Dilemmas regarding the applicability of the territorial capital approach – problems of social capital in Camagni’s concept

Abstract

Territorial capital is a relatively new concept. Its first appearance dates back to the early 2000s (some say 1999, others 2001). In the beginning, it was not a strictly scientific term, more like an approach to development policy. Roberto Camagni was the first (and also, so far, the last) who made efforts to elaborate a comprehensive definition of territorial capital and the taxonomy of its components. Owing to his theoretical endeavor a model evolved which is capable – according to the author – to measure the contribution of territorial capital to regional growth. The model is based on Camagni’s earlier works and other similar concepts such as the innovative milieu.

The three-by-three matrix of the model is divided into two parts: the “traditional square” and the “innovative cross”. The former encompasses “the classes of sources of territorial capital usually cited by regional policy schemes” – as Camagni states. These “traditional” territorial capital components are different forms of material capital goods, human capital and social capital. Against these, the innovative cross contains “more interesting and innovative elements on which new attention should be focused” – as the author underlined. These components are – among others – relational capital, different types of cooperation networks and forms of partnerships guided by good governance. The focus of Camagni’s approach is on the relational and cognitive nature of these components which are indicated as crucial factors of regional performance.

The paper points out some contradictions in Camagni’s theoretical model focusing on the “relationality” and other essentially social capital elements. Our most important statement is that the separation of traditional square and innovative cross is not possible. More precisely, we state that the components of innovative cross do not work independently from social capital. The output of the operation of these so-called innovative, relational elements depends on the combination and the condition of different social capital elements in the given territory. However, Camagni’s concept does not care enough about the complexity of social capital. First, it tries to skip the disputed question of individuality and collectivity in relation to the features of social capital. Secondly, it remains silent on a point of the dark side, the negative consequences of “relationality” although this is a relevant problem, especially in the context of new EU member states. And finally, it cannot escape the tautological risks which Portes and Durlauf mentioned in their works about the challenges of social capital. Camagni’s concept is a clear example of this issue.