Social capital

Sociology
History Outline Portal
Main theories
Conflict theory Structural functionalism Symbolic interactionism
Methods
Comparative Computational Critical theory Ethnography Ethnomethodology Historical Mathematical Network analysis Positivism Qualitative Quantitative
Subfields and other major theories
Conflict Criminology Culture Demography Development Deviance Economic Education Environmental Family Feminist sociology Gender Health Immigration Industrial Inequality Knowledge Law Literature Medical Military Organizational Political Race and ethnicity Religion Rural Science Social change Social constructionism Social movements Social psychology in sociology Stratification Technology Terrorism Urban
Browse
Bibliography By country Index Journals Organizations People Timeline

Part of a series on
Community
Academic studies
Community studies Community psychology Computational sociology Cultural anthropology Internet studies Philosophy of social science Rural sociology Social geography Social philosophy Social sciences Sociocultural evolution Urban planning
Key concepts
Affinity (sociology) Collectivism Community of interest Community of practice Community of place Community service Communitarianism Community politics Group (sociology) Group dynamics Imagined community Organization Sense of community Small-group communication Social capital Socialization Solidarity (sociology)
Community development
Community-based management Community building Community economic development Community development planning Community organizing
See also
Outline WikiProject Community Community portal Category:Community building Category:Community development Category:Localism (politics) Join the Community community

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.^[1][2]

Background

The term social capital was in intermittent use from about 1890, before becoming widely used in the late 1990s.^[3]

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.^[4] 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.^[5] 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,^[6] 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.^[7] 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).^[9] 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).^[10] The debate of community versus modernization of society and individualism has been the most discussed topic among the founders of sociology (Tönnies, 1887;^[11] Durkheim, 1893;^[12] Simmel, 1905;^[13] Weber, 1946).^[14] 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).^[15]

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;^[16] Nisbet, 1969;^[17] Stein, 1960;^[18] Whyte, 1956).^[19] 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;^[20] Ferragina, 2012^[21]). It is for this reason that social capital generated so much interest in the academic and political world (Rose, 2000).^[22]

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",^[23] 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.^[24] 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^[25] 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.^[26]

Varshney^[27] studied the correlation between the presence of interethnic networks (bridging) versus intra-ethnic ones (bonding) on ethnic violence in India.^[28] 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:

1. Facilitate communication in the community across ethnic lines
2. Squelch false rumors
3. 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)^[29] 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.^[30] 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).^[31]

Definitions, forms, and measurement

Social capital has multiple definitions, interpretations, and uses. Thomas Sander^[32] 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."^[33] Meanwhile, negative norms of reciprocity serve as disincentives for detrimental and violent behaviors.^[34][35]

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;^[36] 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,^[37] the growth of entrepreneurial firms,^[38] improved performance of functionally diverse groups,^[39] the value derived from strategic alliances,^[40] and enhanced supply chain relations.^[41] '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^[42] 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.^[43] 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^[44] 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."^[45] 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."^[26] 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"^[46]—that is, social capital is anything that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and social norms.^[26] 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.^[23]

According to Robert Putnam, social capital "connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them."^[47] 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.^[48] 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.^[49]

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.^[50]

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.^[51] 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.^[52] 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^[53] 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^[54] and Boland and Tenkasi,^[55] 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."^[56] Robison, Schmid, and Siles^[57] 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).^[58] 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.^[59]

Roots

Integrating history and socio-economic analysis

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^[98]).

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^{[24][99][100][101]} 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"^[24] 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,^[102] 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^[103] 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^[104] 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".^[23] 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".^[24]

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.^[105][106] 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.^[107]

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.^[108]

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^[109] in the English speaking market segment of the United States of America and Xentrum^[110] through the Latin American Chamber of Commerce^[111] 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^[112] 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.^[113]
• Women are also more likely to engage in local politics and social movement activities than in traditional forums focused on national politics.^[114]
• Women are more likely to organize themselves in less hierarchical ways and to focus on creating consensus.^[113]

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.^[112]

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.^[115] 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.^[116] Furthermore, neighbourhood social capital may also aid in buffering health inequities amongst children and adolescents.^[117]

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.^[118] 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.^[119] 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).^[120] 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.^[121] 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.^[122]

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"^[123] or with socially empty interactions with the technology itself.^[124] 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.^[125] 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.^[123] 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.^{[126][127][128]}

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.^[129] 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.^[130]

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.^[131] 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.^[132] 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.^[133] 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.^[134] 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^[135] 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.^[136] 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.^[135]

In the setting of education through Kilpatrick et al., (2010)^[137] 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)^[138] 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.^[139] 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"^[140]

Marjoribanks and Kwok^[141] 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.^[142]

Min Zhou and Carl L. Bankston^[143] 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.^[144] 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^[145] 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".^[146] 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.^[147] 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.^[148] 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".^[149]

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.^[150]

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).^[151][152] 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.^[153] 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.^[154] 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.^[154] 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.^[154] 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."^[155] 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.^[156] 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.^[157] 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.^[157]

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.^[158] 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).^[159] The negative consequences of social capital are more often associated with bonding vis-à-vis bridging.^[160]

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.^[161] 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."^[162] 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",^[163] 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.^[164]

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.^[165] 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.^[166]

See also

References

Further reading

• Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept.
• Becker, Gary S. (1996). Accounting for Tastes. Part I: Personal Capital; Part II: Social Capital. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-54357-7. Description & Table of Contents.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. (1983). "Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital" in Soziale Ungleichheiten (Soziale Welt, Sonderheft 2), edited by Reinhard Kreckel. Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co. pp. 183–98.
• Coleman, James S. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital", American Journal of Sociology. 94 Supplement: (pp. S95-S-120), abstract.
• Dasgupta, Partha, and Serageldin, Ismail, ed. (2000). Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. (book preview except pp. 217–401, 403-25)
• Edwards, B. & Foley, M. W. (1998). Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam
• Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C. ja Lampe, C. (2007) "The benefits of facebook ’friends:’ Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites", Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), ss. 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
• Everingham, C. (2001). Reconstituting Community
• Ferragina, E (2010). "Social Capital and Equality". Tocqueville Review. 31 (1): 73–98. doi:10.1353/toc.0.0030.
• Ferragina, E. (2012) "Social Capital in Europe".
• Ferragina, E. (2013) "The socio-economic determinants of social capital. Making Democracy Work revisited.
• Ferragina, E. and Arrigoni, A. (2016) "The Rise and Fall of Social Capital: Requiem for a Theory? Political Studies Review.
• Folland, Sherman; Rocco, Lorenzo, eds. (2014). The Economics of Social Capital and Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Roadmap. World Scientific Series in Global Healthcare Economics and Public Policy: Vol. 2. Hackensack, New Jersey: World Scientific. p. 236. doi:10.1142/7593. ISBN 978-981-4293-39-6.
• Kay, A (2006). "Social capital, the social economy and community development". Community Development Journal. 41 (2): 160–173. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsi045.
• Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer (1997). "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), pp. 1251–1288.
• Leyden, Kevin M (2003). "Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods" (PDF). American Journal of Public Health. 93 (9): 1546–1551. doi:10.2105/ajph.93.9.1546. PMC 1448008. PMID 12948978.
• Lin, Nan, "Building a Network Theory of Social Capital", [CONNECTIONS 22(1): 28-51,©1999 INSNA] .
• Lin, J.-H.; Peng, W.; Kim, M.; Kim, S. Y.; LaRose, R. (2011). "Social networking and adjustments among international students". New Media & Society. 14 (3): 421–440. doi:10.1177/1461444811418627.
• Putnam, R. D. (1995). "Bowling alone: Americas´s declining social capital" (Submitted manuscript). Journal of Democracy. 6 (1): 65–78. doi:10.1353/jod.1995.0002.
• Putnam, Robert D. (2006). E Pluribus Unim: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century, Nordic Political Science Association
• From Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume, ed. (2008). The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition:

"social capital" (abstract) by Partha Dasgupta

"religion, economics of" (abstract) by Laurence R. Iannaccone and Eli Berman

"social norms" (abstract) by H. Peyton Young

"social networks, economic relevance of" (abstract) by James Moody and Martina Morris

• Mohan, Giles, and John Mohan. "Placing Social Capital." Progress in Human Geography 26.2 (2002): 191-210. University of Cincinnati. Web. 7 Nov. 2010
• Portes, A (1998). "Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology". Annual Review of Sociology. 24: 1–24. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1.
• Silverman, R.M. (2004). Community-based organizations: The intersection of social capital and local context in contemporary urban society. Detroit: Wayne State University Press
• Williams, D (2006). "On and Off the 'Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era". Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 11 (2): 593–628. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.00029.x.
• Zhou, Min and Carl L. Bankston III Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1998. ISBN 978-0-87154-995-2.

External links

Wikiversity has learning resources about Social capital

• The World Social Capital Monitor, Survey in 35 languages within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
• Social Capital as the social dimension of the UN SDG, Jos Verbeek of the Worldbank, August 2017