Social capital is closely connected to many recognisable terms to be found within sociology. For example, it captures the essence of concepts such as social support, solidarity, social cohesion and community, similar in nature to the ideas of Durkheim and Tonnies outlined above (Lin, 2001). However, despite the widespread usage of social capital there is also a great deal of deviation and confusion over how best to define and operationalise it21. Although divergent, most explanations have the idea that social capital refers to ‘connections’ among individuals, to social networks and norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them (Healy, 2001). This is supported by McDonnell (2004, p.29) who confirms that ‘the basic idea of social capital is that interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to one another, and to knit the social fabric’. Similarly, Field (2003) refers to social capital as a way of conceptualising the intangible resources of community, the shared values and trust upon which we draw in everyday life. One of the main implications for social capital from an academic or policy perspective is to understand and develop civil engagement (Gilbertson et a/., 2005). Those concerned with social capital have looked to the density of social networks that people are involved in; the extent to which they are engaged with others in informal social activities; and their membership of groups and associations. Utilising different types of social capital has helped understand the connections between people and how these function. Putnam divides social relationships broadly into two types: the strong social ties between family, close friends and associates - ‘bonding social capital’; and the weaker,
20 They may also relate social capital to social energy, community spirit, social bonds, civic virtue, community networks, social ozone, extended friendships, community life, social resources, informal and formal networks, good neighbourliness and social glue (Office for National Statistics, 2001, p.5) 21 See, for example, Field, 2003 and Coleman, 1988.
extended ties between different social groups - ‘bridging social capital’ (Putnam 2001).
Bonding social capital is ‘exclusive’ and reinforces membership of a specific group. This enables a group to function cohesively, bypassing or enhancing other forms of capital. For example, this might occur through the sharing of skills and information, reciprocal favours, or voluntary activities to mutually improve the common environment (Field, 2003). A high level of bonding social capital is generally seen as a positive attribute of a healthy neighbourhood, enabling support of individuals and the development of a community. Excessive levels, however, can be negative, reducing tolerance of outsiders, stifling innovation, supporting unhealthy norms, and causing people to reject alternatives (Cavaye, 2004). Interestingly, within a communitarian perspective, the presence of strong bonding capital is considered to outweigh the negative possibilities (Etzioni, 1993).
Bridging social capital on the other hand is 'inclusive', linking separate communities. According to Stone and Hughes (2001, p.67), ‘bridging social capital involves overlapping networks in which a member of one group can gain access to the resources of another group because of overlapping membership’. These links extend a community’s reach by opening up contacts to different individuals and organisations that could offer opportunities or services not available within the local community. It is said that bonding social capital helps people to ‘get by’, while bridging capital helps people ‘get ahead’ (Field, 2003). Woolcock (2001) argues that a balance of bonding and bridging social capital is required to ensure community sustainability. A strong close social circle is important but so is a ‘tolerance of diversity and a willingness to forge cooperative relations with outsiders’ (Field, 2003, p.28). Bridging social capital can also be divided between ‘intra-community’ bridging local community ties, and ‘intercommunity’ bridging ties across the borders of local communities (Woolcock, 2001). Sometimes the latter is referred to as ‘linking’ social capital and has been considered useful when attempting to understand the role of social capital in communities facing rapid change.
However, other researchers have debated whether this really a separate form of bridging capital (Flora and Flora, 2004). Bridging social capital may also be subjected to questioning, to deduce whether it provides ‘lateral’ bridging between equal partners, for example, neighbouring residents’ groups; or ‘vertical’ bridging between more and less influential groups, for example, the city council and a local residents’ group. Social capital can be understood as a convenient shorthand for describing the reciprocal relationships among persons and groups with similar backgrounds, such as similar ethnic groups or social characteristics; which links diverse community groups to each other and to groups external to the community (Flora and Flora, 2004).
Also, while some researchers describe social capital as the glue that holds other forms of capital together it is possible for people to live in the same area without feeling any emotional ties to one another (Putnam, 2001). This forms the basis for the ‘loss of community’ debate concerning places we inhabit but have little attachment to. The argument is that communities of locality have become less socially significant with the development of transportation technologies and may continue to decline as information technologies develop (van Dijk, 2012). As our social circles widen it becomes easier to choose whether or not to participate in our community of place, and instead turn more to communities of attachment. This clear division between locality and attachment draws attention to an important point: that community is always imagined (Anderson, 1983). Communities are not fixed, but defined, discussed, and redefined throughout time.
It would seem that social capital - whether bonding, bridging or linking - is being taken very seriously by government departments and other funding bodies22 associated with community development. For example, it is viewed as one of the central tenets of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). The DCLG has a powerful remit to promote social inclusion and community cohesion and equality, normally within disadvantaged areas. Taking stock of a community's social capital and
22 Such as Objective 1 South Yorkshire
building on this is viewed as a means to help unite communities and (re)create civil renewal, often with the emphasis on empowering people to take responsibility for their own actions and their area. This can be seen from the government and European funding bodies’ remits to ensure that local communities have the powers they need to respond to challenging economic, social and cultural trends (DCLG, 2010; GOYH, 2004). It would seem that one of the main implications for social capital as a tool, whether academic or policy based, is to contribute to understanding and developing ‘civil engagement’ in order to help (re)generate an almost ‘functionalist’ ideal of society (Gilbertson
et al., 2005, p.7). Without interaction between people, it would seem, trust
decays and eventually this decay begins to manifest itself in serious social problems (McDonnell, 2004).
This last point is important concerning the degree of concern over the perceived decline in social capital and community over the last 50 years. For Putnam (2001) this can be viewed primarily in relation to a decline23 in the active membership of associations like teacher-parent associations, football teams, trades unions, community groups and political organisations. Respectively, there have been corresponding increases in divorce, suicide, time spent in solitary commuting and individualised leisure activities, such as watching television (Putnam, 2001). In effect, and what Putnam (2001) alludes to, is that society has become fragmented and individualised creating a severe weakening of social capital.
Evidence points to the fact that communities with a good stock of social capital are more likely to experience lower crime figures, better ‘health, higher educational achievement and better economical growth’ (McDonnell, 2004, p. 29; Gilbertson et al., 2005)24. There are also greater levels of income equality (Wilkinson 1996, Kawachi et al., 1997), improved child welfare and lower rates of child abuse (Cote and Healy, 2001), less corrupt and more effective government (Putnam, 2001) and enhanced economic achievement through increased trust (Fukuyama, 1995). Moreover, from a policy point of view,
23 Chiefly in the USA, but also to some degree in the UK.
social capital can seemingly contribute to reducing dependency on the state, particularly welfare, by strengthening individual self-sufficiency (Tracy and Tracy, 2000). The cumulative effect of these various research outcomes point to the fact that the ‘well connected are more likely to be housed, healthy, hired and happy’ (Woolcock, 2001, p.12). It is in this context that ICT and the Internet are viewed as having considerable potential for changing the way in which ‘community’ and ‘social capital’ can be (re)created and maintained in contemporary society (Mcdonald and Malina, 1997).