| Homepage | Imprint |
|
||
 |
Social capitalSocial capital is a concept with a variety of inter-related definitions, based on the value of social networks. While various aspects of the concept have been approached by all social science fields, the modern usage of the term can be traced to sociologistJane Jacobsin the 1960s. She did not explicitly define a term social capital but used it in an article with a reference to the value of networks. The term was little used even in sociology until it was adopted by Pierre Bourdieuin 1972 (though clear formulation in his work can be traced to 1984), and subsequently picked up initially by James Colemanand then others. For a time in the late 1990s, the concept was highly fashionable, with the World Bankdevoting a research programme to it, and the concept achieving public awareness through Robert Putnam's 2000 book, Bowling Alone.
RootsThe term social capital is new but the concept that underlies it, is not. Philosophers who emphasized the relation between pluralistic associational life and democracy implicitly used it as early as the 19th century. These theorists include James Madison (The Federalist), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America), and, indeed, many authors in the dominant, pluralist tradition in American political science. DefinitionsIn The Forms of Capital (1986) Pierre Bourdieudistinguishes between three forms of capital: economic capital, cultural capitaland 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." 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 Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone and the concept's leading exponent (though not its originator). According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy. Nan Lin's concept of social capital has a more individualistic approach: "Investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace". It may subsume the concepts of some others such as Bourdieu, Coleman, Flap, Putnam and Eriksson as noted in Nan Lin book "Social Capital" (2001; Cambridge University Press). Francis Fukuyamadescribed it thus, "Social capital can be defined simply as the existence of a certain set of informal valuesor norms shared among members of a group that permit cooperation among them." Nahpiet and Ghoshal in their exploration 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. According to the work of Boisot (1995) and Boland and Tensaki (1995), meaningful communication requires at least some sharing context between the parties to such exchange. One problem with the term social capital is that it is not often clear how to distinguish it conceptually from the idea of civil societyand trust. Often these terms are used interchangably, though they do not necessarily mean the same thing. Form of capitalThe term "capital" is used by analogy with other forms of economic capital, as social capital is argued to have similar (although less measurable) benefits. The analogy with capital is however misleading to the extent that, unlike traditional forms of capital, social capital is not depleted by use, but in fact depleted by non-use ("use it or lose it"). In this respect it is similar to the now well-established economic concept of human capital. Bonding and bridgingIn his pioneering study, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon & Schuster 2000), Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam wrote: "Henry Ward Beecher?s advice a century ago to ?multiply picnics? is not entirely ridiculous today. We should do this, ironically, not because it will be good for America ? though it will be ? but because it will be good for us." Putnam speaks of two main components of the concept: bonding social capital and bridging social capital. The former refers to the value assigned to social networks between homogeneous groups of people and the latter to that of social networks between socially heterogeneous groups. Typical examples are that criminal gangs create bonding social capital, while choirsand bowling clubs (hence the title, as Putnam lamented their decline) 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 (though it is always an asset for those individuals and groups involved). Horizontal networks of individual citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that operate at cross purposes to societalinterests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society. The concept of social capital in a Chinese social context has been closely linked with the concept of guanxi. See also
External links
de:Soziales Kapital es:Capital social fr:Capital social he:??? ?????? hu:Társadalmi t?ke ja:???? pl:Kapita? spo?eczny simple:Social capital Categories: Sociology| Economics| Social networking| Community building
|
