Social Capital is Critical, Even in State of High Alert

by Cornelia Butler Flora

The United States, for most of its history as a nation, has saved hundreds of billions of dollars because of trust. We did not have to invest in high walls around our houses, lengthy screening at borders, or huge investments in security measures. That money not spent on security was invested in a vast array of public and private goods, from a vibrant public education system to infrastructure and technology. Social capital substituted for financial capital and made it more productive.

All that changed on September 11, 2001. Suddenly governments at all levels are investing the time of public servants and the money of tax payers to identify and prepare for a wide range of potential threats. Private firms are seeing employee productivity decrease as more time is spent in travel because of increased security. And new efforts to protect against potential threats are diverting funds from other investments. We are now substituting financial capital for social capital.

Yet social capital is critical even in a state of high alert. Federal, state and local governments share responsibility in preparing for terrorist attacks. However, local governments and their organizations will generally be the first responders to such an occurrence, and therefore shoulder the initial responsibility. The Government Accounting Office recently published an important statement by Patricia Dalton, director of Strategic Issues, on Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National Preparedness Strategy. In that statement, Dalton stresses the importance of developing a strategy that will not only improve national preparedness, but also enhance partnerships between federal, state and local governments to guard against terrorist attacks. Key aspects of this strategy should include a definition and clarification of the appropriate roles and responsibilities of federal, state and local entities.

Dalton outlines the kind of organization, coordination and cooperation that are needed in order to be effectively prepared for the unknown. Roles must be assigned, communication channels established, areas of high risk identified, and measures of effectiveness determined. “Given the recent and proposed increases in preparedness funding, real and meaningful improvements in preparedness and establishing clear goals and performance measures are critical to ensuring a successful and a fiscally responsible effort,” states Dalton.

Better technology is needed to provide greater information links and to make monitoring systems from different levels and different places compatible. An analysis of critical control points inside communities and linking communities to each other and to other levels of government and market organizations can make this more effective. There are multiple uses for increased investment in mapping and geographic information system tools for local and state governments that can be linked nationally. And in fact we have good pieces for an integrated approach in place through a variety of government agencies. However, occurrences that have threatened us in the past through accidental introduction did not mobilize us as a nation to action. The perceived threat from purposeful action related to political causes does motivate governments to become more actively and holistically engaged. The threat of terrorism is now a compelling reason to put these systems into place.

Traceability is key in setting up a defense system against bioterrorism in particular. Inside the United States, we have substituted a general trust for high investment in security measures. Many of our security forces (police, fire and emergency services) have been decentralized to local jurisdictions and we have held that local autonomy quite jealously. Because of this, sharing data across state lines is often hampered by idiosyncratic record keeping state-by-state and locality-by-locality.

Since September 11, 2001, this trust has been replaced by an increased sense of vulnerability. As we begin substituting physical and information controls for trust, developing and enhancing partnerships will be key. Dalton states that in the last six months, “…we have seen the nation unite and better coordinate preparedness efforts among federal, state and local agencies, as well as among private businesses, community groups and individual citizens. Our challenge now is to build upon this initial response to further improve our preparedness in a sustainable way that creates both short- and long-term benefits.”

Just as new security threats require new responses in the arenas of law enforcement and public health, immediate action is also needed to protect agricultural production, food processing and distribution, and rural communities. Several efforts are underway geared toward making American agricultural and food production systems secure.

Working with Professor Joseph Donnermeyer at Ohio State University, the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development is addressing this issue from a regional perspective. An integrated research and extension working group is being formed around community preparedness for terrorism and bioterrorism.

Donnermeyer emphasizes that community readiness requires constant effort and reconfiguration. It is difficult to remain highly motivated for long periods of time about an unknown threat that has low probability of occurring but would wreak huge damage if it did. Donnermeyer suggests that we must also focus on the collateral benefits that community readiness can yield in terms of increased connectivity in increasingly fragmented communities.

For more information on the North Central regional working group contact Cornelia Flora at (515) 294-1329, cflora@iastate.edu. Patricia Dalton’s testimony on Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National Preparedness Strategy can be found at www.gao.gov/terrorism.html.

Next Article

Return to Inside this Issue (Vol. 25, No. 3, 2001)

Return to Rural Development News Index

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Iowa State University
107 Curtiss Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1050
(515) 294-8321, (515) 294-3180 fax

For more information about the Center, contact pkcooper@iastate.edu.
For questions, comments or concerns about the NCRCRD website, contact khetland@iastate.edu.

Last updated May 12, 2006 .