Community Capacity and Governance – New Approaches to Development and Evaluation
issue-based or social organizations, institutions such as educational bodies, media groups, and
public service delivery providers, or even small private enterprises.
Establishing local organizations and developing civil society activity is a major purpose of
organizational development. Organizations link people together, even if they never meet face to
face (Uslaner & Dekker, 2001, p. 183). This link helps to build relationships among members of
the organization and community, which in turn fosters trust and cooperation. Trust and
cooperation are necessary to build strong community organizations that contribute to local stocks
of social capital (Gaarder et al., 2003, p. 12).
In communities that face poverty, there are often defects in the supply and demand system
for various goods and services. One way to alleviate these issues is to organize poor and
marginalized people into organizations that can better articulate their needs and desires to
improve the demand and potentially alter the supply of goods and services (Sastry & Srinivasan,
2007, p. 378). This is because local organizations increase the access of individual households to
opportunities in the market or with government services (Yogo, 2000, p. 20). The increased
access to resources is directly related to an increase of community capacity. Furthermore, local
organizations can help to coordinate people against initiatives that negatively affect their
interests (Zachariah, 1993), which furthers community capacity development in terms of ability
to solve problems.
Part of organizational development is building the capacity of organizations. Organizational
capacity is the knowledge that is built into the structure of the organization on a continuing basis
and that will continue regardless of changes in policy direction or leadership (Honadle, 1981, p.
576). Frederickson and London (2000) describe the elements of community organizational
capacity as: a) leadership and vision; b) management and planning; c) fiscal planning and
practice; and d) operational support (p. 233). They go on to note that these elements of capacity
work together to support various other aspects of the organization (Frederickson & London,
2000, p. 236). This further reinforces the importance of developing the capacity of local
organizations to improve the overall function and effectiveness of the organization.
Organizational norms can be established through training. However, they take time to
develop and cannot be forced through accountability measures; rather, they must develop
through the organic process of social norm formation. Social capital cannot be substituted with
formal monitoring and accountability measures (Fukuyama, 2004, p. 66).
Normative institutionalism is a concept of institutional development where behavior within
an institution or organization is explained by the norms and values of that organization (Peters,
2005, p. 26). Local political and social institutions are key members of a community and their
organizational norms and leadership capabilities can affect the capacity of the community,
particularly in terms of networking and problem solving abilities. The concept of normative
institutionalism helps to build the case for human resource development to improve capacity.
Additionally, normative institutionalism helps to demonstrate the necessity and importance of the
sense of community attribute of community capacity. A shared vision within a community and
its institutions and organizations creates a stronger bond among the people and improves the
overall function of its institutions. The “creation of positive organizational culture [is] perhaps
the best way to create effective organizations (Peters, 2005, p. 28).” Furthermore, those efforts to
implement positive organizational norms focus the agents within a community and their ability
to manipulate organizational culture as well as propagate ideals to improve the quality and
quantity of community actions.
5.3. Community Organizing
Community organizing focuses on network-building and the motivation of stakeholders
(Chaskin et al., 2001, p. 25; see also Gittel & Vidal, 1998, p. 145). Community organizing has
its basis in the promotion of participation. Participation is the activity of knowledge exchange
between the state and the people and community organizing is about challenging the nature of
the discourses and practices that underlie participation (Allen, 1993, p. 224).
Disorganized communities, or communities lacking in social capital and dense networks, see
an increased amount of corruption, juvenile delinquency, unscrupulous advantage-seeking, and
have difficulty cultivating more social capital (Bowman, 1935). To tackle these issues and to
build community capacity, community organizing is used as an intervention strategy to curtail
the negative effects of community disorganization.
This strategy develops the social capital of the community at large through the development
of networks. For political stability, economic progress, and government effectiveness, having
social capital within a community is even more important than physical or human capital (Cling,
2002, p. 29; Putnam, 1993, p. 183).
Through network-building and the motivation of stakeholders, collective action can be
achieved by the community, which is an important aspect of community capacity. This
collective action causes the environment in the community to be more responsive to the needs of
the people (McMillan & George, 1986, p. 12). The increased participation leads to greater
ownership of the community by its local stakeholders, as well as greater satisfaction and
cohesion (McMillan & George, 1986, p. 12). The empowerment that greater ownership entails is
a key focus of community organizing.
Empowerment is the process of enhancing individual or group capacity to make choices and
transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes (i.e. the capacity to engage) (Gibson
& Woolcock, 2008, p. 152). Another way to look at empowerment is the ongoing process of
transforming power relations by engaging and uprooting causal mechanisms of inequality
(Gibson & Woolcock, 2008, p. 168). Collective empowerment helps individuals find their place,
role, identity, and voice in a community through the development of relationships with others,
and clarity of purpose, meaning, and value of their involvement (Kirk & Shutte, 2004, p. 242). It
should be noted that empowerment as defined by external agencies or local elites differs from
empowerment as defined by those wishing to be empowered; therefore careful consideration of
the local context and the true empowerment of local people should be taken (Koggel, 2008, p.
118). Community organizing is the strategy for community capacity building that most directly
seeks to empower people in the community.
Power circulates through individuals, linking them together in networks and power itself is
when each actor in a relationship has choices in regards to the relationship, especially to end the
relationship (Allen, 1993, p. 225). This can be particularly difficult when one actor in the
relationship is dependent on another for resources or otherwise coerced into maintaining the
relationship. One of the aims of empowerment is to shift power relations away from local elites,
whom those in poverty are often reliant on, to the community at large (Gibson & Woolcock,
2008, p. 152). Acknowledgement of the relationships and power structures of community are
important for gaining an understanding of their disempowering effects (Koggel, 2008, p. 112) in
order to make better policy and formulate interventions. Furthermore, there needs to be analysis
on who is making the policy and the power relations between the policy makers and those whom
the policy affects (Koggel, 2008, p. 115). Power shifts can be achieved through deliberative
contestation, which challenges the power and authority of local governing elites (Gibson &
Woolcock, 2008, p. 152). Deliberative contestation methods typically generate at least partially
transformative power relations, regardless of the pre-existing institutional capacity (Gibson &
Woolcock, 2008, p. 167).
Another method of shifting power relations is mobilization. While mobilization is an
effective measure for community organizing and empowerment, it depends on the conflict
management ability of the community and high levels of community capacity (Gibson &
Woolcock, 2008, p. 168).
Power and knowledge are closely related (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2006, p. 71; Johnson, 2007,
p. 279) and empowering people through knowledge means not only a transfer of information, but
also expanding who participates in the knowledge production and exchange process (Gaventa &
Cornwall, 2006, p. 72). By opening the knowledge process to new voices and perspectives,
policy making will become more democratic and less skewed in favor of those with inequitable
amounts of power and resources (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2006, p. 72), as well broadening the
conceptualization of what can possibly be accomplished by a community (Gaventa & Cornwall,
2006, p. 74).
One of the issues with increasing access to knowledge is the challenge of how to access and
share tacit knowledge (Johnson, 2007, p. 278). Participation, interaction, and engagement build
tacit knowledge (Johnson, 2007, p. 284), as long as differences such as identity, life experience,
types of knowledge, and means of expression are explored in a safe, receptive space (Johnson,
2007, p. 284).
Education itself is an important factor in empowerment. Individual education provides the
intellectual and cognitive skills that reduce the cost of participation (Downs, 1957, as cited in La
Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998, p. 568). There is a consistent positive relationship between
education and political participation, with better educated people being more likely to engage in
the political process and become involved in political activities (La Due Lake & Huckfeldt,
1998, p. 567).
5.4. Inter-organizational Collaboration
Lastly, inter-organizational collaboration develops relationships and partnerships of
organizations to build the organizational infrastructure of the community (Chaskin et al., 2001, p.
25). Inter-organizational collaboration builds social capital through developing connections
between groups, communities, institutions, and markets (Getz, 2008, p. 575; see also Zachariah,
1993). This is important in the development of networks within a community and for gaining
greater access to resources.
Cooperation between firms and organizations accelerates the rate of technological innovation
(Powell, 2002, p. 264), as well as exposing members of the organization to information and
resources that cannot be generated internally (Powell, 2002, p. 265). Inter-organizational
collaboration also helps to develop the skills and capabilities of organizations through access to
new knowledge and the development of skills to acquire knowledge (Powell, 2002, p. 269).
There is a necessity to develop the relationships between local organizations and external
organizations, including inter-governmental linkages (McGuire et al., 1994, p. 432), to ensure
there are adequate avenues for gaining resources.
Alexander (1995, as cited in Rhodes, 1997) indentifies six strategies and five groups of tools
for managing inter-organizational cooperation. The strategies are: 1) cultural-persuasive (public
relations); 2) communicative (information exchange); 3) functional (coalition forming); 4)
cooperative (resource exchange); 5) control (monitoring and enforcement); and 6) structural
(reorganization). The five groups of tools are: 1) structural (standard operating procedures); 2)
anticipatory linkages (joint planning, overlapping membership); 3) operational linkages (staff
secondments, consultations); 4) program management (regulations); and 5) fiscal (grants,
subsidies) (Rhodes, 1997, p. 196). While these strategies and tools may be a bit sophisticated to
implement if the organizations themselves are yet well developed, they provide some examples
of how inter-organizational collaboration can be undertaken.
6. Chapter Summary
This chapter provides the background review on the foundation concepts of this study. The
necessity to focus on poverty and development in the grander scheme of global economic reform
is evident. With more than a billion people living on the most meager of incomes and
continually enduring hardships due to human poverty and structural inequities, there has never
been a more opportune time to re-focus on how to make the global economic system work for
Development is an important consideration for all levels of policy makers for moral reasons,
as well as to improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the resources spent pursuing its
goals. Ideally, if development and policy making are undertaken correctly, then there should be
less waste in the overall system, which inherently benefits all (this concept will be more fully
explored in Chapter Three).
The current paradigms of development start with economic development and have evolved
into alternative development, which encompasses ideas from participatory development,
sustainable development, and human development. Rural development and community
development are two special areas of consideration for development and were also discussed in
this chapter. Rural development is important because most of the poverty in the world comes in
the form of rural poverty, thereby signifying the need for special reflection. In the alternative
development paradigm, the community is designated as the most suitable unit for targeted
projects and policy making. Community development focuses on localized and contextualized
activities to promote the well-being of people and the relationships in a community. This chapter
advocates for taking an overall alternative development approach, while also incorporating the
missions and specifics inherent in rural and community development.
As just noted, the community has repeatedly been described as the appropriate unit for
analysis of development and policy formulation. Communities can include both relational and
spatial qualities and should include all stakeholders. The background on community studies
were presented in this chapter, but a new conceptualization of community will be presented in
Social capital is the currency through which the relationships between people can affect their
quality of life. It brings people together, connects them with resources, and is an important
consideration in development and policy making that cannot necessarily be quantified or
controlled in certain terms. Social capital is also a key component of community capacity.
Community capacity is the ability of a community to work together to overcome their
problems and improve their lives. This chapter presented some ways that community capacity
has been interpreted, but ultimately relies on the Chaskin Framework to guide this chapter and
the entire study. Chapter Five will offer further details on and conceptual development of
community capacity through permutations of the Chaskin Framework.
The final section of this chapter describes various strategies for community capacity building
based on the Chaskin Framework. The strategies of leadership development, organizational
development, community organizing, and inter-organizational collaboration represent a practical
way that the concept of community capacity can be built into interventions that will ultimately
lead to development based on the alternative development paradigm.
Chapter Three will present the practical side of this background discussion through the
introduction of governance and the prominent public administration approaches that are
consistent with the overall goals of effective and efficient public service, as well as fair and
equitable standards of living for all.
3. Governance and Public Administration
Few believe that we can dispense with government, yet fewer still are
confident that we know what makes government work well (Putnam, 1993, p.
3).” This statement sums up the current debate over governance and public
administration reform. The emerging concept of governance touches on this
feeling as well, by re-empowering non-state actors to formulate and produce collective goods
through decentralization and structural reforms.
“It is now fashionable to malign government, and the people working in it, and to point out
gleefully all their failures, real and imagined (Peters, 2001, p. 1).” One of the roots of the
discontents with government and governance is the failure to address the human needs of
millions of people, leaving them dispossessed, disempowered, and in poverty. These obvious
lapses call for a reorientation of governance to focus on human development. Sachs (2005)
suggests that this would include emphasis on infrastructure and social service support, the
promotion of (small scale) private business investments, the avoidance of corruption, the
provision of peace and security, the maintenance of judicial systems, and the defense of territory
Governments, especially in developing countries, should refocus their political and economic
policies to be more conducive to inclusion in the global market economy (Sachs, 2005, p. 81).
There should be a move toward democracy because, despite some rhetoric to the contrary,
authoritarian regimes do not facilitate economic development (Sen, 1999, p. 30). In fact,
freedoms, such as economic facilities, political freedoms, social opportunities, protective
security, and transparency guarantees should be cared for and promoted in order to achieve
development (Sen, 1999, p. 34). Unfortunately, when times are difficult, many people in
authority in developing countries fail to act in the best interest of the community, thus reducing
the trust that people have in them, eventually engaging in antisocial behavior and negative-rent
seeking (Adjibolosoo, 1998, p. 209); Peters, 2001, p. 1).
Skepticism and cynicism about government is useless without the commitment and courage
to attempt to solve the problems as they are observed (Peters, 2001, p. 1). “It remains crucial for
government, and the individuals who constitute them to continue their search for innovative
mechanisms for making government work better and to serve society better (Peters, 2001, p. 2).”
Chapter Two presented the foundation concepts for this study. Now in Chapter Three, the focus
will be on the practical theories and tools of governance and public administration. This chapter
bridges the gap between concepts and theory on development and policy with the practical realm
of policy-making, governance, and public administration. Bridging this gap is important because
often times there are glaring discrepancies between theory and practice (Koggel, 2008, p. 113).
Academics sometimes take the position of ‘research for research’s sake’ with little
consideration of its real world use. Progress toward development, improved living conditions,
and poverty alleviation requires academics and practitioners to work together (Koggel, 2008, p.
126). Practitioners may reject theory because it lacks contextual relevance and ignores real world
concerns. Furthermore, theory is often crafted to be applied to any circumstance, leading to
broad generalizations and little in the way of practical methodology, which practitioners seek.
With these things in mind, it is clear that there is some need to reconcile theory and practice in
order to make real world impacts and truly bring to life the promises offered by theory.
Governance is the mechanism through which the concept of community capacity can be
developed and the connection between theory and reality can be bridged. The cases found in
Chapter Five and Chapter Seven are analyzed using the logic framework, which is described in
this chapter. This chapter also seeks to demonstrate the importance and utility of evaluation,
both traditional and participatory. The case of Pagudpud demonstrates the connection between
the concept of community capacity and evaluation and how concept-driven traditional and
participatory evaluations can be constructed.
This chapter describes the basics of governance and modern public administration. The
approach to analyzing these areas involves not only a description of their nature, but draws on
the concepts of alternative development, community, social capital, and community capacity.
The practical realities of governance and public administration will be discussed in the context of
the conceptual framework provided in Chapter Two.
This chapter will answer the following questions:
1. Why is there a need to bridge the gap between theory and application?
2. What is governance?
3. What is democracy and participatory governance and how is it practically
4. What is local governance and why is it important?
5. What are some current public administration paradigms?
6. What is the management cycle?
7. What is the logic framework?
8. What is evaluation and how should it be used?
By answering these questions, the practical groundwork for the study will be laid out. The
answers will provide a relevant framework through which the conceptual framework can be
applied to truly improve the lives of people.
Public administration should be reflexive, addressing its practices, traditions, and narratives
through a process of localized reasoning and change (Rhodes, 1997, p. 198). In the past,
discussions on public policy focused mainly on what the government could and should be doing.
Government was seen as being concerned with the formation and application of law through
public institutions with the central role of law being most prominent in governing (Peters, 2005,
pp. 5-6). Governance had been ordered and hierarchical, but now communities seek partnership
and coordinated programs of action through all levels of government (O’Riordan & Church,
2001, p. 22). Without such coordination and consideration communities can become disaffected,
and disaffected communities distrust the government (Pavey et al., 2007, p. 99). Contempt and
distrust for government leads to issues with policy implementation and maintenance, as well as
diminished quality of life in the community.
Furthermore, communities afflicted by, rather than participating in, governance have
difficulty in building community capacity, thus adversely affecting the people and their ability to
reach community outcomes and interest to participate in governance (Pavey et al., 2007, pp. 100,
107). In order to maintain trust in the government and officials, it is necessary to include the
community in governance and to take their position into consideration as much as possible.
Through the various reforms in public administration seen around the world in the twentieth
century, it was increasingly recognized that governments were not the only players in public
administration, policy formulation, and service delivery. From the 1990s a partially new model
of government emerged, redefining the role of government in society – how programs and
projects should be implemented and increasingly following market ideals (Pierre & Peters, 2000,
Decentralization, privatization, and civil society began to change the expectations of citizens
and the impact and implementation of policy. Government structures have grown to be a
complex and intertwined configuration of institutions, agencies, departments, private contractors,
and special interest groups. The shift from government to governance has significant impacts on
the functions of the state and its relationship with society (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 25). The
governance perspective adopts a more consensual, cooperative perspective, and advocates for
more creative ways to avoid blockages (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 31).
Governance can be used to describe the current situation with politics, public administration
and policy-making (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 24). Governance is defined as “the process and
institutions by which authority in a country is exercised (Kaufmann, Recanatini, & Biletsky,
2002, p. 7).” Furthermore, governance can be specifically considered “the process by which
governments are selected, held accountable, monitored and replaced; the capacity of government
to manage resources efficiently, and to formulate, implement, and enforce sound policies and
regulations; the respect for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions among
them (Kaufmann et al., 2002, p. 7).” Governance links political systems with their environment
and makes political science more policy-relevant (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 1). The ultimate
point of governance is to steer the economy and society to reach collective goals (Pierre &
Peters, 2000, p. 1).
R.A.W. Rhodes (1997) states “governance is the result of interactive social-political forms of
governing (goal-directed interventions) (p. 51).” Rhodes (1997) goes on to enumerate four
characteristics of governance:
1. interdependence between organizations;
2. continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to
exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes;
3. game-like interactions rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game
negotiated and agreed by network participants; and
4. a significant degree of autonomy from the state. (p. 53).
These characteristics of governance demonstrate the expansion of thought on the role of
government and other actors in the provision of public goods.
At the International Conference on Responsive and Accountable Local Governance in
Jakarta, February 21-22, 2006, Dr. Anwar Shah, Program Leader of Public Sector Governance
for the World Bank Institute, presented on “Governing for Results: Approaches to Local Public
Management.” Dr. Shah spoke on the importance of citizen-centered governance and its
utilization in areas ranging from the demand of public services to budgeting. Dr. Shah also went
on to describe accountable governance as having public integrity, safeguards, and the public
interest in mind in accordance with a citizen’s charter, a consensus on limits to government
interventions, and the formulation of social norms and trust in governance.
The unchallenged power of governance is based on an unquestioned acceptance of the lack of
accountability and transparency (Sen, 1999, p. 34). Furthermore, corruption is the absence of
good governance and transparency (Behera, 2007, p. 40). Accountability is the relationship
between government and citizens and the assumption of responsibility for decisions, actions, and
policies to fulfill agreed expectations between officials and constituents (NDI, 2009, p. 1). The
NDI definition of accountability also reinforces the idea that government institutions and people
have an inherent relationship through governance. Accountability requires a multifaceted
approach tackled through institutional reform (Rhodes, 1997, p. 198).
There are three strands of good governance: 1) systematic – broader than government
covering internal and external political and economic power; 2) political – legitimacy and
authority derived from a democratic mandate; and 3) administrative – efficient, open,
accountable, and audited public service with bureaucratic competence to design and implement
appropriate policies and manage the public sector (Rhodes, 1997, p. 49). All attempts to identify
and produce good governance need to include all three of these strands.
The UNDP identifies good governance as policies and programs that are responsive,
participatory, transparent, equitable, accountable, consensus-oriented, effective, efficient, and
strategic (UNDP, 1997, pp. 9-10). However, specific prescriptions of good governance are
different in different cultural contexts (Behera, 2007, p. 37).
Although there is emphasis on good governance, there has not been enough intellectual
energy and resources devoted to it (Fukuyama, 2007, p. 4). Steps toward better and more
effective governance cannot be taken without a strong demand for it from the bottom-up
(Fukuyama, 2007, p. 5), which calls for greater involvement of citizens and communities.
McMillan and George (1986) and Pavey and colleagues (2007) agree with taking a citizencentered
approach in governance. For governance it is crucial to work from the values and
interests of the local community (Pavey et al., 2007, p. 108). Public policy should be based on
human development and community, which will provide a foundation for decision-makers to
develop policy that meet their intended objectives through strengthening and preserving the
community (McMillan & George, 1986, p. 18).
Pierre and Peters (2000) describe seven approaches to governance:
1. governance as hierarchies – governance by law for highly standardized public
services (p. 15);
2. governance as markets – market as the mechanism for governance, economic
actors cooperate to resolve common problems without distorting the basic
market mechanisms, empowering citizens as consumers (pp. 18-19);
3. governance as networks – policy networks of state institutions, organized
interests, etc. that facilitate the coordination of public and private interests and
resources that enhance the efficiency of public policy implementation (pp. 19-
4. governance as communities – communities solve problems with little state
intervention, governance without government (p. 21);
5. governance as process – focuses on interactions of structures rather than the
structure itself, acknowledges that governance is a dynamic process (pp. 22-
6. governance as steering and coordinating – government can steer society with
its authority not necessarily based in legal power, but on its control of critical
resources and its view of collective interests (p. 23); and
7. governance as analytical framework – where governance is discussed as a
phenomena or theory or analytical framework (p. 24).
These seven approaches to governance depict the way that the term governance is used in
political or academic parlance. Among them, governance as hierarchies may be considered the
way that the term was viewed historically; while governance as markets is the most
contemporary and en vogue approach, although it may be prescribed to more problems than it
can resolve (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 19). Governance as networks is also consistent with the
contemporary discussions on governance of decreasing formal legal powers and the direct role of
the state (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 20). For the purpose of this work, governance as
communities is particularly relevant, which interestingly is supported both by people who wish
to see less government and those who wish to see more government involvement, supporting
concepts of decentralization and community self-sufficiency (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 21).
Putnam (1993) presents a simple model for governance that demonstrates the relationship
between people and state institutions that lead to collective outcomes, shown in Figure 3. The
model shows that societal demands lead to political interaction between citizens and officials that
lead to the creation of government institutions that make policy choices and implement those
policies (Putnam, 1993, p. 9).
Figure - Simple model of governance
Source: Based on Putnam, 1993, p. 9
The role that the state plays in governance depends on historical factors, institutional interest
in maintaining control, the required degree of political and legal authority, and the strength of
civil society organizations and networks (Pierre & Peters, 2000, p. 26).
Civil society plays a role in governance. Horizontal networks of civic engagement promote
cooperation and solutions to collective issues and are positively associated with good governance
(Putnam, 1993, p. 175). Governance blurs the line between the state and civil society (Rhodes,
1997, p. 57).
Institutes shape politics, shaping outcomes because they shape actors’ identities, power, and
strategies (Putnam, 1993, pp. 7-8). The institutional approach is important because it focuses on
the rules, procedures, and formal organizations of governments (Rhodes, 1997, p. 79).
Institutions are comprised of the structures, agencies, and legal frameworks that govern conduct.
Institutions outline the relationships between structure and democracy and explain the ways in
which rules, procedures, and formal organization constrain political behavior (Rhodes, 1997, p.
79). They are built to achieve purposes (Putnam, 1993, p. 8) and serve citizens. Changing the
constellation of institutions, the way that they interact with society and non-state actors, and the
institutions themselves are some of ways in which governance and public administration reform
is undertaken. However, little is known about how to create or strengthen institutions in places
where they are weak or nonexistent (Fukuyama, 2006, p. 124).
Normative institutionalism is a concept of institutional development where behavior within
an institution is explained by the norms and values of that organization (Peters, 2005, p. 26).
The concept of normative institutionalism helps to build the case for human resource
development to improve capacity. Changing formal institutions can change overall political
practice (Putnam, 1993, p. 184). Peters (2005) notes that the “creation of positive organizational
culture [is] perhaps the best way to create effective organizations (p. 28).”
Peters (2005) notes further those efforts to implement positive organizational norms focuses
on managers (leaders) and their ability to manipulate organizational culture to improve
performance (p. 28). Social learning, learning by doing, creates institutional reforms and the
formal changes prompts informal changes and becomes self sustaining (Putnam, 1993, p. 184).
Figure - Social norm development in institutions