What is Social Capital?
Social capital refers to the relations among persons through norms and networks, with a sense of reciprocity in actions among the actors in the society. According to World Bank, “social capital points to the institutions, relationships, as well as norms that go to shape the quality as well as quantity of a society’s social interactions. It is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together”. As also Cohen as well as Prusak put it: “social capital consists of the stock of energetic relations with people: the trust, mutual accepting, and behaviors that attach the members of person networks and cooperative achievement possible”.
Kind of social capital
literature distinguishes along with three types of social capital: (a) Bonding social capital refers to relations among a homogenous groups such as ethnic, religious or socio-economic groups, as well asit strengthens the social ties within the particular group; (b) Bridging capital , on the other hand, refers to relations among heterogeneous groups and intra- group relations e.g. civil rights movements and religious organizations. (c) Linking social capital refers to relations between individuals groups in special social strata in a hierarchy where power, social status and different groups.
Work of social capital
Social capital is composed of: (a) Social Norms or ‘informal rules’ that condition behavior in various circumstances. Specific social norms include surrendering seats for the elderly or women on public transport and, while generalized norms may include tolerance, behaving honestly and helping hose in need. A key overarching norm is that of reciprocity – ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’. (b) Social network is an interconnected group of people who usually have an attribute in common. For example, they may like a particular sport or may share the same occupation as well as religion. At a more micro level, families as well as groups of friends will exhibit network characteristics. Different groups often have their own set of social norms as well as levels of mutual obligation between group members. Trust is simply the level of confidence that people have that others will act as they say or are expected to act or what they say is reliable. Social trust (or generalized trust) refers to the general level of faith in a society – for example how much one can trust strangers as well as
previously unencumbered institutions.
Why need to us social capital?
Rober D.Putnam, in his book, Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American economy (1999/00), presents few cases for social capital. First, it helps resolve collective problems more easily. Social norms as well as the networks that enforce them provide such a mechanism. In traditional villages as in, many of the collective problems are resolved through discussions among individuals or by village courts. This reduces the costs that would have to be incurred on courts or police. Second, with repeated interactions with fellow citizens as well as growing trusts among residents, everyday business as well as social transactions turns out to be less costly. Thus, a person may apply for a job even without incurring costs on advertisement hunting, provided neighbors disseminate the information with a trust that information that they would miss or lack in future, will be passed on to them by that particular person. Third, through repeated interactions, people become tolerant, sympathetic as well as accommodative in the spheres of day to life. Mounting evidences could be cited in support of the situation that people, with good connections as well as worldly behavior, cope better with traumas as well as fight illness more effectively. Fourth, child development is powerfully shaped by social capital. Trust, networks, as well as norms of reciprocity that children grow up with have far reaching effects on their opportunities as well as choices, as well as hence on their behavior as well as development. Fifth, in high social capital areas, public places appear cleaner; people are friendlier as well as likely to have fewer crimes. As well as finally, some studies – as also Putnam himself – shoed how social capital impacts positive impacts on health status of individuals.
By as well as large, as literature suggest, social capital may generate benefits to the society mainly in four ways: (a) by reducing transaction costs; (b) by facilitating the dissemination of knowledge as well as innovation; (c) by promoting cooperative and/or socially-minded behavior; as well as(c) through individual benefits as well as associated spin-offs (Productivity Commission 2003)
Beginning of the idea of Social Capital
According to Woolcock (1998), Edmund Burke once remarked that the preconditions for markets to play due roles are prior existence of civilizing norms as well as moral principles. David Hume, on the other hand, speculated that an appropriate ‘moral sense’ or ‘sympathy’ would emerge of its own accord. In between, stood Adam Smith to advocate the need for accompanying regulation of the market place by church as well as state - notwithstanding people’s pursuit of self-interest being tempered by an innate moral sense. WoolCock put the premise as follows:
An enquiry into history of the evolution of the concept, reveals that the first use of the term social capital- with the connotations contained now in the literature –, however, occurred in 1916. Hanifan referred social capital to: “Those intangible assets [that] count mainly in the daily lives of people: goodwill, association, sympathy as well as social intercourses among the individuals as well as families who make up a social unit”.
Bourdie argued, “ capital can present itself in three fundamental guises: as economic capital, which is immediately convertible into money as well as may be institutionalized in the form of property rights; as cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic capital as well as may be institutionalized in the form of educational qualifications; as well as social capital, made up of social obligations (‘connections’) which is convertible into economic capital as well as may be institutionalized in the forms of a title of nobility”. He further said that social capital is not a natural given or social given, but must be nurtured through interactions. The emphasis, to be noted, is on social network as well as the ultimate economic reward that would follow from the network. Although economic capital is at the cockpit in a capitalist society, social as well as cultural capital may increase economic capital. In other words, social capital could be construed as a means to an end, called economic capital.
Putnam as well as Coleman focused on social relationships forged through informal organizations: the former emphasized on horizontal associations engaging in civic activities, such as choral groups, sports clubs as well as parent-teacher associations, the latter included in addition hierarchical structures, such as paternalistic employer-employee relations within a firm, which Ronald Burt (1992) later called by the term “structural holes.”
