Groundwater governance and social capital

This paper argues that positive social capital underpins the key factors identified by Ostrom (1990) in self-governance systems. The paper discusses the different types of social capital from a social network perspective and empirically analyses social capital in the context of two neighboring aquifers in central Spain. It examines the type of institutional arrangements that foster or hinder the creation of social capital by discussing in turn, bonding and bridging social capital with particular reference to water user groups, taken as classic collective management institutions, illustrating also the role leaders play as linking social capital and catalysts (or obstacles) in the creation and blending of different types of social capital. It concludes that social capital is differentially embedded in social networks and that careful institutional design can help foster strong 'positive' social capital, which in turn favors self-governance in groundwater. It also stresses the dynamic nature of social capital through time and its productive aspect in terms of incentivizing social learning and collective action in groundwater management.

► Social capital is a key explanatory variable for factors in collective action. ► It analyzes different types of social capital in relation to groundwater management. ► Bonding social capital is necessary not sufficient condition for collective action. ► Bridging and linking social capital play a decisive role in collective action. ► Institutional arrangements can help the beneficial use of common pool resources.