Introduction

The global processes of economic openness have significantly modified Mexico’s rural territories since the 1980s and have resulted in changes in families’ strategies, in their productive, social, and institutional structures. These processes and their consequences are seen in the analytical aspect, when trying to understand from another point of view the new processes that are carried out in the rural sector and the central role played by rural families and their social structures.

In the new context of global and neoliberal processes the concept of “the new rurality” has been coined, highlighting certain features and fundamental changes of rural society such as the increasing diversification of productive activities called multiactivity and multifunctionality, where importance is given to non-farm jobs and incomes, on and off the farm, in the livelihood strategies of peasants and agricultural workers (^{Kay and Figuerola, 2009}; ^{Kay, 2015}). To overcome the situation of poverty, inequality and social exclusion in which rural communities and families live, they have implemented survival strategies such as the participation of female heads of household in paid work, developing agricultural and non- agricultural activities in and out of the farm where the process of national and international migration of family members over time or there are also other forms of collective integration for the formation of small enterprises to offer products and services in local and regional markets; national and even international.

In response to the neoclassical dominance that has marked the globalized capitalism of the last decades and its negative eff in the agricultural and rural sector ^{Barkin (2006)} with a community vision of rural development notes that despite the problems that the country side and the peasants in Mexico have faced and continue to face, many social groups work actively to strengthen their communities, rehabilitate and protect their ecosystems, and contribute to forge a new type of “social pact” in which they can contribute to the improvement of their life quality. In this way, small organizations implemented by their own and community initiative have been important strategies to generate structures and alternative processes to generate a more sustainable development process.

Examples of this are microfinance or microenterprise groups that support productive activities and encourage new productive activities such as the transformation of agricultural products; crafts and handicrafts; the establishment of small shops; processing of medicinal products; the provision of ecotourism and rural tourism services, among others. These experiences of processes and structures are not unique in Mexico, many have been documented also around the world, but especially in developing countries (^{RENDRUS, 1996; 2017}). In the same vein, ^{Kay (2015)} describes the contestationary movements of neoliberalism that have emerged in rural and indigenous communities in Latin America whose main objective is to build an alternative agrarian system based on “food sovereignty”, which is promising but also controversial.

In this context, contemporary rural studies have placed special emphasis on the issues of organization and the construction of social capital that are developed between the initiatives and strategies of social actors in their territories (^{Durston, 2002}; ^{Lugo-Morín, 2013}). In this new vision, the poverty solution poses the involvement of the poor in the economic activities of their communities, and therefore, for economic development, it is crucial to find ways and means to transcend socially, as building social cohesion, trust and in general, strengthen social capital. In this sense, ^{Woolcock and Narayan (2000)} affirm that “the social networks of the poor are one of the primary resources they have to face risk and vulnerability, and external agents need to find ways to complement these resources, rather than replacing them”.

Numerous have been theoretical proposals and empirical studies to address how social capital plays a strategic role in social systems and in achieving its results and benefits. Thus, social capital appears as one of the most promising conceptual developments to explain the causes of development or underdevelopment and to propose alternatives beyond traditional investments in physical or human capital. Within the theoretical pioneers, ^{Bourdieu (2002)} places social capital as an explanatory tool for social effects that made it possible to understand why people could mobilize in their favor the physical or economic capital of a more or less institutionalized group.

For Bourdieu the structure of all social space is constituted by what he calls “fundamental social powers”, and social capital would be one of its powers. In this regard, ^{Coleman (2000)} refers that social capital is defined by its function that, on the one hand, explain collective action (norms, rules and obligations) and on the other, individual rational action driven by self-interest; all within the social structure that facilitate the realization of certain actions for the actors. ^{Putnam (2003)} affirms that social capital consists essentially of trust, reciprocity norms and networks of civic commitment and that they create value both individually and collectively.

^{Putnam (2003)} emphasizes that stocks of social capital tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative, where virtuous circles result in social equilibrium with high levels of cooperation, trust, reciprocity, civic commitment, and collective well- being. With an institutional focus and reference to the role of social capital in development processes, the ^{World Bank (2017)} points out that the institutions, relationships, attitudes and values that govern the interaction of people facilitate economic development and democracy of the communities.

Social capital (CS) is also defined as a community phenomenon since local institutions of cooperation and co- management emerge as a frequent result of the interaction of individual strategies. Community social capital is the formal and informal institutionality that integrates cultural norms of trust between individuals, with cooperative practices among all members of a social system (^{Durston, 2000}). That is, social capital generates people’s capacities to cooperate and work in groups that allow them to reach certain common goals, based on a set of shared norms and values (^{Fukuyama, 2003}). So social capital is based on lasting social relations, capable of eventually achieving material and symbolic achievements, the results of which not only serve those who help achieve them but also extend to other members within and outside the network (^{Etkin, 2007}).

Theorists like those mentioned above agree that social capital is a resource based on social relations that functions as a mechanism that triggers prosperity in different spheres, not only economic. ^{Lugo-Morin (2013)}, explains that in the current globalization framework, it is necessary to explore the potential of rural territorial systems and their social actors to locate inclusive systems; and in this sense, social capital plays a strategic role.

^{Flores and Rello (2001)} identify some forms of social capital utilization that allow tangible benefits to be obtained among people such as: a) simple cooperation in work processes (mutual help to sow, harvest or perform other tasks); b) to obtain small loans and protecting against risks; c) building collective goods and providing services of common benefit; d) for assignment of rights, administration of the use of common resources (lands, forest, water); e) participation in productive projects; f) in large savings and loan groups; g) defense of trade union and political interests; h) peasants representation; and i) participation in rural development projects.

In recent years, empirical studies have shown evidence of the positive effect that social capital has on the development and improvement of the quality of life of rural families and that in operational terms can constitute a valuable knowledge for the strengthening of rural organizations and achieve material benefits (economic) and intangible (social) through its initiatives (^{Martínez, 2003}; ^{González, 2009}; ^{Ojeda et al., 2010}; ^{Browuer, 2011}; ^{Castellucci, 2013}; ^{Martínez et al., 2015}; ^{Toiber et al., 2016}).

Although social capital theorists have agreed that social relations and their structures can provide valuable resources or benefits (material and symbolic) to society, there is little empirical evidence, especially in rural areas, about types of benefits obtained and the elements of social capital that are embedded in rural enterprises. In addition, the information that exists does not go into the elements of social capital mentioned above and does not refer to rural enterprises in Mexico. This is why the purpose of this research is to analyze the role of the social capital of the successful companies of the Red Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable (RENDRUS) in Mexico, and the material and non-material benefits that derive from this process for families. The fundamental premise is that successful companies in the rural sector represent an important reference for knowledge about the role that social capital has played in the growth, success and permanence of its initiatives; as well as the benefits (material and non-material) that have been derived from this process.

The usefulness of this research could constitute a valuable contribution to the knowledge for the implementation of new public policy strategies for the strengthening of rural enterprises. The Constitution, in its article 27, section XX, states that “the state shall promote the conditions for integral rural development, with the purpose of generating employment and guaranteeing the peasants’ well-being and their participation and incorporation into national development... It will also have among its objectives that the State guarantee the sufficient and timely supply of basic foodstuffs that the law establishes” (^{Carbonell, 2014}).

Likewise, ^{the Plan Nacional de Desarrollo (PND) 2013- 2018}, in the section “agri-food sector”, establishes that in order to increase the productivity of the field, the organization and the productive scale of the minifunds must be improved; the opportunity and cost of financing, innovation, technological development and more balanced regional development must beencouraged. In strategy 4.8.4 of the same PND, which refers to encouraging entrepreneurs and strengthening micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, it is pointed out that the successful insertion of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises into the value of the most dynamic strategic sectors, with more growth potential and employment generation, in agreement with the governments of the country’s federative entities.

As we can see, in the current context of globalization and neoliberal policies, rural development strategies find in social capital a crucial element in exploring potentialities and encouraging the initiatives of rural families and communities in the search for alternatives that lead to well-being and sustainable rural development. ^{Skippington (2016)} notes that the success of remote rural communities to confront current economic, technological, social and cultural pressures depends on people’s local capacity to anticipate, accept and manage change; to develop and apply skills in problem solving; to communicate effectively; to provide social, cultural and economic leadership, to effectively develop community social networks and to strategically and creatively think beyond the real and apparent constraints they face.

Materials and methods

The Red Nacional de Desarrollo Rural Sustentable (RENDRUS) is a national network coordinated by the Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA) and the Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas. It is a strategy of extensionism and capacity development, through the exchange of knowledge and successful experiences among small and medium-scale producers in the rural sector. The network intends to link producers and their organizations with the society knowledge to generate sustainable rural development (^{SAGARPA, 2014}). In state and national meetings held annually from 1996 to 2016, participating producers have the opportunity to share the most outstanding aspects of their project and to establish links with other producers and institutions in the agricultural and rural sector.

The defined sample was non-probabilistic of an intentional nature. The approach used was mixed, considering quantitative and qualitative data obtained from interviews; the combined use of these data allowed to achieve greater and better understanding of the phenomenon under study (^{Hernández-Sampieri et al., 2014}). The basic method was the survey of a sample of 20 representatives of RENDRUS companies who were given a structured questionnaire with closed and open questions. Also, open interviews were conducted for obtaining qualitative information also addressed to representatives of the companies. The variables that were used for the analysis correspond to the three basic elements that make up social capital in the company: 1) quality of relationships and internal and external links; 2) degree of confidence (internal and external); and 3) the exercise of internal rules and values of companies. It also examines the benefits (material and non-material) that arise from the construction of corporate social capital.

Results and discussion

External elements of corporate social capital

External relations and social ties of companies. The relations of RENDRUS companies extend outwards to a greater or lesser extent, since all have established relations and links with the government institutions and, secondarily of importance, in the municipal level with the Town Hall (65%) and banks/savings banks (50%). It is noteworthy that there was a low frequency of rural enterprises with political organizations (20%). The quality of the relations established with other institutions or organizations is variable according to the perception of the companies representatives. Figure 1 shows the average indicator of the relations quality and external links of RENDRUS companies, for which the following scale is considered: 1= very poor; 2= bad; 3=regular; 4= good and 5= very good.

Figure 1 Quality of relationships and external social ties of companies. 

Companies’ trust towards the external relations. The trust that companies have towards external actors or institutions, is very important to establish good communication, to request support, information and to strengthen the links. In this regard, most of the companies representatives (85%) described other companies or organizations with which it is related as “very reliable”. In the same aspect, more than 50% considered that government institutions, banks and savings banks are “reliable” (60% and 55.56%, respectively). However, the majority (71.43%) described the political organizations and the H. Ayuntamiento (41.67%) as “unreliable”. This perception of the representatives may be related to the fact that in recent years high rates of dishonesty for acts of corruption and impunity have been known.

In summary, the data evidence shows high levels in the exercise of the elements of social capital, and which together have strengthened the RENDRUS companies in their operation and success.

Benefits generated by the internal relations of enterprises. The data show that the companies studied have achieved several benefits by working collectively and the social capital they possess. As shown in Table 3, according to the informants’ assessment, it shows that the main benefits identified are material or tangible, in which economic and in-kind support stands out, both from contributions from partners to the project and from the supports they have obtained from other institutions to be united as a group. In non-material or intangible benefits, the reciprocal support of the members stands out, which indicates that the solidarity value is present in this type of company. Secondly, the motivation to team work that derives from a good work environment was reported. Other less frequent aspects, but notless important, are those associated with recognitionand prestige in their community, as well as trust in the project, which are related to feelings and emotions resulting from personal and collective satisfaction.

Table 3 Collective benefits derived from social capital within RENDRUS companies. 

Tipo de beneficios	Concepto	n	(%)
Beneficios materiales	Económicos	17	85
	Apoyos en especie	10	50
	Aumento en la productividad	2	10
Beneficios no materiales	Disposición de apoyo hacia el trabajo y hacia quien lo necesite de los integrantes	15	75
	Motivación al trabajo	11	55
	Reconocimiento por parte de la comunidad	8	40
	Prestigio en su comunidad	8	40
	Confianza en el proyecto y entre los integrantes	8	40
	Favores personales	5	25
	Aprendizaje	3	15

Elaboración con datos de cuestionario RENDRUS 2016.

The aforementioned material and non-material benefits show positive impacts of social capital within companies which have been facilitated by the links and social interaction of its members and this, in turn, generate individual and collective benefits.

Benefits generated by external business relationships. Due to the linkage and good relations with external agents or other institutions, the companies have obtained several material and non-material benefits as shown in Table 4. Among the material benefits are the economic ones and in-kind support. In terms of non-material benefits, these are more diverse and mainly related to the improvement of their knowledge and skills obtained through technical assistance and training. The recognition by the institution as successful companies was identified in the second term, as well as the prestige towards other companies and their community. Also, the acquisition of knowledge is considered as a benefit, because with it they have been able to make improvements in the company. Finally, although to a lesser extent, companies have obtained favors in terms of streamlining bureaucratic and legal procedures.

Table 4 Benefits arising from linkages with other institutions in RENDRUS companies. 

Tipo de beneficios	Concepto	n	(%)
Beneficios materiales	Económicos	18	90
	Apoyos en especie	12	60
Beneficios no materiales	Asistencia técnica-capacitación	15	75
	Reconocimiento por parte de las instituciones	13	65
	Prestigio ante otras empresas y ante su comunidad	9	45
	Adquisición de conocimiento Confianza	8	40
	Agilización de trámites	5	25

Elaboración con datos de la encuesta 2016.

This shows how the exercise of social capital elements in RENDRUS companies mobilize other resources resultig in obtaining material and non-material benefits. In this regard, ^{Martínez (2003)} analyzed that the availability of a given capital does not mean automatically obtaining another. This is a long building process in which internal and external actors are involved. The important thing is that a resource can be efficiently used to achieve others of benefit to the companies. ^{Ojeda et al. (2010)} point out the presence of social capital in microenterprises that allowed to obtain benefits, especially in improving aspects of learning and knowledge generation that has to do with human capital. In the same sense, ^{Jiménez and Zambrano (2011)} identified in their research that the dynamics of social capital in family businesses allowed them access to other resources, in addition to generating benefits for the users and consumers network.

Conclusions

Rural businesses involved in RENDRUS are distinguished by being successful, which is due to socialcapital expressed as relationships and social ties among participants, the confidence between them, and shared values and standards. The social capital contributes in generating material and non- material benefits which, positively impacts on the temporary stay, growth and business success.

Among the material benefits that companies obtain are economic, in-kind and productivity enhancements, and non-material includes support among members, motivation to work, confidence in the project, recognition and prestige by the community and by the institutions, acquisition of knowledge and skills. These benefits have allowed them to consolidate their initiatives and energize other types of capital in the company, such as economic and human. However, it was observed that while it is true that material benefits are very important for companies, on the whole, non-material benefits carry greater weight, especially those related to people’s feelings andemotions toachieve success.