1. Discussions in Group 3 Power, politics, the State and Social Capital

2. Some general assumptions  Individuals or communities with weak bonding SC are more vulnerable to HIV spread and its negative impacts  Understanding SC can help us to prioritise responses  Bonding – defining ‘protective’ forms of bonding; types of groups  When groups do not have resources then bonding SC is all they have, it becomes a crucial asset

3. Social capital and the state  Bonding, Bridging, Linking social capital are useful to understand patterns of social resilience. Programmes can fail if they are not sensitive to this  How can the state through policies and programmes, address the needs of the poor in a manner that strengthens SC

4. Beyond bonding  SC is not a substitute for Social justice  Bonding is necessary but not sufficient. It is not sufficient for the state to ‘leave the poor to their own devices’  How can the state foster / facilitate and respond to various forms of social capital  Linking social capital is the ‘missing link’ crucial to reach across power structures.  But who is the agent in linking SC? More than one focus of agency is involved (State, oppressed groups)

5.  Possibilities of non-confrontational linking SC  Uganda – strong but inclusive state  S Africa – TAC had confrontational linking with elements of the state  Thailand - Different key populations may have different levels of bonding and hence different responses to the same situation  Stigma needs to factored into understanding bonding and linking National examples

6. Relation between various types of SC  SC helps us to grapple with the vague ‘structural’ basket; useful meso level concept  Strong bonding, then bridging may be a resource to mobilise linking  Bonding, Bridging and Linking operate at different levels. There can be a spiral of bonding (local soldarity, resistance) leading to bridging between groups with internal coherence (coalitions, alliances). becomes the basis for linking with larger power structures

7. Bridging Bonding State Bridging Linking Bonding

8. Linking Social capital  Need to expand the concept of links  LSC may be consensual or conflictual  ‘Power’ includes non-state actors (media, donors, academics); latter may be allies to subaltern groups. Even confrontational groups may have alliances with these  The state itself is a complex entity with different arms  National and sub-national states (S Africa, India) have their own specificities

9. State, patterns of funding and SC  How to create systems that foster and facilitate Linking social capital  Even for bio-medical interventions, state requires linking social capital. State needs social networks and mobilisation to roll out complex interventions  Global Fund CCM – mandates broad consultative processes within countries  Contrast with PEPFAR with a very vertical approach, no emphasis on process

10. Funders and the State  Talking of power we need to consider the power of funders  Relationship between national leaders and funding agencies may influence funding patterns (Kenya, Uganda)  Different Indonesian state leaderships have negotiated issues differently with the national Govt.

11. “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together”.