PUTNAM

Michael J. Lang (mjlang@mail.utexas.edu)
Tue, 16 Feb 1999 22:47:03 -0600

In Putnam's Making Democracy Work, takes a look at the evolution of Italy's
democratic government. In the 1970s the central government of Italy
relinquished control of many of its powers, delegating them to regional
governments. This decentralization provided an atmosphere to watch a
developing democracy emerge. Although the central government distributed
resources equally to the various regional governments, there were
identifiable differences in the institutional performance from region to
region. With regard to institutional performance, the "northern regions as a
group have been more successful than their southern counterparts." This led
to several questions: why do some governments work better than others; and
more importantly, why did economic prosperity and civic associations
flourish in the northern but not in the southern regions of Italy?

Putnam comes to the conclusion that success of a democratic government is
related to the civic traditions and "social capital" of a society. There is
a relationship between the citizens of a democratic government and the
government itself, each has a role that must be fulfilled. The government
has a responsibility to effectively respond to meet the needs of the
citizens, and in turn the citizens have a responsibility to communicate to
the government their needs and monitor the government to ensure their needs
are being met. Citizens in civic communities expect better government and
in part, (through their own efforts), they get it. Citizens demand more
public service and are prepared to act collectively to achieve a common
goal. This kind of participation, Putnam argues, only occurs in society
where there is a horizontal relationship between the government and the
individual. The individual must feel that his or her voice will not only be
heard but also listened to, the belief that if the individual contributes
then that contribution can and will in fact make a difference. Without the
motivation to participate, nobody will. Putnam states that "a conception of
ones role and obligations as a citizen, coupled with a commitment to
political equality, is the cultural cement of the civic community."

Public issues engage the northern regions of Italy, not by patron-client
politics. Citizens trust one another to act fairly, leaders are honest.
Social and political networks are organized horizontally, not
hierarchically. The community values solidarity, civic engagement,
cooperation, and honesty. Conversely, the South is organized hierarchically.
Public affairs are the business of the other person. Political
participation is stemmed from personal dependency or private greed, not by
collective purpose. Compromise is unheard of.

Putnam believes that there are different degrees of participation and that
this is a bottom up process. A foundation needs to be laid. The ability to
participate at the political level is derived from the skills and behavior
learned through voluntary social associations. Through voluntary
associations such as football clubs, literary associations, and bird
watching people learn how to trust and how to cooperate in pursuit of mutual
goals. "In all societies dilemmas of collective action hamper attempts to
cooperate for mutual benefit, whether in politics or in economics." Putnam
argues that norms of generalized reciprocity and networks of civic
engagement encourage social trust and cooperation because they reduce
incentives to defect, reduce uncertainty, and provide models for future
cooperation. Basically he believes that the more people in a society are
willing and able to organize to pursue social interest, the more likely they
are going to be willing and able to cooperate to pursue interests in the
political arena.

Putnam argues that these voluntary associations are easier in societies that
have inherited a substantial stock of "social capital." Abraham Maslow
stated "needs activate and direct behavior. However, the behaviors used to
satisfy the needs are not innate, but learned." This is what Putnam
concludes. Historically, the northern regions of Italy have had a more
civic-minded community than the southern regions. The civic differences
between the North and South over this millennium appear to have been more
stable than economic differences. "The North-South economic gap seems to
have waxed and waned and even reversed direction in several periods.
…Although the cultural gap is hard to measure precisely across these
centuries, there is no evidence that at any point the South was ever as
civic in its norms and patterns of association as the North." Putnam argues
institutional patterns are self-reinforcing, even when they are socially
inefficient. First, it is almost always easier for an individual agent to
adapt to the existing rules of the game than to seek to change them.
Second, once development has been set on a particular course, organizational
learning, cultural habits, and mental models of the social world reinforce
that trajectory. Cooperation or shirking and exploitation become ingrained
in the society. Informal norms and culture change more slowly than formal
rules, and tend to remold those formal rules, so that the external
imposition of a common set of formal rules will lead to widely divergent
outcomes.

Like Huntington, this study is done through a western perspective of
democracy. But, the concept of democracy is a western concept. America
especially, believes that she is the example of democracy and therefore
entitled to define it. The observations Putnam makes are merely a starting
point in which new and old democracies can look to see what is one factor
that makes democracy work. I think that Putnam's argument convincingly
shows that civic association is one necessary ingredient to achieve a
successful democracy. Associations are necessary but not sufficient for the
success of democracy. I think that it is easier to argue that without
associations democracy can't succeed or develop, rather than argue that with
them it will develop. In all democracies the problem of the "free rider" is
a threat. People don't participate in government or civic/ social
associations because they think someone else will watch out for their best
interest. Individuals want to reap the benefits of a democracy without any
of the responsibilities. The power of the freedom to associate can not be
denied. The first thing that communist countries did when they came to
power was to take away individuals privilege to associate without government
permission. Associations spark ideas and cooperation. Ideas and
cooperation lead to change. In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville
warns of liberty and individualism in America. He fears that as people
become more individuals and turn into themselves they will stop
participating in government. Everyone will assume that someone else is
protecting their best interest and before long democracy has given rise to a
tyranny.

Putnam is not condemning anyone that hasn't inherited a "substantial stock
of social capital." He says it is simply easier in those societies who
already have social association and cooperation imbedded from centuries of
practice, he goes to great stakes to avoid the message that it is impossible
to develop. Like an intervention, Putnam is pointing out the problem, now
it is up to the people to change it. The government of Italy is one in the
same, so the opportunity is present. Putnam shifts the responsibility to
the people to bring about the change. It is their passivity and acceptance
of their position all these years that has prevented their growth while the
North flourished. Change takes time it is not impossible. Putnam takes a
less optimistic, realists perspective to the possibility of change compared
to Edward Said. Unlike Huntington, Putnam believes that change is possible.

Putnam's argument is very simple: you can't change results until you change
behavior. You can's change behavior until you change perception. Sometimes
the simplest explanation is the best.