Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id
Is There A Correlation Between Social Capital and Well-Being? A Case Study of Urban and Rural Communities in Indonesia
Tri Wahyu Nugroho*, Nuhfil Hanani, Sujarwo, Hery Toiba
Department of Socio-Economics, Faculty of Agriculture, Brawijaya University Veteran St., Malang 65145, Indonesia
Received: 4 February 2022; Revised: 14 March 2022; Accepted: 1 April 2022
ABSTRACT
The third goal of sustainable development is the well-being of society. Government actions to achieve this goal is by increasing built capital (e.g., infrastructure and housing) in urban and rural areas. Other forms of capital that can improve well-being include strengthening community bonds in the community (social capital). This study aims to explore the level of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) in rural and urban communities and the correlation between social capital and well-being. The data used is the Indonesian Family Life Survey 5 (IFLS5). The sample consists of 12,872 rural communities and 18,532 urban communities. T-test analysis was used to determine differences in levels of social capital, while a pairwise correlation was used to determine the correlation between social capital and well-being. The results showed that the majority of urban and rural communities had moderate levels of bonding and bridging, while linking is at a low level. In addition, there are significant differences in bonding, bridging, and linking social capital between urban and rural communities, in which rural communities have higher scores than urban communities. It was also found that there was a positive relationship between the bridging and bonding of urban and rural communities and well-being.
Keywords: social; capital; well-being; urban; rural How to cite:
Nugroho, T. W., Hanani, N., & Toiba, H. (2022). Is There A Correlation Between Social Capital and Well- Being ? A Case Study of Urban and Rural Communities in Indonesia. HABITAT, 33(1), 55–63.
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.habitat.2022.033.1.6 1. Introduction
All member countries of the United Nations 2015 ratified the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which aim to end poverty, keep the earth livable, and ensure the peace and prosperity of all people now and in the future. The SDGs program was implemented from 2016 to 2030 as a continuation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) program (Morton et al., 2017). The SDGs program has more detailed coverage than the MDGs. One of the program's specific goals, discussed by many researchers, is the well-being of the community. Income is one of the benchmarks in assessing the well-being of the community. In 2020, Indonesia is known to have decreased per capita income by 6.43% compared to 2019 (Worldbank, 2021). Happiness can also be a measure of the level of community well-being,
which is also known as subjective well-being. The principle of this theory is that a prosperous individual must like his own life so that he will have a happy mood and have high levels of life satisfaction (Diener et al., 2009).
The Indonesian government has policies and programs to improve people's well-being through increasing built-in capital, one of which is infrastructure. From 2014 to 2019, 1,298 km of toll roads have been built, which is 54% of all toll roads that have been built in Indonesia, and 10,351 km are under development planning (PUPR, 2020). Previous studies stated that transportation infrastructure was indeed found to affect well- being because it was able to reduce transportation costs, facilitate mobility, increase accessibility, security, and comfort, as well as reduce the gap between urban and rural communities (Sartori &
Catalano, 2013; Winata & Rarasati, 2017).
Another type of capital found to affect people's well-being is social capital. Portela et al. (2013) found that social capital indicated by social networks and social trust showed a relationship
---
*Correspondence Author.
E-mail: [email protected]
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id with subjective well-being. Puntscher et al. (2014)
also obtained the same results where social trust, institutional participation, and social activities significantly impact subjective well-being. Strong family ties and friendships were also found to have a positive effect on happiness. Social capital should be considered because it requires a relatively lower cost than built capital.
Social capital is divided into three types, namely bonding, bridging, and linking social capital. Bonding social capital refers to networking with people with similar ethnicities, religions, interests, backgrounds, social classes, and others. Bridging social capital is a network with people from different groups (Putnam, 2000).
While linking social capital is community relations with higher strata such as government or institutions that have higher resources or power (Sen, 2012). The government or institutions in a region will carry out programs or activities aimed at improving the well-being of the community.
Local community participation is needed so that programs or activities from the government-run are optimal (Dahal & Adhikari, 2008).
2. Theoretical Underpinning
Studies on the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being have been conducted several times in Indonesia (Hardini &
Wasiaturrahma, 2020; Rahayu, 2016; Rahayu &
Harmadi, 2016). Unfortunately, previous research has focused on society in a broad sense. Scoping by the community, such as urban and rural, is needed because there are many differences between the people living in the two areas (Rooks et al., 2014). In addition, different results were found in each region. Rahayu (2016) found that the subjective well-being of urban Indonesians as indicated by life satisfaction was found to be higher than that of rural communities. Mohd et al (2010) found no difference between the well- being levels of the urban and rural elderly.
Meanwhile, Berry & Okulicz-Kozaryn (2013) stated that the level of well-being of urban communities (in the case of immigrants) indicated by happiness was at a low level. Inequality and discrimination against community groups cause the happiness of urban communities to be at a low level.
Social capital is also found to have differences between rural and urban communities.
Sørensen (2014) found that rural communities had a higher level of social capital bonding than urban communities, while bridging was found to be
slightly higher in urban communities. But overall, rural communities have higher levels of social capital (Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004).
Based on this background, this study seeks to: 1) determine the differences in social capital between rural and urban communities; 2) assess the subjective well-being of rural and urban communities; and 3) assess the relationship between social capital and the well-being of rural and urban communities.
3. Research Methods a. Data
The data source used in this study was the Indonesia Family Life Survey 5 (IFLS5). The data was the result of a survey conducted by the RAND agency in 2014-2015. IFLS5 is the fifth wave of surveys; the first wave was conducted in 1993. In the first wave, the number of samples represented 83% of the Indonesian population, spread across 13 of the 26 provinces in Indonesia. Samples in the first wave continued to be tracked until the survey was carried out in the fifth wave (Strauss et al., 2016). The sample used in this study consisted of 12,872 individuals in rural communities and 18,532 individuals in urban communities.
Respondents who were interviewed were family members over the age of 15 years.
b. Measurement of social capital and well- being
We explored the relationship between social capital and well-being (a proxy for happiness or subjective well-being). This research was based on previous studies which found a positive correlation between well-being and social capital (Klein, 2013; Matsushima & Matsunaga, 2015; Tanaka & Tokimatsu, 2020). High social capital showed that people have a higher level of well-being in terms of their level of happiness.
This study used three types of social capital, namely bonding, bridging, and linking social capital. The measurement of bonding and bridging social capital used a Likert scale of 1-4, where 1 means "Strongly disagree," 2 means "Disagree," 3 means "Agree," and 4 means "Strongly Agree."
The bridging social capital score was obtained from 3 indicators, namely 1) willingness to help residents in the same village, 2) alertness so that residents from the same village are not used, and 3) trust to entrust their house/residence temporarily to neighbors. In the second indicator, the Likert score was reversed because the indicator was a negative statement. The Likert score was: 4
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id means "Strongly disagree," 3 means "Disagree," 2
means "Agree," and 1 means "Strongly Agree."
Thus, individuals who strongly disagree with the perception of being wary of villagers so that they are not used, indicate that the level of bridging social capital is high because they have trust in the environment around them. Meanwhile, the bonding social capital score was obtained from 2 indicators, namely: 1) trust in other people from the same ethnic group and 2) trust in other people of the same religion/belief. The scale values of each indicator were summed up to obtain the value of the bridging and bonding variables.
Linking social capital used data on individual participation in community activities consisting of community meetings, cooperatives, routine community service, village improvement programs, patrols/siskamling, water management systems, waste management systems, PKK activities, Posyandu for toddlers, Posyandu for the elderly, youth group activities, religious activities, village/kelurahan libraries, village/kelurahan savings and loans, health funds, PNPM, and political parties. Individual participation in each activity was summed up to obtain an individual social capital linking score. Subjective well-being was indicated by the level of happiness. This study also used a Likert scale of 1-4 where 1 is "Very unhappy," 2 is "Unhappy," 3 is "Happy," and 4 is
"Very happy."
Both bonding, bridging, and happiness were treated by reversing the Likert score on each statement indicator. The scale presented in the IFLS5 data was a scale where higher perceptions had a smaller Likert score. For example, perceptions “strongly agree” and “very happy”
with a scale score of 1. To avoid misperceptions in the results of the analysis, a reverse of the Likert scale score was carried out.
c. Analysis
Differences in the level of social capital between rural and urban communities were analyzed using an independent t-test or unpaired t- test. This analysis compared the mean or average between the two groups to see the difference. The larger the difference indicates that there is a difference between the two groups and vice versa.
However, additional statistical tests are needed to determine whether the difference between the two groups is significantly different. Independent, in this analysis, means that each group is not related to the other. The value of the difference between the two groups will not be 0 even though it is taken from the same population, because the random
sampling technique will have variations in value.
The requirements needed to use independent t-test analysis are that the two groups of samples are normally distributed and have the same variance.
The following equation shows the calculation of the t-value between the two groups (Gerald, 2018;
Kim, 2015):
= −
− ( ) + − ( ) 1 − 2
+
(1)
=∑ (2)
=∑ (3)
= (4)
= (5)
= (6)
= (7)
where n1shows the number of samples of rural communities, n2shows the number of samples of urban communities, xi1 shows the social capital score of the i-th rural community, xi2 shows the social capital score of the i-th urban community, shows the mean social capital of rural communities, shows the mean social capital of urban communities, shows the total value of social capital for the entire sample of rural communities, shows the total value of social capital for the entire sample of urban communities, shows the sum of the squared values of social capital for the entire sample of rural communities, and shows the sum of the squared values of social capital for the entire sample of urban communities. The t-value will be compared with the t-table to obtain the significance value of the mean difference between the two groups.
This study also used correlation analysis to determine whether there is a significant relationship between social capital and subjective well-being. Correlation is an analysis used to determine the relationship between 2 variables.
The output of correlation analysis shows positive and negative signs. A positive sign means that if 1
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id variable increases, it will be followed by an
increase in the other variables. The same thing happens if 1 variable decreases. While the negative sign indicates that if 1 variable increases, then the other variables will decrease, the same thing also happens if variable 1 decreases. The number of samples needs to be considered when using correlation analysis because a small number of samples will lead to a positive relationship that is not meaningful (Gogtay & Thatte, 2017). There are two types of correlation analysis, namely Spearman rank correlation and Pearson correlation. In the correlation analysis, no variables are positioned as dependent and independent variables. The results of the analysis show the nature of the association, not a causal relationship. This study used Spearman rank correlation analysis, which can handle outliers better than Pearson correlation. The results of the analysis will show the value of the correlation coefficient, which can be used to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between variables. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient formula is shown by the following equation (Mukaka, 2012):
= 1 −6 ∑
( − 1) (8)
Where rs shows the correlation coefficient, di
shows the difference in the ranking of social capital (bonding, bridging, and linking) and the well-being of the i-th sample, and n shows the number of research samples.
4. Results and Discussion
The level of social capital based on the typology of rural and urban areas is shown in Figure 1. In this study, social capital is divided into bonding, bridging, and linking. Based on bonding social capital, the majority of rural and urban communities have moderate levels of social capital. People with high and moderate levels of bonding mostly come from rural areas, while people with low levels of bonding come from urban areas. The same result is also shown in bridging social capital, where the majority of rural and rural communities have a moderate level of bridging. If it is viewed based on the typology of the region, people who have low, moderate, and high levels of bridging are mostly from urban areas. Different results are shown by linking. The majority of rural and urban communities have a low level of connectivity, while more are from urban areas.
Figure 1. Levels of bonding, bridging and linking social capital of rural and urban communities.
Table 1 shows the results of the t-test analysis of the level of subjective well-being measured using happiness across rural and urban communities. The results showed that rural communities have lower subjective well-being than urban communities. This is in line with previous research which stated that urban communities were known to have a higher level of well-being than rural communities. The reason was the higher standard of living and income, especially for individuals with high education (Burger et al., 2020). In addition, the relative
income factor also affects happiness, namely their expectations and aspirations regarding the income they get. People's high perception of the income inequality they get causes a decrease in happiness (Knight & Gunatilaka, 2010). Other sources also stated that the level of happiness of urban and rural communities was also determined by the inequality factor. In the case of developing countries, there was a high disparity between urban and rural areas, where urban areas have facilities (health, education, employment, etc.)
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id that are much more accessible than rural areas
(Requena, 2015).
The t-test analyzes bonding, bridging and linking the social capital of rural and urban communities. Based on bonding social capital, rural communities have a higher score than urban communities, with a difference of 0.478 (p<0.01).
These results indicated that rural communities have better ethnic and religious ties than urban communities. Rural communities have stronger ethnic and religious relationships through their social activities. These results follow previous research (Sørensen, 2014). Rural areas have customs (adat istiadat) and traditions that are followed by the whole community, such as alms of the earth, alms of the sea, tasyakuran, tahlilan, and others. The existence of these activities will increase the bonds between rural communities.
Rural communities were also found to have higher levels of bridging social capital than urban communities, with a difference of 0.212 (p<0.01).
These results indicated that rural communities have stronger inter-ethnic and religious relationships than urban communities. Rural communities are more receptive to new people/foreigners, for example, in rural tourism where rural communities show their humility. A study conducted by Ma et al. (2015) stated that rural communities have higher levels of humility than urban communities due to the parenting applied in that area. Rural communities also have
a collective nature, while urban communities are more individualistic because they are influenced by many cultures in one area.
Rural communities have greater levels of social capital than urban communities. This shows that rural communities participate more in activities than urban communities. This result is consistent with previous research which stated that rural communities tend to be easier to volunteer in community projects (Putnam, 2000). The five activities with the highest rural community participation were religious (57.19), routine community service (26.27), village improvement programs (26.04), community meetings (19.71), and Posyandu for toddlers (11.84), while the activities with the least participation were political parties (8.74). Meanwhile, the five activities with the highest urban community participation were religious (49.9), routine community service (25.16), community meetings (20.79), village improvement programs (19.08), and political parties (14.36), while the activity with the least participation was in the village/kelurahan library (0.95).
Based on these results, it can be concluded that rural communities have a higher level of social capital than urban communities. These results indicated that rural communities have higher levels of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital compared to urban communities.
Table 1. T-test analysis output
Indicator Statistic Rural (12,872) Urban (18,532) Diff. t
Subjective well-being Mean 3.603 3.674 -0.071 -7.744***
Std err 0.007 0.006
Std dev 0.799 0.803
Bonding Mean 7.384 6.906 0.478 28.484***
Std err 0.012 0.011
Std dev 1.381 1.517
Bridging Mean 10.257 10.045 0.212 13.396***
Std err 0.012 0.010
Std dev 1.376 1.381
Linking Mean 2.022 1.843 0.179 8.443***
Std err 0.016 0.135
Std dev 1.845 1.845
Note: *** shows a significance level of 1%
A significant correlation was found between social capital and the subjective well- being of rural and urban communities (Table 3). In the case of rural communities, both bridging and bonding showed a positive and significant relationship with subjective well-being. This
showed that the increase in bonds and trust between individuals of the same ethnicity, race, and religion is followed by an increase in subjective well-being. It is not only tied with fellow groups that make them more prosperous but also ties with people from different groups.
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id Through these interactions, rural areas have a
higher sense of trust in the community than urban areas, and this will improve well-being. Previous research has shown that bonding social capital in rural communities contributes to community happiness (Sørensen, 2021).
It is different in the case of urban communities, where only bridging social capital shows a positive and significant relationship with subjective well-being. Due to the dominance of people who urbanize more in urban areas, no significant relationship was found between bonding and subjective well-being. They leave their hometowns for the cities in search of better job opportunities. They meet more people from different groups than those from the same group.
Connections and communication that occur more often with individuals from different groups, make happiness attainable from one source. This is supported by the results of research by Sampson (1988), which stated that urbanization causes a decrease in local friendship bonds.
Although there is a significant relationship between bonding and bridging with subjective well-being, the level of the relationship is at a very weak level. This is the shortcoming of the findings
of this study. Even though it has a very weak relationship, it does not mean that social capital should not be considered in improving well-being.
A more in-depth analysis is needed to determine the effect of social capital on well-being variables (not with correlation analysis). This research can be a starting point for further research. The significant positive relationship between social capital and subjective well-being becomes the basis for further exploration. The results of this study are also in line with previous research that stated that social capital is a factor that affects subjective well-being in less developed countries (Requena, 2015). Through social interaction, the life that was initially bad due to the problems faced will be better (Quoidbach et al 2019) because colleagues will join in looking for solutions and even help solve problems. It will help reduce bad feelings and increase happiness.
They also found a positive and significant relationship between the types of social capital in both rural and urban communities. The increase in bonding will be followed by an increase in other types of capital. The same thing is also shown by the increase in bridging and linking social capital.
Table 2. Spearman correlation of social capital with subjective well-being
Urban Subjective well-being Bonding Bridging Linking
Subjective well-being 1
Bonding 0.107 1
Bridging 0.038*** 0.108*** 1
Linking 0.003 0.055*** 0.113*** 1
Rural Subjective well-being Bonding Bridging Linking
Subjective well-being 1
Bonding 0.039*** 1
Bridging 0.05*** 0.15*** 1
Linking 0.008 0.03*** 0.085*** 1
Note: *** shows a significance level of 1%
5. Conclusion
This study shows that rural and urban communities have a moderate level of bonding and bridging social capital, while the level of linking social capital is at a low level. This study also finds that there are significant differences in bonding, bridging, and linking social capital between urban and rural communities. Rural communities were found to have higher levels of bonding, bridging, and linking than urban communities. These results indicate that rural communities have a higher sense of trust towards individuals, both fellow and different groups, than
urban communities. This study can serve as a policy foundation for utilizing social capital to improve various aspects of the lives of urban and rural communities.
It was found that there was a significant positive relationship between bonding and bridging social capital with the subjective well- being of rural communities. Meanwhile, in the case of urban communities, only social bridging has a significant effect. Social interactions carried out by rural and urban communities can be a solution to the problems they face. Colleagues will help find solutions and solve problems so that bad feelings turn into happy feelings.
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id The higher value of social capital in rural
communities, as well as evidence of correlation analysis showing a positive relationship between social capital and subjective well-being, make us aware that social capital is important to consider in improving aspects of life, one of which is well- being. Unfortunately, the drawback of this research is that it is unable to explain the causal effect of social capital on well-being aspects. A more in-depth analysis is needed on the influence of social capital on well-being and other aspects of people's lives, such as food security, to find out whether an increase in well-being and food security is influenced by an increase in social capital.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Brawijaya for funding this research.
References
Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Social capital in rural and urban communities testing: Differences in media effects and
mode. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 378–399.
Berry, B., & Okulicz-Kozaryn, A. (2013). An urban-rural happiness gradient. Urban Geography, 32(6), 871–883.
https://doi.org/10.2747/0272- 3638.32.6.871
Burger, M. J., Morrison, Phillip S., Hendriks, M.,
& Hoogerbrugge, M. M. (2020). Urban- rural happiness differentials across the world. The World Happiness Report 2020, 66–93. https://worldhappiness.report/
Dahal, G. R., & Adhikari, K. P. (2008). Bridging, linking, and bonding social capital in collective action. In CAPRi Working Papers (Issue 79).
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2009).
Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology, (2 Ed.),
2019, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/97801951 87243.013.0017
Gerald, B. (2018). A brief review of independent, dependent, and one-sample t-tests.
International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 4(2),
50–54.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402 .13
Gogtay, N. J., & Thatte, U. M. (2017). Principles of correlation analysis. Journal of Association of Physicians of India, 65, 78– 81.
Hardini, M., & Wasiaturrahma, W. (2020). Social capital dimensions and individual happiness in Indonesia: The micro-level study. Jurnal Ekonomi Pembangunan,
18(2), 147–162.
https://doi.org/10.29259/jep.v18i2.12753 Kim, T. K. (2015). T test as a parametric statistic.
Korean J Anesthesiol, 68(6), 540–546.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315686875-6 Klein, C. (2013). Social capital or social cohesion:
What matters for subjective well-being?.
Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 891- 911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011- 9963-x
Knight, J., & Gunatilaka, R. (2010). The rural- urban divide in China: Income but not happiness? Journal of Development
Studies, 46(3), 506–534.
https://doi.org/10.1080/002203809030127 63
Ma, Q., Pei, G., Jin, J., & De Wit, H. De. (2015).
What makes you generous? The influence of rural and urban rearing on social discounting in China. PLoS ONE, 10(7), 1–
11.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.01330 78
Matsushima, M., & Matsunaga, Y. (2015). Social capital and subjective well-being in Japan.
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
26(4), 1016-1045.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9581-3 Mohd, S., Azman, A., Sulaiman, J., & Baba, I.
(2010). Establishing the well-being of the rural-urban elderly population: A case study of Indonesia. The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 44(02), 105–120.
https://doi.org/10.1142/s021924621000012 4
Morton, S., Pencheon, D., & Squires, N. (2017).
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and their implementation. British Medical
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id
Bulletin, 124(1), 81–90.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx031
Mukaka, M. (2012). Statistics corner: A guide to the appropriate use of correlation coefficient. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23638278 /
Portela, M., Neira, I., & Salinas-Jiménez, M. del M. (2013). Social capital and subjective wellbeing in Europe: A new approach on social capital. Social Indicators Research,
114(2), 493–511.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0158-x Puntscher, S., Hauser, C., Walde, J., & Tappeiner, G. (2014). The impact of social capital on subjective well-being: A regional perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies,
16(5), 1231–1246.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9555-y PUPR. (2020). Indonesian Infrastructure
Statistics. Pusdatin, 53(9), 1–58.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The Collapse and revival of American community. Touchstone Books by Simon &
Schuster.
Quoidbach, J., Taquet, M., Desseilles, M., de Montjoye, Y. A., & Gross, J. J. (2019).
Happiness and social behavior.
Psychological Science, 30(8), 1111–1122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/095679761984966 6
Rahayu, T. P. (2016). The determinants of happiness in Indonesia. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 393–404.
https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p39 3
Rahayu, T. P., & Harmadi, S. H. B. (2016). The effect of income, health, education, and social capital on happiness in Indonesia.
Asian Social Science, 12(7), 75–87.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n7p75 Requena, F. (2015). Rural-urban living and level
of economic development as factors in subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 128(2), 693–708.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1051-1 Rooks, G., Klyver, K., & Sserwanga, A. (2014).
The context of social capital: A comparison of rural and urban entrepreneurs in Uganda.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
40(1), 111–130.
https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12107
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model. American Sociological Review, 53(5), 766–779.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095822
Sartori, D., & Catalano, G. (2013). Infrastructure investment long-term contribution:
Economic development and wellbeing (01/2013).
www.regionalstudies.org/.../Infrastructure_
investment_long_term_contribution.pdf%0 Ahttp://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:mst:w paper:201301%0Ahttp://econpapers.repec.
org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2F www.csilmilano.com%2Fdocs%2FWP201 3_01.pdf;h=repec:mst:wpa
Sen, V. (2012). Social capital in an urban and a rural community in Cambodia. Cambodia Development Review, 16(2), 6–10.
Sørensen, J. F. L. (2014). Rural-urban differences in bonding and bridging social capital.
Regional Studies, 50(3), 391–410.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.91 8945
Sørensen, J. F. L. (2021). The rural happiness paradox in developed countries. Social Science Research, 98(May 2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.1 02581
Strauss, J., Witoelar, F., & Sikoki, B. (2016).
User’s Guidefor the Indonesia Family Life Survey, Wave 5: Volume 2. In RAND Labor
& Population (Vol. 2, Issue March).
https://doi.org/10.7249/wr1143.2
Tanaka, S., & Tokimatsu, K. (2020). Social capital, subjective well-being, and happiness: Evidence from a survey in various European and Asian countries to address the Stiglitz report. Modern
Economy, 11(02), 322.
10.4236/me.2020.112026
Winata, D. T., & Rarasati, A. D. (2017).
Sustainable infrastructure transportation to improve society's wellbeing in Karawang.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 105(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755- 1315/105/1/012008
Available online at HABITAT website: http://www.habitat.ub.ac.id Worldbank. (2021). GDP per capita (current
US$). Worldbank.
