Transcript Document

Hong Kong Council of
Social Service
SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Its Meaning,
Measurement and
Application to Social Work
Presentation Objectives
 To formally introduce the concept of social capital
 Distinguish the social from other forms of individual and
collective capital, i.e., physical, financial, and human
 Identify the various sources, dimensions and levels of social
capital in economically advanced societies
 Identify the value and organizing assumptions on which the
concept is based
 Identify the research and policy uses to which the concept has
been put in other regions of the world
 Discuss the implications of this concept for research and
policy development in Hong Kong
Basic
Definitions
 Robert Putnam (1995:67):
– Features of social organization—such as networks, norms and social
trust—that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual
benefit
 World Bank (2002):
– the norms and networks that enable collective action
– “the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and
quantity of a society’s social interactions…Social capital is not just
the sum of the institutions which underpin a society—it is the glue
that holds them together” (WB, 1999)
Brief History
of the Social Capital Concept
Not a new concept, but one that only recently has
gained importance
 First uses:
– Lyda Hanifan in The Rural School Community Center (1916) and
The Community Center (1920) discussed role of rural school
community centers in building good will, fellowship, sympathy
and social intercourse among those that “make up a social unit”
– Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities
(1961) focused on urban life and “neighborliness”
– Pierre Bourdieu in Forms of Capital (1983) focused on the utility
of the concept in social theory
– James S. Coleman in Social Capital in the Creation of Human
Capital (1988) and Foundations of Social Theory (1990) used the
concept to discuss the social context of education
Putnam’s Notion of
Social Capital
 It is the work of Robert Putnam that has brought
the great attention to the use of the SC concept as a
research and policy tool
 1993: Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy
 1995: Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social
Capital
 2000: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community
Putnam
(cont’d)
In Bowling Alone (2000:288-290), Putnam identified four of the
most important outcomes associated with dense, i.e., high
stocks, of social capitol:
 Allows citizens to resolve collective problems more
easily…via increased cooperation
 “greases” the wheels that allow communities to advance
smoothly..via increased levels of trust and solidarity
 Widens the collective awareness of the many ways in which
our fates linked
 Function as conduits for the flow of information that
facilitates the achievement of individual and collective goals
Social vs. Other
Types of Capital
Basically, four types of “capital” are to be found in society:
 Physical capital:
– Refers to physical objects (e.g., plants, machinery, other equipment)
 Financial capital:
– Refers to money and monetary instruments (e.g., stocks, bonds)
 Human capital:
– Refers to properties of individuals--knowledge and skills--that are
derived from education, training and experience
 Social capital:
– Refers to connections among people—social networks and the norms of
reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them
– The norms may be as simple as the norm of reciprocity between two
friends or complex and elaborately articulated doctrines such as Islam,
Christianity or Confucianism
– A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily
rich in social capital (Putnam, 2000:19)
Social Capital vs.
Other Concepts
 Civil society refers to that sphere of voluntary
associations and informal networks in which
individuals and groups engage in activities of
public consequence
– Is distinguished from the public activities of government
because civil society activities are voluntary and from the
private activities of markets
– Provides an essential link between citizens and the state
– It is an attempt to synthesize public and private good
Social Capital vs.
Other Concepts (cont’d)
 Communitarianism: emerged in the 1980s in
response to the limits of liberal theory and practice
 Its dominant themes are:
– Individual rights need to be balanced with social responsibilities
– Autonomous selves do not exist in isolation, but are shaped by
the values and culture of communities
– Aimless individualism contributes to normlessness, selfcenteredness and motivations driven by special interests and
power seeking
The Assumptions
Of
Social Capital
The Assumptions of
Social Capital
 Social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically
and for development to be sustainable (World Bank, 1999)
 Social cohesion is expressed through various networks of civic
engagement
 Networks of civic engagement include:
– Neighborhood associations
– Sports clubs
– cooperatives
 The more dense these networks, the more likely that
members of a community will cooperate for mutual benefit
– This is the case even in the face of persistent problems of collective
action, e.g., tragedy of the commons, prisoner’s dilemma, etc.)
The Assumptions of
Social Capital (cont’d)
 Networks of civic engagement foster social
cohesion (and economic success) by:
– Fostering sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity by creating
expectations that favors given now will be returned later
– Facilitating coordination and communication and, thus, create
channels through which information about the trustworthiness
of other individuals and groups can flow, be test and verified
– Embodying past success at collaboration, which can serve as a
cultural template for future collaboration on other kinds of
problems
– Increasing the potential risk to those who act opportunistically
that they will not share in the benefits of current and future
transactions
The Assumptions of
Social Capital (cont’d)
 Thus, social capital is understood to be an essential
ingredient in not only building strong societies but
in building strong economies as well
– 2 farmers exchanging tools can get more work done with less
physical capital
– Rotating credit associations can generate pools of financial
capital for increased entrepreneurial activity
– Job searchers can be more efficient if information is embedded
in social networks
 Social capital also tends to cumulate when it is
used, and be depleted when not and, thus, creating
the possibility of both virtuous and vicious cycles
that manifest themselves in highly civic and uncivic
communities
The Assumptions of
Social Capital (cont’d)
Thus, the high levels of social interaction associated
with social capital enable people to:
 build communities
 commit themselves to each other
 knit the social fabric (Beem, 1999:20)
Sources of
Social Capital
Sources of Social Capital
(World Bank, 2002)
A number of key sources of social capital are to be
found in every community, albeit in differing
amounts and at differing levels
 Families
 Communities
 Firms
 Civil society
 The public sector
 Ethnicity
 Gender
Sources of Social Capital:
Families
 Functions as the first building block in the generation of
social capital for the larger society, i.e., as the first and most
stable source of economic and social welfare for its members
(a social “safety net” of sorts)
 In generating social capital, families:
– Function on the basis of norms of trust, reciprocity, mutual aid,
exchange and, typically, altruism—all norms that are essential to the
development of social capital
– Model patterns of cooperative social interaction with others in the
community that are carried forward by their children into future
generations
– Make substantial emotional, physical and financial investments in the
human capital development of their children
– Serve as sources of financial and human capital in contributing to the
development of entrepreneurs, i.e., via gifts, loans, grants, or the
provision of free or inexpensive labor (Geertz, 1962)
Sources of Social Capital:
Families (cont’d)
 BUT especially dense family networks can
undermine the establishment of both fiscal and
social capital by imposing barriers to integration
within external networks
– High levels of internal trust may generate distrust of non-family
members and institutions, thereby, preventing the development
of potentially productive relationships
» These types of family patterns are especially common in
communities where the rule of law is weak (Gambetta,
1993; Milner, 1994)
– Dense kinship networks may place heavy obligations on
entrepreneurs that divert economic and other resources away
from current or potential investments
Sources of Social Capital:
Communities
 Communities provide the context within which neighbors, friends
and a broad range of formal and informal groups come together in
the pursuit of common purposes
–
–
–
–
–
Arts and cultural groups
Civic associations
Burial societies
Community centers
Ethnically- or regionally-based associations
 Social capital at the community level increases with increases with
frequency of interaction
 Leads to improved coordination and communication which, in turn,
facilitates increased mutual trust and willingness to cooperate in
future activities or in new area
 These networks of community interaction benefit not only those
directly involved in the interactions, but the community-as-a-whole
(Narayan & Pritchett, 1997)
Sources of Social Capital:
Communities (cont’d)
 For the poor, social capital can be used as a substitute for physical
and financial capital and, in some cases, for human capital (Collier,
1998)
 Narayan & Pritchett (1997) study of social capital in 87 villages in
Tanzania found that:
– social capital is indeed both “capital” (in that it raises incomes) and
– “social” (in that household incomes depend on village, not just household, social
capital)
 Danger: members of a community who do not comply with group or
community norms may be ousted from the community or, at a
minimum, blocked from participating fully in the social benefits of
that community
– New arrivals
– Members of minority groups
Sources of Social Capital:
Firms
 According to Fukuyama (1995) “virtually all economic
activity…is carried out not by individuals but by
organizations that require a high degree of social
cooperation”
– Thus, building and sustaining organizations, such as firms, requires a
high level of trust and a common sense of purpose, i.e., “social capital”
 Social capital development at the firm levels works in a
variety of ways:
– Better knowledge sharing
– Reduced transaction costs (including costs associated with negotiation
and enforcement, imperfect information and layers of unnecessary
bureaucracy)
– Lower turnover rates (and, hence, lower severance, recruitment and
training costs)
– Greater coherence of action due to organizational stability and shared
understanding (Cohen & Prusak, 2001:10)
Sources of Social Capital:
Firms (cont’d)
 Rather, effective firms depend on norms of
reciprocity and interdependent relationships to
enforce their decisions and actions
– Promoting greater coordination among individuals and between
departments
– Strengthening teamwork
– Building within (HKCSS) and across sector partnerships with
other organizations (public-private commissions) that
contribute to the effectiveness of one’s own
 Such norms increase the competitive edge and
profitability of successfully organized firms
Sources of Social Capital:
Firms (cont’d)
 Like other social units, though, firms also can have
a negative effect on the development of social
capital when:
– Levels of trust become confining, such as in a family firm
– Corruption within (ENRON) and between firms (ENRON and
Anderson Accounting) and between firms and government
(ENRON and “soft” political contributions)
– Emergence of cartels that block competition and free trade and,
thereby, inhibit innovation (e.g., Microsoft)
Sources of Social Capital:
Civil Society
 Civil society consists of formal and informal groups and
organizations that act independently of the state and market
to promote diverse interests in society
 These activities are essentially voluntary in nature and, as
such, serve to integrate private sector activities with those of
the public sector, albeit such activities may sometimes be
confrontational in nature
 NGOs are essential to the development of social capital in
that civil society organizations:
– provides opportunities for participation and
– gives voice to those who may be locked out of more formal avenues to
affect change
Sources of Social Capital:
Civil Society (cont’d)
 The public sector—i.e., the state—both recognizes
and encourages the development of civil society
institutions via:
–
–
–
–
Formal recognition (e.g., registration, incorporation)
Tax exemptions
Encouraging the development of private philanthropy
Subsidies
 Like other social institutions, though, a danger
exists that civil society organizations can become
overly inclusive and, therefore, exclusive of those
who do not easily “fit” within its norms
Sources of Social Capital:
The Public Sector
 The state and its institutions is central to the function and
welfare of any society
 Considerable evidence exists that links the type and
effectiveness of a country’s public sector to society’s level of
social cohesion—including the definition of civic duty and
level of commitment to it (Esping-Andersen, 1994; Putnam,
1993)
 Social capital promotes government accountability and
legitimacy and, thus, “good governance”
 It also improves the provisi9on of public goods and services
 Corruption in the public sector interferes with both good
governance and the development of social capital
Other Sources of
Social Capital
Two additional sources of social capital have been
identified:
 Ethnicity
– can serve as a “social glue” that keeps together people of the
same ethnicity, race, religion, etc.
 Gender
– Has been shown to be a key variable in bringing and keeping
women together in a variety of social and economic context
» Credit banks
» Micro-enterprise development
» Child care
Networks
Of
Trust in
Social Capital
Fukuyama’s
Networks of Trust (1999)
Uses the concept of “radius of trust” to illustrate the existence of
social capital between and among various groups of people
 All groups embodying social capital have a certain radius of
trust, the circle of people among whom cooperative norms are
operative
 If a group’s social capital produces positive externalities, the
radius of trust can be larger than the group itself
 It is also possible for the radius of trust to be smaller than the
member of the group (as in large organizations that foster
cooperative norms only among the group’s leadership or
permanent staff)
 A modern society can be thought of as a series of concentric
and overlapping radii of trust
The
Dimensions/ Levels
Of
Social Capital
The Dimensions of
Social Capital
 Two basic types of social capital and though to
exist:
– “Bonding” capital
– “Bridging” capital
 Both forms of social capital are essential to the
success of societies, albeit in different ways
 Each form also has inherent within it certain
limitations
Bonding
Social Capital
 Tends to be more inward looking, i.e, focused on
strengthening already existing or more “natural” social
relationships
–
–
–
–
Racial/ethnic organizations and associations
Religious associations
Gender-based groups
Regional-based groups
 Thus, bonding social capital strengthens norms of reciprocity
and solidarity among people who already have a high level of
trust between and among themselves
 BUT, bonding social capital tends to be exclusive and,
therefore, can undermine integrative goals associated with
the larger society
Bridging
Social Capital
 Bridging social capital is more outward looking
 Promotes social interaction and associations
between heterogeneous groups of people, i.e.,
between people and groups across the usual social
divides
 If bonding social capital provides a type of
superglue between highly trusted individuals and
groups, then, bridging social capital serves as a
“WD-40” (reduces friction and increases
movement) between unrelated and, often, unknown
groups of people
Horizontal
Vs.
Vertical
Social Capital
“Vertical” vs. “Horizontal”
Social Capital
 Social capital develops in response to complex
interactions that occur in the context of
“horizontal” and “vertical” associations
 Each type of association either inhibits or promotes
certain forms of interaction between people and,
thus, to the development of social capital
Vertical vs. Horizontal
Social Capital (cont’d)
 Horizontally organized networks are believed to
assist social capital
– Achieved mostly through their face-to-face interactions and
facilitation of development of mutual trust
– Reinforces community sense of identity and common purpose
– Can become exclusive and, thus, inhibit the “bridging” function
between various groups that are essential to the formation of
social capital
 Vertically organized networks are believed to
inhibit its formation
– However, according to Putnam, “a vertical network, no matter
how dense and no matter how important to its participants,
cannot sustain social trust and cooperation” (Putnam et al.,
1993:1733-174)
Macro
Vs.
Micro
Social Capital
Macro
Social Capital
 Refers to the institutional context win which
organizations operate
 Includes formal relationships and structures such
as:
–
–
–
–
–
Rules
Legal frameworks
The political regime
The level of decentralization
The level of participation in the policy formulation process
Micro
Social Capital
 Refers to the potential contribution that horizontal
organizations and social networks make to
development
 Micro level social capital is further divided into two
subtypes of social capital (Uphoff, 1996):
– Cognitive
– Structural
Micro Level Cognitive
Social Capital
 Includes:
–
–
–
–
–
Values
Beliefs
Attitudes
Behavior
Social norms
Micro Level Structural
Social Capital
 Includes the composition and practices of local
level formal and informal institutions that serve as
instruments of community development
 Structural social capital is built through horizontal
organizations and networks that have:
– collective and transparent decision making processes
– accountable leaders
– practices of collective action and mutual responsibility (Bain &
Hicks, 1998)
Krishna & Shrader, 1999
Figure 1 . Conceptual Framework: Levels and Types of Social Capital
M acro
Rule
of law
M icro
Level of
decentralization
Cognitive
 V alues
 Trust
 Solidarity
 Reciprocity



Social norms
Behavior
A ttitudes
Structural




Level of participation
in policy process
Horizontal
organizational
structure
Collective/
transparent
decision-making
process
A ccountability
of leaders
Practices of
collective
action and
responsibility
Legal
framework
Type of
regime
A 2 x 2 Matrix of
Levels of Social Capital
Bonding/
Horizontal
SC
(Homogeneity focused)
Bridging/
Vertical
SC
(Heterogeneity focused)
Micro SC
Macro SC
(Cognitive/Structural)
(Political/Social)
Type 1
Self help groups
Civic associations
Burial societies
Informal education groups
Type 2
Cultural associations
Regional associations
Nationality groups
Type 3
Credit unions
Cooperatives
Social insurance funds
Type 4
Political parties and associations
Problem-focused action and
advocacy groups
International Orgs.
How
Social Capital
Works
How Social Capital
Works
Social capital develops through a variety of channels:
 Information flows, e.g.,
– Learning about jobs, learning about candidates running for
office, exchanging ideas in meetings, etc.)
 Norms of reciprocity (mutual aid), e.g.,
– Bonding networks that connect people who are similar and
sustain particularlized (in-group) activity
– Bridging networks that connect individuals who are diverse
 Collective active, e.g.,
– The role regional associations among groups of migrants
 Broader identity and sense of solidarity
The Benefits/Costs
Of
Social Capital
The Economic Benefits
of High Social Capital (OECD, 2001)
 Higher economic growth
 Social networks help people find jobs
 Trust encourages more effective use of credit
 Cooperative attitudes within firms are linked to
output and profitability
 Regional clusters of innovative industries depend
on local social networks to spread and share tacit
knowledge
The Social Benefits of
High Stocks of SC (OECD, 2001)
 Enhanced child development (including lower rates
of child abuse and neglect) via higher levels of trust
and norms of reciprocity within the child’s family,
school, community, etc. (Putnam, 2000:296-306)
 Cleaner public spaces
 Friendlier people
 Safer streets
 Lower crime
 Better health, including mental health
 High educational achievement
 Improved government and public governance
The “Down Side” to
Social Capital
 Most of the downside are associated with
horizontal social capital, i.e., relationships that lead
to exclusivity and subordination of “out groups”
rather than inclusivity
– The emergence of tribes, clans, religious associations, etc. that
reward insiders and discriminate against outsiders
 Very powerful horizontally organized social capital
can be used to persecute those on the “outside:
– Ku Klux Klan
 Review Fukuyama’s “Networks of Trust”
Poverty and
Social Capital
Important to note:
 Social capital theory suggests there is no necessary
relationship between poverty, crime, and social
deterioration
 Rather, the relationship is between low social
capital and poverty, crime, and social deterioration
 In poor communities with high stocks of social
capital, crime and social deterioration can be kept
to a minimum
 Reason: people work to keep their community safe
and clear—for themselves as social units and,
through relationships with others, as a collectivity