عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
Introduction
Urban management, as the core of local governance, requires social capital for its continuity and effectiveness. The legitimacy of urban institutions, citizens’ willingness to pay taxes, public oversight, and participation in problem-solving all depend on a certain level of trust, cooperative norms, and communication networks. However, classical literature (from Coleman and Bourdieu to Putnam) has largely viewed social capital as an “existing asset” within society, paying less attention to how it is produced and reproduced. Accordingly, the core question of this article is: if social capital is essential for governance, how can it be generated? Moving beyond a static approach to social capital, this article introduces the concept of “social infrastructure” as a spatial and institutional foundation for the formation of networks and social interactions, thereby challenging the role of urban governance in strengthening these infrastructures.
Methodology
This research is theoretical in nature and is based on a “critical and purposeful literature review.” With the aim of critically re-reading the literature on social capital, the author has developed a conceptual framework in two stages: first, by examining classical works (Bourdieu, Coleman, Putnam) to extract the mechanisms of the relationship between social capital and government performance; and second, by analyzing the evolution of public administration paradigms and their connection to the emerging literature on “social infrastructure.” The output of this method is not merely a summary of previous studies, but rather a synthetic reading that demonstrates how urban governance can provide the conditions for the reproduction of trust and social capital through social infrastructure.
Findings
The findings of the article can be categorized into three main themes:
The Relationship between Social Capital and Governance Performance: Classical literature suggests that social capital contributes to improved government performance through five mechanisms: increasing accountability (via citizen oversight), reducing monitoring costs (by decreasing opportunistic behavior and law-breaking), strengthening civic virtue (shifting preferences from “I” to “We”), enhancing administrative efficiency, and reconciling elites in fragmented societies. However, studies such as those by Cusack and Knack indicate that the impact of social capital is contingent upon its type (bridging vs. bonding) and the institutional structure of the government.
The Evolution of Public Administration Paradigms: The logic of public administration has shifted from “hierarchy and bureaucracy” (traditional administration) toward “market and competition” (new public management), and now toward “participatory governance.” In the latter paradigm, the citizen has transitioned from a “customer” to a “partner.” Achieving this paradigm is impossible without social capital, and producing this capital requires infrastructures that serve as prerequisites for human interaction.
Social Infrastructure as a Mechanism for Capital Production: Researchers have demonstrated that infrastructure should not be limited merely to concrete and technical structures (gray infrastructure). “Social infrastructure” (such as libraries, neighborhood centers, cafes, parks, and public spaces) consists of places that facilitate daily interactions and foster generalized trust. Empirical evidence (such as Aldrich’s study in Japan or Fraser’s in North America) proves that access to these spaces is significantly correlated with increased social capital and community resilience against risks. In fact, these spaces are no longer “luxury services” but are considered “governance infrastructure.”
Conclusion
The article concludes that urban governance in the new era must shift its position from a provider of services to a facilitator of social relations. In this new paradigm, social infrastructure serves as an essential foundation for creating public values (justice, participation, trust). Given the governance challenges in Iran—particularly the low rate of generalized trust and the erosion of social capital within urban management organizations—this article suggests that policy-making should not be limited to symbolic invitations for public participation. The focus of policy-making must be on “spatial and institutional infrastructures that generate social capital.” Key recommendations include redefining social infrastructure in urban planning systems from “ancillary land uses” to “strategic assets of governance”; ensuring the equitable distribution of trust-generating spaces across urban areas; and establishing an annual monitoring system to evaluate the status of social capital and the quality of related infrastructure. Ultimately, successful urban management is an institution that recognizes that strengthening social bonds in public spaces is an inevitable prerequisite for the legitimacy and effectiveness of governance at both local and national levels.
کلیدواژهها English
