From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social capital broadly refers to those factors of effectively functioning
social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of
identity, a shared understanding, shared
norms, shared
values,
trust,
cooperation, and
reciprocity. However, the many views of this complex subject make a single definition difficult.
The term generally refers to (a) resources, and the value of
these resources, both tangible (public spaces, private property) and
intangible ("actors", "human capital", people), (b) the relationships
among these resources, and (c) the impact that these relationships have
on the resources involved in each relationship, and on larger groups. It
is generally seen as a form of capital that produces public goods for a
common good.
Social capital has been used to explain the improved performance
of diverse groups, the growth of entrepreneurial firms, superior
managerial performance, enhanced supply chain relations, the value
derived from strategic alliances, and the evolution of communities.
During the 1990s and 2000s, the concept has become increasingly
popular in a wide range of social science disciplines and also in
politics.
Background
The term
social capital was in intermittent use from about 1890, before becoming widely used in the late 1990s.
In the first half of the 19th century,
Alexis de Tocqueville
had observations about American life that seemed to outline and define
social capital. He observed that Americans were prone to meeting at as
many gatherings as possible to discuss all possible issues of state,
economics, or the world that could be witnessed. The high levels of
transparency caused greater participation from the people and thus
allowed for democracy to work better. The French writer highlighted also
that the level of social participation (social capital) in American
society was directly linked to the equality of conditions (Ferragina,
2010; 2012; 2013).
L. J. Hanifan's 1916 article regarding local support for rural schools is one of the first occurrences of the term
social capital in reference to social cohesion and personal investment in the community. In defining the concept, Hanifan contrasts social capital with material goods by defining it as:
I do not refer to real estate, or to personal property or
to cold cash, but rather to that in life which tends to make these
tangible substances count for most in the daily lives of people, namely,
goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a
group of individuals and families who make up a social unit… If he may
come into contact with his neighbour, and they with other neighbours,
there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately
satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality
sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the
whole community. The community as a whole will benefit by the
cooperation of all its parts, while the individual will find in his
associations the advantages of the help, the sympathy, and the
fellowship of his neighbours (pp. 130-131).
John Dewey used the term in his monograph entitled "School and Society" in 1900, but he offered no definition of it.
Jane Jacobs used the term early in the 1960s. Although she did not explicitly define the term
social capital, her usage referred to the value of networks.
Political scientist Robert Salisbury advanced the term as a critical
component of interest group formation in his 1969 article "An Exchange
Theory of Interest Groups" in the
Midwest Journal of Political Science. Sociologist
Pierre Bourdieu used the term in 1972 in his
Outline of a Theory of Practice, and clarified the term some years later in contrast to
cultural,
economic, and
symbolic capital. Sociologists
James Coleman, and
Barry Wellman & Scot Wortley adopted
Glenn Loury's 1977 definition in developing and popularising the concept. In the late 1990s the concept gained popularity, serving as the focus of a
World Bank research programme and the subject of several mainstream books, including
Robert Putnam's
Bowling Alone[8] and Putnam and
Lewis Feldstein's
Better Together.
The concept that underlies social capital has a much longer
history; thinkers exploring the relation between associational life and
democracy were using similar concepts regularly by the 19th century,
drawing on the work of earlier writers such as
James Madison (
The Federalist Papers) and Alexis de Tocqueville (
Democracy in America)
to integrate concepts of social cohesion and connectedness into the
pluralist tradition in American political science. John Dewey may have
made the first direct mainstream use of
social capital in
The School and Society in 1899, though he did not offer a definition.
The power of
community governance has been stressed by many philosophers from antiquity to the 18th century, from
Aristotle to
Thomas Aquinas and
Edmund Burke (Bowles and Gintis, 2002). This vision was strongly criticised at the end of the 18th century, with the development of the idea of
Homo Economicus and subsequently with
rational choice theory.
Such a set of theories became dominant in the last centuries, but many
thinkers questioned the complicated relationship between
modern society and the importance of
old institutions, in particular family and traditional communities (Ferragina, 2010:75).
The debate of community versus modernization of society and
individualism has been the most discussed topic among the founders of
sociology (
Tönnies, 1887;
Durkheim, 1893;
Simmel, 1905;
Weber, 1946).
They were convinced that industrialisation and urbanization were
transforming social relationships in an irreversible way. They observed a
breakdown of traditional bonds and the progressive development of
anomie and
alienation in society (Wilmott, 1986).
After Tönnies' and Weber's works, reflection on social links in
modern society continued with interesting contributions in the 1950s and
in the 1960s, in particular
mass society theory (Bell, 1962; Nisbet, 1969; Stein, 1960; Whyte, 1956).
They proposed themes similar to those of the founders, with a more
pessimistic emphasis on the development of society (Ferragina, 2010:
76). In the words of Stein (1960:1): "The price for maintaining a
society that encourages cultural differentiation and experimentation is
unquestionably the acceptance of a certain amount of disorganization on
both the individual and social level." All these reflections contributed
remarkably to the development of the social capital concept in the
following decades.
The appearance of the modern social capital conceptualization is a
new way to look at this debate, keeping together the importance of
community to build generalized trust and the same time, the importance
of individual free choice, in order to create a more cohesive society
(Ferragina, 2010; Ferragina, 2012). It is for this reason that social capital generated so much interest in the academic and political world
(Rose, 2000).
Evaluation
Pierre
Bourdieu's work tends to show how social capital can be used
practically to produce or reproduce inequality, demonstrating for
instance how people gain access to powerful positions through the direct
and indirect employment of social connections. Robert Putnam has used
the concept in a much more positive light: though he was at first
careful to argue that social capital was a neutral term, stating
"whether or not [the] shared are praiseworthy is, of course, entirely
another matter", his work on American society tends to frame social capital as a producer of "
civic engagement" and also a broad societal measure of communal health.
He also transforms social capital from a resource possessed by
individuals to an attribute of collectives, focusing on norms and trust
as producers of social capital to the exclusion of networks.
Mahyar Arefi identifies
consensus
building as a direct positive indicator of social capital. Consensus
implies "shared interest" and agreement among various actors and
stakeholders to induce collective action. Collective action is thus an
indicator of increased social capital.
Edwards and Foley, as editors of a special edition of the
American Behavioural Scientist
on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy", raised
two key issues in the study of social capital. First, social capital is
not equally available to all, in much the same way that other forms of
capital are differently available. Geographic and social isolation limit
access to this resource. Second, not all social capital is created
equally. The value of a specific source of social capital depends in no
small part on the socio-economic position of the source with society. On
top of this, Portes has identified four negative consequences of social
capital: exclusion of outsiders; excess claims on group members;
restrictions on individual freedom; and downward levelling norms.
Varshney
studied the correlation between the presence of interethnic networks
(bridging) versus intra-ethnic ones (bonding) on ethnic violence in
India.
He argues that interethnic networks are agents of peace because they
build bridges and manage tensions, by noting that if communities are
organized only along intra-ethnic lines and the interconnections with
other communities are very weak or even nonexistent, then ethnic
violence is quite likely.
Three main implications of intercommunal ties explain their worth:
- Facilitate communication in the community across ethnic lines
- Squelch false rumors
- Help the administration carry out its job and in particular peace, security and justice
This is a useful distinction; nevertheless its implication on social
capital can only be accepted if one espouses the functionalist
understanding of the latter concept. Indeed, it can be argued that
interethnic, as well as intra-ethnic networks can serve various
purposes, either increasing or diminishing social capital. In fact,
Varshney himself notes that intraethnic policing (equivalent to the
"self-policing" mechanism proposed by Fearon and Laitin) may lead to the same result as interethnic engagement.
Social capital is often linked to the success of democracy and political involvement.
Robert D. Putnam, in his book
Bowling Alone makes the argument that social capital is linked to the recent decline in American political participation.
Putnam's theoretical framework has been firstly applied to the South of
Italy (Putnam, 1993). This framework has been rediscussed by
considering simultaneously the condition of European regions and
specifically Southern Italy (Ferragina, 2012; Ferragina, 2013).
Definitions, forms, and measurement
Social capital has multiple definitions, interpretations, and uses. Thomas Sander defines it as "the collective
value of all
social networks (who people know), and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other (
norms of
reciprocity)." Social capital, in this view, emphasizes "specific
benefits that flow from the
trust,
reciprocity,
information, and
cooperation associated with social networks". It "creates value for the people who are connected, and for
bystanders as well." Meanwhile, negative norms of reciprocity serve as disincentives for detrimental and violent behaviors.
David Halpern argues that the popularity of social capital for
policymakers is linked to the concept's duality, coming because "it has a
hard nosed economic feel while restating the importance of the social."
For researchers, the term is popular partly due to the broad range of
outcomes it can explain;
the multiplicity of uses for social capital has led to a multiplicity
of definitions. Social capital has been used at various times to explain
superior managerial performance, the growth of entrepreneurial firms, improved performance of functionally diverse groups, the value derived from strategic alliances, and enhanced supply chain relations.
'A resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then
use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the
relationship among actors'; (Baker 1990, p. 619).
Early attempts to define social capital focused on the degree to
which social capital as a resource should be used for public good or for
the benefit of individuals. Putnam
suggested that social capital would facilitate co-operation and
mutually supportive relations in communities and nations and would
therefore be a valuable means of combating many of the social disorders
inherent in modern societies, for example crime. In contrast to those
focusing on the individual benefit derived from the web of social
relationships and ties individual actors find themselves in, attribute
social capital to increased personal access to information and skill
sets and enhanced power.
According to this view, individuals could use social capital to further
their own career prospects, rather than for the good of organisations.
In
The Forms of Capital Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms of capital:
economic capital,
cultural capital
and social capital. He defines social capital as "the aggregate of the
actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a
durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of
mutual acquaintance and recognition." His treatment of the concept is instrumental, focusing on the advantages to possessors of social capital and the
"deliberate construction of sociability for the purpose of creating this resource."
Quite contrary to Putnam's positive view of social capital, Bourdieu
employs the concept to demonstrate a mechanism for the generational
reproduction of inequality. Bourdieu thus points out that the wealthy
and powerful use their "old boys network" or other social capital to
maintain advantages for themselves, their social class, and their
children.
James Coleman
defined social capital functionally as "a variety of entities with two
elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structure,
and they facilitate certain actions of actors...within the structure"—that
is, social capital is anything that facilitates individual or
collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity,
trust, and social norms.
In Coleman's conception, social capital is a neutral resource that
facilitates any manner of action, but whether society is better off as a
result depends entirely on the individual uses to which it is put.
According to Robert Putnam, social capital "connections among
individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them." According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining
democracy.
Putnam says that social capital is declining in the United States. This
is seen in lower levels of trust in government and lower levels of
civic participation. Putnam also says that television and
urban sprawl
have had a significant role in making America far less 'connected'.
Putnam believes that social capital can be measured by the amount of
trust and "reciprocity" in a community or between individuals.
Putnam also suggests that a root cause of the decline in social
capital is women's entry the workforce, which could correlate with time
restraints that inhibit civic organizational involvement like
parent-teacher associations.
Technological transformation of leisure (e.g., television) is another
cause of declining social capital, as stated by Putnam. This offered a
reference point from which several studies assessed social capital
measurements by how media is engaged strategically to build social
capital.
Nan Lin's
concept of social capital has a more individualistic approach:
"Investment in social relations with expected returns in the
marketplace." This may subsume the concepts of some others such as
Bourdieu, Flap and Eriksson.
Newton (1997) considered social capital as subjective phenomenon formed by values and attitudes which influence interactions.
In “Social capital, civil society, and development,” political economist
Francis Fukuyama
defines social capital as generally understood rules than enable people
to cooperate such as the norm of reciprocity or religious doctrine like
Christianity. Social capital is formed by repeated interactions over
time and he argues is critical for development and difficult to generate
through public policy. The importance of social capital for economic
development is that these norms of behavior reduce
transaction cost
of exchange such as legal contracts and government regulations.
Fukuyama suggests that while social capital is beneficial for
development, it also imposes cost on non-group members with unintended
consequences for general welfare. Referencing
Alexis de Tocqueville in
Democracy in America,
and what he described as the ‘art of association’ of Americans’
propensity for civil association, Fukuyama argues social capital is what
produces a civil society. While civic engagement is an important part
of democracy and development, Fukuyama states that, “one person’s civic
engagement is another’s
rent-seeking.”
Therefore, while social capital can facilitate economic development by
reducing transaction cost and increasing productivity, social capital
can also distort democracy if civic association enables special interest
to gain special favors. However, Fukuyama argues despite the risk of
society having too much social capital, it is nonetheless worse to have
too little and be unable to organize for public goods and welfare
enhancing activity.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal in their examination of the role of social
capital in the creation of intellectual capital, suggest that social
capital should be considered in terms of three clusters: structural,
relational, and cognitive.
Carlos García Timón
describes that the structural dimensions of social capital relate to an
individual ability to make weak and strong ties to others within a
system. This dimension focuses on the advantages derived from the
configuration of an actor's, either individual or collective, network. The differences between weak and strong ties are explained by Granovetter.
The relational dimension focuses on the character of the connection
between individuals. This is best characterized through trust of others
and their cooperation and the identification an individual has within a
network. Hazleton and Kennan
added a third angle, that of communication. Communication is needed to
access and use social capital through exchanging information,
identifying problems and solutions, and managing conflict. According to
Boisot and Boland and Tenkasi,
meaningful communication requires at least some sharing context between
the parties to such exchange. The cognitive dimension focuses on the
shared meaning and understanding that individuals or groups have with
one another.
A number of scholars have raised concerns about lack of precise
definition of social capital. Portes, for example, noted that the term
has become so widely used, including in mainstream media, that "the
point is approaching at which social capital comes to be applied to so
many events and in so many different contexts as to lose any distinct
meaning." Robison, Schmid, and Siles
reviewed various definitions of social capital and concluded that many
did not satisfy the formal requirement of a definition. They noted
that definitions must be of the form A=B while many definition of social
capital described what it can be used to achieve, where it resides, how
it can be created, and what it can transform. In addition, they argue
that many proposed definition of social capital fail to satisfy the
requirements of capital. They propose that social capital be defined as
"sympathy". The object of another's sympathy has social capital.
Those who have sympathy for others provide social capital. One of the
main advantages of having social capital is that it provides access to
resources on preferential terms. Their definition of sympathy follows
that used by Adam Smith, the title of his first chapter in the "Theory
of Moral Sentiments."
A network-based conception can also be used for characterizing
the social capital of collectivities (such as organizations or business
clusters).
Lester (name change to Amber Persons) noted that negative social
capital may be the cause for disadvantageous differences among minority
firms versus majority firms. While studying norms among African-American
family firms and Euro-American family firms, Lester noted that negative
social capital was created when the owner of the company was pressured
to engage in social behavior not conducive to firm profits.
Roots
A new name from an old idea
The
modern emergence of social capital concept renewed the academic
interest for an old debate in social science: the relationship between
trust, social networks and the development of modern industrial society.
Social Capital Theory gained importance through the integration of
classical sociological theory with the description of an intangible form
of capital. In this way the classical definition of capital has been
overcome allowing researchers to tackle issues in a new manner
(Ferragina, 2010:73).
Through the social capital concept researchers have tried to propose a
synthesis between the value contained in the communitarian approaches
and individualism professed by the 'rational choice theory.' Social
capital can only be generated collectively thanks to the presence of
communities and social networks, but individuals and groups can use it
at the same time. Individuals can exploit social capital of their
networks to achieve private objectives and groups can use it to enforce a
certain set of norms or behaviors. In this sense, social capital is
generated collectively but it can also be used individually, bridging
the dichotomized approach 'communitarianism' versus 'individualism'
(Ferragina, 2010:75).
Definitional issues
The term
capital
is used by analogy with other forms of economic capital, as social
capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits.
However, the analogy with capital is misleading to the extent that,
unlike traditional forms of capital, social capital is not depleted by
use; in fact it is depleted by non-use (
use it or lose it). In this respect, it is similar to the now well-established economic concept of
human capital.
Social capital is also distinguished from the economic theory
social capitalism.
Social capitalism as a theory challenges the idea that socialism and
capitalism are mutually exclusive. Social capitalism posits that a
strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By
decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged.
Sub-types
In
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Putnam, 2000), Harvard political scientist
Robert D. Putnam wrote: "
Henry Ward Beecher's
advice a century ago to 'multiply picnics' is not entirely ridiculous
today. We should do this, ironically, not because it will be good for
America — though it will be — but because it will be good for us."
Daniel P. Aldrich,
Associate Professor at Purdue University, describes three mechanisms of
social capital. Aldrich defines the three differences as bonding,
bridging, and linking social capital. Bonding capital are the
relationships a person has with friends and family, making it also the
strongest form of social capital. Bridging capital is the relationship
between friends of friends, making its strength secondary to bonding
capital. Linking capital is the relationship between a person and a
government official or other elected leader. Aldrich also applies the
ideas of social capital to the fundamental principles of disaster
recovery, and discusses factors that either aid or impede recovery, such
as extent of damage, population density, quality of government and aid.
He primarily examines Japanese recovery following the 2011 Fukishima
nuclear meltdown in his book "Building Resilience: Social Capital in
Post-Disaster Recovery."
Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept:
bonding social capital and
bridging social capital,
the creation of which Putnam credits to Ross Gittell and Avis Vidal.
Bonding refers to the value assigned to social networks between
homogeneous groups of people and Bridging refers to that of social
networks between socially heterogeneous groups. Typical examples are
that criminal gangs create bonding social capital, while
choirs and bowling clubs (hence the title, as Putnam lamented their decline) create bridging social capital.
The distinction is useful in highlighting how social capital may
not always be beneficial for society as a whole (though it is always an
asset for those individuals and groups involved). Horizontal networks of
individual citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and
cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas
self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that
operate at cross purposes to
societal interests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society.
Social capital development on the internet via social networking websites such as
Facebook or
Myspace tends to be bridging capital according to one study, though "virtual" social capital is a new area of research.
There are two other sub-sources of social capital. These are
consummatory, or a behavior that is made up of actions that fulfill a
basis of doing what is inherent, and instrumental, or behavior that is
taught through ones surroundings over time.
Two examples of consummatory social capital are value
interjection and solidarity. Value interjection pertains to a person or
community that fulfills obligations such as paying bills on time,
philanthropy, and following the rules of society. People that live
their life this way feel that these are norms of society and are able to
live their lives free of worry for their credit, children, and receive
charity if needed. Coleman goes on to say that when people live in this
way and benefit from this type of social capital, individuals in the
society are able to rest assured that their belongings and family will
be safe. This understanding of solidarity may be traced to 19th century
socialist
thinkers. The main focus of these thinkers was the urban working class
of the Industrial Revolution. They analyzed the reasons these workers
supported each other for the benefit of the group and held that this
support was an adaptation to the immediate social environment, as
opposed to a trait that had been taught to the workers in their youth.
As another example, Coleman states that possessing this type of social
capital individuals to stand up for what they believe in, and even die
for it, in the face of adversity. (While the notion of solidarity as social capital is sometimes attributed to
Karl Marx,
in particular, the term "social capital" had a quite different meaning
for Marx. All forms of "capital" were, for Marx, possessed only by
capitalists and he emphasied the basis of labour in capitalist society,
as a class constituted by individuals obliged to sell their
labour power,
because they lacked sufficient capital, in any sense of the word, to do
otherwise. Marx saw "social capital" as a theoretical total amount of
capital, purely in the sense of accumulated wealth or property, that
existed within in a particular society. He thereby contrasted it with
specific and discrete "individual capital".)
The second of these two other sub-sources of social capital is
that of instrumental social capital. The basis of the category of social
capital is that an individual who donates his or her resources not
because he is seeking direct repayment from the recipient, but because
they are part of the same social structure. By his or her donation, the
individual might not see a direct repayment, but, most commonly, they
will be held by the society in greater honor.
The best example of this, and the one that Portes mentions, is the
donation of a scholarship to a member of the same ethnic group. The
donor is not freely giving up his resources to be directly repaid by the
recipient, but, as stated above, the honor of the community. With this
in mind, the recipient might not know the benefactor personally, but he
or she prospers on the sole factor that he or she is a member of the
same social group.
Social capital is also linked with religious communities. Religion represents important aspect of social capital (
religious social capital).
Measurement
There is no widely held consensus on how to measure social capital, which has become a debate in itself.
Why refer to this phenomenon as 'capital' if there is no true way to
measure it? While one can usually intuitively sense the level/amount of
social capital present in a given relationship
(regardless
of type or scale), quantitative measuring has proven somewhat
complicated. This has resulted in different metrics for different
functions.
Name generators
One
type of quantitative social capital measure uses name generators to
construct social networks and to measure the level of social capital.
These networks are constructed by asking participants to name people
that they interact with, such as "Name all the people you've discussed
important matters within the past six months." Name generators are often useful to construct core discussion networks of close ties, rather than weaker ties.
Social capital scales
Many
studies measure social capital by asking the question: "do you trust
the others?" Other researches analyse the participation in voluntary
associations or civic activities.
To expand upon the methodological potential of measuring online and offline social bonding, as it relates to social capital,
offers a matrix of social capital measures that distinguishes social
bridging as a form of less emotionally tethered relationships compared
to bonding. Bonding and bridging sub-scales are proposed, which have
been adopted by over 300 scholarly articles.
Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim & LaRose (2012) offer a noteworthy application
of the scale by measuring international residents originating from
locations outside of the United States. The study found that social
media platforms like
Facebook
provide an opportunity for increased social capital, but mostly for
extroverts. However, less introverted social media users could engage
social media and build social capital by connecting with Americans
before arriving and then maintaining old relationships from home upon
arriving to the states. The ultimate outcome of the study indicates that
social capital is measurable and is a concept that may be
operationalized to understand strategies for coping with cross-cultural
immersion through online engagement.
Cohesion measures
The level of cohesion of a group also affects its social capital and vica versa.
However, there is no one quantitative way of determining the level of
cohesiveness, but rather a collection of social network models that
researchers have used over the decades to operationalize social capital.
One of the dominant methods is Ronald Burt's constraint measure, which
taps into the role of tie strength and group cohesion. Another
network-based model is network transitivity.
Other assorted measurement and social capital findings
In
measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of
society's membership of its groups. Groups with higher membership (such
as
political parties)
contribute more to the amount of capital than groups with lower
membership, although many groups with low membership (such as
communities) still add up to be significant. While it may seem that
this is limited by population, this need not be the case as people join
multiple groups. In a study done by Yankee City, a community of 17,000 people was found to have over 22,000 different groups.
Knack and Keefer (1996) measured econometrically correlations
between confidence and civic cooperation norms, with economic growth in a
big group of countries. They found that confidence and civic
cooperation have a great impact in economic growth, and that in less
polarized societies in terms of inequality and ethnic differences,
social capital is bigger.
Narayan and Pritchet (1997) researched the associativity degree
and economic performance in rural homes of Tanzania. They saw that even
in high poverty indexes, families with higher levels of incomes had more
participation in collective organizations. The social capital they
accumulated because of this participation had individual benefits for
them, and created collective benefits through different routes, for
example: their agricultural practices were better than those of the
families without participation (they had more information about
agrochemicals, fertilizers and seeds); they had more information about
the market; they were prepared to take more risks, because being part of
a social network made them feel more protected; they had an influence
on the improvement of public services, showing a bigger level of
participation in schools; they cooperated more in the municipality
level.
How a group relates to the rest of society also affects social
capital, but in a different manner. Strong internal ties can in some
cases weaken the group's perceived capital in the eyes of the general
public, as in cases where the group is geared towards crime, distrust,
intolerance, violence or hatred towards others. The
Ku Klux Klan is an example of this kind of organizations.
Sociologists
Carl L. Bankston and
Min Zhou
have argued that one of the reasons social capital is so difficult to
measure is that it is neither an individual-level nor a group-level
phenomenon, but one that emerges across levels of analysis as
individuals participate in groups. They argue that the metaphor of
"capital" may be misleading because unlike financial capital, which is a
resource held by an individual, the benefits of forms of social
organization are not held by actors, but are results of the
participation of actors in advantageously organized groups.
Recently, Foschi and Lauriola presented a measure of sociability
as a proxy of social capital. The authors demonstrated that facets of
sociability can mediate between general personality traits and measures
of civic involvement and political participation, as predictors of
social capital, in a holistic model of political behavior.
Integrating history and socio-economic analysis
Beyond Putnam
Robert
Putnam's work contributed to shape the discussion of the importance of
social capital. His conclusions have been praised but also criticized.
Criticism has mainly focused on:
- the lack of awareness of the structural socio-economic conditions of society (see Skocpol 1996; Skocpol et al. 2000; Thomson 2005). as for example, the level of income inequality (Knack and Keefer 1997; Costa and Kahn 2003; O'Connel 2003; Ferragina 2010);
- the excessive determinism of the historical analysis (Lupo 1993; Lemann 1996; Tarrow 1996);
- Putnam's social capital index does not consider racial diversity which links to worse outcomes (Hero 2007). Nor does Putnam consider ethnic diversity, which often creates barriers to cooperation and democratization;
- the conflation of social capital with civil society, the lack of
empirical evidence connecting social capital's promotion of economic
growth and substantiating the decline of social capital in the United
States in the last 35 years, and the assumption that social networks
produce win-win relationships (Defilippis 2001).
Ferragina (2012;
2013) integrated the insights of these two criticisms and proposed a
cross-regional analysis of 85 European regions, linking together the
socio-economic and the historic- institutional analyses to explore the
determinants of social capital. He argued that to investigate the
determinants of social capital, one has to integrate the synchronic and
the diachronic perspectives under the guidance of a methodological
framework able to put these two approaches in continuity.
The sleeping social capital theory
Putnam's work, nourished by doctrines like the
end of history (Fukuyama 1992)
was largely deterministic, and proposed the dismissal of more
articulated historical interpretations. This determinism has reduced
Southern Italian history as being a negative path to modernity; only the
Italian regions that experienced the development of medieval towns
during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries have got high levels of
social capital today, the others 'are condemned' by the prevalence of
the authoritarian rule of the Normans more than 800 years ago.
However, from a purely historical perspective, the medieval town
is not unanimously considered to be a symbol of freedom, creation of
horizontal ties and embryo of democratic life. In Making Democracy Work,
Putnam disregarded the division within municipal towns and their dearth
of civic participation and considered only the experience of few areas
in North Central Italy, ignoring the existence of important towns in the
South.
To this more complicated historical picture, Ferragina (2012)
added the result of a regression model, which indicated that social
capital in the South of Italy and Wallonia should be much lower than
currently detected according to their socio-economic condition. He
unfolded Putnam's theory by undertaking a comparative analysis between
these two deviant cases and two regular cases located in the same
country, namely Flanders and the North of Italy. The historical legacy
does not have a negative effect on the present lack of social capital in
Wallonia and the South of Italy, but the potentially positive effect of
the historical legacy is currently curtailed by the poor socio-economic
conditions, notably by the high level of income inequality and the low
level of labour market participation. This historical interpretation is
driven by the comparison with Flanders and the North East of Italy.
The value of the historical legacy for present socio-economic
development is similar to the 'appropriable social capital' theorized by
Coleman (1990) at the individual level.
Using the example of the Korean students, Coleman argued that the
construction of a secret network of people (at a time in which the
appreciation for the authoritarian government was rapidly declining
among the population) as a means of organizing the democratic revolt was
the result of a process of socialization that took place during their
childhood (with the involvement in the local churches).
The relation between historical evolutions and the socio-economic variables has similar characteristics at the macro level.
Only after reaching a sufficient level of labour market activity and
income redistribution (this is comparable to the growing unpopularity of
the authoritarian government) can the memory of historical events of
social engagement become fully appropriable by the population (this is
comparable to the participation in the local churches during childhood),
leading to the development of innovative forms of social participation
(this is comparable to the construction of the secret circles that
enhanced the democratic revolt). This process increases social capital
even further if socio-economic development is matched by the revival of
the unique historical legacy of the area.
The reconstruction of this unique past can rapidly become a source of
pride for the entire area, contributing in turn to an increasing
intra-regional solidarity, and with it enhancement of social networks
and social trust.
The Flemish case (and also to a lesser extent that of the North
East of Italy) illustrates this process well. The socio-economic
improvements that took place in the nineteenth century were matched by
the revival of the glorious Flemish traditions of the thirteenth and
fourteenth century. The increase of social capital generated by the
reduction of income inequality and the increasing participation in the
labour market due to the economic development was multiplied by the
reconstruction of Flemish identity and pride. This pride and
self-confidence has, in turn, increased the feeling of solidarity within
the region and contributed to generate a level of social capital, which
is hardly explicable by the single socio-economic predictors.
Ferragina suggests that, in the divergent cases, the value of the
historical legacy is affected by the poor present socio-economic
conditions. Social capital sleeps, not because of the absence of certain
clearly defined historical steps as suggested by Putnam, but because
socio-economic underdevelopment profoundly depressed the self-pride of
Southern Italians and Walloons.
The biased and simplistic interpretations of Southern Italian and
Walloon history will be discarded only when their socio-economic
conditions reach a sufficient level, enacting a cycle similar to
Flanders and the North East of Italy. Stronger redistribution, an
increase of labour market participation accompanied by a simultaneous
process of 'reinvention of the past' could enhance a positive cycle of
social capital increase in both areas. The historical legacy in these
two areas should not be seen as the root of the present lack of social
capital but as a potential element for improvement. Important moments of
social engagement also existed in the history of these two areas; the
imagery of Walloons and Southern Italians should be nourished by these
almost forgotten examples of collective history (i.e. the Fasci
Siciliani in the south of Italy) rather than the prevailing idea that
the historical legacy of these areas is simply an original sin, a burden
to carry through the process of modernization.
Social capital motives
Robison
and colleagues measured the relative importance of selfishness and four
social capital motives using resource allocation data collected in
hypothetical surveys and non-hypothetical experiments. The selfishness
motive assumes that an agent's allocation of a scarce resource is
independent of his relationships with others. This motive is sometimes
referred to as the selfishness of preference assumption in neoclassical
economics. Social capital motives assume that agents' allocation of a
scarce resource may be influenced by their social capital or sympathetic
relationships with others which may produce socio-emotional goods that
satisfy socio-emotional needs for validation and belonging. The first
social capital motive seeks for validation by acting consistently with
the values of one's ideal self. The second social capital motive seeks
to be validated by others by winning their approval. The third social
capital motive seeks to belong. Recognizing that one may not be able to
influence the sympathy of others, persons seeking to belong may act to
increase their own sympathy for others and the organizations or
institutions they represent. The fourth social capital motive
recognizes that our sympathy or social capital for another person will
motivate us to act in their interest. In doing so we satisfy our own
needs for validation and belonging. Empirical results reject the
hypothesis often implied in economics that we are 95% selfish.
Relationship with neoliberalism
The
social capital concept has influenced academic literature and public
debate through the specter of social disintegration: would anybody
disagree with the fact that we need healthy communities and civic
engagement to protect our democracies? Ferragina and Arrigoni have
argued that the popularity of this theory is rooted in the connection
made with neoliberalism by James Coleman (1990) and Robert Putnam
(1993). They contend that social capital theory has become an analytical
tool to avoid the debate on the effects of neoliberal policies on civic
engagement (Ferragina and Arrigoni 2016:9).
More specifically, by elaborating the most popular version of
social capital theory, Putnam (1993) revitalised Tocqueville's seminal
work on American democracy, showing that 'the health of liberal
democracy' depends upon social engagement. However, in linking social
capital, neoliberalism, and rational choice theory, Putnam did not
consider that the intensity of social engagement in a society tends to
be strictly related to the level of economic inequality (Ferragina,
2010, 2012) and other structural factors (Costa and Kahn, 2003), such as
the universal nature of the welfare state (Rothstein, 2008). Hence, by
arguing that the disadvantaged need more social capital to insure
themselves against the odds of a competitive world, Putnam implicitly
suggests that being powerless is a result of not having enough capital
rather than a structural problem of society (Ferragina and Arrigoni
2016).
However, in a period during which neoliberal governance is
showing many drawbacks and the marked incapacity to deliver economic
growth (Piketty, 2014), it is possible that to strengthen secondary
groups and social engagement, more equality and greater levels of
solidarity are needed (as classically argued by Tocqueville, see
Ferragina, 2010).
There is a tension between the individualisation of social risks
pursued by several political parties and the call to create social
capital: it is becoming harder to blame the individual for collective
problems. Prior to the start of the economic crisis in 2008, the tension
between rising economic inequality and the demand to strengthen civic
engagement was undermined by neoliberalism's capacity to sustain a
certain level of economic growth. One might claim this capacity
contributed to a transposition of social capital theory within public
discourse. The limitations of finance as the central engine of economic
growth, the material hardships fostered by the crisis, and the austerity
measures implemented by governments in response to these challenges are
critically undermining the legitimacy of neoliberal policies (Ferragina
and Arrigoni 2016: 10).
Relation with civil society
A number of authors
give definitions of civil society that refer to voluntary associations
and organisations outside the market and state. This definition is very
close to that of the third sector, which consists of "private
organisations that are formed and sustained by groups of people acting
voluntarily and without seeking personal profit to provide benefits for
themselves or for others". According to such authors as Walzer, Alessandrini, Newtown, Stolle and
Rochon, Foley and Edwards, and Walters, it is through civil society, or
more accurately, the third sector, that individuals are able to
establish and maintain relational networks. These voluntary associations
also connect people with each other, build trust and reciprocity
through informal, loosely structured associations, and consolidate
society through altruism without obligation. It is "this range of
activities, services and associations produced by... civil society" that constitutes the sources of social capital.
If civil society, then, is taken to be synonymous with the third
sector then the question it seems is not 'how important is social
capital to the production of a civil society?' but 'how important is
civil society to the production of social capital?'. Not only have the authors above documented how civil society produces sources of social capital, but in Lyons work
Third Sector,
social capital does not appear in any guise under either the factors
that enable or those that stimulate the growth of the third sector, and
Onyx describes how social capital depends on an already functioning community.
The idea that creating social capital (i.e., creating networks)
will strengthen civil society underlies current Australian social policy
aimed at bridging deepening social divisions. The goal is to
reintegrate those marginalised from the rewards of the economic system
into "the community". However, according to Onyx (2000), while the
explicit aim of this policy is inclusion, its effects are exclusionary.
Foley and Edwards
believe that "political systems... are important determinants of both
the character of civil society and of the uses to which whatever social
capital exists might be put".
Alessandrini agrees, saying, "in Australia in particular,
neo-liberalism has been recast as economic rationalism and identified by
several theorists and commentators as a danger to society at large
because of the use to which they are putting social capital to work".
The resurgence of interest in social capital as a remedy for the
cause of today's social problems draws directly on the assumption that
these problems lie in the weakening of civil society. However this
ignores the arguments of many theorists who believe that social capital
leads to exclusion rather than to a stronger civil society. In international development,
Ben Fine
and John Harriss have been heavily critical of the inappropriate
adoption of social capital as a supposed panacea (promoting civil
society organisations and NGOs, for example, as agents of development)
for the inequalities generated by neo liberal economic development. This leads to controversy as to the role of state institutions in the promotion of social capital.
An abundance of social capital is seen as being almost a necessary condition for modern
liberal democracy.
A low level of social capital leads to an excessively rigid and
unresponsive political system and high levels of corruption, in the
political system and in the region as a whole. Formal public
institutions require social capital in order to function properly, and
while it is possible to have too much social capital (resulting in rapid
changes and excessive regulation), it is decidedly worse to have too
little.
Kathleen Dowley and Brian Silver published an article entitled
"Social Capital, Ethnicity and Support for Democracy in the
Post-Communist States". This article found that in post-communist
states, higher levels of social capital did not equate to higher levels
of democracy. However, higher levels of social capital led to higher
support for democracy.
A number of intellectuals in developing countries have argued
that the idea of social capital, particularly when connected to certain
ideas about civil society, is deeply implicated in contemporary modes of
donor and NGO driven imperialism and that it functions, primarily, to
blame the poor for their condition.
The concept of social capital in a Chinese social context has been closely linked with the concept of
guanxi.
An interesting attempt to measure social capital spearheaded by Corporate Alliance in the English speaking market segment of the United States of America and Xentrum through the Latin American Chamber of Commerce
in Utah on the Spanish speaking population of the same country,
involves the quantity, quality and strength of an individual social
capital. With the assistance of software applications and web-based
relationship-oriented systems such as
LinkedIn, these kinds of organizations are expected to provide its members with a way to keep track of the
number of their relationships, meetings designed to boost the
strength
of each relationship using group dynamics, executive retreats and
networking events as well as training in how to reach out to higher
circles of
influential people.
Women's engagement with politics
There are many factors that drive volume towards the ballot box,
including education, employment, civil skills, and time. Careful
evaluation of these fundamental factors often suggests that women do not
vote at similar levels as men. However the gap between women and men
voter turnout is diminishing and in some cases women are becoming more
prevalent at the ballot box than their male counterparts. Recent
research on social capital is now serving as an explanation for this change.
Social capital offers a wealth of resources and networks that
facilitate political engagement. Since social capital is readily
available no matter the type of community, it is able to override more
traditional queues for political engagement; e.g.: education,
employment, civil skills, etc.
There are unique ways in which women organize. These differences
from men make social capital more personable and impressionable to women
audiences thus creating a stronger presence in regards to political
engagement. A few examples of these characteristics are:
- Women's informal and formal networks tend toward care work that is often considered apolitical;
- Women are also more likely to engage in local politics and social
movement activities than in traditional forums focused on national
politics;
- Women are more likely to organize themselves in less hierarchical ways and to focus on creating consensus.
The often informal nature of female social capital allows women to
politicize apolitical environments without conforming to masculine
standards, thus keeping this activity at a low public profile. These
differences are hard to recognize within the discourse of political
engagement and may explain why social capital has not been considered as
a tool for female political engagement until as of late.
Effects on health
A
growing body of research has found that the presence of social capital
through social networks and communities has a protective quality on
health. Social capital affects health risk behavior in the sense that
individuals who are embedded in a network or community rich in support,
social trust, information, and norms, have resources that help achieve
health goals.
For example, a person who is sick with cancer may receive information,
money, or moral support he or she needs to endure treatment and recover.
Social capital also encourages social trust and membership. These
factors can discourage individuals from engaging in risky health
behaviors such as smoking and binge drinking. Furthermore, neighbourhood social capital may also aid in buffering health inequities amongst children and adolescents.
Inversely, a lack of social capital can impair health. For
example, results from a survey given to 13- to 18-year-old students in
Sweden showed that low social capital and low social trust are
associated with higher rates of psychosomatic symptoms, musculoskeletal
pain, and depression.
Additionally, negative social capital can detract from health. Although
there are only a few studies that assess social capital in criminalized
populations, there is information that suggests that social capital
does have a negative effect in broken communities. Deviant behavior is
encouraged by deviant peers via favorable definitions and learning
opportunities provided by network-based norms.
However, in these same communities, an adjustment of norms (i.e.
deviant peers being replaced by positive role models) can pose a
positive effect.
Effects of the Internet
Similar
to watching the news and keeping abreast of current events, the use of
the Internet can relate to an individual's level of social capital. In
one study, informational uses of the Internet correlated positively with
an individual's production of social capital, and social-recreational
uses were negatively correlated (higher levels of these uses correlated
with lower levels of social capital). An example supporting the former argument is the contribution of Peter
Maranci's blog (Charlie on the Commuter Line) to address the train
problems in Massachusetts. He created it after an incident where a lady
passed out during a train ride due to the congestion in the train and
help was delayed because of the congestion in the train and the
inefficiency of the train conductor. His blog exposed the poor
conditions of train stations, overcrowding train rides and inefficiency
of the train conductor which eventually influenced changes within the
transit system. Another perspective holds that the rapid growth of social networking sites such as
Facebook and
Myspace
suggests that individuals are creating a virtual-network consisting of
both bonding and bridging social capital. Unlike face to face
interaction, people can instantly connect with others in a targeted
fashion by placing specific parameters with internet use. This means
that individuals can selectively connect with others based on
ascertained interests, and backgrounds.
Facebook is currently the most popular social networking site and touts many advantages to its users including serving as a
social lubricant for individuals who otherwise have difficulties forming and maintaining both strong and weak ties with others.
This argument continues, although the preponderance of evidence
shows a positive association between social capital and the internet.
Critics of virtual communities believe that the Internet replaces our
strong bonds with online "weak-ties" or with socially empty interactions with the technology itself. Others fear that the Internet can create a world of "
narcissism
of similarity," where sociability is reduced to interactions between
those that are similar in terms of ideology, race, or gender.
A few articles suggest that technologically based interactions has a
negative relationship with social capital by displacing time spent
engaging in geographical/ in-person social activities.
However, the consensus of research shows that the more time people
spend online the more in-person contact they have, thus positively
enhancing social capital.
Recent research, conducted in 2006, also shows that Internet
users often have wider networks than those who uses internet irregularly
or not at all. When not considering family and work contacts, Internet
users actually tend to have contact with a higher number of friends and
relatives.
This is supported by another study that shows that internet users and
non-internet users do feel equally close to the same number of people;
also the internet users maintain relationships with 20% more people that
they "feel somewhat close" to.
Other research shows that younger people use the Internet as a
supplemental medium for communication, rather than letting the Internet
communication replace face-to-face contact.
This supports the view that Internet communication does not hinder
development of social capital and does not make people feel lonelier
than before.
Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe (2007) suggest social capital
exercised online is a result of relationships formed offline; whereby,
bridging capital is enabled through a "maintenance" of relationships.
Among respondents of this study, social capital built exclusively online
creates weaker ties.
A distinction of social bonding is offered by Ellison et al., 2007,
suggesting bonds, or strong ties, are possible through social media, but
less likely.
Effects on educational achievement
Coleman
and Hoffer collected quantitative data of 28,000 students in total
1,015 public, Catholic and other private high schools in America from
the 7 years' period from 1980 to 1987.
It was found from this longitudinal research that social capital in
students' families and communities attributed to the much lower dropout
rates in
Catholic schools compared with the higher rates in public.
Teachman et al.
further develop the family structure indicator suggested by Coleman.
They criticise Coleman, who used only the number of parents present in
the family, neglected the unseen effect of more discrete dimensions such
as stepparents' and different types of single-parent families. They
take into account of a detailed counting of family structure, not only
with two biological parents or stepparent families, but also with types
of single-parent families with each other (mother-only, father-only,
never-married, and other). They also contribute to the literature by
measuring parent-child interaction by the indicators of how often
parents and children discuss school-related activities.
Morgan and Sorensen
directly challenge Coleman for his lacking of an explicit mechanism to
explain why Catholic schools students perform better than public school
students on standardised tests of achievement.
Researching students in Catholic schools and public schools again, they
propose two comparable models of social capital effect on mathematic
learning. One is on Catholic schools as norm-enforcing schools whereas
another is on public schools as horizon-expanding schools. It is found
that while social capital can bring about positive effect of maintaining
an encompassing functional community in norm-enforcing schools, it also
brings about the negative consequence of excessive monitoring.
Creativity and exceptional achievement would be repressed as a result.
Whereas in horizon expanding school, social closure is found to be
negative for student's mathematic achievement. These schools explore a
different type of social capital, such as information about
opportunities in the extended social networks of parents and other
adults. The consequence is that more learning is fostered than
norm-enforcing Catholic school students. In sum, Morgan and Sorensen's
(1999) study implies that social capital is contextualised, one kind of
social capital may be positive in this setting but is not necessarily
still positive in another setting.
In the setting of education through Kilpatrick et al., (2010)
state, '... social capital is a useful lens for analysing lifelong
learning and its relationship to community development'. Social capital
is particularly important in terms of education. Also the importance of
education with '...schools being designed to create "functioning
community"- forging tighter links between parents and the school'
(Coleman & Hoffer, 1987) linking that without this interaction, the
social capital in this area is disadvantaged and demonstrates that
social capital plays a major role in education.
Without social capital in the area of education, teachers and
parents that play a responsibility in a students learning, the
significant impacts on their child's academic learning can rely on these
factors. With focus on parents contributing to their child's academic
progress as well as being influenced by social capital in education.
Without the contribution by the parent in their child's education, gives
parents less opportunity and participation in the student's life. As
Tedin et al. (2010)
state '...one of the most important factors in promoting student
success is the active involvement of parents in a child's education.
With parents also involved in activities and meetings the school
conducts, the more involved parents are with other parents and the staff
members. Thus parent involvement contributes to social capital with
becoming more involved in the school community and participating makes
the school a sustainable and easy to run community.
In their journal article "Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children", Sampson et al.
stress the normative or goal-directed dimension of social capital. They
claim, "resources or networks alone (e.g. voluntary associations,
friendship ties, organisational density) are neutral--- they may or may
not be effective mechanism for achieving intended effect"
Marjoribanks and Kwok conducted a survey in
Hong Kong
secondary schools with 387 fourteen-year-old students with an aim to
analyse female and male adolescents differential educational achievement
by using social capital as the main analytic tool. In that research,
social capital is approved of its different effects upon different
genders. In his thesis "New Arrival Students in Hong Kong: Adaptation
and School Performance", Hei Hang Hayes Tang argues that adaptation is a
process of activation and accumulation of (cultural and social)
capitals. The research findings show that supportive networks is the key
determinant differentiating the divergent adaptation pathways.
Supportive networks, as a form of social capital, is necessary for
activating the cultural capital the newly arrived students possessed.
The amount of accumulated capital is also relevant to further
advancement in the ongoing adaptation process.
Min Zhou and
Carl L. Bankston in their study of a
Vietnamese community in New Orleans find that preserving traditional ethnic values enable
immigrants to integrate socially and to maintain
solidarity
in an ethnic community. Ethnic solidarity is especially important in
the context where immigrants just arrive in the host society. In her
article "Social Capital in Chinatown", Zhou examines how the process of
adaptation of young
Chinese Americans is affected by tangible forms of social relations between the community, immigrant families, and the younger generations.
Chinatown serves as the basis of social capital that facilitates the
accommodation of immigrant children in the expected directions. Ethnic
support provides impetus to academic success. Furthermore, maintenance
of literacy in native language also provides a form of social capital
that contributes positively to academic achievement. Stanton-Salazar
and Dornbusch
found that bilingual students were more likely to obtain the necessary
forms of institutional support to advance their school performance and
their life chances.
Putnam (2000) mentions in his book
Bowling Alone, "
Child development
is powerfully shaped by social capital" and continues "presence of
social capital has been linked to various positive outcomes,
particularly in education".
According to his book, these positive outcomes are the result of
parents' social capital in a community. In states where there is a high
social capital, there is also a high education performance.
The similarity of these states is that parents were more associated
with their children's education. Teachers have reported that when the
parents participate more in their children's education and school life,
it lowers levels of misbehavior, such as bringing weapons to school,
engaging in physical violence, unauthorized absence, and being generally
apathetic about education. Borrowing Coleman's quotation from Putnam's book, Coleman once
mentioned we cannot understate "the importance of the embeddedness of
young persons in the enclaves of adults most proximate to them, first
and most prominent the family and second, a surrounding community of
adults".
In geography
In
order to understand social capital as a subject in geography, one must
look at it in a sense of space, place, and territory. In its
relationship, the tenets
of geography relate to the ideas of social capital in the family,
community, and in the use of social networks. The biggest advocate for
seeing social capital as a geographical subject was American economist
and political scientist Robert Putnam. His main argument for
classifying social capital as a geographical concept is that the
relationships of people is shaped and molded by the areas in which they
live.
Putnam (1993) argued that the lack of social capital in the South
of Italy was more the product of a peculiar historical and geographical
development than the consequence of a set of contemporary
socio-economic conditions. This idea has sparked a lengthy debate and
received fierce criticism (Ferragina, 2010; Ferragina 2012: 3). There are many areas in which social capital can be defined by the theories and practices.
Anthony Giddens
developed a theory in 1984 in which he relates social structures and
the actions that they produce. In his studies, he does not look at the
individual participants of these structures, but how the structures and
the social connections that stem from them are diffused over space.
If this is the case, the continuous change in social structures could
bring about a change in social capital, which can cause changes in
community atmosphere. If an area is plagued by social organizations
whose goals are to revolt against social norms, such as gangs, it can
cause a negative social capital for the area causing those who disagreed
with said organizations to relocate thus taking their positive social
capital to a different space than the negative.
Another area where social capital can be seen as an area of study
in geography is through the analysis of participation in volunteerism
and its support of different governments. One area to look into with
this is through those who participate in social organizations. People
that participate are of different races, ages, and economic status.
With these in mind, variances of the space in which these different
demographics may vary, causing a difference in involvement among areas.
Secondly, there are different social programs for different areas based
on economic situation.
A governmental organization would not place a welfare center in a
wealthier neighborhood where it would have very limited support to the
community, as it is not needed. Thirdly, social capital can be affected
by the participation of individuals of a certain area based on the type
of institutions that are placed there. Mohan supports this with the argument of J. Fox in his paper
"Decentralization and Rural Development in Mexico", which states
"structures of local governance in turn influence the capacity of
grassroots communities to influence social investments."
With this theory, if the involvement of a government in specific areas
raises the involvement of individuals in social organizations and/or
communities, this will in turn raise the social capital for that area.
Since every area is different, the government takes that into
consideration and will provide different areas with different
institutions to fit their needs thus there will be different changes in
social capital in different areas.
In leisure studies
In the context of
leisure studies,
social capital is seen as the consequence of investment in and
cultivation of social relationships allowing an individual access to
resources that would otherwise be unavailable to him or her. The concept of social capital in relation to
leisure
is grounded in a perspective that emphasizes the interconnectedness
rather than the separateness of human activity and human goals. There is
a significant connection between leisure and democratic social capital. Specific forms of leisure activity contribute to the development of the social capital central to
democracy and democratic citizenship. The more an individual participates in social activities, the more
autonomy
the individual experiences, which will help her or his individual
abilities and skills to develop. The greater the accumulation of social
capital a person experiences, may transfer to other leisure activities
as well as personal social roles, relationships and in other roles
within a
social structure.
Negative social capital
It
has been noted that social capital may not always be used for positive
ends. While pursuing doctoral studies, Lester was the first to create
figures and equate negative social capital with negative returns.
Before Lester, negative social capital was a societal ill, not a
business one. An example of the complexities of the effects of negative
social capital is violence or criminal
gang activity that is encouraged through the strengthening of intra-group relationships (bonding social capital). The negative consequences of social capital are more often associated with
bonding vis-à-vis
bridging.
Without "bridging" social capital, "bonding" groups can become
isolated and disenfranchised from the rest of society and, most
importantly, from groups with which bridging must occur in order to
denote an "increase" in social capital. Bonding social capital is a
necessary antecedent for the development of the more powerful form of
bridging social capital.
Bonding and bridging social capital can work together productively if
in balance, or they may work against each other. As social capital bonds
and stronger homogeneous groups form, the likelihood of bridging social
capital is attenuated. Bonding social capital can also perpetuate
sentiments of a certain group, allowing for the bonding of certain
individuals together upon a common radical ideal. The strengthening of
insular ties can lead to a variety of effects such as ethnic
marginalization or social isolation. In extreme cases ethnic cleansing
may result if the relationship between different groups is so strongly
negative. In mild cases, it just isolates certain communities such as
suburbs of cities because of the bonding social capital and the fact
that people in these communities spend so much time away from places
that build bridging social capital.
Social capital (in the institutional
Robert Putnam
sense) may also lead to bad outcomes if the political institution and
democracy in a specific country is not strong enough and is therefore
overpowered by the social capital groups. "Civil society and the
collapse of the Weimar Republic" suggests that "it was weak political
institutionalization rather than a weak civil society that was Germany's
main problem during the Wihelmine and Weimar eras."
Because the political institutions were so weak people looked to other
outlets. "Germans threw themselves into their clubs, voluntary
associations, and professional organizations out of frustration with the
failures of the national government and political parties, thereby
helping to undermine the Weimar Republic and facilitate Hitler's rise to
power." In this article about the fall of the
Weimar Republic,
the author makes the claim that Hitler rose to power so quickly because
he was able to mobilize the groups towards one common goal. Even though
German society was, at the time, a "joining" society these groups were
fragmented and their members did not use the skills they learned in
their club associations to better their society. They were very
introverted in the Weimar Republic. Hitler was able to capitalize on
this by uniting these highly bonded groups under the common cause of
bringing Germany to the top of world politics. The former world order
had been destroyed during World War I, and Hitler believed that Germany
had the right and the will to become a dominant global power.
Additionally, in his essay "A Criticism of Putnam's Theory of Social
Capital",
Michael Shindler expands upon Berman's argument that Wiemar social
clubs and similar associations in countries that did not develop
democracy, were organized in such a way that they fostered a "we"
instead of an "I" mentality among their members, by arguing that groups
which possess cultures that stress solidarity over individuality, even
ones that are "horizontally" structured and which were also common to
pre-
soviet eastern europe, will not engender democracy if they are politically aligned with non-democratic ideologies.
Later work by Putnam also suggests that social capital, and the
associated growth of public trust are inhibited by immigration and
rising racial
diversity in communities.
Putnam's study regarding the issue argued that in American areas with a
lack of homogeneity, some individuals neither participated in bonding
nor bridging social capital. In societies where immigration is high
(USA) or where ethnic heterogeneity is high (Eastern Europe), it was
found that citizens lacked in both kinds of social capital and were
overall far less trusting of others than members of homogenous
communities were found to be. Lack of homogeneity led to people
withdrawing from even their closest groups and relationships, creating
an atomized society as opposed to a cohesive community. These findings
challenge previous beliefs that exposure to diversity strengthens social
capital, either through bridging social gaps between ethnicities or
strengthening in-group bonds. It is very important for policy makers to
monitor the level of perceived socio-economic threat from immigrants
because negative attitudes towards immigrants make integration difficult
and affect social capital.
Reproduction of inequality
James Coleman has indicated that social capital eventually led to the creation of human capital for the future generation.
Human capital, a private resource, could be accessed through what the
previous generation accumulated through social capital. Field suggested
that such a process could lead to the very inequality social capital
attempts to resolve.
While Coleman viewed social capital as a relatively neutral resource,
he did not deny the class reproduction that could result from accessing
such capital, given that individuals worked toward their own benefit.
Even though Coleman never truly addresses Bourdieu in his discussion,
this coincides with Bourdieu's argument set forth in
Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture.
Bourdieu and Coleman were fundamentally different at the theoretical
level (as Bourdieu believed the actions of individuals were rarely ever
conscious, but more so only a result of their habitus (see below) being
enacted within a particular field, but this realization by both seems to
undeniably connect their understanding of the more latent aspects of
social capital.
According to Bourdieu, habitus refers to the social context
within which a social actor is socialized. Thus, it is the social
platform, itself, that equips one with the social reality they become
accustomed to. Out of habitus comes field, the manner in which one
integrates and displays his or her habitus. To this end, it is the
social exchange and interaction between two or more social actors. To
illustrate this, we assume that an individual wishes to better his place
in society. He therefore accumulates social capital by involving
himself in a social network, adhering to the norms of that group,
allowing him to later access the resources (e.g. social relationships)
gained over time. If, in the case of education, he uses these resources
to better his educational outcomes, thereby enabling him to become
socially mobile, he effectively has worked to reiterate and reproduce
the stratification of society, as social capital has done little to
alleviate the system as a whole. This may be one negative aspect of
social capital, but seems to be an inevitable one in and of itself, as
are all forms of capital.
