Social capital: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nick Gardner
(amended opening statement)
imported>Nick Gardner
mNo edit summary
Line 20: Line 20:
External influences are believed to provide the principal components of people's social attitudes but there is evidence to suggest that  significant components also come from the innate or “hard-wired” characteristics of the human brain.  [[Neuroeconomics]] experiments <ref>[http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZakNeuroeconomicspublished.pdf Paul Zak: ''Neuroeconomics''  The Royal Society “6th November 2004]</ref>    have revealed an association between the possession of a particular hormone and a propensity to trust others <ref>[http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZAK%20Trust%20chapter%20FINAL.pdf Paul Zak: ''The Neuroeconomics of  Trust''  Loma Linda University Medical Center]</ref>. Trust in the sense of believing most people to be trustworthy is referred to in the literature as "generalized trust" to distinguish it from trust in particular categories of people and trust concerning specific issues. Unsurprisingly, it has been found to be highest in communities where there are effective institutions that punish cheats; but it has also been found to be positively associated with education, civil liberties, and ease of communication (roads and telephones) and negatively associated with ethnic diversity and income inequality. Trust is generally held to be an essential component of social capital, as is willingness to conform to collectively-determined rules, but  other  cognitive characteristics have often been been included: notably the willingness to take actions that are for the exclusive benefit of others. Examples include charitable donations,  participation in voluntary collective activities, and many other forms of philanthropy. The exercise of such social attitudes has been held to be among the main characteristics of [[civil society]]. Beyond those essentials, however, attitudes that are generally conducive to social concord such as tolerance of unfamiliar customs, practices and beliefs  and a general preference for  negotiation over confrontation have also been included.
External influences are believed to provide the principal components of people's social attitudes but there is evidence to suggest that  significant components also come from the innate or “hard-wired” characteristics of the human brain.  [[Neuroeconomics]] experiments <ref>[http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZakNeuroeconomicspublished.pdf Paul Zak: ''Neuroeconomics''  The Royal Society “6th November 2004]</ref>    have revealed an association between the possession of a particular hormone and a propensity to trust others <ref>[http://www.neuroeconomicstudies.org/pdf/ZAK%20Trust%20chapter%20FINAL.pdf Paul Zak: ''The Neuroeconomics of  Trust''  Loma Linda University Medical Center]</ref>. Trust in the sense of believing most people to be trustworthy is referred to in the literature as "generalized trust" to distinguish it from trust in particular categories of people and trust concerning specific issues. Unsurprisingly, it has been found to be highest in communities where there are effective institutions that punish cheats; but it has also been found to be positively associated with education, civil liberties, and ease of communication (roads and telephones) and negatively associated with ethnic diversity and income inequality. Trust is generally held to be an essential component of social capital, as is willingness to conform to collectively-determined rules, but  other  cognitive characteristics have often been been included: notably the willingness to take actions that are for the exclusive benefit of others. Examples include charitable donations,  participation in voluntary collective activities, and many other forms of philanthropy. The exercise of such social attitudes has been held to be among the main characteristics of [[civil society]]. Beyond those essentials, however, attitudes that are generally conducive to social concord such as tolerance of unfamiliar customs, practices and beliefs  and a general preference for  negotiation over confrontation have also been included.


==Measurement problems==
==The measurement of social capital==


==Economic implications==
==Economic implications==

Revision as of 10:44, 27 June 2008

This article has a Citable Version.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article has an approved citable version (see its Citable Version subpage). While we have done conscientious work, we cannot guarantee that this Main Article, or its citable version, is wholly free of mistakes. By helping to improve this editable Main Article, you will help the process of generating a new, improved citable version.

Social capital is a term used to denote those social relationships and institutions that may be expected to affect the well-being of a community.

Definitions

There are many inter-related definitions of social capital, but a generally accepted version defines it as an “investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace” [1]. This definition is consistent with interpretations by Bourdieu, Lin, Coleman, Flap, Burt, Putnam, Erickson, Portes, and other scholars who have contributed to the social capital discussion.

The term 'social capital' was introduced by Hanifan [2] in 1920 when he defined social capital as “those tangible assets… namely good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among the individual and families who make up a social unit” [3]. The sociologist James Coleman credits the term to economist Glenn Loury [4] with the concept explained social capital as a set of designated intangible resources in families and communities that help to promote the social development of young people. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu defined the concept 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 or recognition” [5]]. He pointed out that “Social capital is the sum of the resources, actual and virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintances and recognition” [6]. James Coleman defined social capital “as a variety of entities with two elements in common: They all consist of some aspect of social structure, and they facilitate certain action of actors-whether persons or corporate actors-within the structure” [7]. To be capital a social structure must serve a function for individuals engaged in an activity. The actors exercise control over the resources in which they have an interest and at least partial control of others involved. Social relations are important to facilitating this action by the actors. The Social Capital Foundation (TSCF) promotes social capital defined as a set of mental dispositions and attitudes favoring cooperative behaviors within society.

Related concepts

The concept of social capital can be related to similar concepts that are drawn from the works of James Madison (The Federalist Papers [8]), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America [9]) and John Stuart Mill (On Liberty [10]) and their concepts of civil society. The relationship between civil society and social capital was popularized by Robert Putnam [11] with his works on voluntary organization in democratic societies. He argued that social associations and the degree of participation indicate the extent of social capital in a society. Those communities with good government have a high level of volunteer participation in the community, while those communities with weak ineffective governments have low levels of volunteer participation. These associations and participation promote and enhance the collective norms and trust within a community which is central to the collective well-being.

The components of social capital

The organizational components

Although they are inter-related, it is customary to distinguish the influences of the social organization of a community upon the social acts of its members from those of their individual attitudes. A community’s social capital is considered to be determined as much by the collective traditions, beliefs and value systems that are part of its culture, as by the cognitive characteristics and perceptions of its members. Similarly, the collectively-determined rules embodied in a community’s institutions, are considered to be as necessary to the development of social capital as the impulses and constraints created by the psychological drives that are experienced by its members. The institutions that are held to contribute to social capital range from the state apparatus of law-making and enforcement to the patterns of mutual obligation that are created by interpersonal networks such as social clubs and residents’ associations.

The cognitive components

External influences are believed to provide the principal components of people's social attitudes but there is evidence to suggest that significant components also come from the innate or “hard-wired” characteristics of the human brain. Neuroeconomics experiments [12] have revealed an association between the possession of a particular hormone and a propensity to trust others [13]. Trust in the sense of believing most people to be trustworthy is referred to in the literature as "generalized trust" to distinguish it from trust in particular categories of people and trust concerning specific issues. Unsurprisingly, it has been found to be highest in communities where there are effective institutions that punish cheats; but it has also been found to be positively associated with education, civil liberties, and ease of communication (roads and telephones) and negatively associated with ethnic diversity and income inequality. Trust is generally held to be an essential component of social capital, as is willingness to conform to collectively-determined rules, but other cognitive characteristics have often been been included: notably the willingness to take actions that are for the exclusive benefit of others. Examples include charitable donations, participation in voluntary collective activities, and many other forms of philanthropy. The exercise of such social attitudes has been held to be among the main characteristics of civil society. Beyond those essentials, however, attitudes that are generally conducive to social concord such as tolerance of unfamiliar customs, practices and beliefs and a general preference for negotiation over confrontation have also been included.

The measurement of social capital

Economic implications

Sociological implications

Policy implications

Empirical evidence

References

  1. Lin, Nan, 2001. Social Capital; A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  2. Hanifan, Lyda Judson. 1920. The Community Center. Silver, Burdett.
  3. Macinko, James and Barbara Starfield, 2001. “The Utility of Social Capital in Research on Health Determinants”, The Milbank Quarterly 79(3):397-427
  4. Loury, Gary C. 1977. A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences; In Women Minorities and Employment Discrimination, ed P.A. Wallace. Lexington MA. Health
  5. Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic Wacquant, 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  6. Bourdieu, Pierrer, 1985. The forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, ed. JG Richardson. New York, Greenwood.
  7. Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, American Journal of Sociology. 94:S95-121.
  8. The Federalist Papers
  9. Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy in America
  10. John Stuart Mill: On Liberty
  11. Putnam, Robert D. 2000.Bowling Alone; The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon and Schuster
  12. Paul Zak: Neuroeconomics The Royal Society “6th November 2004
  13. Paul Zak: The Neuroeconomics of Trust Loma Linda University Medical Center