locoa > CO Theory and Practice > Social Capital: community, organization and education

The notion of social capital is a useful way of entering into debates about civil society – and it is central to the arguments of Robert Putnam and others who want to ‘reclaim public life’. It is also now being used by the World Bank with regard to economic and societal development and by management experts as a way of thinking about organizational development. We examine it's nature - and some of the issues surrounding its use.

The notion of social capital first appeared in Lyda Judson Hanifan's discussions of rural school community centres (see, for example, Hanifan 1916, 1920). He used the term to describe 'those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people' (1916: 130). Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among those that 'make up a social unit'. However, it has taken some time for the term to come into widespread usage. Most recently, it has been the work of Robert D. Putnam (1993; 2000) that has launched social capital as a focus for research and policy discussion. However, other notable contributions have come from Jane Jacobs (1961) in relation to urban life and neighbourliness, Pierre Bourdieu (1983) with regard to social theory, and James S. Coleman (1988) in his discussions of the social context of education. It has also been picked up by the World Bank as a useful organizing idea. It is argued that 'increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable' (The World Bank 1999). We have also begun to see social capital as a focus for organizational maintenance and development (Cohen and Prusak 2001).

Defining social capital

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Putnam 2000: 19)

Social capital refers to 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. (The World Bank 1999)

Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4)

The basic premise is that interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people.

Trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and expectations within society as a whole. Without this interaction, on the other hand, trust decays; at a certain point, this decay begins to manifest itself in serious social problems… The concept of social capital contends that building or rebuilding community and trust requires face-to-face encounters. (Beem 1999: 20)

As we will also see, there is considerable evidence that communities with a good 'stock' of social capital are more likely to benefit from lower crime figures, better health, higher educational achievement, and better economic growth. There can also be a significant downside. Groups and organizations with high social capital have the means (and sometimes the motive) to work to exclude and subordinate others.

The dimensions of social capital

Those concerned with social capital have looked to the density of social networks that people are involved in; the extent to which they are engaged with others in informal, social activities; and their membership of groups and associations (see la via associative). Their big worry is that in the USA, for example, there has been a significant decline in the active membership of associations (like PTAs, football teams and community groups) and a corresponding increase in individualized leisure activities (most especially watching television). For example, there has been drop in the number of people involved in league (team) bowling and a growth in individual bowling (hence the title of Putnam’s (2000) book – Bowling Alone). The result is that social capital is weakened (see below).

They are also concerned with an additional dimension of social capital – whether it is bonding (or exclusive) and/or bridging (or inclusive). The former may be more inward looking and have a tendency to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. The latter may be more outward-looking and encompass people across different social divides (Putnam 2000: 22).

Bonding capital is good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity… Bridging networks, by contrast, are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion…. Moreover, bridging social capital can generate broader identities and reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves…. Bonding social capital constitutes a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a sociological WD-40. (ibid.: 22-23)

These are not either-or categories to which social networks can neatly assigned – ‘but “more-or-less” dimensions along which we can compare different forms of social capital (ibid.: 23).

Robert D. Putnam: Why social capital is important
First, social capital allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily… People often might be better off if they cooperate, with each doing her share. But each individual benefits more by shirking their responsibility, hoping that others will do the work for her…. [Resolving this dilemma is] best served by an institutional mechanism with the power to ensure compliance with the collectively desirable behavior. Social norms and the networks that enforce them provide such a mechanism.

Second, social capital greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly. Where people are trusting and trustworthy, and where they are subject to repeated interactions with fellow citizens, everyday business and social transactions are less costly….

A third way is which social capital improves our lot is by widening our awareness of the many ways in which our fates are linked. People who have active and trusting connections to others – whether family members, friends, or fellow bowlers – develop or maintain character traits that are good for the rest of society. Joiners become more tolerant, less cynical, and more empathetic to the misfortunes of others. When people lack connection to others, they are unable to test the veracity of their own views, whether in the give or take of casual conversation or in more formal deliberation. Without such an opportunity, people are more likely to be swayed by their worse impulses….

The networks that constitute social capital also serve as conduits for the flow of helpful information that facilitates achieving our goals…. Social capital also operates through psychological and biological processes to improve individual’s lives. Mounting evidence suggests that people whose lives are rich in social capital cope better with traumas and fight illness more effectively. … Community connectedness is not just about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable and well-documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference to our lives.

Robert Putnam (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster: 288-290

While the notion of social capital clearly has some utility we need to be aware of the dangers of 'capitalization'. As Cohen and Prusak (2001: 9) have commented, not everything of value should be called 'capital'. There is a deep danger of skewing our consideration of social phenomenon and goods towards the economic. The notion of capital brings with it a whole set of discourses and inevitably links it, in the current context, to capitalism.

The decline of social capital in the USA
Putnam demonstrates that on a range indicators of civic engagement including voting, political participation, newspaper readership, and participation in local associations that there were serious grounds for concern. It appeares that America’s social capital was in decline. First in the realm of civic engagement and social connectedness he was able to demonstrate that, for example, over the last three decades of the twentieth century there had been a fundamental shift in:

Political and civic engagement. Voting, political knowledge, political trust, and grassroots political activism are all down. Americans sign 30 per cent fewer petitions and are 40 per cent less likely to join a consumer boycott, as compared to just a decade or two ago. The declines are equally visible in non-political community life: membership and activity in all sorts of local clubs and civic and religious organizations have been falling at an accelerating pace.

In the mid-1970s the average American attended some club meeting every month, by 1998 that rate of attendance had been cut by nearly 60 per cent.

Informal social ties. In 1975 the average American entertained friends at home 15 times per year; the equivalent figure (1998) is now barely half that. Virtually all leisure activities that involve doing something with someone else, from playing volleyball to playing chamber music, are declining.

Tolerance and trust. Although Americans are more tolerant of one another than were previous generations, they trust one another less. Survey data provide one measure of the growth of dishonesty and distrust, but there are other indicators. For example, employment opportunities for police, lawyers, and security personnel were stagnant for most of this century - indeed, America had fewer lawyers per capita in 1970 than in 1900. But in the last quarter century these occupations have boomed, as people have increasingly turned to the courts and the police. (http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.php3)

He went on to examine the possible reasons for this decline. Crucially, he was able to demonstrate that some favourite candidates for blame could not be regarded as significant. Residential mobility had actually been declining for the last half of the century. Time pressure, especially on two-career families, could only be a marginal candidate. Some familiar themes remained though:

Changes in family structure (i.e. with more and more people living alone), are a possible element as conventional avenues to civic involvement are not well-designed for single and childless people.

Suburban sprawl has fractured the spatial integrity of people’s. They travel much further to work, shop and enjoy leisure opportunities. As a result there is less time available (and less inclination) to become involved in groups. Suburban sprawl is a very significant contributor.

Electronic entertainment, especially television, has profoundly privatized leisure time. The time we spend watching television is a direct drain upon involvement in groups and social capital building activities. It may contribute up to 40 per cent of the decline in involvement in groups

However, generational change came out as a very significant factor. A "long civic generation," born in the first third of the twentieth century, is now passing from the American scene. 'Their children and grandchildren (baby boomers and Generation X-ers) are much less engaged in most forms of community life. For example, the growth in volunteering over the last ten years is due almost entirely to increased volunteering by retirees from the long civic generation' (http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.php3).

Francis Fukuyama (1999) raises some useful questions around the ‘Putnam thesis’ and the late Everett C. Ladd (1999) was very critical of the approach – disputing the interpretation much of the evidence in Putnam's original (1995) article. Ladd's argument was that American civic life was not so much in decline but rather 'churning'. Some organizations had lost members, others had sprung up in their place. He believed that 'the individualism at the heart of the country's conception of citizenship gave Americans no alternative but to cooperate with one another' (Lenkowsky 2000). Lenkowsky continues:

This being so, ebbs and flows in organizational membership should be seen as stemming not from any broad disaffection with civic groups or public life per se but from uncertainty about how best to work together during changing times. The very concern sparked by Putnam's lament was itself, Ladd suggested, a sign of America's still abundant supply of social capital.

However, Ladd was writing prior to the marshalling of evidence in Bowling Alone (Putnam 2000). In many respects, Ladd's central thesis is undermined by the data assembled by Putnam.

The concrete benefits associated with social capital
Putnam marshals an impressive amount of material to demonstrate that:

· Child development is powerfully shaped by social capital. Trust, networks, and norms of reciprocity within a child’s family, school, peer group, and larger community have far reaching effects on their opportunities and choices, and hence on their behaviour and development (ibid.: 296-306)

· In high social-capital areas public spaces are cleaner, people are friendlier, and the streets are safer. Traditional neighbourhood “risk factors” such as high poverty and residential mobility are not as significant as most people assume. Places have higher crime rates in large part because people don’t participate in community organizations, don’t supervise younger people, and aren’t linked through networks of friends. (ibid.: 307-318)

· A growing body of research suggests that where trust and social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods, and even nations prosper economically. Social capital can help to mitigate the insidious effects of socioeconomic disadvantage. (ibid.: 319-325)

· There appears to be a strong relationship between the possession of social capital and better health. ‘As a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half. If you smoke and belong to no groups, it’s a toss-up statistically whether you should stop smoking or start joining’ (ibid.: 331). Regular club attendance, volunteering, entertaining, or church attendance is the happiness equivalent of getting a college degree or more than doubling your income. Civic connections rival marriage and affluence as predictors of life happiness (ibid.: 333).

The World Bank (1999) has also brought together a range of statistics to make the case for the social and economic benefits of social capital. For example they argue that there is evidence that schools are more effective when parents and local citizens are actively involved. 'Teachers are more committed, students achieve higher test scores, and better use is made of school facilities in those communities where parents and citizens take an active interest in children’s educational well-being'. They also indicate some negative impacts, for example, when disgruntled local elites joined together to close health clinics in Uttar Pradesh. Child mortality rates soared as a result (The World Bank).

Social capital in organizations
The idea of looking at social capital in firms and organizations is, as Cohen and Prusak (2001: 6) say, relatively new. This may be because of the way in which the dominance of more mechanistic and system-oriented conceptions of organizational activity have 'masked their deeply social nature (op. cit.). A number of those concerned with organizational development, like Cohen and Prusak, have become increasingly suspicious of the 'people, processes, technology' mantra, 'ceaselessly intoned as a summary of the sources of organizational effectiveness' (ibid.: 8). There has, of course, been a significant embracing of the notion of human capital - but those writing about rarely approach the social nature of organizations - and often fall prey to a tendency to draw upon theories and metaphors that derive financial and physical notions of capital. The argument of those concerned with social capital is that when harnessed it generates economic returns. More particularly, the benefits claimed include:

Better knowledge sharing, due to established trust relationships, common frames of reference, and shared goals.

Lower transaction costs, due to a high level of trust and a cooperative spirit (both within the organization and between the organization and its customers and partners).

Low turnover rates, reducing severance costs and hiring and training expenses, avoiding discontinuities associated with frequent personnel changes, and maintaining valuable organizational knowledge.

Greater coherence of action due to organizational stability and shared understanding. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 10)

Given the relative infancy of the application of social capital to organizational life there is little sustained or substantial research that can support attention to the notion within organizations. It certainly isn't the key to success (ibid.: 11), but it is part of the fabric of organizational life - and the need to engage with it is, arguably, growing. The increasing complexity of organizations and the scale of informational activity; globalization; external and internal volatility; and what Cohen and Prusak (2001: 155-181) call 'the challenge of virtuality' (work carried out over a distance of time and space) all contribute here.

Conclusion – informal education and social capital
Robert Putnam’s discussion of social capital provides informal educators with a powerful rationale for their activities – after all the classic working environment for the informal educator is the group, club or organization. The evidence and analysis also provides a stunning case against those who want to target work towards those who present the most significant problems and tie informal educators’ activities to the achievement of specific outcomes in individuals. Several points need underlining here.

First, from the material marshalled by Putnam we can see that the simple act of joining and being regularly involved in organized groups has a very significant impact on individual health and well-being. Working so that people may join groups – whether they are organized around enthusiasms and interests, social activity, or economic and political aims – can make a considerable contribution in itself. Encouraging the development of associational life can also make a significant difference to the experience of being in different communities. Here we might highlight the case of schooling. Educational achievement is likely to rise significantly, and the quality of day-to-day interaction is likely to be enhanced by a much greater emphasis on the cultivation of extra-curricula activity involving groups and teams.

Second, informal education’s longstanding concern with association and the quality of life in associations can make a direct and important contribution to the development of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that is usually involved) and the strengthening of democracy. Informal educators interest in dialogue and conversation, and the cultivation of environments in which people can work together, take them to the heart of what is required to strengthen and develop social capital. Their ethical position also demands they attend to the downsides of networks – in particular, the extent to which they are oppressive and narrowing. A focus on tolerance and the acceptance, if not the celebration, of difference is required. There is a place for both bridging and bonding social capital.

Third, there is very strong argument here against those who wish to concentrate the bulk of resources on groups and individuals who present the strongest social problems (currently the received thinking among many policymakers - see, for example, the Connexions strategy in England). If we follow Putnam’s analysis through then we can see that, for example, crime can be reduced, educational achievement enhanced and better health fostered through the strengthening of social capital. Significantly this entails working across communities – and in particular sustaining the commitment and capacities already involved in community organizations and enthusiast groups, and encouraging those on the cusp of being actively involved. The majority of the people we are talking about here cannot be classified as suffering from multiple disadvantage, will not be engaged in criminal activity, and will be (or have been) engaged with education systems and/or the world of work. In other words, open and generic work needs to be afforded a far higher priority – and so-called ‘issue-based’ work needs to be more closely interrogated as to the benefits it brings.

In recent years Robert Putnam has done us a great service, and while aspects of his argument will no doubt be disputed over the coming years, his central message is surely true. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric.

Further reading and references
Beem, C. (1999) The Necessity of Politics. Reclaiming American public life, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 311 + xiv pages. Useful study of civil society and the essential role of political processes in the renewal of societies.

Cohen, D. and Prusak, L. (2001) In Good Company. How social capital makes organizations work, Boston, Ma.: Harvard Business School Press.214 +xiii pages.

Fine, B. (2000) Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millenni, London: Routledge. 304 pages. Useful critical exploration of the notion of social capital and its theoretical origins and the extent to which 'it avoids a proper confrontation with political economy and, as a result of its origins and evolution, has become chaotic'.

Ladd, E. C. (1999) The Ladd Report, New York: Free Press. 192 pages. Contains a critique of Putnam's original (1995) article.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster. 541 pages. Brilliant setting out of analysis and evidence concerning the decline and possible reconstruction of civil life in the United States.

Putnam, R. D. (ed.) (2002) Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, New York: Oxford University Press. 522 pages. Further exploration of social transformations using the notion of social capital within 'economically advanced democracies'.

Wuthnow, R. (1998) Loose Connections: Joining Together in America Fragmented Communities, Harvard: Harvard University Press, 276 pages. Explores the supposedly divisive impact of the civil-rights movement, the rise of the youth culture and feminism, and the damaging impact on associational life.

References
Blakely, E. J. and Synder, M. G. (1997) Fortress America: Gated communities in the United States, Washington DC: Brookings Institute.

Bourdieu, P. (1983) ‘Forms of capital’ in J. C. Richards (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York: Greenwood Press.

Coleman, J. C. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’ American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.

Coleman, J. C. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Fukuyama, F. (1999) The Great Disruption. Human nature and the reconstitution of social order, London: Profile Books.

Hanifan, L. J. (1916) 'The rural school community center', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67: 130-138.

Hanifan, L. J. (1920) The Community Center, Boston: Silver Burdett.

Jacobs, J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Random

Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic traditions in modern Italy, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (1995) 'Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital', Journal of Democracy 6:1, Jan, 65-78. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/journal_of_democracy/v006/putnam.html

Sennett, R. (1998) The Corrosion of Character. The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, New York: Norton.

Sirianni, C. and Friedland, L. (undated) 'Social capital', Civic Practices Network, http://www.cpn.org/sections/tools/models/social_capital.html

Walzer, M. (1997) On Tolerance, New Haven: Yale University Press.

The World Bank (1999) 'What is Social Capital?', PovertyNet http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/whatsc.htm

Links
The Civic Practices Network: very useful set of pages that detail different projects, debates and theoretical models.

The World Bank PovertyNet - Social Capital Homepage: set of pages that outline the concept and the sources of social capital. Includes a library of papers and resources, plus a discussion list.

'Putnam resources' include:

Bowling Alone: set of pages linked to the book that includes downloadable datasets.

The strange disappearance of civic America - Putnam - article from the American Prospect.

Still bowling alone? - Review by Leslie Lenkowsky.

Bibliographical reference: Smith, M. K. (2001) 'Social capital', the encyclopedia of informal education, www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm

Mark K. Smith 2000, 2001
First published July 2000. Last update: 30 January 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

infed is an open, independent and not-for-profit site put together by a small group of educators