Does Social Capital Matter for the Development of Scheduled Tribes in Kerala? An Inter-tribal Analysis

Introduction

Economic development is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses more than just income and its growth. In addition to economic indicators such as saving and investment, it also includes other aspects such as reductions in infant mortality, increased life expectancy, advances in literacy rates and widespread access to medical and health services (Ray, 1998). Prior to the 1970s, economic development was generally understood as economic growth, specifically the growth of income, saving and investment. However, in the post-1970s era, development challenges in third-world economies have led to a broader understanding of development that extends beyond per capita income growth. This was exemplified by the introduction of the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI) in 1979 by D. Morris. ¹

The concept of development became even broader with the introduction of the Human Development Index (HDI) by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1990. ² The scope of the HDI has since been expanded to devise other indices such as the Gender Development Index, Human Poverty Index and Gender Empowerment Measure. The emergence of the concept of sustainable development in the early 1980s further transformed debates around development, highlighting the need for a multidimensional approach to achieving and sustaining economic development. ³ As such, it necessitates a holistic approach to development that takes into account economic, social and environmental factors.

The concept of economic development has evolved to encompass not only an increase in per capita income but also an improvement in the overall well-being of individuals. While per capita GDP has traditionally been used to measure economic development, the role of physical capital as the main factor driving growth has been challenged by scholars such as Amartya Sen, Kenneth Arrow and Paul Romer. The importance of human capital and, more recently, social capital has been recognised in influencing a nation’s development. Social capital, introduced by Pierre Bourdieu in the early 1980s, became closely associated with the ideology of Coleman in the late 1980s and has gained popularity due to the work of Putnam (1994, 2001). ⁴ As such, social capital has become an important indicator of economic development in recent decades.

The complexity of human societies involves a combination of individuals, institutions and personal relationships. Economics, until recently, did not consider the role of emotions and irrational behaviours in economic activities (Fafchamps, 2004). The concept of social capital, which encompasses the relational resources of individuals and communities, promotes economic development. Social capital can be categorised as structural and cognitive, which involve objective and subjective factors, respectively. It is considered a productive asset that can enhance income and consumption choices, as well as the productivity of human and physical capital. However, measuring social capital can be difficult due to its subjective nature and variations across cultures and localities.

Though there is widespread research on social capital in different countries and among various social groups, there is little investigation into the social capital aspects of marginalised groups in India, especially among scheduled tribes (STs). STs in Kerala lag behind the mainstream community in economic development (Asha, 2020). There is a significant difference in literacy rate, infant mortality rate and life expectancy—key human development variables—between STs and the state average of Kerala (Census of India, 2011). They face multidimensional challenges, including poverty, unemployment and malnutrition.

The better position and higher HDI values of mainstream communities in Kerala may be attributed to their strong social capital endowments. In contrast, the backwardness of STs in Kerala could stem from their relatively weak social capital compared to mainstream communities. Social capital plays a critical role in reducing transaction costs, promoting economic growth, alleviating poverty, facilitating access to credit and enabling the acquisition of capabilities for development. Individuals with a robust social capital reservoir are better equipped to navigate economic shocks (Fukuyama, 2001; Gupta, 2008).

Social capital can be classified into three types: bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Bonding social capital refers to network relationships among individuals with similar demographic characteristics, where solidarity among members is typically very strong. Bridging social capital involves weaker ties among people from heterogeneous demographic backgrounds, often facilitated through platforms like social media, where a wide array of information flows to its members. Linking social capital refers to network relationships between ordinary individuals and those in positions of power, creating a vertical connection (Putnam, 2001; Woolcock, 2001).

A balanced combination of these types of social capital is crucial for the development of any community. It is likely that STs possess strong bonding social capital due to their demographic and spatial characteristics. However, they may be weaker in bridging and linking social capital due to socio-economic factors. Therefore, it is essential for the government to implement measures that enhance their bridging and linking social capital in conjunction with their existing bonding networks. Relying solely on bonding social capital may not suffice for the economic development of tribes, given their limited assets and resources to share within their communities.

STs in Kerala have different social and cultural backgrounds. These differences can affect their social acceptance and access to infrastructural facilities. However, the government and other agencies often consider them as homogeneous groups with similar problems. As a result, the programmes framed for the development of STs are uniform in nature. This uniform approach has created disparities in access to education, healthcare and essential infrastructural facilities. The employability of human capital has also become uneven as a consequence. Thus, it is essential to investigate the differences in the achievement of development indicators as a result of variations in social capital.

The prominent STs in Kasaragod, based on population, include the Mavilan, Marati and Malavettuvan communities. A historical overview of these tribes sheds light on their socio-economic development. The Mavilan community, indigenous to Kasaragod, is characterised by its use of a Tulu dialect. Historically, they were hunters and gatherers with a deep connection to herbal knowledge. Over time, they transitioned into bonded labourers under landlords during the era of shifting cultivation (Thurston, 1909). Following the implementation of land reforms in Kerala, the Mavilans became marginal landholders and agricultural labourers. Their cultural practices remain closely linked to indigenous tribal traditions. Initially classified under scheduled caste (SC) status until 2002, they were reclassified as an ST from 2003 onwards, ⁵ following the recommendations of the Chanda Commission and the Kerala government’s KIRTADS (Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) report. The Marati community migrated to South India during the eighteenth century as soldiers and camp followers of the Maratha invaders. They settled in the hilly regions of Dakshina Kannada, Kasaragod and Coorg, speaking a dialect of Marathi and following Hindu cultural practices. Initially engaged in Kumri cultivation, they later transitioned to agriculture and other occupations (Mathew, 2013). The Marati community was originally classified as an ST but was excluded from the ST list in 2002 based on the Chanda Commission’s recommendations and the Kerala Government’s KIRTADS report. However, they were re-included in the ST list in 2013, following a subsequent report by the Kerala government. The Malavettuvan community, another indigenous group in Kasaragod, were traditionally hunters and gatherers. Like the Mavilans, they became agricultural labourers under landlords during the period of shifting cultivation and continued in this role following Kerala’s land reforms. They speak a dialect closely related to Malayalam and maintain their indigenous cultural practices, including the Mangalam Kali dance and the worship of deities such as Gulikan and Kurathi (Kakkoth, 2023). Initially referred to as Vettuvan and classified as an SC, they were reclassified as an ST in 2002 based on the Chanda Commission’s recommendations and the Kerala government’s KIRTADS report, and since then, they have been known as Malavettuvan.

The socio-economic history of the Marati, Mavilan and Malavettuvan tribes significantly influences their current social capital endowments. The Marati tribe’s past landownership and subsistence farming practices have contributed to their relatively strong social capital, particularly in the bonding and linking dimensions. Meanwhile, the Mavilan and Malavettuvan tribes, historically subjected to bonded labour and economic exploitation, continue to struggle with lower social capital, which hampers their development. These historical factors are crucial in explaining the present disparities among the tribes.

The study also enquires about the differences in economic development among STs due to their social capital endowments. This article is divided into five sections, beginning with an introduction to the concept of social capital. The subsequent section elaborates on the methodology of the study. The third section focuses on theoretical and empirical aspects of social capital and development. The fourth section analyses the inter-tribe comparison in social capital and development variables. The article concludes with a summary of the key findings and implications for future research.

Methodology

The study employed a survey method to collect data from 240 respondents belonging to the leading tribes, namely Mavilan, Marati and Malavettuvan, in Kasaragod, Kerala. These tribes were identified from the Kerala Gazette. The study used both purposive and random sampling methods to select the respondents. Kasaragod district, located in northern Kerala, was purposively chosen as the sample district because it has the second-largest tribal population in Kerala, according to the District Plan Document Part II 2018 and data from the Scheduled Tribes Development Department (STDD) Kasaragod 2018. The district was divided into Tribal Extension Offices (TEOs) and Panathady TEO, identified as having the highest tribal population, was selected for the study. The selected TEOs was further divided into different panchayats under its jurisdiction. From each panchayat, the median wards were identified based on the number of tribal households, as provided by the ST promoters. Random sampling was then conducted using a random number table to select the sample households.

To select households from each panchayat, building numbers of ST households in the sample wards were collected initially. Two wards were taken from each panchayat with a median population of tribes. Then, 30 households from each sample ward were selected using a random number table. In this way, a sample of 60 households was selected from each panchayat. The selected households were further identified by obtaining their addresses from the Local Self Government Department (LSGD) website. ⁶ Data were collected from the selected sample households in Kasaragod district during the period from 13 January 2022 to 12 May 2022. The data collection process was challenging due to the hilly and remote locations of the tribal areas, which lacked sufficient infrastructural facilities. The study was conducted through a primary survey using an interview schedule. The interview schedule was prepared based on theoretical literature and the Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire developed by the World Bank’s Thematic Group.

To assess human capital, the interview included questions on years of schooling, height and weight. For evaluating physical capital asset strength, questions were asked about land ownership, house ownership and household assets. To gather information on income levels, questions focused on monthly consumption expenditure.

The classification of networks into bonding, bridging and linking was strictly based on Putnam’s dimensions of social capital. Bonding networks included ethnic or community-based networks, religious groups, Kudumbashree [neighbourhood group of women] and Oorukoottam [civic engagement group of STs], due to their similar demographic backgrounds. Bridging networks encompassed groups that facilitate participation across different sections of society, such as professional associations, trade unions, cultural groups, sports groups, NGOs, youth groups and parent–teacher associations. Linking networks involved questions regarding membership and participation in macro-level institutions like political parties and local self-government. Additionally, both formal and informal financial networks were included in the linking category.

Questions were designed to evaluate generalised and personal trust among respondents using a five-point rating scale, focusing on various actors in society with whom they interact. Respondents were also asked to rank sources of information based on their order of preference to assess their access to information. Finally, the interview included questions to understand the contribution of bonding, bridging and linking dimensions of social capital to key areas such as education, health, water supply, credit and agricultural inputs, enabling an assessment of the welfare impact. Therefore, the data collection process included specific questions designed to capture bonding, bridging and linking social capital dimensions. For instance, questions on the frequency of participation in community activities, trust in local leaders, and the extent of financial and material exchanges within the community were crucial in constructing the social capital index (SCI). This methodological approach ensures a comprehensive assessment of social capital across different tribal groups.

The study constructed an SCI to assess the relative strength in the social capital endowment of each tribe under study. The SCI is a combined measure of bonding social capital, bridging social capital and linking social capital. An independent t-test was used to determine the significance of differences in social capital and development variables among tribes. For the calculation of the SCI, social capital dimension values are initially calculated by combining different social capital variables. ⁷ The resulting values represent the dimension values of social capital, specifically the values of bonding, bridging and linking networks.

By combining the dimension values of bonding, bridging and linking, the SCI is calculated by following the methodology of HDI calculation:

Social capital value (SCV) = Bonding value + Bridging value + Linking value

Social capital index (SCI) = Actual SCV – Minimum SCV / Maximum SCV – Minimum SCV

This methodology allows us to effectively measure and compare the strength of social capital within households by providing valuable insights into the levels of bonding, bridging and linking social capital present within a given community or society.

To examine the inter-tribal characteristics, a comparative analysis is conducted, evaluating diverse tribes based on multiple dimensions of social capital, as well as their respective accomplishments in various domains. The index of bonding is compared with that of bridging and linking to assess the relationships between these dimensions.

To determine the significance of these relationships, an independent sample t-test is employed to compare the means of each tribe included in the study. This statistical test allows for a rigorous examination of the differences between the tribes in terms of their dimensions of social capital. By utilising the t-test, we can ascertain whether the observed differences in bonding, bridging and linking indices between tribes are statistically significant or occurred due to random chance.

The interpretation of the results is based on the outcomes of the t-tests. If the t-test reveals a significant difference between the means of bonding and bridging or linking indices for a particular tribe, it suggests that the tribe places more emphasis on intracommunity connections (bonding) compared to intercommunity connections (bridging or linking), or vice versa. Such findings can provide insights into the social dynamics and preferences within and between tribes, shedding light on the interplay of various dimensions of social capital and their impact on achievements in different areas.

By employing these research methodologies, we aim to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of inter-tribal characteristics, their dimensions of social capital, and their influence on achievements within diverse tribes.

Theoretical and Empirical Backgrounds of Social Capital and Development

Sen (1999) conceptualises development as a process aimed at expanding the actual freedoms enjoyed by individuals. This perspective on human freedom differs from narrower conceptions of development that focus solely on gross national product growth. The extent of freedoms experienced by individuals is influenced by various determinants, including social and economic arrangements, as well as political and civil rights. Successful economic development necessitates the removal of major obstacles to freedom, such as poverty, tyranny, limited economic opportunities, systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities and repressive state practices. Numerous factors, both direct and indirect, influence a country’s economic development, including natural resources, technology, capital formation, the economic system and political freedom.

In recent decades, considerable scholarly attention and research efforts within the social sciences have been devoted to studying the significance of social capital in the realm of economic development. It is argued that social capital can be considered a crucial factor, alongside physical capital and human capital, in influencing a nation’s economic development. Mainstream economists have come to view social capital as a missing link in economic analysis (Fafchamps, 2004; Van Staveren & Knorringa, 2007). Social capital promotes economic development by fostering interpersonal relationships among individuals through network connections, facilitating transactions between individuals and reducing transaction costs.

Civic engagement and the integration of individuals into social capital networks contribute to improved interpersonal relationships and decreased transaction costs across various domains, thereby fostering economic development and fostering government accountability towards citizens (Clemente et al., 2008; Evans, 1996; Fukuyama, 2001; Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Knack, 2000). Social capital’s impact on economic development primarily stems from its ability to facilitate transactions among individuals, households and groups in developing nations (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002). This impact can be categorised into three dimensions: (a) accessibility of information and reduction in its associated costs, (b) collective decision-making and the implementation of collective actions by groups, and (c) deterrence of opportunistic behaviour among community members, as they fear potential social exclusion.

Enhancing social capital has been identified as a key factor in driving economic development (Clemente et al., 2008; Granovetter, 2005; Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Kawachi et al., 1997; Morris, 1998). Nakagawa and Shaw (2004) argue that social capital is a prerequisite for economic development. Moreover, a significant correlation has been found between social capital and poverty reduction, with states that possess higher levels of social capital being more successful in reducing poverty (Grootaert & Van Bastelaer, 2002; Morris, 1998).

Putnam (2001) highlighted the organisational patterns as the primary driver for the developmental disparity between the northern and southern regions of Italy. The northern regions exhibited a horizontal structure of associations, viewing their inhabitants as citizens, whereas the southern regions had predominantly vertical forms of associations, where the people were regarded as mere subjects (Siisiainen, 2003).

Social capital refers to the valuable connections and relationships individuals possess within their community. These social ties offer numerous benefits, including opportunities for assistance and support. Individuals with high levels of social capital are often better equipped to handle trauma and illness compared to those with limited connections. Moreover, residing in areas rich in social capital tends to provide enhanced safety and hygiene standards compared to other regions (Fukuyama, 2001; Gupta, 2008).

Social capital becomes a valuable resource for individuals facing challenging circumstances. Membership in social capital networks enables individuals to obtain prompt assistance and relief when encountering difficulties, which distinguishes them from those without such affiliations (Aldrich, 2011; Pitas & Ehmer, 2020). Communities that possess a higher number of social networks and embedded relationships can swiftly engage with disaster response entities through their established trust, social norms and reciprocal interactions. Consequently, they can effectively cope with adverse situations. Conversely, communities lacking sufficient networks based on trust and reciprocity encounter difficulties in surviving disasters and must rely on governmental interventions (Aldrich, 2011). Individuals lacking social capital experience heightened stress and isolation, resulting in limited abilities to respond to environmental challenges and minimal capacity to advocate for public health services.

Out of the three dimensions, bridging social capital networks are better than bonding networks due to their ability to disseminate information, facilitate inter-caste, inter-religious or inter-race connections, prevent opportunism and protect members from rent-seeking and so on (Andriani & Christoforou, 2016; Beugelsdijk & Smulders, 2003; Chen et al., 2015; Clemente et al., 2008; Dahal & Adhikari, 2008; Evans, 1996; Fukuyama, 2001; Granovetter, 2005; Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Knack, 2000; Narayan, 1999; Van Staveren & Knorringa, 2007; Vikram, 2018). According to Andriani and Christoforou (2016), a person with high endowment can generate bridging social capital more easily than bonding social capital. As bridging social capital involves individuals from heterogeneous demographic backgrounds, it does not restrict any member from accessing any parallel network based on social constraints. Social capital enhancement is more effective when people are connected daily through cross-cultural and cross-racial exchanges (Chen et al., 2015). Thus, every member can access any network group and obtain information and other benefits. There is the potential for the promotion of various interconnected networks through the interactions of the most active members of those groups. In various exchange settings, transaction cost is a common feature. Sometimes it acts as a hindrance to the active involvement of people in the exchange process. Bridging social capital is particularly useful for reducing transaction costs (Fukuyama, 2001; Van Staveren & Knorringa, 2007). It is assumed that it facilitates the participation of members based on generalised trust, which means there is little possibility of charging transaction costs to the members of the same network group. In this way, it can protect people from rent-seeking. Thus, the members of bridging networks may have the opportunity to access more areas and networks and participate in exchanges. Another feature of bridging social capital is that it generates vibrant civic participation and civic life among people (Andriani & Christoforou, 2016; Evans, 1996; Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Knack, 2000). In a democratic country, people join together for common purposes. They may collectively work for the promotion of local institutions, such as schools and hospitals. These networks of people exhibit the characteristics of bridging. The collective activities of people can hold democratic governments accountable to the populace. The performance of governments may improve due to the influence of social capital (Helliwell & Putnam, 1995; Knack, 2000; Narayan, 1999). The government needs to enhance its performance to meet the needs of the people. The network organisation and resultant collective actions of people may compel the government to improve its performance in such a way that it must consider the demands of local areas. This will enable the government to perform better and fulfil its responsibilities.

Evans (1996) argues that public policies and state interventions aimed at promoting civic participation and fostering community engagement can play a crucial role in the economic development of a country. The structure of public–private synergy can take the form of complementarity and embeddedness, both of which are essential and non-competitive elements. Complementarity fosters effective interaction between the government and the community, thereby promoting the development of social capital. Moreover, complementarity also facilitates embeddedness. The synergy generated by embeddedness bridges the gap between the public and private sectors, but it never diminishes the significance of complementarity. Both complementarity and embeddedness are necessary for the generation of synergy, as the provision of intangible resources alone is insufficient for the success of any project. Consequently, social capital can complement and supplement the government, thereby promoting economic development.

To address this, it is important to establish voluntary organisations in every country, with the government taking the initiative. According to Narayan (1999), the state and society interact more effectively when there are strong cross-cutting ties. The relationship between the state and society can be either complementary or substitutive. However, cross-cutting ties hold greater relevance and policy implications for the inclusion of marginalised sections of society in the development process. In order to access resources and credit, among other benefits, these sections of society should demonstrate their collective strength by joining forces with others. States must facilitate connections between marginalised groups and other actors through the provision of education, finance, economic opportunities, and so on.

In this context, Szreter and Woolcock (2004) argue that a strong civil society characterised by a balanced distribution of bonding, bridging and linking social capital is essential for maintaining a continuous dialogue with the government and upholding the public interest. Aldrich (2011) observes that in post-disaster situations, many individuals express interest in engaging in rehabilitation activities, but they face barriers such as a lack of information, free-riding problems and coordination challenges. The involvement of important agencies such as NGOs, government agencies and voluntary organisations is necessary to provide coordination and resource support for post-disaster activities.

Contrary to theoretical assertions, Van Staveren and Knorringa (2007) present a critique of the mainstream approach to social capital, emphasising its relational nature and the intrinsic value of social relations. They challenge the instrumental view of social capital, question the existing empirical literature and highlight the complexities and potential contradictions within group dynamics. Their analysis calls for a more comprehensive understanding of social capital that incorporates broader social and power relations.

Similarly, Das (2004) highlights a paradoxical observation regarding social capital, stating that it can become burdensome for affluent individuals due to the continuous demand for resources from economically disadvantaged individuals within bridging network arrangements. According to Das, social capital primarily benefits the members of the network rather than the broader society. In addition to this, empirical evidence contradicts the theories and findings of Putnam and his followers. Despite wage labourers exhibiting strong solidarity stemming from class awareness, their poverty and insecurity prevent them from practising reciprocity. While labourers demonstrate strong norms of reciprocity within their local communities, accessing resources outside their locality becomes constrained. Consequently, spatial limitations present an obstacle to the formation of social capital among workers, alongside their class-related constraints. Vikram (2018) corroborates these findings, emphasising the necessity of a minimal level of development for effective utilisation of social capital. Communities or families with limited resources struggle to harness the benefits of bridging networks, which provide essential information for resource access. Conversely, bonding networks, which foster cooperation and coordination based on caste or religion, fail to achieve success in India due to internal caste inequalities within the same religious group. Narayan (1999) argues that individuals who have access to resource allocation decisions made by the state or private sector are more likely to remain integrated into societal processes compared to those without such access. Consequently, Serra’s (1999) study becomes relevant, highlighting the inapplicability of Putnam’s methodology to complex societies like India. In the Indian context, a separate methodology is required to measure social capital effectively. Therefore, asserting that social capital is a significant factor in the economic development of different countries is not straightforward. Economists are resistant to considering the influence of social capital and cultural factors on economic growth due to the subjective nature of their measurement. The findings of Inglehart and Abramson (1994) support Helliwell’s (1996) conclusions that economic growth in Asian countries cannot be attributed to the influence of social capital. They argue that while a strong correlation exists between trust and associational membership across countries, there are insufficient data on social capital and cultural values from Asian countries to support the hypothesis that growth differences are a result of variations in social capital and cultural values.

Inter-tribal Comparison in Social Capital and Development

The comparative analysis of social capital endowments among different tribes is crucial for understanding their relative strengths in terms of development outcomes influenced by social capital. Social capital, as identified by Coleman (1988), can facilitate economic development by fostering cooperation and coordination among individuals. Assessing the extent to which STs are able to interact within their groups and with those outside their groups is pivotal in understanding their social capital and development. While STs exhibit homogeneous socio-economic characteristics, variations in their achievements and opportunities for realisation can arise due to differences in various aspects. These differences encompass cultural practices, languages and dietary habits, making it challenging to draw general conclusions (World Bank, 2011). Such differences significantly impact the attainment of social capital among tribes, where bonding, bridging and linking dimensions may differ. Tribes with stronger bonding networks may be better positioned to mobilise collective action for shared objectives. Tribes with enhanced political access and linking relationships may have an advantage in seizing opportunities in the political and administrative spheres. Moreover, tribes with robust bridging social capital may possess a greater capability to leverage resources, as they are more connected to individuals from diverse socio-economic backgrounds. Consequently, it is imperative to examine inter-tribal differences in social capital achievements. This section aims to analyse and compare the characteristics of social capital among different tribes. The study intends to investigate whether social capital is one of the factors contributing to differences in development outcomes among STs. The inter-tribal difference in the endowment of social capital is exhibited in Table 1.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Social Capital Dimension of Tribes.

Dimension	Tribes
	Malavettuvan		Mavilan		Marati		Total
	Mean	Median	Mean	Median	Mean	Median	Mean	Median
Bonding	51.9	56.4	53.3	57.2	58.2	62.0	54.2	58.2
Bridging	16.3	16.3	19.0	18.8	25.1	22.5	20.0	18.8
Linking	15.4	15.0	21.0	20.0	24.1	21.7	20.6	18.3

Source: Primary data.

Table 1 displays the mean values for the dimensions of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) among three tribes: Malavettuvan, Mavilan and Marati. The mean values indicate that Marati has higher scores in all three dimensions compared to Malavettuvan and Mavilan. Marati’s scores are also above the average of the total tribes’ dimension values (Table A1). Bonding, which is essential for promoting collective action, shows that Marati has the highest mean value. Bridging, considered crucial for community development, also indicates Marati’s strength in this dimension. These findings align with the notion that bridging is important for overall community progress. Table 2 justifies the aforementioned findings with the results of an independent t-test.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Independent t-Test Result.

Dimension	Test Category	Mean Difference	t Value	p Value
Bonding	Malavettuvan and Marati	–6.3354	–2.251	.027
	Malavettuvan and Mavilan	–1.3486	–.520	.605
	Mavilan and Marati	–4.9868	–2.337	.021
Bridging	Malavettuvan and Marati	–8.7905	–4.866	.000
	Malavettuvan and Mavilan	–2.7549	–1.733	.86
	Mavilan and Marati	–6.0355	–4.062	.000
Linking	Malavettuvan and Marati	–8.6708	–4.350	.000
	Malavettuvan and Mavilan	–5.5885	–3.943	.000
	Mavilan and Marati	–3.0822	–1.515	.133

Source: Primary data.

The t-test results indicate statistically significant differences between Malavettuvan and Marati, as well as between Mavilan and Marati, across all three dimensions of social capital. However, there is no significant difference between Malavettuvan and Mavilan in the bonding and bridging dimensions. Only the linking dimension shows a significant difference between Mavilan and Malavettuvan.

From the t-test results, it seems that Marati exhibits higher levels of social capital in all three dimensions compared to the Malavettuvan and Mavilan tribes. This dominance in social capital dimensions could potentially contribute to their relative achievements in welfare indicators. It further indicates that Marati differs significantly from both Malavettuvan and Mavilan in the bonding, bridging and linking dimensions. This has also been inferred from the anecdotal evidence drawn from the field survey. There are some social, cultural and historical factors responsible for the differences among the tribes under study. Traditionally, priests have played a significant role in the household ceremonies of Marati, which is not the case for the Mavilan and Malavettuvan tribes. Moreover, Marati used to practise subsistence agriculture in the hilly areas of Kasaragod. They relied less on the land of upper-caste Hindus as landless agricultural labourers. But nowadays, they are moving towards different occupations, including casual work. At the same time, Mavilan and Malavettuvan were bonded labourers in the fields of upper-caste Hindus from the time of shifting cultivation onwards. All these differences paved the way for the upper-caste Hindus to maintain no untouchability with Marati while maintaining untouchability with the Mavilan and Malavettuvan tribes. Thus, the socio-economic dominance of Marati has enhanced their social status and social capital endowment. One substantiating instance of the social capital strength of Marati is their historical agitation and activism for re-inclusion in the ST list. They formed an ethnic organisation to protect their rights and exerted pressure on the authorities through protests and by boycotting elections. ⁸

Now it is imperative to examine the welfare outcomes achieved by these tribal groups in detail to understand how social capital helps to achieve welfare indicators. This can be seen in Table 3.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Inter-tribal Welfare Impact of Social Capital.

Variables	Tribes
	Malavettuvan		Mavilan		Marati		Total
	Mean	Median	Mean	Median	Mean	Median	Mean	Median
SCI	0.39	0.41	0.44	0.44	0.51	0.50	0.45	0.45
Physical capital (million)	0.61	0.36	1.27	0.64	3.29	1.59	1.65	0.69
Assets (million)	0.054	0.015	0.077	0.031	0.305	0.143	0.131	0.045
Consumption exp. (thousands)	8.5	6.6	8.6	7.4	17.0	10.8	10.76	7.94
Average years of schooling (years)	5.9	6.3	7.6	8.0	9.2	10.0	7.7	8.3
BMI	22.6	22.9	22.8	22.8	23.3	23.6	22.9	22.9
Land (cents)	14.4	10.0	36.2	15.0	99.4	50.0	47.9	15.0
Information index	8.59	8.0	8.45	7.0	12.84	13.0	9.59	10

Source: Primary data.

Table 3 presents welfare indicators related to social capital, physical capital and human capital for the different tribes under study (Table A2). It compares the SCI with various variables for each tribe, including mean and median values. The results suggest that there are significant differences in the SCI among the tribes. Malavettuvan appears to have the lowest achievement in social capital, while Marati seems to have the highest achievement. Mavilan falls in the middle concerning the SCI. Table 3 also highlights the relationship between social capital and asset possession. It indicates that individuals with better social capital are more likely to accumulate household assets, either through purchase or gifting from their network. Marati exhibits a far better asset-holding status compared to the Malavettuvan and Mavilan tribes. The mean value of assets for Malavettuvan and Mavilan is less than ₹0.1 million, while the mean value for Marati exceeds ₹0.3 million. We need to assess the asset possession of tribes by linking it with their land possession and physical capital ownership. It is clear that the Marati has higher values in land possession and physical capital ownership compared to Mavilan and Malavettuvan. This might have helped them to possess more assets, which are higher than the average possession of all the tribes under study. This suggests that tribes with better social capital, land and physical capital tend to have higher levels of asset ownership.

The mean and median values of income indicate that Marati has a higher monthly income, while Malavettuvan and Mavilan have lower monthly per capita income. ⁹ This aligns with the notion that social capital can positively influence the material well-being of individuals by improving their development indicators. Marati, with a higher SCI, is capable of spending more on food and non-food items monthly, whereas Malavettuvan, as the lowest achiever in social capital, faces difficulties in meeting even basic needs. This finding is directly connected with the land possession of Marati, Mavilan and Malavettuvan. Land is essentially an income-generating source and a symbol of social status. Both Mavilan and Malavettuvan possess comparatively less land area than Marati. Thus, the income-generating capacity and social status of Mavilan and Malavettuvan are low, and the same is reflected in their social capital as well.

Average years of schooling serve as an indicator of human capital and educational achievement. The table reveals that the Marati has a significant advantage in terms of education, while Malavettuvan lags far behind. The mean value of average years of schooling for Malavettuvan, Mavilan and Marati households is 5.9, 7.6 and 7.2 years respectively. Even though schools are available within a one-kilometre radius, many Malavettuvan members drop out before completing basic schooling. This suggests that social capital plays a crucial role in promoting the human capital of tribes, as the Marati, with better social capital endowment, achieve better schooling outcomes. This finding supports Putnam’s (2001) conclusion that the relationship between educational performance and social capital is strong. The welfare of children will be higher where there is greater social capital.

Body mass index (BMI) is taken as an indicator of health performance. The mean BMI values for all tribes show slight differences, with the Marati having a slightly higher mean value. The mean BMI value for all tribes combined is 22.9, indicating the presence of slight overweight and obesity among the STs. However, underweight issues may exist among some households within the studied tribes. This finding suggests a possible positive correlation between social capital and BMI.

When examining land possession, it is observed that the Marati have a higher average land size compared to Malavettuvan and Mavilan. This implies that the Marati tribe possesses more land for farm and non-farm purposes. The table indicates a positive relationship between landholding and social capital. Smaller landholdings can hinder household development, and the Marati’s higher land possession aligns with their better social capital endowment.

Table 4 justifies the above-mentioned findings with respect to achievements in the development indicators of different tribes under study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Inter-tribal Difference in Welfare Indicators of Social Capital.

Dimension	Category	Mean Difference	t Value	p Value
Leadership role	Malavettuvan to Marati	–0.2803	–1.902	.060
	Malavettuvan to Mavilan	–0.0956	–.945	.346
	Mavilan to Marati	–0.1847	–1.278	.204
Average years of schooling	Malavettuvan to Maratti	–3.3099	–5.312	.000
	Malavettuvan to Mavilan	–1.6945	–2.840	.005
	Mavilan to Marati	–1.6155	–3.111	.002
Land size	Malavettuvan to Marati	–85.6964	–4.160	.000
	Malavettuvan to Mavilan	–20.8399	–3.910	.000
	Mavilan to Marati	–64.8565	–3.910	.003
BMI	Malavettuvan to Marati	–0.8447	–1.373	.173
	Malavettuvan to Mavilan	–0.4476	–.767	.445
	Mavilan to Marati	–0.3971	–0.805	.422
Information index	Malavettuvan to Marati	–4.2399	–7.646	.000
	Malavettuvan to Mavilan	0.1473	.253	.801
	Mavilan to Marati	–4.3873	–10.421	.000

Source: Primary data.

Table 4 presents mean differences in dimension values, t-values and p-values, indicating the statistical significance of the differences between tribes for each welfare indicator. The results indicate statistically significant differences between Malavettuvan and Marati, and Mavilan and Marati in all variables except BMI. BMI does not show any significant difference among the tribes under study. Another striking fact from the test results is that the difference between Mavilan and Malavettuvan in the leadership role and information index is negligible. It is evident from the results that there is no statistically significant difference between tribes in the leadership role.

The Marati community, originally migrants from Maharashtra and Goa to South Canara and Kasaragod, enjoys greater social capital and economic development than the Mavilan and Malavettuvan communities due to their sociocultural differences. Maratis follow Brahmin customs in their ceremonies and historically practised agriculture in hilly areas, which enabled them to maintain favourable relations with dominant Hindus in Kasaragod. As a result, upper-caste Hindus treat them as equals, without practising untouchability. In contrast, the Mavilan and Malavettuvan communities were bonded agricultural labourers until land reforms were implemented. Their darker complexion, indigenous cultural practices and historical landlessness contributed to their lower socio-economic status compared to the Maratis. The social acceptance and wealth of the Marati community facilitated their political engagement and access to broader networks, leading to their superior social capital and economic development.

Conclusion

The study highlights the impact of social capital on the development of STs and the disparities among different tribes due to varying levels of social capital. It reveals that STs generally possess low social capital, largely due to their physical isolation and lack of access to infrastructure. This isolation limits their participation in social networks, which in turn negatively affects their welfare indicators, such as income, assets and human capital.

Among the tribes studied, the Marati tribe demonstrates higher social capital and better welfare outcomes compared to the Malavettuvan and Mavilan tribes, likely due to better integration with the mainstream population. The Malavettuvan tribe, in particular, ranks the lowest in terms of welfare achievements. Socio-economic factors, including limited leadership roles and access to networks, contribute to these disparities.

The study suggests that government policies should target disadvantaged tribes like the Malavettuvan and Mavilan with tailored programmes and additional reservations for education and employment. It also calls for further research on the social capital of tribes compared to other social groups in India.