D iffe re nt d e fin itio n s o f social capital have emerged from both w ith in academia and from national and international organisations (Table 2.1). One way to define social capital is to conceptualise it as ‘ resources’ , such as inform ation, ideas and support, w hich individuals are able to obtain from their relationships w ith other people. James Coleman (1988), who was responsible fo r popularising the term ‘ social capital’ , saw it as the component o f human capital that allow s members o f a given society to trust one another and cooperate in the form ation o f new groups and associations. He offers the fo llo w in g d e fin itio n :
‘ Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety o f different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist o f some aspect
of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors - whether persons or corporate actors - within that structure. Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that in its absence would not be possible’ (Coleman 1988: S96).
Similar to Coleman, Pierre Bourdieu and Loic J.D. Wacquant (1992) and Nan Lin (2001) argue that social capital consists o f resources embedded in social relations and social structures, which can be accessed and used only through human relationships. Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992: 119) argue that economic orthodoxy was artificially limiting itself to the study o f a narrow band o f ‘practices’ that were socially recognised as ‘econom ic’, and in so doing was missing the fact that ‘capital presents itself under three fundamental species (each with its own subtypes), namely economic capital, cultural capital, and social capital.’ Therefore, in this way, Bourdieu and Wacquant define social capital as:
‘...the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of processing a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. Acknowledging that capital can take a variety of forms is indispensable to explain the structure and dynamics of differentiated societies’ (1992: 119).
For Nan Lin (2001), social capital is ‘capital captured through social relations’ (p. 19), focusing on two different levels: that o f the individual and that o f the group. At the individual level, one accesses and uses resources embedded in social networks to gain returns in his/her particular actions, such as finding a jo b 9 (Lin 2001: 21). While some economists question how social capital can be considered ‘capital’ (for example, Arrow 1999: 4; Solow 1999: 6), Lin (2001: 25) defends social capital stating that, when an
l) Putnam’s view o f social capital is broader than that o f Lin. According to Lin, social capital is the expectation among actors that other actors in the same network will reciprocate in any exchange o f goods or services. Although Putnam’s definition includes this aspect o f social capital, it is also includes the wider, unintended positive consequences on the entire society o f having such social capital. For Putnam, higher levels o f social capital in a society tend to be associated with higher levels o f economic growth.
individual is aware of the presence of resources they possess or can access in their social ties and networks with others, the individual can capitalise on these resources in order to obtain benefits for themselves. This function of social capital reinforces an argument of Francis Fukuyama (1999), often regarded as one of the first to give prominence to the concept, that social capital is a private good as people cooperate in order to achieve their selfish ends. However, Lin (2001) also states that ‘aggregation o f individual returns also benefits the collective’ (p.21). Contrary to the individual level, certain groups can develop and more or less maintain social capital at the group level, as a collective good to enhance the life chances of group members (Lin 2001: 22). This function o f social capital focuses more on the ‘public good nature’ of social capital and this view is shared by Coleman (1988; 1990), Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) as well as Putnam (1993; 1995).
Putnam is largely responsible for popularising the concept o f social capital over the last fifteen years. In the book ‘Making Democracy Work’ (Putnam et al. 1993), the authors linked the differences in performance outcomes o f 20 regional governments in Italy to the number of horizontal civic associations. They concluded that associationism, trust, and cooperation facilitate successful regional government which then results in economic prosperity. Social capital in this perspective is used as a conceptual term to characterise the various ways in which members of a given community relate to one another. The definition of social capital in Putnam’s work is:
a feature of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action (Putnam et al.
Putnam (2000; 1993) argues that a range of social problems, such as crime, health and the environment are linked to a community’s endowment o f social capital. This is explained by people’s cooperation facilitated by a repeated game of Prisoner’s Dilemma, as well as networks that convey information of individuals’ intentions and behaviour to others within the network. Putnam’s concept is based on two presumptions: first, that social networks and norms are empirically associated; and second, that they have important economic consequences. As discussed above, the latter is what Lin (2001) emphasises as the function of social capital at the group level.
Michael Woolcock also has produced a number of papers on social capital. His view supports that o f Coleman and Putnam. He offers a general definition o f social capital as:
‘...the information, trust, and norms of reciprocity inhering in one's social networks’ (Woolcock 1998: 153).
Woolcock (1998) makes a point different from others in that he attempts to develop a theoretical framework to explain how different societies could be characterised by the relative prevalence of different kinds of social capital. He argued that a range of development outcomes flows from different types and combinations o f social capital determined by community capacity and state functioning.
In addition to a large number of academics, many national and international bodies have shown their interest in social capital and have made efforts to conceptualise the term. Although those organisations consider its potential in achieving their policy goals, a major challenge is to set out an operational definition. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Office for National Statistics of the United Kingdom have adopted a
definition developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD):
‘networks, together with shared norms, values and understandings which facilitate cooperation within or among groups’ (Cote and Healy 2001: 41).
The World Bank suggests a more expansive and broader definition:
‘social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interaction’ (World Bank, Website)10.
The interesting point is that the World Bank and other researchers (for example, Ahn and Ostrom 2001) include ‘institutions’ as a form or component of social capital. This seems to add further confusion to the debate over what social capital actually is. As discussed in the earlier part of this chapter (Section 2.2.3), North (1990) considers institutions as ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ rules of the game in a society. This is a broadly accepted definition. Although Halpern (2005: 12) states that community norms can be codified into neighbourhood codes or contracts, other prominent studies reviewed above have seen social capital as a resource that comes from informal human relationships. Therefore, the use of the term ‘institution’ in the definition o f social capital can result in too broad a meaning, in which social capital may end up meaning all things to all people.
Table 2.1 Different definitions of social capital
A uthor D e fin itio n
Coleman 1988 (p.S96) ‘ form o f capital that makes possible the achievement o f certain ends that in its absence would not be possible’
Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992 (P-119)
‘ the sum o f the resources that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue o f processing a durable network o f more or less institutionalised
relationships o f mutual acquaintance and recognition’ Nan Lin 2001 ‘ capital captured through social relations’ (p. 19)
‘ the resources embedded in social networks accessed and used by actors fo r actions’ (p.24)
W oolcock 1998 (p. 153) ‘ the inform ation, trust, and norms o f reciprocity inhering in one's social networks' seemingly obvious opportunities fo r m utually beneficial collective action are squandered’
Putnam 2000 (p. 19) ‘ connections among individuals - social networks, and the norms o f reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them ’
OECD: Cote and Healy 2001 (P-41)
‘ networks, together w ith shared norms, values and understandings which facilitate cooperation w ith in or among groups’
W orld Bank, Website ‘ the institutions, relationships and norms that shape the quality and quantity o f a society’ s social interaction.’