Social+Capital


 * Definition**

Social capital is many things to many people. Morrow (1999) calls the concept “nebulous,” and having included “anything from how parents interact with their children to how people feel about where they live, to whom they know, how much they use their ‘networks,’ and how much they trust their politicians” (p. 749). Dijkstra and Peschar (2003) note that the term suffers from “highly general and diverging definitions” applied to such diverse themes as “family and youth, community life, work and organizations, and so on….” (p. 71), leading to research that is “fragmentary,” “shifting,” “hardly consistent,” and producing “contraindications,” (p. 76) before concluding that social capital “has not been worked out in sufficient detail,” and agreeing with “the conclusion drawn by many authors that the concept requires further specification” (p. 76) we should look at myriads of definitions of this mercurial concept. The broad scope and hence the confusion surrounding the concept is illustrated by Adler and Kwon (2000), who chart definitions from 17 different authors (p. 91).


 * Table 1 -- Definitions of Social Capital**

institutional affiliations” || Social capital is “made up of social obligations (“connections”), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the form of a title of nobility.” ||
 * Authors || Definitions of Social Capital ||
 * Baker || “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.” ||
 * Belliveau, O’Reilly, & Wade || “an individual’s personal network and elite
 * Bourdieu || “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 or recognition.”]

Table 1 -- continued
 * Authors || Definitions of Social Capital ||
 * || “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by a virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu and Wacquant). ||
 * Boxman, et al. || “the number of people who can be

expected to provide support and the resources those people have at their disposal” || “The brokerage opportunities in a network.” ||
 * Burt || “Friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through which you receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital.”
 * Coleman || “Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of the social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence.” ||
 * Portes || “The ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures.” ||
 * Brehm & Rahn || “The web of cooperative relationships between citizens that facilitate resolution of collective action problems.” ||

Table 1 -- continued
 * Authors || Definitions of Social Capital ||
 * Fukuyama || “The ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and organizations.”

“Social capital can be defined simply as the existence of a certain set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permit cooperation among them.” ||
 * Inglehart || “A culture of trust and tolerance, in which extensive networks of voluntary associations emerge.” ||
 * Thomas || “Those voluntary means and processes developed within civil society which promotes development for the collective whole.” ||
 * Portes and Sensenbrenner || “those expectations for action within a

collectivity that affect the economic goals and goal-seeking behavior of its members, even if these expectations are not oriented toward the economic sphere” ||
 * Putnam || “Features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” ||
 * Loury || “Naturally occurring social relationships among persons which promote or assist the acquisition of skills and traits valued in the marketplace…an asset which may be as significant as financial bequests in accounting for the maintenance of inequality in our society.” ||
 * Nahapiet and Ghoshal || “The sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through the network.” ||
 * Pennar || “The web of social relationships that influence individual behavior and thereby affect economic growth.” ||


 * Authors || Definitions of Social Capital ||
 * Schiff || “The set of elements of the social structure that affect relations among people and are inputs or arguments of the production and/or utility function.” ||
 * Woolcock || “The information, trust, and norms of reciprocity inhering in one’s social networks.” ||

Despite the confusion, Putnam (2000) points out that social capital has been used “each time to call attention to the ways in which our lives are made more productive by social ties” (p. 19). Dijkstra and Peschar (2003) refer to it as the “means available to families that reside in human relationships” (p. 61); Schuller, Baron, and Field (2000) as “social networks, the reciprocities that arise from them, and the value of these for achieving mutual goals” (p. 1); Portes (1998) as “the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” (p. 6); and N. Lin (2001a) as both “assets in networks” (p. 4) and “investment in social relations with expected returns”(p. 6).

Several scholars (e.g., Adler and Kwon, 2000; N. Lin, 2001b; Sandefur and Laumann, 1998) identify two broad categories under which all definitions of social capital fall – roughly, those that focus on how people use social networks to maintain the resources they already have, and those that focus on how they use these networks to gain new resources. Putnam (2000) refers to these two categories as “bonding social capital” and “bridging social capital” respectively (p. 22). Social capital can also be defined as ‘the networks of social connections that exist between people, and their shared values and norms of behavior, which enable and encourage mutually advantageous social cooperation’ (Lesser, 2004, p.4).

Social capital thus is conceptualized as the social wealth comprising of mutual trust, social networks, and the participation in these networks. These non-economic factors help in the understanding of the pace of growth of economic factors. Social capital is thus conceptualized as an instantiated norm that promotes co-operation. These norms exist not only in social relationships but range from reciprocity between two friends to complex and elaborately articulated doctrines such as Confucianism or Christianity. Social capital, therefore, is that wealth or benefit that exists because of an individual’s social relations (Hanifan, 1916, p.130).


 * Social Capital Development**

Social capital is not a new phenomenon- a strong network of trustworthy relations has always been considered vital for development. A range of academic disciplines including economic, sociology, anthropology, political science, etc., have addressed the subject of social capital. The first known reference to social capital in its contemporary sense was made in the context of its importance for education by Hanifan in 1916 who used the term to describe ‘those tangible substances that count for most in daily lives of people’(Coleman, 1988, p.94). In 1988, James Coleman contributed the first empirical evidence of a relationship between social capital and school dropout rates indicating that social capital is not only a critical input of education but also one of its by-products (Heyneman, 1998, pp.18-21). Through social capital education does not just strengthen human capital needed for economic development, social development and social accountability, but also fosters rich networks.

As a concept, social capital emerged in the works of certain sociologists in the 1970s. However, it may be traced back to the works of Karl Marx. In his dialectic materialism, Marx had explored the importance of the economic factor that influences other factors. Marx’s analysis of class consciousness was in the industrial proletariat where workers learn to identify with each other and support each other’s initiatives. This solidarity is not the result of norm introjections during childhood, but is an emergent product of a common fate (Marx, 1967).

A guiding principle of action is the maximization of utility. Action is shaped, constrained and redirected by its social context, which is dependent upon several other factors. These factors would include social norms, interpersonal trust, social networks and social organizations in the functioning not only of the society, but also of the economy.

In traditional societies social capital is the only means to achieve co-coordinated action. Economic modernization was seen as antithetical to traditional culture and social organizations. Modern societies unlike traditional ones consist of a large number of overlapping social groups that permit overlapping memberships and identities.

Pierre Bourdieu was the first sociologist who used the concept of social capital to study the everyday practices of individuals’ (Bourdieu, 1985, pp.248-9) when he drew on the Marxist theoretical framework, to study social developments. Another important contribution to the same subject is the work of James Coleman, who developed the concept of social capital in a methodological individual setting (Ibid, p.248). Today it is felt that it is coleman who actually introduced the concept to economic theory.

According to Bourdieu, social capital is “Aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of durable networkof more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintances or recognition” (p.249). He further adds the profits which accrue from membership in a group are the Basis of the solidarity which makes them possible (Bourdieu, 1985).

Bourdieu’s (1991, p.45) emphasis is on ultimate reduction of all forms of capital to economic capital, which he defines as accumulated human labor as social networks not being natural or given are constructed through investment strategies. Through social capital individuals can gain direct access to economic resources and increase their cultural capital or gain access to valued credentials.

A similar function of social capital is visible in James Coleman’s works: A variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain action of actorswhether persons or corporate actors---within the structure (Coleman, 1990, p.302).

M. Schiff defined social capital as “The set of elements of the social structure that affects the relationship among people and are inputs or arguments of production and/or utility function” ((Schiff, 1996, pp.157-75).

Putnam studied different regions of Italy with reference to existing social structures. Putnam opines on social capital in these words, “the characteristics of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, pp.65-78).

Fukuyama focused more on cultural differences among different societies. He laid much stress on cultural dimensions of different economic opportunities. According to him social trust is basic ingredient of social capital. He expressed his views on social capital in these words,

Social capital is the capacity that emerges from the prevalence of trust in a society or in certain parts of it. It can be embodied in the smallest and most basic social group, the family, as well as the largest of all groups, the nation, and in all other groups in between (Fukuyama, 1997, p.26).

Today the concept, social capital, is applied as a predictor of, among others, school attrition, academic performance, children’s intellectual development, sources of employment and occupational attainment, juvenile delinquency and its prevention, and immigrant and ethnic enterprise (Granovettor, 2005, p.481)

include component="comments" page="page:Social Capital" limit="10"


 * References**

Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S.W. (2000). Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. Lesser (Ed.), //Knowledge and social capital//. Boston: Butterworth. pp. 89-115.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. //Social Science Information, 6//(16), 645-668.

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), //Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education// (241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.C. (1991). //Reproduction in education, society and culture// (45-48). Los Angeles: Sage.

Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. //American Journal of Sociology, 94//, 95-120.

Dijkstra, A., & Peschar, J. L. (2003). Social capital in education: Theoretical issues and empirical knowledge in attainment research. In C.A. Torres & A. Antikainen (Eds.), //The international handbook on the sociology of education: An international assess- ment of new research and theory// (58-81). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Field, J., Schuller, T., & Baron, S. (2000). Social capital and human capital revisited. In S. Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), //Social capital// (1-38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1997). //Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity//. New York: Free Press.

Granovetter, M. (1992). The strength of weak ties. //American Journal of Sociology, 78//(6).

Granovetter, M. S. (2005). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. //American Journal of Sociology, 91//(3), 481-510.

Heyneman, S.P. (1998). Education and its influence on social cohesion in the Europe and central Asian region. Paper presented at the annual comparative international education society meeting. Buffalo, New York. Pp.18-21.

Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: A critical review. //The Sociological Review, 47//(4), 744-765.

Lin, N. (2001a). Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R.S. Burt (Eds.), //Social capital// (3-30). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Putnam, R. (2000). //Bowling alone//. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Schiff, M. (1992). //Social capital labor mobility and welfare.// New York:Oxford University Press.