Page - (000087) - in Knowledge and Networks

78 ated (Fukuyama, 1995). This situation, which is neither mechanically nor organi- cally solidified in Durkheim’s (1893/1997) sense,4 corresponds to the worst conceivable combination of community- and society-based governance for eco- nomic development argued by Rodríguez-Pose & Storper (2006). Falling into this transitional stage can be an unanticipated consequence of public policies, such as an unsuccessful plan for urban renewal (Jacobs, 1961) or a blind liberalization strategy (Meagher, 2007), which destroy the social structure of traditional communities but cannot build an interactive environment for new social and economic orders. It can also be an unavoidable outcome of rapid industrialization that quickly under- mines traditional family solidarity while formal institutions and a spirit of civic engagement are still developing, as in modern China. Figure 4.3 illustrates a frag- mented community in transition after the erosion of family bridges and before the development of friendship bridges. In contrast to Granovetter’s (1973) argument that strong ties create separate cliques, it is the decline of strong family ties, espe- cially family bridges, that pulls the community apart. New external knowledge, even if accessible to some local entrepreneurs, is difficult to share in a fragmented community of this kind. As a result, the community’s ability to absorb technological and business know-how becomes weak. Local firms with no social networks for learning and with weak capacity for innovation have no choice but to enter a race to 4 Developing societies in this transitional stage are not socially integrated with individuals who have common beliefs (mechanical solidarity) or who depend on each other in the division of labor (organic solidarity) in Durkheim’s (1893/1997) sense. Fig. 4.3 A fragmented community after the collapse of family bridges (Design by author) P. Li