Photo: Sean / Adobe Stock
By Marcello Stella and Carolina Alencar, responsible for the projects area at Instituto Phi
For some time now, research in social sciences and humanities has stopped thinking about wealth and well-being only from an economic and financial point of view. There are several authors and trends that have come to indicate that there are different modalities and ways of classifying and considering what constitutes a comfortable, happy, safe and fulfilling life, according to the sociocultural context of each individual. Thus, in a country like Bhutan, where per capita income is much lower than that of the richest nations in the world, on the other hand, the happiness index of its population is considered the highest, even being the most relevant aspect to be considered. measured by the Bhutanese State.
This is not just a curiosity, as the different ways of viewing and measuring ways of life, access to rights, income equality and inequality, and forms of capital (social, economic, cultural, cognitive, etc.) imply interpretations and diverse interventions in a given local reality. From this perspective, a careful look at the intensity of ties, networks or social ties is also a fundamental element for evaluating individual and collective aspects of a given group, territory and society. Because more or less intense and varied bonds can affect the possible paths and paths of a given person, group or society: the network of social ties that it builds or incorporates is extremely relevant, because as Marques (2009) suggests,
“an individual’s networks mediate individuals’ access to opportunity structures.”
We use the work of Marques, 2009, as one of the examples of an approach that seeks to reverse the usual logic of looking at a social dimension only from its economic point of view, ignoring, for example, the importance of networks, links and social bonds.
In his study of social networks and urban poverty, the author seeks to identify whether people's relationship networks make a difference in terms of social mobility and access to opportunities. The author's idea is to think about the social situation of each individual in a multidimensional way, and not just looking at routinely evaluated economic data, such as income, occupation and assets. In other words, his view is that economic aspects alone are insufficient to understand the position of socioeconomic vulnerability of a given person in their local context.
When looking at the set of social relationships that individuals in different vulnerable situations found themselves in compared to other middle-class individuals, the author noted the following scenario:
“and, when compared to middle-class networks, the personal networks of poor individuals tend to be smaller, more local and less varied in terms of sociability.” (Marques, 2009, p. 480).
This smaller, more local and less diverse network of the most vulnerable in relation to that of the middle class tended to make them less adept at mobilizing social aid through their contacts, as they had few ties, usually with people from their same region, who did not have equally access to public services, rights and other social opportunities, and consequently less chance of meeting someone who could offer a path to changing their situation or give them an impetus to expand their ties.
Although there is no specific study on social organizations and their networks, we can think that the same principle that applies to individuals could apply to CSOs. Less knowledge of diverse actors in the philanthropic ecosystem, in terms of territory and social positions, can leave an organization more isolated and with fewer chances of accessing opportunities compared to others, with an abundance of links.
In this regard, strengthening and participating in forums, councils and fellow programs, among others, are very relevant, as they can gradually generate social ties that, in the short, medium and long term, could mean access to financing opportunities, training and connection with new donors and audiences, who are potential agents of consolidation and institutional strengthening of the CSO.
The organization feeding a broad, territorially diverse network with access to different forms of sociability (companies, large donors, micro donors, local community, other social organizations, foundations, consultancies, intermediaries) has potentially more chances of expanding its structure of opportunities, being able to access spaces, resources and people that, in a first moment of isolation, I thought were inaccessible.
In this way, the impact generated by organizations is not achieved only through financial resources or internal knowledge. They depend significantly on an intangible and powerful factor: the density and variety of social ties built from their networks and relationships with other actors in their ecosystem.
This deepening of bonds and ties is not limited to the financial aspect alone, but encompasses a rich network of interpersonal connections, mutual trust and shared values. It is a valuable asset that directly influences the ability of a social organization to face complex challenges and achieve sustainability.
Relationship networks are the foundation of this densification. They are formed through a variety of interactions, such as events, courses, workshops, institutional visits and, essentially, through the sharing of information and knowledge. In these environments, common values and expectations emerge, providing the basis for strategic partnerships and the efficient distribution of available resources in the ecosystem.
However, it is vital to emphasize that passive participation in networks alone is not enough to overcome the limitations of social organizations. The simple act of connection does not guarantee that they will achieve their goals. It is necessary to go further and establish effective and strategic links with other entities in the sector that share similar causes.
Furthermore, sustainability goes beyond raising financial resources. It is also a question of flexibility and adapting to changes in the environment. Social organizations that function in knowledge exchange networks are more flexible and dynamic, allowing them to quickly adjust to new and constantly evolving social issues.
A crucial element in strengthening networks and developing bonds and bonds with different actors is trust. This is a valuable currency that accumulates over time through strong relationships and openness and continued presence in the ecosystem. Trust is a key factor that drives collaboration between different actors in the environment and is often achieved based on shared social, cultural and historical criteria.
When we talk about strategic choices, we think about defining well the objectives that the organization aims to achieve and what its internal culture profile is, in addition to its social cause, as depending on these and other factors, connections with families, individuals, large companies, organizations international, may make more or less sense. To build trust, it is necessary to demonstrate transparency about its governance structure and financial transactions, as well as about the results that have been obtained from its actions and to get closer to the community to which it is linked.
In summary, the density and variety of ties and relationships and relationship networks play a fundamental role in the ability of social organizations to face social challenges. Going beyond mere connection and establishing strategic partnerships, adapting to changes and building trust are essential elements for the sustainability and positive impact of these organizations on development and social inclusion in vulnerable communities.
MARQUES, ECL Do social networks matter for urban poverty? Data, vol. 52, no. 2, p. 471–505, jun. 2009.
MARTELETO, Regina; SILVA, Antonio. Networks and social capital: the information approach for local development. Ci. Inf., Brasília, v. 33, no. 3, p.41-49, Sept./Dec. 2004.
