Social Connectedness in Marginal Rural China 275on rural communities of north Shaanxi of China and the phenomenon of ‘farmer
innovation circles’ (FIC). These are informal social systems used by the rural poor
for their own technology development and cooperation. We explain the theoretical
background and analytical framework, then summarize the features of Zhidan
County and the methodology used. We then analyse the distribution of household
innovative capacity, and then link this to wider innovation circles and household
incomes. We then show how innovative capacity is accumulated in a case study,
and conclude with reflections on the development and policy implications.
Social Connectedness and Farmer Innovation Circles:
A Conceptual Framework
With constraints on local asset stock and access to external resources (finance, tech-
nology, information), rural communities in marginal areas face significant challenges
to secure and sustain their livelihoods. It is now widely accepted that livelihoods
derive goods and services from five assets (comprising natural, social, human, physi-
cal and financial capital), and such livelihoods can be said to be sustainable when
they can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance
assets and capabilities, whilst not undermining the natural resource base (Carney,
1998). In marginal areas, the shortage of other formal assets means that a key resource
available for the poor is social capital – their capacity to work together to cope with
common challenges (Coleman, 1988; Putnam et al, 1993; Flora, 1998; Krishna,
2002; Uphoff, 2002). Social capital can be identified as having four core aspects: (i)
relations of trust, (ii) reciprocity and exchanges, (iii) common rules, norms and sanc-
tions, and (iv) connectedness in networks and groups (Pretty and Ward, 2001).
The idea of social connectedness suggests a means to assess social capital and
its effects on rural livelihoods (Chang and Feuchtwang, 1996; Putnam, 2001;
Krishna, 2002). Social capital can be enhanced with increasing social connected-
ness, such as a growing frequency of communication and mutual support between
households, or created, such as by the establishment of new cooperatives or groups.
It may also be diminished through the expansion of individualism and conflict.
Equally, it cannot be assumed that social capital is always good for all members of
communities (Knight, 1992; Fine, 1998; Woolcock, 1998). An important, though
often neglected, aspect of social capital is the way it relates to innovation. In many
contexts, there is a need to focus on the types of social capital that enhance capac-
ity to solve problems rather than just focus on overall quantitative increases or
decreases in social capital (Flora and Flora, 1993; Pretty, 2002). In the face of high
uncertainty, the capacity of people in marginal areas to innovate and adapt tech-
nologies and practices becomes vital for rural development. In vulnerable and mar-
ginal communities, this need for innovation is even stronger (Chambers et al,
1989). An important development question centres on whether forms of social
capital can be accumulated to enhance such innovation (Cernea, 1987; Pretty,
1995; Röling and Wagemakers, 1997; Pretty, 2002; Uphoff, 2002).