Social capital

In sociology, social capital is the expected
collective or economic benefits derived from the preferential treatment and cooperation
between individuals and groups. Although different social sciences emphasize different aspects
of social capital, they tend to share the core idea “that social networks have value”.
Just as a screwdriver or a university education can increase productivity, so do social contacts
affect the productivity of individuals and groups. Background
The term “social capital” was in occasional use from about 1890, but only became 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 writers highlighted also that the level of social
participation in American society was directly linked to the equality of conditions.
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 neighbor, and they with other neighbors,
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 neighbors.” John Dewey actually 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, Barry Wellman and 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 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 and Alexis de Tocqueville 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. 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. The debate of community versus modernization of society and individualism
has been the most discussed topic among the fathers of sociology. They were convinced
that industrialisation and urbanization were transforming social relationship in an irreversible
way. They observed a breakdown of traditional bonds and the progressive development of anomie
and alienation in society. 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 ‘The Mass Society Theory’. They proposed themes similar
to those of the founding fathers, with a more pessimistic emphasis on the development of
society. In the words of Stein: “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.
Evaluating social capital Though Bourdieu might agree with Coleman that
social capital in the abstract is a neutral resource, his work tends to show how it 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.
An interesting distinction of social organization is that between bonding and bridging ties,
which complicates the neo-Tocquevillean view of social capital.
Varshney studied the correlation between the presence of interethnic networks versus intra-ethnic
ones 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 may lead to the same result as interethnic engagement.
Finally, 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. This framework has been rediscussed by considering
simultaneously the condition of European regions and specifically Southern Italy.
Definitions, forms, and measurement Social capital lends itself to multiple definitions,
interpretations, and uses. 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’;. 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
“refers to the collective value of all ‘social networks’ and the inclinations that arise
from these networks to do things for each other.” 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. 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 considered social capital as subjective
phenomenon formed by values and attitudes which influence interactions.
In “Social Capital and Development: The Coming Agenda,” Francis Fukuyama points out that
there isn’t an agreed definition of social capital, so he explains it as “shared norms
or values that promote social cooperation, instantiated in actual social relationships”,
and uses this definition throughout this paper. He argues that social capital is a necessary
precondition for successful development, but a strong rule of law and basic political institutions
are necessary to build social capital. He believes that a strong social capital is necessary
for a strong democracy and strong economic growth. Familism is a major problem of trust
because it fosters a two-tiered moral system, in which a person must favor the opinions
of family members. Fukuyama believes that bridging social capital, is essential for
a strong social capital because a broader radius of trust will enable connections across
borders of all sorts and serve as a basis for organizations. Although he points out
many problems and possible solutions in his paper, he does admit that there is still much
to be done to build a strong social capital. The Social Capital Foundation suggested that
social capital should not be mixed up with its manifestations. While for example social
capital is often understood as the networks that a person possesses and that he/she may
use in a social integration purpose, it is more the disposition to create, maintain and
develop such networks that constitutes real social capital. Similarly, civic engagement
is a manifestation of social capital but not social capital itself. In this definition,
social capital is a collective mental disposition close to the spirit of community.
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
focusses on the shared meaning and understanding that individuals or groups have with one another.
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.
Roots Social capital: 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. 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’.
Definitional issues The term “capital” is used by analogy with
other forms of economic capital, as social capital is argued to have similar 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.
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 his pioneering study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community,
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.” Writing before the proliferation of the internet, Putnam claims to have found
an overall decline in social capital in America over the past fifty years, a trend that may
have significant implications for American society.
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 create
bridging social capital. Bridging social capital is argued to have a host of other benefits
for societies, governments, individuals, and communities; Putnam likes to note that joining
an organization cuts in half an individual’s chance of dying within the next year.
The distinction is useful in highlighting how social capital may not always be beneficial
for society as a whole. 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 be 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. The other form of consummatory social capital,
solidarity, dates back to the writings of Karl Marx, a German philosopher and political
economist from the 19th century. The main focus of the study of Karl Marx was the working
class of the Industrial Revolution. Marx analyzed the reasons these workers supported each other
for the benefit of the group. He held that this support was an adaptation to the immediate
time as opposed to a trait that was installed in them throughout their youth. As another
example, Coleman states that this type of social capital is the type that brings individuals
to stand up for what they believe in, and even die for it, in the face of adversity.
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 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.
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, quantitative measuring
has proven somewhat complicated. This has resulted in different metrics for different
functions. In measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of society’s
membership of its groups. Groups with higher membership contribute more to the amount of
capital than groups with lower membership, although many groups with low membership 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.
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.
Knack and Keefer 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 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 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. The level of cohesion of a group also affects
its social capital. 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. 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 and the Mafia are examples of these kinds 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 criticised. Criticism has mainly focused on:
the lack of awareness of the structural socio-economic conditions of society. as for example, the
level of income inequality. the excessive determinism of the historical
analysis. Ferragina 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’ 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 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 at the individual level. Using
the example of the Korean students, Coleman argued that the construction of a secret network
of people as a means of organizing the democratic revolt was the result of a process of socialization
that took place during their childhood. 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 can the
memory of historical events of social engagement become fully appropriable by the population,
leading to the development of innovative forms of social participation. 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 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 moment 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
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.
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 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, 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
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, 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.
Social capital and 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.
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 off
the radar. 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.
Inversely, a lack of social capital can impair health. For example, results from a survey
given to 13-18 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 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. An example supporting the former
argument is the contribution of Peter Maranci’s blog 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 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.
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. 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 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., 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’ 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. 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 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 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 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 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. 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.
Negative social capital It has been noted that social capital may
be not always be used for positive ends. An example of the complexities of the effects
of social capital is violent or criminal gang activity that is encouraged through the strengthening
of intra-group relationships. 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 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.
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 or where ethnic heterogeneity is high, 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. Social capital and reproduction of inequality
Coleman 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 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 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. See also Citations References
Becker, Gary S.. Accounting for Tastes. Part I: Personal Capital; Part II: Social Capital.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-54357-2.  Description & Table of Contents.
Bourdieu, Pierre.. “Ökonomisches Kapital, kulturelles Kapital, soziales Kapital” in
Soziale Ungleichheiten, edited by Reinhard Kreckel. Goettingen: Otto Schartz & Co. pp. 183–98.
Coleman, James S.. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, American Journal
of Sociology. 94 Supplement:, abstract. Dasgupta, Partha, and Serageldin, Ismail,
ed.. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Edwards, B. & Foley, M. W.. Civil society and social capital beyond Putnam
Everingham, C.. Reconstituting Community Ferragina, E. “The socio-economic determinants
of social capital. Making Democracy Work revisited. Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer. “Does Social
Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics,
112(4), pp. 1251-1288. Leyden, Kevin M.. “Social Capital and the
Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public
Health. Volume 93: 1546-1551 Lin, Nan, “Building a Network Theory of Social
Capital”, [CONNECTIONS 22(1): 28-51,©1999 INSNA][1].
Putnam, Robert D.. E Pluribus Unim: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century,
Nordic Political Science Association From Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume,
ed.. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition:
“social capital” by Partha Dasgupta “religion, economics of” by Laurence R. Iannaccone
and Eli Berman “social norms” by H. Peyton Young
“social networks, economic relevance of” by James Moody and Martina Morris
Mohan, Giles, and John Mohan. “Placing Social Capital.” Progress in Human Geography 26.2:
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. Silverman, R.M.. Community-based organizations:
The intersection of social capital and local context in contemporary urban society. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press 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. Folland, Sherman & Rocco, Lorenzo, ed.. 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. ISBN 978-981-4293-39-6.  External links
Caste as Social Capital Social Capital Research – Detailed review
of social capital, particularly social capital for social action.
The Social Capital Foundation, Patrick Hunout Social Capital Gateway, Resources for the
study of social capital Social capital tool by Martin Gargiulo INSEAD
Faculty, Identifying patterns in your network. The Saguaro Seminar’s “Primer on Social Capital”
World Bank’s PovertyNet page on social capital Lin N., 2001, Building a Network Theory of
Social Capital Social Capital Inc., an organization dedicated
to increasing social capital in local communities New Papers on Social Capital, a Newsletter
edited by the RePEc Project Social Capital Theory in the Context of Japanese
Children, article by Cherylynn Bassani in the electronic journal of contemporary japanese
studies, 8 May 2003. A Comparison of Social Capital Between Parents
in Single and Two Parent Families in Japan, article by Cherylynn Bassani in the electronic
journal of contemporary japanese studies, 5 July 2007.
Five Dimensions of Social Capital Theory as they Pertain to Youth Studies, article by
Cherylynn Bassani in the Journal of Youth Studies 10, 1 2007.
Assist Social Capital, Working to Promote Best Practice in the Development of Social
Capital Can Social Capital Explain Persistent Poverty
Gaps? from the National Poverty Center Ethnicity as Social Capital
Social Capital within Ethnic Communities Social capital, quality of life, and Internet
and mobile phone use Collection of best Social Capital blogs by
Heather Ross Video explanation of how social capital indexing
powers citizen engagement Measuring social capital in a Philippine slum
article by Petr Matous and Kazumasa Ozawa in the Journal of Field Methods about social
capital measurement methodology with a focus on socio-economically deprived contexts
Social Capital Glossary, Matías Membiela Pollán

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *