What Is Social Capital

Asian Journal of Social Science 37 (2009) 480510
brill.nl/ajss
What is Social Capital?

A Comprehensive Review of the Concept
Humnath Bhandari and Kumi Yasunobu
International Rice Research Institute and Tottori University
Abstract
Social capital is an old concept but it entered into academic and policy debates only in 1990s. Its
importance in explaining economic and social phenomena have been increasingly felt in recent
years. Literature on theoretical and empirical aspects of social capital grew signicantly during
last decade. The whole notion of social capital is centred on social relationships and its major
elements include social networks, civic engagement, norms of reciprocity, and generalised trust.
Broadly speaking, it is dened as a collective asset in the form of shared norms, values, beliefs,
trust, networks, social relations, and institutions that facilitate cooperation and collective action
for mutual benets. It is a complex multidimensional concept having dierent dimensions,
types, and levels of measurement. Common types of social capital include: structure and cognitive; bonding, bridging, and linking; strong and weak; and horizontal and vertical. It can be
measured and analysed at individual- and collective-levels in terms of social perspective and
micro-, meso- and macro-levels in terms of geographic perspective. The properties of social
capital, such as capacity to appear in as an explanatory variable in the production function,
accumulation over time, capability of improving economic performance, investment with
expected future returns, convertibility, and the need of maintenance, make it qualify as a form of
capital, though there are some criticisms about the use of term capital in social capital. Research
on social capital remains in its initial stage and the concept is still elusive, prone to contextual
denition, decient in common measurement indicators, inability to explicitly quantify eects,
and subject to various criticisms. Conceptual and measurement imprecision has led the concept
prone to vague interpretation, less empirical application, and underestimation of its value. More
empirical studies and testing of the concept on the ground is needed to develop a commonly
accepted denition and measurement indicators that can explicitly disentangle and quantify its
eects on overall development processes. Better conceptualisation and operationalisation of
social capital theory is helpful to attract more investment on its development, design appropriate
social policies, and promote sustainable development.
Keywords
social capital, review, denition, types, controversies, economic development
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009
DOI: 10.1163/156853109X436847
H. Bhandari, K. Yasunobu /
481
Introduction
Social scientists and development experts often puzzle to explain why economic growth and development dier signicantly across countries or regions
that enjoy virtually equal access to technology, resources, and market in a
modern global world. Explaining large economic disparities across countries
having otherwise identical production environments in terms of technology
and capital (natural, physical, and nancial) is a major challenge for researchers. In the past, economists employed dierent theories to address the variation in economic development, but satisfactory explanations still remain at
large. For many decades, the standard economic theories, such as Solow
growth model and Walrasian equilibrium model, were the dominant mode of
economic analysis. These rational choice models assumed that economic
variables account most, if not all, of variations in economic outcomes. These
theories focused primarily on economic variables and hardly recognise the
potential role of social and cultural factors on economic development. Essentially, socio-cultural factors were left unaccounted for in standard economic
theory (Bilig, 2000). Even now, mainstream economic theories pay little
attention to social values and are reluctant to rely on these values as potential
determinants of economic outcomes (Barro and McCleary, 2002; Guiso
et al., 2006).
Over time, economic theories have been criticised on various grounds.
First, they fail to explain economic growth and development outcomes fully.
The literature argues that standard factors of production (technology, physical
capital, and human capital) explain only part of the development story. There
are social and cultural factors (norms, values, beliefs, and institutions) that
play prominent roles in economic performance and we need to account those
cultural factors in explaining development (Easterly and Levine, 2001;
Christoforou, 2005). Second, they are unable to explain why unprecedented
economic growth is not sustainable and usually accompanies undesirable outcomes, such as income inequality, low improvement in quality of life, social
injustice, social conicts, adverse eects on environment, etc. Third, they fail
to account social values systems in economic development. Fukuyama (2001)
criticised that economists normally make simplifying assumptions that human
beings are rational and their utility maximising behaviour is invariant across
societies. As a result, they ignore the social value systems. All these criticisms
are interrelated and emphasized the importance of social and cultural factors
in economic theories. This seems to suggest that viewing development from a
one-dimensional (economic) perspective would be a conformist idea. Indeed,
economic activity is deeply embedded in social structure, where socio-cultural
values inuence personal traits of an individual that consequently aects the
482
economic outcomes (Carpenter et al., 2004; Chuah et al., 2005; Sabatini,

2006). Therefore, social factors are key determinants of economic progress
and hence economic theory without socio-cultural variables is decient (Inglehart, 1997).
Development is a complex multidimensional process involving major
changes in social structures, behaviours, and national institutions, as well as
the acceleration of economic growth, reduction of poverty, narrowing of
inequalities and improvement in the quality of life (Todaro, 2000). It, thus,
embraces economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental variables.
Development, thus, is not a mere increase in per capita income as mainstream
economists often argue, rather it is an improvement in quality of life, which
requires equal consideration of underlying social and cultural systems. Obviously, economic variables are prominent driving force of development, but the
frontier of development transcends beyond income. Socio-cultural value systems help shape the economic, social, and political behaviour and aect development through indirect multiple channels. Successful explanation of
economic development, thus, has to go beyond narrow measures of economic
variables to encompass social and political variables (Johari, 1989; Barro and
McCleary, 2002). Social scientists, particularly economic sociologists and
development economists, believe that cultural values pervade economic behaviour and, hence, they cannot be ignored in economic analysis (Granovetter,
1985; Fukuyama, 2001; Harrison and Huntington, 2000; Tabellini, 2005). If
development is dened not just as growth in per capita income, but more
broadly as improvement in the quality of life, then cultural values can serve as
both the means and ends of development (Sen, 1999). This implies that
both economic and social factors are equally crucial in explaining the economic phenomena.
The cultural dimension was considered to stay beyond the purview of economic behaviour in the past. But as economic development ended up with
low welfare improvement and rising social problems, and economic models
failed to explain the economic behaviour fully, cultural dimension has became
subject of interest into economic discourse (Ben-Ner and Putterman, 1997).
This led to re-orientation of the development approach, placing emphasis on
norms, values, beliefs, and institutions as well. The basic notion is that a proper
understanding of the welfare and economic situation of society can only be
achieved if the social dimension is also taken into account (Iisakka and Alanen,
2006). The importance of socio-cultural values as essential parameters of
development came to surface in 1960s. Besides standard factors of production, economists realised the importance of quality of labour in production
and started including human capital (knowledge and skills) as a factor of pro-
483
duction. Later on, it was recognised that not only human capital, but also
cultural factors are important in economic and social outcomes. This reorganisation of social components on development led to the birth of social
capital in 1990s (see Lucas, 1976; Harrison and Huntington, 2000; OECD,
2001). Indeed, rising interest on the interconnection between social values
and development led to the birth of the development economics and institutional economics sub-disciplines. Now, development institutions, like the
United Nations and the World Bank, have recognised cultural diversity as an
important component of development process and have started incorporating
local cultural factors in their development programmes. Literature looking at
the relationship between culture and economic phenomena has been growing
substantially since then.
Prominent scholars, such as Max Weber, Amartya Sen, Samuel Huntington, etc., claim that culture interacts with economic development in many
ways and, hence, cultural dimensions are critical in understanding economic
behaviour (Sen, 1999; Landes, 2000). Empirical studies have established the
positive inuence of socio-cultural values and institutions on economic growth
and their critical role in the success of developed countries (Huntington,
1998; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Hjerppe, 2003). Fukuyama (2001) contended that economic development is inuenced not just by the existence of
formal institutions, but also by certain norms and values that accelerate
exchange, savings, and investment. He outlined four means through which
culture aects economic behaviour impact on organisation and production, attitudes towards work and consumption, the ability to create and manage institutions, and the creation of social networks. The strong linkage
between culture and development has been well established now and social
scientists are now paying more attention as to how social values can shape the
overall development process (Inglehart, 1997; Beugelsdijk, 2003; Guiso et al.,
2006; Sabitini, 2006). The strand of literature looking at the relationship
between social values and development patterns is on rise (Putnam, 1993;
Fukuyama, 1995; Barro, 1997; Inglehart, 1997; Knack and Keefer, 1997; Zak
and Kanck, 2001; Gradstein and Justman, 2002; Beugelsdijk, 2003; Pryor,
2005; Guiso et al., 2006; Sabitini, 2006). Incorporation of cultural values in
economic models make economic discourse richer, more valuable, better able
to capture the nuances of the real world, and make them more useful (Guiso
et al., 2006).
Mainstream neo-classical growth models started with variables physical
capital and labour, then included human capital, subsequently incorporated
institutions, and has nally considered including culture. In the 1990s, a new
school of thought on the determinants of economic development emerged,
484
which embracing the concept of social capital (trust, social networks, and
institutions) to explicitly explain the eect of socio-cultural values in economic behaviour. This is essentially a reorientation of institutional economics.
Social capital embodies cultural traits of a society and is considered as source
of wealth (Putnam, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995). The dierential impact of norms,
values, and beliefs on trust, networks, and institutions is the basis of social
capital (Fukuyama, 2001). The appealing characteristic of social capital is that
it can be conceptualised and measures in specic forms and can be incorporated into standard economic models (Guiso et al., 2006; Sabitini, 2006).
Researchers have uncovered the role of social capital in economic progress
and sustainable development (Putnam, 1993; Knack and Keefer, 1997; Sabatini, 2006). Granovetter (1985) argues that most economic behaviours are
embedded in social networks. Social capital plays a signicant role in providing access to more information, increasing social cohesion, better civic engagement, reducing opportunistic behaviour, boosting political participation,
government responsiveness and eciency, reducing transaction costs, providing insurance against risk and uncertainties, and solving collective actions
problems (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995; Woolcock
and Narayan, 2000; Lin, 2001; Paxton, 2002; Welzel et al., 2005). Empirical
studies have established the positive eect of social capital on health, educational outcomes, social welfare, and reducing tax evasion (UNESCO, 2002;
Productivity Commission, 2003; Hombres et al., 2006). Social capital, thus,
has a potential to serve as powerful means of development. It can shape the
economic outcomes at both the micro and macro levels (Rodrik, 1998).
Recently, social scientists, including economists, have became increasingly
interested in social capital and have been using this concept as an explanatory
variable to explain economic behaviour (Knack and Keefer, 1997; Temple,
2001; Sabatini, 2006).
Large numbers of empirical studies have claimed the positive correlation
between social capital and development. Nevertheless, the social capital concept is plagued by theoretical vagueness and conceptual weakness (Ponthieux,
2004) and its practical value has been challenged on various grounds. Sabatini
(2006) claims that the relationship between social capital and economic development is still unconvincing and sometimes conicting. He outlined three
weaknesses of social capital no universal denition and measurement
method; no unanimous agreement on the positive relationship between social
capital and development; and even when a positive relationship is established,
doubts remain on the causal nexus between social capital and its outcomes.
Chen (2005) argues that despite actual and perceived positive inuence of
social capital, there is still some scepticism about whether and how much
485
inuence it exerts on economic development and social transformation.

Empirical studies on social capital suer from lack of uniformity with regard
to indicators and approaches used to measure aspects of social capital (Harper,
2002). It seems to suggest that social capital is still surrounded by various
practical unanswered questions and it is far from clear. However, there is no
doubt that it is a promising construct in fostering economic outcomes and, at
least, it has become a subject of interest and opened the room for further
theoretical and empirical discussion. The formidable challenge ahead is to
measure social capital empirically and to establish clear and systematic
evidence that social capital indeed is an important predictor of economic
outcomes.
Social capital is a newborn concept and research on the topic remains in its
initial stage. It is a highly appealing and potential promising concept. Nevertheless, its potential value can be harnessed only when it is properly dened,
operationalised, and proven to have explanatory power (Woolcock, 1998).
Commonly accepted denition, operationalisation, and measurement of social
capital are essential to understand the concept comprehensively, to measure it
in a consistent and coherent fashion, and to explicitly disentangle its eect on
economic and social outcomes. Although, literature on the subject grew at an
exponential rate in the last two decades, the actual denition and measurement are two issues that are yet to be resolved. The concept is still elusive,
prone to contextual denition, decient in commonly accepted indicators,
unable to explicitly quantify eects, and subject of severe criticism. Conceptual and measurement imprecision has led it prone to vague interpretation,
less empirical application, and underestimation of the importance. Indicating
the need for rm denition, Castle (1998) said that unless the social capital
concept is used with some degree of precision and in a comparable manner, it
will come to have little value as an analytical construct. At the moment,
knowledge of social capital in terms of universal denition, various dimensions, functions, and the impact on economic outcomes is inadequate to
derive clear policy implications. The foremost challenge ahead is to dene the
concept explicitly and to nd out a simple and commonly agreed upon methodology that can disentangle its eect on development pattern.
Addressing these issues requires more studies, empirical investigations, and
testing of the concept in the ground. Further studies and discussions could
be helpful to understand the characteristics of social capital, to develop commonly accepted methodology for its measurement, and to establish its practical value in explaining development outcomes. The objective of this article
is to provide theoretical insights on basic concept of social capital and its
implications on overall development process. Better conceptualisation and
486
operationalisation of social capital theory could be helpful to design more

appropriate social policies, invest resources, and promote overall balanced and
sustainable development. This paper contributes to the social capital debate
through a more systematic review of the concept and through providing various benets and policy implications of social capital development on overall
economic and social transformation.
Dening Social Capital

Social capital is a complex multidimensional concept encompassing repertoire
of cultural and social value systems. Recently, it has become a very popular
and appealing concept among social scientists. A growing number of sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and economists have employed the
concept to explain various economic and social outcomes. The fundamental
notion of social capital is to incorporate socio-cultural factors to explain development outcomes. It has emerged as a prominent topic of discussion among
academics, development specialists, and policymakers. The history of social
capital traces a long way back to classical economists, such as Adam Smith and
John Stuart Mill, and sociologists, such as Max Weber, who provided the cultural explanation to economic phenomena (Guiso et al., 2006). The concept
of social capital as a topical issue, however, came into the spotlight only in late
1980s and attracted growing research interest thereafter. The scientic study
of social capital is relatively new, but the growth of literature on the topic is
enormous. Despite voluminous literature, there is no single, universal denition of social capital. It is often dened and measured in a pragmatic and
unsystematic fashion (van Schaik, 2002). Growing interest and numerous
studies in recent years has ne-tuned the concept and measurement approach.
Now, at least, there seems to be some agreement on the conceptualisation and
major ingredients of social capital. Social capital is an abstract idea rather than
a rmly tangible phenomenon. The theory of social capital is particularly
rooted on the notion of trusts, norms, and informal networks and it believes
that social relations are valuable resources. Social capital is broadly dened to
be a multidimensional phenomenon encompassing a stock of social norms,
values, beliefs, trusts, obligations, relationships, networks, friends, memberships, civic engagement, information ows, and institutions that foster cooperation and collective actions for mutual benets and contributes to economic
and social development.
The intellectual history of the concept of social capital can be traced back
to Karl Marx (18181883), Emile Durkheim (18581917), Georg Simmel
487
(18581918), John Dewey (18591952), and Max Weber (18641920);

these scholars emphasise the role of culture in economic development an
implicit use of the idea of social capital. According to Smith (2007), the concept of social capital was rst invoked by Lyda J. Hanifan in 1916 to explain
the importance of community participation in enhancing school performance.
After long disappearance of the concept, the concept of social capital was
reinvented by a team of Canadian sociologists (Seely et al., 1956) while studying urban communities, by Homans (1961) for a theory of social interactions,
by Jacobs (1961) while discussing urban life and neighbourliness, and by
Loury (1977) for studying income distribution. All of these authors emphasise
the value of social networks and need to preserve them. The rst systematic
exposition of the term and its entry into the academic debates can be attributed to the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1986) and James S. Coleman (1988).
However, it was the pioneering work of Robert D. Putnam (1993) that heavily
popularised the term among social scientists and attracted the attention of
researchers and policymakers. Being a multi-faceted construct, it is hard to
expect a single denition of social capital. Dierent authors dened social
capital in dierent ways reecting their own interest. The most prominent
names while discussing the denition of social capital include Pierre Bourdieu
(1986), James Coleman (1988), Robert D. Putnam (1993), Francis Fukuyama (1995), Nan Lin (2001), OECD (2001), and the World Bank (2007).
The commonality of most denitions is that they emphasise social relations
that generate productive benets. The main dierence between these denitions is that they treat social capital as either personal resources or social
resources.
Bourdieu distinguishes between three forms of capital: economic, cultural,
and social. He denes social capital as: . . . the sum of the actual or potential
resources that are linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less
institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition in
other words, to membership in a group (Bourdieu, 1986: 248). This denition emphasises the importance of social network, i.e., the opportunities and
advantages available to members from group membership. Bourdieu considers
social capital as a collectively-owned asset endowing members with credits,
i.e., individual good. The author focuses on instrumental value of social capital to derive economic and social benets from group membership and the
impetus for individual investment in such membership (Quibria, 2003). The
benets which accrue from membership in a group are the basis of the solidarity which makes them possible. The richness of social capital depends on the
size of the network and on the volume of capital (economic or cultural) in
these connections possession. The capital is maintained and reinforced as long
488
as members continue to invest in the relationships. Bourdieus idea of social

capital puts emphasis on class conicts: it is a personal asset in the competition
among individuals aiming to improve their own positions as compared to others. Bourdieus denition identies three elements of social capital: (i) the
social relationship that enables actors to gain access to resources possesses by
their associates (i.e., it is resources embedded in social connections); (ii) the
amount of those resources produced by the totality of the relationships between
actors, rather than merely a common quality of the group; and (iii) the quality
of those resources.
Coleman (1990:302) denes social capital by its function. It is not a single
entity, but a combination of dierent entities having two characteristics in
common: it is an aspect of a social structure, and it facilitates certain actions
of individuals who are within that structure. The entities include obligations,
expectations, trust, and information ows. It is a productive resource that
facilitates production and make possible to achieve certain ends that would be
impossible in its absence. Social capital inheres in the structure of relations
between and among actors. It facilitates the actions of individual actors and
forms the basis of social capital. Eorts to take membership in a group can be
seen as rational investments in social capital. Coleman identies three forms
of social capital: reciprocity (including trust), information channels and ow
of information, and norms enforced by sanction. Actors (individuals or organisations) can use these resources to achieve their ends. Unlike other forms of
capital, it is not completely fungible across individuals or activities. Social
capital is inherently social, most forms of capital developed through combined
actions of group members. For Coleman, social capital is a public good as it
exists in the relations among people. For Bourdieu and Coleman, social networks are seen as the means by which collective capital can be maintained and
reinforced.
Robert Putnam played a prominent role in popularising the concept of
social capital. He denes social capital as: . . . features of social organisation,
such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the eciency of society
by facilitating coordinated actions (Putnam, 1993: 167). Social capital refers
to connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them (Putnam, 2000: 1819). For
him, social networks have value and social contacts aect the productivity of
individuals and groups. Social capital is closely related to civic virtue. The
number of civic associations and degree of participation in those associations
indicate the richness of social capital in a society. In that sense social capital is
closely related to civic engagement, participation in voluntary organisations
and social connections, which fosters sturdy norms of reciprocity and trust.
489
Networks of civic engagement facilitate societal cooperation, coordination,

and communication; strengthen reputations; and, thus, allow dilemmas of
collective actions to be resolved. Social capital aects the productivity of actors
(individuals and groups) and it posses the characteristics of public good.
Because of its collective nature, it cannot be transformed into a private good.
Stocks of capital (trust, norms, and networks) accumulate in use and diminish
if they are not used.
A signicant contribution to social capital theory was made by Francis
Fukuyama. He oered the more specic but signicantly dierent denition
of social capital. He denes social capital in terms of trust as: . . . the ability of
the people to work together for common purposes in groups and organisations (Fukuyama, 1995: 10). Alternatively, he denes social capital simply
as the existence of a certain set of informal values or norms shared among
members of a group that permit cooperation among them (Fukuyama, 1995).
He contends that interpersonal trust is fundamental for social relationships
to emerge. Mutual trust improves the cooperation between individuals,
reduces transaction costs, and increases business transactions. Fukuyama
emphasises on the qualities in social relationships (interpersonal trust, reciprocity, shared norms and understandings, etc.), which permits people to
associate with others, and it helps to develop social capital. Fukuyamas signicant contribution to the theory of social capital is that he provided a single,
most straightforward means to measure social capital: the proportion of people who think that most people can be trusted. Nevertheless, given the multidimensional nature of social capital, it should be just one, but not the only,
indicator of social capital.
Lin (2001: 19) denes social capital as: . . . investment in social relations
with expected returns in the marketplace. Operationally, Lin denes social
capital as the . . . resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by
actors for actions (Lin, 2001: 2425). The concept has two important elements: (i) it represents resources embedded in social relations rather than individuals, and (ii) access and use of such resources reside with actors. The rst
element implies that social capital can be envisioned as an investment by individuals in interpersonal relationships useful in the market. It is an investment
in social connectedness through which resources of other actors can be accessed
and borrowed. Lins concept of social capital has a more individualistic
approach. Actors engage in interactions and networking in order to produce
benets. Lin treats social capital as a social asset by virtue of actors connections
and access to resources in the network or group of which they are members.
Robison et al. (2002) denes social capital as: . . . a persons or groups sympathy toward another person or group that may produce a potential benet,
490
advantage, and preferential treatment for another person or group of persons

beyond that expected in an exchange relationships. They argue that this denition contains the properties of classical capital and it separates what it is
(sympathy) from what it does (potential benets) and focus on transformative
capacity of capital residing (embodied) in human relationships.
Major international organisations, particularly the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank have
adopted their own denition. The OECD (2001: 41) denes social capital as:
. . . networks together with shared norms, values, and understandings that
facilitate cooperation within or among groups. The World Bank takes a
broader view and denes social capital as: . . . the institutions, relationships,
and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a societys social interactions. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a
society it is the glue that holds them together (World Bank, 2007).
Quibria (2003) reviewed dierent denitions and comments concluding
that social capital is an individual asset that comes from access to networks
and social connections, whereas others view it as a shared asset that resides in
a homogenous collective entity such as a community with common interests and shared values. Some others have focused on trust and tolerance, while
others have focused on the degree of civic and social engagements as the vehicle of such social capital. Still others have highlighted issues of culture and
social norms.
Needless to say, adoption of social capital by social scientists from dierent
background has led to the multiple denitions. The variety of denition is not
due to lack of understanding about what social capital is, but it is due to various dimensions of social capital. Robison et al. (2002) write that the dierences in denition have arisen primarily because scientists have included in
the denition expressions of its possible uses, where it resides, and how
its service capacity can be changed; which the author argues should not be
include in its denition. In his view, social capital can be deconstructed into
what it is, where it resides, what it produces (how used), and how it produces.
Nevertheless, the basic notion of those denitions falls within the broad
framework of Bourdieu who said that, Its not what you know but who you
know that matters. There are voluminous literatures discussing denition and
measurement of social capital but none of them have come up with rm, nondisputable denition. There is still considerable debate in the academic community about what refers to social capital and what its major components are
that makes it representative to all situations. Given its complex nature, it is not
surprising to see many denitions and also it is not reasonable to expect a
universal denition. Nevertheless, over time, the concept has been ne-tuned
and there is commonality on the meaning of social capital.
491
The set of denitions representing dierent view broadly agree with the
view that the basic foundation of social capital is the social relations that
engenders individual and collective benets. Social capital is a multidimensional construct containing various forms and functions. Encompassing different view, social capital can be regarded as a collective asset in the form of
social relations, shared norms, and trust that facilitate cooperation and collective action for mutual benets. It is a capital asset produced through actors
investment, endowing investors to use as credits by virtue of connections.
Social relations are regarded as an asset of an individual a resource in the
form of information and trust that actors can draw dawn once accumulated.
Availability of the capital allows achieving certain goals that would otherwise
be impossible in the absence of capital. Social relations vanish if not maintained; reciprocity decline over time; and norms depend on regular communications (Coleman, 1990). This implies that the actors investment strengthens
and reinforces the capital while disinvestment leads to a decline of the capital.
Elements that are crucial to the denition and conceptualisation of social
capital can be grouped into three broad categories: social networks (of families, friends, communities, and voluntary associations), norms of reciprocity
(shared norms, values, and behaviours), and trust (in other people and institutions). Specically, social capital involves informal social relations, memberships in social networks and groups, civic engagements (volunteering),
community and organisational participation (volunteering), trust in the people and institutions, and norms of reciprocity. It is a collectively-owned resource
generated through individuals shared norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours that produces mainly a positive inuence on economic development.
Capital Debate of Social Capital

Bourdieu (1986) rst introduced the capital metaphor of social capital by differentiating three dierent forms of capital human, cultural, and social.
Since then the debate about does social capital qualify as capital is continuing. While some authors argue that social capital does not uphold the main
properties of classical capital theory and, hence, does not qualify as capital,
others sustain that most properties of social capital resemble to that of classical
capital theory and, hence, capitalisation of social capital is appropriate. Knowledge of the classical theory of capital is prerequisite to contributing to the
capital debate of social capital. The Marxist theory denes capital as the goods
produced when surplus value is appropriated from one class (labour) for the
benet of other (capitalists). Mainstream economists dene capital as physical
assets (buildings, machines, infrastructure land, etc.) or nancial assets (liquid
492
assets, bonds, etc) that have the potential to produce goods and services. Classical capital, in this sense, is a surplus value or commodity that can be used as
a factor of production. The fundamental properties of classical capital goods
include it is a commodity that is tangible, can be owned, and can be traded in
the market. Besides, the capital stock is productive and can be used as investment for future production, generating as a result of investment, durability,
and depreciates from both use and non-use (Schmid, 2000; Castle, 2002;
Piazza-Georgi, 2002).
Social scientists, mainly sociologists, have redened the classical theory
of capital in terms of neo-capital theories (human capital, cultural capital,
institutional capital, and social capital). The neo-capital theories borrow the
original macro-level concept of capital from Marxist theory and apply it to
individual actors (Lin, 2001). The neo-capital theory argues that every individual can make choices to generate capital and keep it for their own benet.
Application at the individual level and recognition of the value of choice decision of each actor are the two critical elements of neo-capital theory (Lin,
2001). The neo-capital theories recognise the importance of intangible
resources embedded in individual actors (qualities of labour and social relations) that have the potential to produce goods and services. The capital metaphor of social capital has a base on neo-capital theory.
Prominent theorists, such as Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert
D. Putnam, claim that social capital has similar (although intangible) properties to traditional forms of capital; hence, the term capital in social capital has
analogous meanings with other forms of capital. Coleman (1990) contends
that, like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible
the achievements of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible.
But, unlike other forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structures of
relations between and among actors. It is not lodged either in the actors themselves or in physical implements of production. Putnam (1993) argues that,
while physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to
properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals their social networks, their norms of reciprocity, and the trust that arise
from them. OECD (2001) distinguishes social capital from human capital
based on three perspectives. First, social capital is embedded in relationships
and therefore cannot be considered the exclusive property of any specic individuals; second, it is the product of an investment of time and energy but its
benets can prot individuals that did not participate in its making; and third,
it has positive externalities that aect the wider community so that costs and
benets of social relations do not accrue only to the person building relationships, but to every individual that belongs to the group.
493
Not all social scientists accept the metaphor of capital to describe social
relationships. Several authors, primarily economists, have questioned and
criticised the capitalisation of social capital (see Baron and Hannon, 1994;
Portes, 1998; Arrow, 2000; Solow, 2000; Hoerth et al., 1999; Inkeles, 2000;
Schmid, 2000; Fine, 2001; Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Durlauf, 2002; Harriss,
2002; Smith and Kulynych, 2002; Quirbia, 2003; Roberts, 2004; Halpern,
2005). They have criticised the capitalisation of social capital on dierent
grounds. Smith and Kulynych (2002) believe that the meaning of capital is so
broad and pervasive that it obscures its distinction and consequently measurement. On the other hand, Inkeles (2000) thinks that use of term capital is
too narrow and proposes more broad term like social resources. The term
community would be more appropriate to social capital because it focuses
attention on what groups do rather than what people own (Bowles and Gintis,
2002). Social capital is not necessarily the best term, but might just be a social
fabric (Halpern, 2005). Some authors criticise that social capital is neither
social, nor capital (Robison et al., 2002; Roberts, 2004).
Several authors have clearly pointed out the weaknesses of the analogy
between physical capital and social capital. Arrow (2000) argues that physical
capital has three important characteristics: extension in time, deliberate sacrice in the present for future benets, and alienability (transfer of ownership
from one person to another). To him, social capital shares only the time
dimension aspect with physical capital (for example, trust or reputation take
some time to develop); but it does not necessarily require any material sacrice; in most cases, it is also dicult to transfer the ownership of social capital
from one person to another. Further, social networks are maintained to provide other than economic benets for actors. Conceptually social capital, thus,
fails to full the properties of classical capital goods. In this sense, Arrow questions the appropriateness of the term capital to represent social relations and
he discourages the use of social capital terminology. Solow (2000) raises some
measurement problems of social capital and notes that, . . . it is an attempt
to gain conviction from a bad analogy. He writes that while physical capital
can be measured and rate of return can be readily calculated by past investment net of depreciation, such measurement is not straightforward for social
capital. Besides, social capital appreciates with use and traditional models are
incapable of explaining the changes of social capital over time. Hoerth et al.
(1999) comments that social capital is the product of altruism and, hence, it
does not full the basic characteristics of capital resources built up through
investment and that can be drawn upon when needed. To qualify as capital
an entity must possess an opportunity cost, but this is lacking in social capital
(Baron and Hannon, 1994). Social capital is not equally available to all, in
494
much the same way that other forms of capital are dierently available. Geographic and social isolation limit access to this resource (Edwards and Foley,
1998).
Many authors criticise social capital in terms of its ownership. One major
dierence between social capital and other forms of capital is that social capital resides in a social relationship, whereas other forms of capital primarily
resides in the individual alone (Robison et al., 2002). Portes (1998) compares
features of dierent forms of capital and comments that while economic capital is in peoples bank accounts and human capital is insides their heads, social
capital inheres in the structure of their relationships. You can sell your privately-owned asset, such as land, but you cannot sell your social relations, in
which other individuals also have a stake. Social capital is the only form of
capital not under any individuals complete ownership (Yang, 2007). Moreover, unlike other forms of capital, actors cannot trade social capital in the
market but it is, instead, embedded within a group (Gant et al., 2002; Glaeser
et al., 2002). Social capital belongs to each member of a group and requires
the actions of all involved to sustain it (Wilson and Chiveralls, 2004). This
suggests that the properties of social capital are similar to those of neo-capital
theory but not to those of classical capital theory. Economists agree that social
capital inuences economic outcomes, but whether this inuence can be or
should be meaningfully coded into a capital metaphor of social capital is a
debatable issue (Quirbia, 2003). Given these conceptual and measurement
imprecisions, many economists feel reluctant to assign capital metaphor to
social capital.
On the other side of the coin, there are large numbers of prominent social
scientists who believe that social capital shares many commonalities with other
forms of capital and, hence, we can genuinely assign capital metaphor to social
capital. The mushrooming of social capital literature in past decade is a case in
point. Robison et al. (2002) mentions that physical capital posses properties
of transformation capacity, durability, exibility, substitutability, decay (maintenance), reliability, the ability to create other capital, capacity for investment
and disinvestment, and alienability. Social capital shares most, if not all, of
these capital-like properties. Castle (1998) describes that capital in any form
qualies as capital only if it makes humans more productive when they use it
in combination with other forms of capital. Hoerth et al. (1999) mentions
that the outcomes of social capital are capital in nature, because capital is
something that is durable; retains its identity even after repeated use; and can
be used up, destroyed, maintained and improved. Both structural and cognitive forms of social capital posses capital characteristics because they both
require investment of time and eort, not always of money (Grootaert and
495
van Bastelaer, 2002). It may be regarded as a form of capital since it helps

to sustain income stream over time although in a much more dissipated manner than more conventional forms of capital that are tied to specic outputs
(Ville, 2004).
One of the key properties of capital is that it can be used as a factor of production. Social capital directly enhances the factor productivity and, hence, it
can be treated as capital (Dasgupta, 2000). Becker (1996) considers social
capital as an intermediate good (commodities) for the production of assets.
Sabatini (2006) sustains that an increase in trust-based relations reduces the
average cost of transactions, just as an increase in physical capital reduces the
average cost of production. Social capital, thus, improves the capabilities of
agents and constitutes an input in production processes. Besides, he claims
that it is possible to describe social capital as an input of agents utility and
production functions from a rational choice theory perspective. At the aggregate level, social capital may inuence the economic performance and the
process of development, providing credible explanation for growth dierentials among regions with endowments in other forms of capital (Guiso et al.,
2004; Sabatini, 2006).
Social capital is a productive resource having varying quantities (stocks and
ows) and qualities (trust, reciprocity, norms, social networks, and information channels). It is a productive resource and requires investment (Lin, 2001).
It can generate positive externalities for group members who gain competitive
advantage in pursuing their ends (Sabatini, 2006). Evans and Syrett (2007)
argue that, like other forms of capital, social capital is productive and exists as
a stock of resources to which both individuals and groups have access. On the
other hand, they point out how social capital is dierent from other forms of
capital: (i) it is intangible and focuses around the social relations; (ii) the stock
of social capital deplete if not used, but increase with more use; (iii) a single
person cannot own it exclusively; and (iv) its ownership cannot be transferred
into another individual. Evans contends that social capital does not require
expenditures of scarce material resources in its creation and its stock accumulates with use instead of depreciating.
Some authors criticise social capital because it cannot be appropriated as
the exclusive property of single individual. The ownership of social capital is
less relevant as it is thought to be a property of a community or region as
compared to others indicators, such as level of education, health, and economic wealth (Lin, 2001). Some authors criticise social capital in the sense
that it does not depreciate with use. Addressing to this issue, Ostrom (2000)
points out that social capital need not depreciate with the way physical capital
does. In important instances, making use of social capital increases its stock
496
available for future use. Holding social capital in an analogous form of decay
is misleading (Sobel, 2002). He argues that expanding social networks indirectly increases other members social capital by giving them access to a larger
network. Some scholars criticise social capital that investment in social capital
does not bring any opportunity costs. Woolcock (1998) responds this comment by saying that while individuals do not invest directly in a commodity
social capital, they do often make calculated decisions to join clubs, do favours,
and make and maintain relationships with an expectation of future benets.
Such deliberate decisions to increase their social capital bring certain opportunity costs.
Light and Gold (2000) identify two properties namely storability and
transformability that are common between social capital and other forms of
capital. To him, social capital is the only capital that can be accessed and
accumulated by rich and poor alike. This is because investing on it requires
only time and energy, but not money. Social capital facilitates transformation
of individual capitals into material wealth which is available for rich and poor
equally.
Svendsen and Svendsen (2005) believe that social capital shares some common properties of other forms of capital and, hence, it can be regarded as
capital. Their argument is that like physical, economic, or human capital,
social capital can provide immediate benets to the individuals (in the form of
information or help from friends). We can convert social capital into other
forms of capital (get a better job). We can also cultivate social capital in the
hope of future benets, applying strategies modied by cultural codes. However, it is dierent from other forms of capital in the sense that it cannot be
exclusively owned by single individual and it is prevailingly a non-excludable
good. Social capital can benet many actors at the same time (Schmid, 2002).
Lin (2001) denes social capital in relation to neo-capital theories, by
separating it from classical capital theory. Lin writes that premise behind
the notion of social capital is the investment in social relations with expected
returns. People engaged in social networks can derive certain benets. To
Lin, it is the members of the group who make maintenance and reproduction
of this social asset possible. Thus, it resembles the features of neo-capital
theory.
Above discussion revealed argument for and against the appropriateness
of the term capital in social capital. To what extent social capital shares properties of other forms of capital is crucial to consider it as capital. It appears that
social capital is dierent in some properties from other forms of capital, but it
shares many common properties of other forms of capital. It exhibits some
similar characteristics to other kinds of capital in the sense that it can be put
497
into economic production functions, it is accumulated over time, and it signicantly improves economic performance (Fafchamps and Minten, 2002).
Social capital is similar to other forms of capital in the sense that it can be
invested with expected future returns, is convertible, is appropriable, and
requires maintenance. The social relationships can be utilised as an economic
resource for the production of goods and services. Thus, social capital does
have many properties that qualify it as capital. The capitalisation of social
capital is based on sucient reasoning. It is worth noting that it is the term
capital that makes social capital attractive to such a wide range of people bringing together of sociology and economics (Adam and Roncevic, 2003).
Types of Social Capital

Based on dierent characteristics and functions, literatures have classied
social capital into dierent groups. The most common forms of social capital
in literature include structural and cognitive social capital; bonding, bridging,
and linking social capital; strong and weak social capital; and horizontal and
vertical social capital.
(a) Structural and cognitive social capital: Structural social capital is related
to the pattern of social networks and other structures such as associations, clubs, cultural groups, and institutions supplemented by the
rules, procedures, and precedents that govern them. Cognitive social
capital consists primarily of a set of shared norms, values, attitudes, and
beliefs of individuals relating to trust, reciprocity, and cooperation
(Upho and Wijayaratna, 2000). The objective and externally-observable
structural social capital facilitates mutually benecial collective actions
through established roles and durable social networks supplemented
by rules, procedures, and precedents (Upho, 2000; Hitt et al., 2002).
The structural social capital provides certain benets to actors, like nding a job, obtaining information, or accessing resources (Burt, 1992;
Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). The subjective and intangible cognitive social
capital predisposes people towards mutually benecial collective action
through shared values and attitudes (Upho, 2000). Putnam (1993)
argues that participation in social networks and voluntary organisations
forms habits of cooperation, solidarity, and civic-mindedness. Besides,
it fosters development and spread of trust. Social capital is, thus, understood both as a structural and a cognitive dimension (Paxton, 2002;
Van Oorschot et al., 2006). These structural and cognitive forms are
498
often interconnected and reinforcing (Upho and Wijayaratna, 2000).

This dual characteristic often creates problems in measuring social capital that focus on one, but not both, dimensions.
(b) Bonding, bridging, and linking social capital: From a social cohesion
perspective, recent literature distinguishes social capital into three
important forms (Putnam, 2000; Woolcock, 2001). Bonding social
capital denotes ties among people who are very close and known to one
another, such as immediate family, close friends, and neighbours. Often
people in bonding networks are alike on key personal characteristics
(e.g., class, race, ethnicity, education, age, religion, gender, and political aliation). It is more inward-looking, protective, and exercising
close membership, and therefore good for under-girding specic reciprocity and mobilising informal solidarity (Van Oorschot et al., 2006).
Bonding promotes communication and relationships necessary to pursue common goals. Moreover, it inuences creation and nurturing of
community organisations, like self-help groups and local association.
Bridging social capital refers to more distant ties of like persons, such as
loose friendships and workmates. Often people in bridging networks
dier on key personal characteristics. Bridging is more outward-looking, civically engaged, narrows the gap between dierent communities
and exercising open membership, and is, therefore, crucial to organising solidarity and pursuing common goals (van Oorschot et al., 2006).
Bridging is crucial for solving community problems through helping
people to know each other, building relationships, sharing information, and mobilising community resources. Linking social capital refers
to ties and networks among individuals and groups who occupy very
dierent social positions and power. It reaches out to unlike people in
dissimilar situations, such as those who are entirely outside of the community. Linking social capital may involve networks and ties of a particular community with states or other agencies. These dierent forms
of social capital can serve dierent functions. Bonding with closelyknit people can act as a social support safety net; bridging ties with
people across diverse social divides can provide links to institutions and
systems and enables people and communities to leverage a wide range
of resources than are available in the community. Bonding generates
ingrown and thick trust that is useful for getting by in life, as opposed
to the bridging of expansive and thin trust that may be useful for getting ahead (Anheier and Kendall, 2002; Woolcock, 2001). In practice,
social ties may constitute bonding in one respect and bridging in
another. This distinction is helpful to think about dierent types of
499
social relationships among people in the community and their likely

dierential outcomes (Field, 2003).
(c) Strong and weak ties: Granovetter (1985) distinguishes social capital
according to the strength of social ties. Strong ties refer to close, persistent, and binding relationships, such as those that exist with families
and close friend group; weak ties, on the other hand, refers to more
causal, temporary, and contingent relationships, such as those that exist
with people from dierent backgrounds and friends from dierent
social niches. Strong ties comes from aection, willingness to help, and
great knowledge of each other. Strong ties create great solidarity and
oer personal support, whereas weak ties are used more for informational support. Weak ties link people to the broader communities and
to a wider range of potential resources (Erickson, 2004). It can serve as
channel in mobilising resources, ideas, and information to promote
collective actions in the community.
(d) Horizontal and vertical networks: Social capital is also distinguished
between horizontal and vertical networks (Woolcock and Narayan,
2000). Horizontal social capital refers to lateral ties between people of
similar status and power in a community, vertical social capital on the
other hand refers to ties between people of dierent hierarchy and
unequal power among people. While horizontal social capital operates
through shared norms and values, vertical social capital operates through
formal hierarchical structures. Similar to bonding and bridging, horizontal social capital encompasses diverse group of people and it serves to
establish connection and a common goal among community members
through civic engagement. Similar to linking, vertical social capital
establishes link of citizens to community leaders and decision makers,
and creates environment for social change through laws and policies.
The literature also identify several other types of social capital. For example,
formal (membership in clubs, social groups, and organisations) and informal
(informal social connection with extended family, friends, neighbours, and
workmates) (Pichler and Wallace, 2007); and open (civically-engaged and
open membership) and closed (protective and exercising closed membership)
(Heron, 2000). These dierent types, characteristics and functions of social
capital reveal some of the ways in which social capital diers. A thorough
insight on these varieties of forms of social capital is helpful in better conceptualisation and measurement of social capital. These several forms of social
capital also suggest that social capital can be operationalised and measured in
variety of ways.
500
Level of Analysis for Social Capital

Social capital is believed to exist at dierent hierarchy in the society. As a
result, it can be measured and analysed at dierent levels. From the levels of
analysis perspective, existing literatures on social capital can be classied into
two groups: (a) individual and collective levels and (b) micro-, meso-, and
macro-levels.
(a) Individual and collective levels: There are divergent views regarding
whether social capital is an attribute of an individual (individual good)
or an attribute of a community (collective good). Some authors conceive social capital at the individual level, whereas others conceive it at
the society level.1 Kilby (2002) writes that social capital exists within
levels or scales as one feels belonging to family, community, country,
etc. simultaneously. Contemplating similar views, Adler and Kwon
(2002) argue that sources of social capital lie in the social structure
within which the actor is located. Social capital, thus, has both an individual and an aggregate component (Slangen et al., 2004). The foundation of social capital lies in the group, but it can be used by the group
as a whole or individuals within the group (Sander, 2002). Bourdieu
(1986) views social capital at the individual level and Coleman (1990)
views social capital as the element of social structure but he conceptualises social capital at the individual level. Putnam (1993) and Fukuyama (1995) brought the macro and collective action notion of social
capital and viewed social capital at the collective level. Recent literature
largely views social capital as a societal level attribute, rather than an
individual level attribute (Newton, 2001; Glaeser et al., 2002). Nevertheless, the general consensus is that social capital is an attribute of both
an individual and a society.
Proponents of individual social capital (for example, Bourdieu, 1986;
Becker, 1996; Lin, 2001; Flap, 2002; Glaeser et al., 2002; Erickson,
2004; Yang, 2007) view social capital largely as an attribute of an individual. Individual social capital refers to a persons potential to activate
and eectively mobilise a network of social connections based on
mutual recognition and maintained by symbolic and material exchanges
(Bourdieu, 1986). The basic premise behind the individual level capital
is that it is an individual who creates, maintains, and subsequently gains
advantage from social capital. Moreover, the individual is the natural
unit of observation and measurement of social capital. According to
1
See http://www.gnudung.com/literatures/levels.html for further details.
501
Yang (2007), the soundness of individualising social capital comes from

the premise that it is individuals who employ social capital as a means
for achieving an end. To him, individual social capital emphasises the
active roles of individuals, rather than the constraining eects of social
structures. Glaeser et al. (2002) identify three dimensions of individual
social capital: (i) it is an individual asset; (ii) some aspects of this asset
are intrinsic to an individual and some can be augmented by individual
actions; and (iii) it can be purposefully used to augment ones market
and non-market position. The extent to which an individual has access
to resources through social capital depends on the persons connections,
the strength of these connections, and the resources available to these
connections (Sobel, 2002). A persons ability to activate and eectively
mobilise social networks largely aects the generation of social capital.
Social capital, thus, represents an additional pool of resources for the
individual, which an actor can accumulate and use for his personal goal
attainment (OECD, 2002). In this context, social capital has the properties of the private good personal goal attainment.
Proponents of collective social capital (for example, Granovetter,
1985; Putnam, 1993; Fukuyama, 1995; Newton, 2001; Bowles and
Gintis, 2002; Van der Gaag and Snijders, 2003) believe that social capital has not only an individual aspect, but also a community aspect and
dene it mostly an attribute of a society. As an attribute of a society,
social capital refers to a quality of networks and relationship that enables
individuals to cooperate and act collectively (Putnam, 1993). Collective
social capital emphasises social capital as a collectively-produced and owned good, from which the whole community could benet. It is
looked at primarily in terms of its benets to society rather than the
individual. It is seen as a macro-level good a property of a group, a
community, or a nation as a whole. The premise behind the collective
social capital is that since social relations require two or more individuals to exist, it is not an individual level capital. It resides between actors,
as opposed to single actor and provides benets to all actors individual and collective. Collective capital, thus, represents some aggregation of valued resources of members interacting in networks. This
means it cannot only be treated as a characteristic of individuals and
their relations, but also as property of countries and regions (Van
Oorschot et al., 2006). On the collective level, social capital is often
taken to be represented by norms, trust, and social cohesion. It is the
quality of networks and relationships (trust, norms, rule of law, etc.)
that fosters cooperation and collective action of individuals. In this sense,
502
social capital has the properties of a public good facilitating achievement

of higher levels of eciency and productivity (OECD, 2002).
Social networks and social participation can be considered to be
measuring individual level attributes, while trust and shared norms are
more closely related to societal level attributes. In this sense, social capital consists of both individual and collective goods, whereby institutionalised social relations with embedded resources can benet both the
society and the individuals in the society (Portes, 1998; Lin, 2001; Paxton, 2002). While it is true that social capital exists because of the connections between actors and not within the actors themselves, it is in
fact the actor who accrues benets from networking possibly the
whole network (Svendsen and Svendsen, 2005). Normally, both individuals and groups can obtain future gains from investment in social
capital (Svendsen and Svendsen, 2005). Therefore, measurement of
social capital involves phenomena on both the individual and community levels. Some authors conceptualise individual and collective social
capital in terms of private and public good (see Aldridge et al., 2002).
(b) Micro- meso-, and macro-level: Some authors generalise the individual
and collective level social capital approach and analyse social capital at
multiple levels: micro, meso, and macro (Turner, 2000; Chen, 2005).
Social capital, at the micro level, looks at relationships between individuals, households, and neighbourhoods; at the meso level, it focuses
on communities, groups, institutions, and organisations; and at the
macro level, it focuses on the forms of institutional and political environment in nations or states (Bourdieu, 1986; Grootaert and van
Bastelaert, 2001). This means that the micro level refers to relations
between individuals, the meso level refers to relations between groups
or rms, and the macro level refers to relations between regions or
nations. Halpern (2005) distinguishes micro, meso, and macro social
capital as the social relations among people at the individual, community, and societal levels, respectively. While the micro level looks at
social capital as an individual asset and the macro level looks at social
capital as a collective asset; the meso levels looks at social capital as an
individual asset, as well as a collective asset.
Micro social capital involves norms, values, and networks of horizontal relationships among individuals, households and neighbours, and
which facilitate interactions among these actors. Meso social capital
involves networks of vertical relationships and networks of associations
that facilitate interactions among groups, communities, rms, and
NGOs. Macro social capital involves the formalised institutional relationships and structures that govern the political regime, civil society,
503
the rule of law, and government (Hopkins, 2002; Bjornskov and Svendsen, 2003). This means, the micro-approach emphasises the nature and
forms of cooperative behaviour; the macro-approach focuses on the
conditions (favourable or unfavourable) for cooperation; and the mesoapproach highlights structures that enable cooperation to take place
(PRI, 2005). The Policy Research Initiative (PRI) argues that the microapproach focuses on the value of collective action, the meso-approach
focuses on the structure that enables cooperation, and the macroapproach focuses on the value of integration and social cohesion. This
implies that social capital can be measured and analysed at various levels. Basically, this hierarchical distinction of social capital is a combination of cognitive (micro), structural (meso), and institutional (macro)
aspects of social capital. Social capital, thus, operates, either individually or collectively, at various levels and each level produces dierent
outcomes and has dierent implications for public policy.
Conclusion
Social structures, cultural norms and values, and institutions aect economic
behaviour through multiple direct and indirect channels and, hence, they are
critical in understanding sustainable economic development. Successful explanation of economic development, thus, has to transcend beyond narrow measures of mere income growth to encompass social, cultural, and political
variables. In the past, mainstream economic models focused primarily on
standard factors of production and they largely ignored the socio-cultural
dimensions. As a result economic development ended up with low welfare
improvement and high social problems; economic models also proved to be
decient in explaining development outcomes fully. This led to re-orientation
of development approach placing emphasis on social norms, values, beliefs,
and institutions. As a result human capital, institutions, and currently social
capital became important elements of economic models. The role of social
capital in overall development process came into light in 1990s and its importance in explaining economic and social phenomena has been increasing felt
thereafter. Social scientists have been using the concept as an important determinant of economic behaviour. The interest on social capital is overwhelming
and the literature on theoretical and empirical aspects of social capital grew
signicantly during the last decade.
The idea of social capital can be traced long back but its entry into academic
and policy debates can be credited to the pioneering work of Pierre Bourdieu
(1986), James Coleman (1988) and Robert Putnam (1993). Broadly, social
504
capital can be dened as a collective asset in the form of shared norms, trust,
networks, social relations, and institution that facilitate cooperation and collective action for mutual benets. Social capital is a complex multidimensional concept having various dimensions, types, levels and determinants, and
varieties of denitions exist depending on the discipline and interest. Nevertheless, most denitions emphasise the role of social relations in generating
benets for individual and society as a whole. The critical elements of social
capital include social networks (families, friends, communities, and voluntary
associations), norms of reciprocity (shared norms, values, and behaviours),
and trust (people and institutions). It is collectively-owned capital generated
through individuals shared norms, values, attitudes, and behaviours that positively benets economic development. The most common forms of social
capital include structural and cognitive social capital; bridging, bonding, and
linking social capital; strong and weak ties; and horizontal and vertical social
capital. Social capital can be measured at individual and collective level as well
as at the micro-, meso-, and macro-levels. These dierent forms and level of
analysis suggest that social capital can be dened, operationalised, and measured in dierent ways.
The use of term capital in social capital is a highly controversial issue.
Some economists criticise the capitalisation of social capital in the sense that
it lacks many of the basic properties of classical capital and, hence, it does not
qualify as capital. On the other hand, many social scientists argue that although
social capital lacks some basic properties of classical capital, it shares many
important properties of classical capital and, hence, it qualies as capital. It
can be argued that the properties of social capital, such as it can be put into
production function, can accumulate over time, is capable of improving economic performance, can be invested with expected future returns, is convertible, is appropriable, and requires maintenance; this makes it qualify as one
form of capital. The social relationships can be used as an economic resource
for the production of goods and services. Given the high signicance of social
capital in explaining economic and social phenomena, it is of less value to
spend resources on capital debate.
References
Adam, F. and Roncevic, B. (2003) Social Capital: Recent Debates and Research Trends. Social
Science Information 42(2): 155183.
Adler, P. S. and Seok-Woo Kwon (2002) Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. Academy
of Management Review 27(1): 1740.
505
Aldridge, S., Halpern, D. and Fitzpatrick, S. (2002) Social Capital. Performance and Evaluation Unit Discussion Paper. London: Cabinet Oce. Available at: http://www.strategy.gov.
uk/ down- loads/seminars social-capital/ social capital.pdf.
Anheier, H. and Kendall, J. (2002) Interpersonal Trust and Voluntary Associations. British
Journal of Sociology 53: 343362.
Arrow, K. (2000) Observations on Social Capital in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (eds.)
Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Baron, J. and Hannon, M. (1994) The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology.
Journal of Economic Literature 32(3): 11111146.
Barro, R. J. (1997) Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Barro, R. J. and McCleary, R. M. (2002) Religion and Political Economy in an International
Panel. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. W8931. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract= 312644.
Becker, G. S. (1996) Accounting for Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ben-Ner, A. and Putterman, L. (1997) Values and Institutions in Economic Analysis. Department of Economics Working Paper No. 97/4. Providence, RI: Brown University.
Beugelsdijk, S. (2003) Culture and Economic Development in Europe. Ph.D. dissertation.
Tilburg University.
Bilig, M. S. (2000) Institutions and Culture: Neo-Weberian Economic Anthropology. Journal
of Economic Issues 34(4): 771778.
Bjornskov, C. and Svendsen, G. T. (2003) Measuring Social Capital: Is there a Single Underlying Explanation. Department of Economics Working Paper No. 03/05. Aarhus, Prismet:
Aarhus School of Business.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The Forms of Capital in Richardson, J. G. (ed.) Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press, Pp. 241258.
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2002) Social Capital and Community Governance. The Economic
Journal 112: 419436.
Burt, R. S. (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carpenter, J. P., Daniere, A. G. and Takahashi, L. M. (2004) Cooperation, Trust, and Social
Capital in Southeast Asian Urban Slums. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 55
(4): 533551.
Castle, E. N. (1998) A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Rural Places. American Journal
of Agricultural Economics 80: 621631.
(2002) Social Capital: An Interdisciplinary Concept. Rural Sociology 67: 331349.
Chen, X. (2005) Magic Or Myth? Social Capital and its Consequences in the Asian, Chinese,
and Vietnamese Contexts, in Mutz, G. and Klump, R. (eds.) Modernization and Social Transformation in Vietnam: Social Capital Formation and Institutional Building. Hamburg: Institut
fr Asienkunde.
Christoforou, A. (2005) On the Determinants of Social Capital in Greece Compared to Countries of the European Union. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) Working Paper
No. 05/68. Milan: FEEM.
Chuah, S. H., Homann, R., Jones, M. and Williams, G. (2005) An Economic Anatomy of
Culture: Attitudes and Behavior in inter- and intra-National Ultimatum Game Experiments.
Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics (CeDEx) Discussion Paper
no. 2005/11. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.
Coleman, J. S. (1988) Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of
Sociology Supplementary 94: 95120.
506
(1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dasgupta, P. (2000) Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital, in Dasgupta, P. and
Serageldin, I. (eds.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The World
Bank, Pp. 325424.
Durlauf, S. N. (2002) On the Empirics of Social Capital. Economic Journal 112(483): 459
479.
Easterly, W. and Levine, R. (2001) It is not Factor Accumulation: Stylized Facts and Growth
Models. World Bank Economic Review (2001): 177219.
Edwards, B. and Foley, M. W. (1998) Civil Society and Social Capital Beyond Putnam. American Behavioural Scientist 42: 124139.
Erickson, B. H. (2004) The Distribution of Gendered Social Capital in Canada, in Flap, H.
and Volker, B. (eds.) Creation And Returns Of Social Capital. London: Routledge, Pp 2750.
Evans, M. and Syrett, S. (2007) Generating Social Capital. European Urban and Regional Studies 14(1): 5574.
Fafchamps, M. and Minten, B. (2002) Returns to Social Network Capital among Traders.
Oxford Economic Papers 54:173206.
Field, J. (2003) Social Capital. New York: Routledge.
Fine, B. (2001) Social Capital versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn
of the Millennium. London: Routledge.
Flap, H. (2002) No Man is an Island, in Favereau, O. and Lazega, E. (eds.) Conventions and
Structures in Economic Organization: Markets, Networks and Hierarchies. London: Edward
Elgar, Pp. 2959.
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free
Press.
(2001) Culture and Economic Development: Cultural Concerns, in Smelser, N. J. and
Baltes, P. B. (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Oxford, UK:
Pergamon, Pp. 31303134.
Gant, J., Ichniowski, C. and Shaw, K. (2002) Social Capital and Organizational Change in
High-Involvement and Traditional Work Organizations. Journal of Economics and Management 11: 289328.
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I. and Sacerdote, B. (2002) An Economic Approach to Social Capital. The Economic Journal 112: 437458.
Gradstein, M. and Justman, M. (2002) Education, Social Cohesion, and Economic Growth.
The American Economic Review 92(4): 11921204.
Granovetter, M. S. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91: 481510.
Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T. (2001) Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A
Synthesis of Findings and Recommendations from the Social Capital Initiative. Social Capital Initiative (SCI) Working Paper No. 24. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
(eds.) (2002) The Role of Social Capital in Development: An Empirical Assessment. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. and Zingales, L. (2004) The Role of Social Capital in Financial Development. CRSP Working Paper No. 511. Chicago: University of Chicago.
(2006) Does Culture Aect Economic Outcomes? The Journal of Economic Perspectives
202: 2348.
Halpern, D. (2005) Social Capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Harper, R. (2002) The Measurement of Social Capital in the UK. Paper prepared for the
OECD-ONS conference on Social Capital Measurement, London, 2627 September 2002.
Harrison, L. E. and Huntington, S. P. (eds.) (2000) Culture Matters. New York: Basic Books.
Harriss, J. (2002) Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social Capital. London:
Anthem Press.
507
Heron, J. M. (2000) Beyond Community and Society: The Externalities of Social Capital
Building. Policy Sciences 33: 477494.
Hitt, M. A., Ho-Uk Lee and Yucel, E. (2002) The Importance of Social Capital to the Management of Multinational Enterprises: Relational Networks among Asian and Western Firms.
Asia Pacic Journal of Management 19(23): 353372.
Hjerppe, R. (2003) Social Capital and Economic Growth Revisited. Valtion Taloudellinen
Tutkimuskeskus (VATT) Discussion Paper No. 307. Helsinki: Government Institute for Economic Research.
Hoerth, S. L., Boisjoly, J. and Duncan, G. J. (1999) The Development of Social Capital.
Rationality and Society 11: 79110.
Homans, G. (1961) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World.
Hombres, B., Rocco, L., Suhrcke, M. and McKee, M. (2006) Does Social Capital Determine
Health? Evidence from Eight Transition Countries. Rome: Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen.
Hopkins, L. (2002) What Is Social Capital? Institute for Social Research (ISR) Working Paper
No. 2. University of Michigan, Michigan: Institute of Social Research. Available at: http://
www.sisr.net/publications/workingpapers/No2_LH_nal.PDF.
Huntington, S. P. (1998) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Carmichael, CA: Touchstone Books.
Iisakka, L. and Alanen, A. (2006) Social Capital in Finland: Domestic and International Background in Iisakka, L. (ed.) Social Capital in Finland: Statistical Review. Helsinki: Statistics
Finland.
Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Inglehart, R. and Baker, W. E. (2000) Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of
Traditional Values. American Sociological Review 65(1): 1921.
Inkeles, A. (2000) Measuring Social Capital and is Consequences. Policy Sciences 33: 245268.
Jacobs, J. (1961) The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Johari, M. Y. Hj (1989) Social Development, Social Change and Development Planning in
Sabah in Johari, M. Y. (ed.) Socio-Cultural Dimension Of Development Planning. Proceedings
of a seminar held at Kundasang, Ranau, Sabah. 30 March1 April 1987. Sabah, Kota
Kinabalu: Institute for Development Studies (SABAH), Pp. 2548.
Kilby, P. (2002) Social Capital and Civil Society. Canberra: ANU.
Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997) Does Social Capital Have An Economic Payo? A Cross-Country Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (4): 12511288.
Landes, D. S. (2000) Culture Makes all the Dierence in Harrison, L. E. and Huntington,
S. P. (eds.) Culture Matters. New York: Basic Books, Pp. 213.
Light, I. and Gold, S. J. (2000) Ethnic Economies. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Loury, G. (1977) A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Dierences in Wallace, P. A. and
LaMond, A. (ed.) Women, minorities, and employment discrimination. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Lucas, R. E. (1976) Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique in Brunner, K. M. (ed.) The
Phillips Curve and Labor Markets, Vol. 1 of Carnegie Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
Newton, K. (2001) Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy. International Political
Science Review 22: 201214.
OECD (2001) The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: Oce of
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
508
(2002) Social Capital: The Challenge of International Measurement. Paris (France): OECD.
Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ dataoecd/2/47/2380584.pdf.
Ostrom, E. (2000) Social Capital: A Fad or a Fundamental Concept? in Dasgupta, P. and
Bank, Pp. 172215.
Paxton, P. (2002) Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship. American
Sociological Review 67(2): 254277.
Piazza-Georgi, B. (2002) The Role of Human and Social Capital in Growth: Extending Our
Understanding. Cambridge Journal of Economics 26: 461479.
Pichler, F. and Wallace, C. (2007) Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe.
European Sociological Review 23(4).
Ponthieux, S. (2004) The Concept of Social Capital: A Critical Review. Paper presented at the
10th Association de comptabilit nationale conference on National Accounting, Paris, 2123
January 2004.
Portes, A. (1998) Social Capital: Its Origin and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology 24: 124.
PRI (2005) Social Capital as a Public Policy Tool. PRI Project report. Toronto: Policy Research
Initiative (PRI).
Productivity Commission (2003) Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy Implications. Research Paper. Canberra: AusInfo.
Pryor, F. L. (2005) National Values and Economic Growth. American Journal of Economics and
Sociology 64(2): 451482.
Putnam, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon
and Schuster.
Quibria, M. G. (2003) The Puzzle of Social Capital: A Critical Review. ERD Working paper
No. 40. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Roberts, J. M. (2004) Whats Social about Social Capital? British Journal of Political and International Relations 6: 471493.
Robison, L. J., Schmid, A. A. and Siles, M. E. (2002) Is Social Capital Really Capital? Review
of Social Economy 601: 121.
Rodrik, D. (1998) Where Did All the Growth Go? External Shocks, Social Conicts, and
Growth Collapses. NBER Working Paper No. 6350. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Sabatini, F. (2006) The Empirics of Social Capital and Economic Development: A Critical
Perspective. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei FEEM) Working Paper 2006/15. Milan: Eni
Enrico Mattei Foundation.
Sander, T. H. (2002) Social Capital and New Urbanism: Leading a Civic Horse to Water.
National Civic Review 91: 213221.
Schmid, A. A. (2000) Sources of Social Capital. Department of Agricultural Economics Sta
Paper No. 00/07. Michigan: Michigan State University.
(2002) Using Motive to Distinguish Social Capital from its Outputs. Journal of
Economic Issues 36: 747768.
Seely, J., Sim, A. and Loosely, E. (1956) Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban
Life. New York: Basic Books.
Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slangen, L. H. G., van Kooten, G. C. and Suchanek, P. (2004) Institutions, Social Capital
and Agricultural Change in Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Rural Studies 20(2):
245256.
Smith, M. K. (2007) Social capital, the encyclopedia of informal education. Available at: www.
infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm.
509
Smith, S. S. and Kulynych, J. (2002) It may be Social but why is it Capital? The social construction of social capital and the politics of language. Politics and Society 30:149186.
Sobel, J. (2002) Can We Trust Social Capital? Journal of Economic Literature 40(1): 139154.
Solow, R. M. (2000) Notes on Social Capital and Economic Performance, in Dasgupta, P. and
Bank.
Svendsen, G. L. H. and Svendsen, G. T. (2005) The Creation and Destruction of Social Capital:
Entrepreneurship, Cooperative Movements, and Institutions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Tabellini, G. (2005) Culture and Institutions: Economic Development in the Regions of
Europe. Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute for Economic Research (CESifo)
Working Paper Series No. 1492. Munich: Bocconi University.
Temple, J. (2001) Growth Eects of Education and Social Capital in the OECD Countries in
Helliwell, J. F. (ed.) The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic
Growth and Well-Being. Proceedings of OECD/HRDC Conference, Quebec, 1921 March
2000. Ottawa: HRDC.
Todaro, M. (2000) Economic Development. London (UK): Addison-Wisley Longman, Inc.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intra-Firm
Networks. Academy of Management Journal 41(4): 464476.
Turner, J. H. (2000) The Formation of Social Capital, in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I.
(eds.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank,
Pp. 94146.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization) (2002) Social
Capital and Poverty Reduction. Which roles for the society organizations and the state? Paris
(France): UNESCO.
Upho, N. (2000) Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience
of Participation in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (eds.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Upho, N. and Wijayaratna, C. M. (2000) Demonstrated Benets from Social Capital: The
Productivity of Farmer Organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development 28: 1875
1890.
Van der Gaag, M. P. J. and Snijders, T. A. B. (2003) A Comparison of Measures for Individual
Social Capital. Paper presented at the conference on Creation and Returns Of Social Capital,
3031 October 2003, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Van Oorschot, W., Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2006) Social Capital in Europe. Measurement and
Social and Regional Distribution of a Multifaceted Phenomenon. Acta Sociologica: Journal
of the Nordic Sociological Association: Special Issue on Social Capital 49(2): 149166.
Van Schaik, T. (2002) Social Capital in the European Value Study Surveys. Country paper
prepared for the OECD-ONS international conference on Social Capital Measurement, London, 2527 September 2002. Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Ville, S. (2004) Social Capital: An Insight Revealed Or A Concept Too Many? Economics
Working Papers WP 04/05, School of Economics and Information Systems. Wollongong,
NSW: University of Wollongong.
Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. and Deutsch, F. (2005) Social Capital, Voluntary Associations, and
Collective Action: Which Aspects of Social Capital Have the Greatest Civic Payo? Journal
of Civil Society 1(2): 126.
Wilson, L. J. and Chiveralls, K. R. (2004) Labor and Social Capital: Disengaging From Social
Justice. Conference paper. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide. Available at: http://hdl.
handle.net/2440/28930.
Woolcock, M. (1998) Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society 27(2): 151208.
(2001) The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes.
Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1): 117.
510
Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000) Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory,
Research, and Policy. The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225249.
World Bank (2007) Social Capital for Development. Available at: http://www1.worldbank.
org/prem/poverty/scapital/.
Yang, K. (2007) Individual Social Capital and Its Measurement in Social Surveys. Survey
Research Methods 1(1): 1927.
Zak, P. J. and Knack, S. (2001) Trust and Growth. The Economic Journal 111: 295321.

What Is Social Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Social Capital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Social Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Journal of Social Science 37 (2009) 480510

What is Social Capital?

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009

economic outcomes (Carpenter et al., 2004; Chuah et al., 2005; Sabatini,

inuence it exerts on economic development and social transformation.

operationalisation of social capital theory could be helpful to design more

Dening Social Capital

(18581918), John Dewey (18591952), and Max Weber (18641920);

as members continue to invest in the relationships. Bourdieus idea of social

Networks of civic engagement facilitate societal cooperation, coordination,

advantage, and preferential treatment for another person or group of persons

Capital Debate of Social Capital

van Bastelaer, 2002). It may be regarded as a form of capital since it helps

Types of Social Capital

often interconnected and reinforcing (Upho and Wijayaratna, 2000).

social relationships among people in the community and their likely

Level of Analysis for Social Capital

See http://www.gnudung.com/literatures/levels.html for further details.

Yang (2007), the soundness of individualising social capital comes from

social capital has the properties of a public good facilitating achievement

(1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.