Divine favors that are granted out of God’s will refer to favors that are not dependent upon human willpower and choice. In this respect, everything that we possess may be and should be considered divine favors. That we come into existence from non-existence, that we exist as humans rather than as animals or plants, that we are born into believing families and communities, that we are given a healthy body, etcetera – you can extend the list as long as you want. All these are favors granted to us in return for nothing.

As for its diverse dimensions, we have to consider belief in God Almighty the foremost favor. Belief is a Divine favor. For while there are those who cannot benefit from the most convenient contexts of belief, there are other people in the most unlikely contexts who happen to meet belief and embrace it sincerely. Many examples around us prove that belief or faith is a blessing that comes through as divine grace. Many smart people with brilliant minds live without a compass and without a purpose, for they cannot free themselves from the past baggage of misguided perspectives. It is even harder for those who are in a position to lead their communities, for now they have to speak to their people to tell them that the path they took so far was wrong.

Another dimension of Divine favor is to grow up in a community where one isn’t profiled for their associations or beliefs. If we happen to be in a community where individuals are welcomed regardless of their racial, cultural, or religious identities, where no one is discriminated against because of his family relations or social allegiances, then this is a manifest Divine favor as well. In such a community, other groups are not defamed for their way of life, but on the contrary they are praised for their respective methods of public service and engagement. The opposite would be to narrow down and shrink the otherwise expansive nature of faith that welcomes all and which does not segregate those who are different. Such exclusivist attitudes lead to misunderstandings and raise concerns about religious thought which by definition should be inclusive.

One more favor that is significant and must be mentioned is the feeling of contentment as opposed to seeking benefits and self-interest. Future conflicts that may possibly arise at times of new worldly opportunities can only be prevented when people take a step back in an altruistic spirit, just as in the example of Hasan, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Hasan (d. 669) had an opportunity to seek political leadership, and though he had an enormous amount of popular support, he did not wish to risk people’s lives or threaten social stability, and thus did not accept this opportunity. It is important to follow in his track and refuse any worldly gain when others are competing for such gains, and instead be prepared to even retreat into a cave, if this would be to the benefit of the community.

This attitude, which we may call contentment or abstinence, is a priceless virtue for a community. When, during a conflict, one party raises their hand to hit, they will not find a material form before them, for the contented party will already have vanished, avoiding any sort of fight whatsoever. The one who starts a fight is wrong, even if he is absolutely on the right side of the issue.

Perhaps the most important of all Divine favors is the consciousness that these gifts are divinely granted and that our willpower has nothing to do with them. Human willpower is a basic condition that is required for all matters, even for the most important ones. Yet, in the context of divine favors as described above, it is almost impossible to claim the intervention of human willpower. We have been created as human, the most honorable and superior of all creation in the universe. We are born into a world where we are given all opportunities to reveal our full potential to become “the perfect human” (al-insan al-kamil). In this life, we are given a whole infrastructure and the necessary dynamics to reach the horizons of being fully human as the giants of human history did. And these are no doubt “given” to us without us being involved.

What falls on our side is not to treat these favors as if we accidentally bumped into them, but as the most precious property entrusted to us and do our best to deserve their continuous bestowal. Each individual honored with these blessings should take all measures to keep them safe and to offer wholehearted thanks to the One in appreciation for all His favors.

The 2006 World Development Report analyzes the relationship between equity and economic development in Developing countries. In this essay, I re-examine the relationship between equality, equity and development from a long-term economic development perspective. Equality refers to the condition where socioeconomic groups, i.e. upper, middle and lower classes, in a society have access to relatively similar levels of income. Equity, however, roughly corresponds to the broader term of human development,² and emphasizes equality of opportunity, and a broader set of human conditions. In the light of this report by the World Bank, I suggest that contrary to the long-held views, the development of contemporary Developing countries can only be achieved by “leveling the playing field” among citizens.

For long years, it was believed that economic development led to human development. it was assumed that as a country develops economically, it is able to provide more for the basic needs of its citizens such as education, healthcare, and a better quality of life. Even though it seems reasonable to expect improvement in individuals’ quality of life as a country develops, we have not observed many countries successfully achieving this better quality of life by following the advice of policymakers. However, a casual observation suggests that the relationship between economic development and human development may be endogenous; that is, just as it is natural to expect economic development to affect human development, we should be able to observe various aspects of human development shaping the course of development of many Developing countries. In fact, many Developing countries such as India and Turkey perform better in measures of economic development due to their higher levels of educated citizens.

Equality – development tradeoff

Following Simon Kuznets’ (1955) pioneering study on the relationship between economic development and equality, academicians and policymakers believed that there exists an inherent trade-off between economic development and socioeconomic equality. The dominant perspective places economic efficiency concerns at the center of this tradeoff .³Equality-enhancing redistribution programs lead to “diversion of resources away from their most efficient use.” According to this view, employing limited resources in welfare-improving areas results in a decrease in economic growth as well as underutilized resources. Instead of employing the relatively scarce factor of production, that is capital, in new investment opportunities which would economically be more efficient, spending the capital on less productive social redistribution would negatively affect the economic development hopes negatively.

The main alternative view highlights the welfare consequences of the presumed tradeoff between growth and equality. Proponents of this perspective claim that a focus on rapid growth is likely to entail “distorted patterns of development” and to reduce the welfare of the poor in the society. In particular, the state along with the actors in the private sector directs its focus on increasing productivity and efficiency in the manufacturing sector. Any financial commitment that potentially decreases efficiency in the economy is strictly avoided; redistribution to the poor in the society is considered among such expenditures. The socio-economic distress of the poor simply takes a backseat vis A vis economic efficiency. In order to minimize the short-term effects of the growth-oriented economy, equality should take precedence over economic growth. In the long-run, equality will positively impact economic development.

A recent report by the World Bank draws attention to this widely-accepted tradeoff between development and equality,⁴and proposes an alternative. The report claims that equality and development are complementary to each other rather than contradictory. Economic growth without equality can only provide distorted patterns of economic development leaving the majority of the population in need, just as we observe in many Developing countries today. On the other hand, an exclusive focus on equality is likely to hinder development as valuable resources at the disposal of capital-holders are diverted from their efficient use. As a result, a long-term solution to this impasse requires the introduction of a delicate trade-off between the two: Investment in human. Human development, hence, lies at the heart of this new conception of economic development.

Equity and equality

Equality, in the conventional sense of the term, refers to the elimination of extreme disparity with respect to wealth among individuals within a given community. For this end, different states have applied various forms of redistribution in order to eliminate inequality of income. Such use of the term mostly taps into the outcome aspect of equality. That is, the goal is to minimize the differences in incomes of the people by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor. Equity, on the other hand, is the new term offered by the World Bank to development terminology. Equity is based on a larger conceptualization of the notion of equality. It suggests equal opportunities in respect to education, health and such; no explicit implication is being offered for the outcome-based notion of equality. Individual responsibility, in this regard, is critical in bridging equal opportunity at the outset with the final outcome.

John Rawls’ notion of the “veil of ignorance” summarizes the basic idea behind this contemporary understanding of equity.⁵ The veil of ignorance is expected to provide a fair allocation of resources that all members of a society would agree. In a hypothetical decision-making situation prior to their knowledge of which position they would occupy in the society, individuals are asked to allocate resources to members of the community; they may be the worse-off or best-off in the community, hence they will put an effort in fairly allocating the resources. In essence, Rawls concludes that “primary goods” should be provided for all, referring to the equality of opportunity for all. Amartya Sen dwells on a similar concept of primary goods, “functionings,” and defines it as “the set of actions a person performs and of states the person values and enjoys.”⁶ It is important to recognize the fact that no suggestions are being made here with respect to the conventional understanding of equality, that is income redistribution. The emphasis in this conceptualization of equity highlights the relative importance of equal opportunity provision over outcome-based redistribution, but not necessarily the exclusion of the latter for the sake of the former.

Inequality traps

Based on this relatively modern notion of equity, it is possible to identify three ways that equity and development are complementary in Developing countries. The first of these ways touches on the notion of “inequality traps.” Inequality traps can be defined as the reproduction of economic, political and social inequalities “over time and across generations.”⁷ Existing political and economic inequalities in Developing countries systematically favor the interests of a relatively small elite group over the rest of the society. By the use of overt or covert power, the elite in Developing countries are able to influence the policymaking process more effectively despite their disadvantage in number. As the poor are likely to be much less involved in the political decision-making process, the vicious circle of underperformance continues.

The second way that equity and development relate to each other comes in the form of inefficient redistribution mechanisms. The institutional structures are tailored to benefit not the neediest in the society, but rather middle-class and upper middle-class citizens.⁸Hence, the influence of the more advantaged in the society further determines the shape of the institutional structure.

Finally, leveling the playing field does potentially affect the investment and innovation environment. A modern economy is inconceivable without an active investment environment. Inequality of opportunity prevents individuals like Nthabiseng from taking part in the modern economy and realizing their potential. Barred from entry, either through institutional mechanisms or mere negligence, individuals facing inequality of opportunity will not be able to enrich the environment of competition necessary for economic development. The relatively few and well-endowed rich will be less likely to feel any pressure to pursue innovation and investment opportunities. Competition, which is regarded as the major source of development, will not come about. As a result, the resulting environment is inimical to sustainable development and poverty reduction.

Implications

Several world religions endorse social justice, helping the poor, and equality as central principles in their teachings. Even though these principles may manifest themselves in fundamentally different ways, the basic idea remains the same. Christians are urged to love their neighbors as themselves; Buddhists are responsible for caring for the poor; one of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving); and, the word for “charity” is the same as for “justice” in Hebrew.⁹ As a demonstration of this shared concern among world religions, the World Faiths Development Dialogue has issued a statement the essence of which asserts as follows: “All religions would see the extreme material poverty in the world today as a moral indictment to contemporary humanity and a breach of trust within the human family.”¹⁰ In addition to this poverty-reducing aspect of religions, it is easy to see how this recent understanding of equity can also be inferred from one of the fundamental tenets of all religions. Human dignity constitutes a shared and fundamental theological principle for world religions.¹¹ In order for human beings to reflect this dignity, the latent potential for perfection has to be provided with the right set of opportunities, and basic necessities such as health care, education, and nutrition. Otherwise, undeveloped individual potentials do run the risk of being wasted leading to both dishonoring human dignity and economic underdevelopment, as a social phenomenon.

In what preceded, I introduced a new perspective on economic development, a chronic problem among Developing countries. By making a distinction between equality of income and equality of opportunities, the presumed trade-off between equality and economic growth might be overcome. It is my hope that this new emphasis on equality and human development will allow billions of people living in dire conditions to reclaim their dignity as humans. Eventually, this emphasis on human development will result in economic development, long-anticipated in Developing countries.

A. Kadir Yildirim is a PhD candidate in political science at the Ohio State University. He can be reached at yildirim.10@osu.edu.

Notes

1. The story of Nthabiseng and Pieter is taken from World Development Report 2006 by World Bank.
2. Human Development is defined by the United Nations Development Programme as “the priority of human well-being, and aimed at ensuring and enlarging human choices which lead to equality of opportunities for all people in society and empowerment of people so that they participate in – and benefit from – the development process.” Education, health care, and quality of life are different aspects of human development. For reference, see: http://www.undp.org/rbec/nhdr/1996/georgia/glossary.htm
3. Bruce Moon and William Dixon. 1992. “Basic Needs and Growth-Welfare Trade-offs.” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 36 (2).
4. World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development. Oxford University Press: New York.
5. John Rawls. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Amartya Sen. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. World Development Report, p. 2.
8. Rudra, Nita. Who Really Gets Hurt? Globalization and the Race to the Bottom in Developing Countries Manuscript. Also, see World Development Report, p. 179, for a similar discussion.
9. World Development Report, p. 76.
10. http://www.wfdd.org.uk/, September 1999.
11. In a recent article in The Fountain, Halim Calis presents a compelling argument on human dignity in Islam and Christianity as a common ground for interfaith dialogue. See “Holy Sources of Human Dignity.” The Fountain, Issue 58, 2007.

In order to maintain the effective use of power resources to reach a target, researchers divide them into various subgroups according to different criteria. For instance, capital is categorized into such groups as material, emotional, morality and virtue, intellectual, knowledge (know-how), and consciousness of opportunity and favor. Each one is highlighted by being given a separate name. In addition, various scientific concepts are used as metaphors to imprint on people’s minds the importance of those factors that help a community or nation develop. This is done because the human brain can think more easily through metaphors and understand a fresh and novel point of view.

The definition of social capital draws attention to an important – but often ignored or underemphasized – source of wealth for national development. This concept expounds why developing countries cannot achieve Western standards of development. While financial power and knowledge (intellectual capital) constitute the fuel and mechanical parts of the car of progress, social capital functions as its lubricant and oil. An old car that lacks lubrication cannot take you very far, just as a nation whose social capital has been exhausted or broken cannot progress.

So just what is social capital? Which national riches can be seen more clearly through the lens of social capital?

Defining social capital

Social capital is defined as the individual’s capacity and ability to benefit from and take advantage of public and private institutions through membership. Social capital forms bonds between neighbors, families, individuals, and communities. The society’s civil organizations need social capital to coordinate their existing resources more effectively. The sense of belonging to a society and a nation, and the people’s ability to make use of their various capacities, are involved in social capital. At each society’s base of interpersonal relationships and institutions, all of a person’s opportunities and duties comprise social capital.

Being a member of a social group brings both responsibilities and advantages. Social capital is formed by social structures and institutional characteristics (e.g., reliability, norms, networks of relationships, and systems of facilitating coordinated actions). It facilitates some actions within the structure and makes some benefits available, such as the material gains that accrue with group membership opportunities and chances, as well as the support brought about by relationships within the organization.

If the essence of a relationship is mutual trust and reliance, a system containing expectations and responsibilities arises. This mutual trust and reliance between the members of a civil organization oils the wheels of socioeconomic interactions, reduces costs, maintains the circulation of confidential information among group members, and enhances the availability of chances offered by the group. All of the values and norms needed to erect and maintain a healthy society can be defined as social capital.

Social capital also can be defined as the existence of institutional and inter-institutional participation and cooperation that keeps the individuals grouped around a common purpose and which acts as an adhesive that makes it possible to construct a society or a team. Given that religion and moral education form such values as charity, self-sacrifice, trust, and reliability, it follows that religious and moral teachings play primary roles in constructing social capital. Social capital has yet another meaning: those norms that influence a society’s productivity and health and social networks, as well as interpersonal relationships, respect, trust and credibility. Social bonds can boost efficiency by reducing the cost of work and production and facilitating the coordination and cooperation needed for production and marketing.

Social capital, an indispensable component of society and progress on both the micro- and macrolevels, includes all of the norms that shape the quality and intensity of a society’s social interactions. In this respect, a large amount of social capital allows more resources and opportunities to be mobilized in the pursuit of common goals. Social capital, however, has both positive and negative sides. For example, social clubs exclude non-members from their services by forming an internal social capital. Thus, poor and rich social sectors have different social capitals. The social capital of poor people is built around trust and the exchange of goods or property. The critical point of social progress is making public opportunities and chances available to the poor by reducing the exclusivity of the social capital available to the rich. The Islamic institutions of zakat (the prescribed alms) and interest-free credit practices are quite significant here.

The social capital of socially harmful groups (e.g., drug cartels and corrupt people) prevent socioeconomic progress. In this respect, the social capital value of a society’s subgroups and civil organizations determines whether the net value of its social capital is positive or negative. The value of an institution’s social capital is determined by the levels and degrees of the following: the development of an institutional identity among staff members; the sense of belonging; the extent of common thoughts, visions, and goals; being informed of the chances and opportunities inside or outside the institution; staff members’ respectability in the institution and the institution’s respectability in society; its ability to offer equal opportunities without getting entangled in religious, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences. In addition, participation in managing a society’s institutions and establishments also strengthens social capital. Thus, we can say that social capital can be defined in many ways and represents the group of differences called capital.

We should distinguish the resources of social capital from its outcome. We can list the following among its outcomes: social control, preservation of family and kinship ties, preservation of the society’s unity and solidarity (both material and spiritual), and the capacity to put forward common ideas and targets due to the unity and harmony of society. All of these are vitally important for economic progress and sustained growth and development.

Social capital also makes an important contribution to forming a sociopolitical environment that allows certain norms and standards that shape society in order to improve it. Unlike economic capital, social capital cannot be bought from another community or nation; every society has to build it up with its own faith, tradition, and education system. Civil organizations play a major role in the rapid construction of positive social capital. The value of social capital directly affects the government’s functioning, as well as that of the justice system and the use of rights and freedoms. And, socioeconomic development is directly related to the common goals and principles determined by the social capital accumulations of subgroups

and institutions. As networks of relationships that are limited to a person’s family and neighbors have a small amount of social capital, they are deprived of chances and opportunities to improve themselves. Those with a larger network of relationships, due to their membership in civil organizations, as well as professional and social clubs, have more social capital and a better chance of enriching and making individual progress.

Social and other types of capital

Social capital is a means of investing in your future. People with a high social capital value are honest, trustworthy, possess professional honor, function as a member of a team, and are sought after in all sections of life. Individuals and institutions that maintain their social capital above a certain value can acquire knowledge, power, and opportunities of critical importance. A collective group identity that increases the capacity of collective action can be enhanced only by building up social capital. As material capital can be used for reaching various objectives, social capital can be used to access critical information or to receive sound advice. Certainly, the advantages of a person’s position within society or a group can be transformed into economic gain. Material capital, the most fluid and that with the highest value of convertibility among all types of capital, can be used to improve men and women, culture, and social capital. However, the convertibility of social capital to economic capital is lower, for social capital, which keeps the common values that make up the society together, is less transferable.

When necessary, social capital can function as other types of capital or can compensate for their absence. For instance, the lack of financial or human capital can be eliminated by introducing strong social relationships and connections. Furthermore, the efficiency of social capital can be raised by reducing operation costs. Research reveals that people with a lower social capital value are less reliable and less receptive to institutionalizing and organizing.

Social capital needs protection and continuity, just like physical (e.g., clean air, water, and environment) and human capital do. In other words, existing social ties among people need to be refreshed and confirmed periodically to maintain their efficiency. The value of social capital increases, instead of decreases, as we use it. For example, the social capital of people who rely on each other and inspire mutual trust increases daily. Thus, dialogues and interactions between different civil organizations and cultures, as well as interfaith dialogues, are important infrastructural activities that enable the construction of social capital.

Social capital, like physical capital, is advantageous for the public and requires that all people work to save and improve it. Such an understanding allows us to comprehend the wisdom of the Divine Order, which wills that every society contains a group that calls for good and prohibits evil. Fresh air and water decrease in proportion with their usage; social capital increases in proportion to its usage. Individuals equally run the risk of not making use of social capital’s potential in an equal manner. Social capital is usually constructed by its relationship to a club or a community. Thus, people who are not members cannot benefit from the opportunities.

Social capital is not held by a person or an institution, but emerges within the network of interpersonal or inter-institutional relationships, and continues to grow as long as the relationship lasts. In other words, the construction of social capital depends upon mutual trust, dialogue, and cooperation. Since social capital emerges within the network of social relationships, it cannot be transferred. Each society has its own methods of operating and achieving success.

All of the cultural elements that motivate a person, generate opportunities, or facilitate the utility of talents and capacities play a role in the construction of social capital.

Measuring social capital

Several criteria are used to measure the value of social capital: the degree of trust and respect for the state and its institutions, the level of people’s participation in making those decisions in which they have a role to play, the extent of their presence in civil organizations, and the average of monthly voluntary service hours, as well as the level of help, support, and self-sacrifice between individuals and neighbors. For example, social capital strengthened by the active support of local citizens and families enhances the quality of education, for students are more successful when teachers improve themselves, take their jobs seriously, and establish a good relationship with the students. Doctors and nurses who work in citizen-monitored and supported health institutions are sure to be more attentive in their jobs. Building a healthy society depends on social capital being rooted in interpersonal trust and assistance.

Social capital and social progress

Researchers have discovered that a nation’s ability to achieve healthy progress does not depend only on financial, structural and legal regulations. For example, the failure of the financial aid offered by the World Bank, as well as its advised structural reforms, to the developing countries raises the following question: What did we miss or undervalue? The resulting analyses and research so far have revealed that the interaction between labor and capital for progress is far more complicated than originally expected. Various types of capital were acknowledged (e.g., physical, geographical, human, cultural, moral, emotional, and social) and held to be significant for progress. Social capital was recognized as the primary prompter and sustainer of development and progress.

Recently, researchers have begun to focus on the need for developing countries to have social, rather than financial and labor, capital. They underline that existing corruption, bribery, and monopolies can be dealt with only by enhancing social capital. We hope that this article helps administrators, who are at the steering wheel of national ships, realize the contribution of our religious, moral, and cultural inheritance to establishing a high-quality social capital, and encourages them to consider social capital in their projects.

References

– Hwe P., and A. Shiell. “Social Capital and Health Promotion: Review.” Social Science and Medicine, no. 51 (2000): 855-871.

– www.worldbank.org./poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm.