Through the involvement of academic, government and NGO partners in the aforementioned countries, South Africa and the UK, the Young Lives project will highlight ways in which policy can be improved to more effectively tackle child poverty.