The Concept of Social Capital - Example

The concept of social capital Insert Name Course, Class, Semester Institution Instructor Date Introduction Sociology explains numerous relationships in society. Among them is the concept of social capital, which is the economic benefit emanating from cooperation or preferential treatment between members of society. The core idea forwarded by scholars all over the world asserts that social networks are tremendously valuable. This implies that social networks immensely affect the productivity of an individual just as physical capital does. The concept of social capital ideally dates back to 1890, but its roots were entrenched in society in the early 1990s (Svendsen & Svendsen, 2004). Some political analysts who had been tracing the background of social capital affirmed that the United States of America is one of the key players to the advancements of this concept. This is because; ever since the 19th century, the US has been a key solicitor of democracy through encouraging high transparency levels and greater participation from the members of society. Hanifan who happens to be article writers of the modern times have it that, the rural schools represent the ideal starting point of integrating social cohesion, as well as investments emanating from a personal level. As time changes, dynamics pave the way for the revolutions that event affect thinking or perception. Over the years, the perceptions allied to social capital have changed immensely. Nowadays, social capital is described as the value of networks hence keeping society together building trust as well as social cohesion. This is one of the major reasons that social capital has been a source of aggressive debate both in the political as well as academia fields (Huysman, & Wulf, 2004). The main intent of this paper is to delineate what social capital is all about, it emergence, evolution impact and the methodologies used to inculcate social capital in modern society. Evaluations of social capital Social capital is inherently a neutral resource. This implies that if social capital is put into good use, it would reduce the societal inequalities, and enhance society’s well being through connections to powerful positions. Various authors dominating the field of academia illumine that social capital is a significant element of civic engagement as well as a measure of societal health. It is notable that social capital is a resource bestowed to individuals who seek to utilize collective networks that will benefit the individuals economically. Scholars have it that consensus building is an indicator to social capital development. This is because; consensus means sharing an interest or an agreement among certain contenders in a debate or pertinent issue (Dudley, 2000). These collective actions in the society setting are an affirmative indication that, social capital has garnered massive effect in the individuals mind set. However, in a contrary opinion, editors of a special edition in the news daily opined that there are certain controversies allied to outstanding capital. The first is that momentous capital is not available to all individuals. The explanation was deduced from the facts that, just as other forms of capital are scare, so is social capital. This was based on the fact that there are hindrances to equality of social capital exposure emanating from social isolation and geographical locations. Secondly, social capital cannot be created equally. This is to imply that, the value of the source of social capital is dependent on the societal social economic dimension. In addition, four limitations emanating from social capital include; leveling norms to a downward trend individual freedom is immensely curtailed group members have excess claims as well as exclusion from outsiders. In the evaluation of social capital, it is worth to note that there is a difference between bonding and bridging when referring to the societal ties. Bridging refers to interethnic networks in social organization while bridging refers to Intra ethnic ties. In most cases, the Intra ethnic ties are viewed as agents of peace as they seek to reduce tension, as well as build bridges. This is because; various societies in the world today are organized in the same manner and interconnections between communities are at times nonexistent hence violence is extraordinarily likely. The main advantages associated with inter-communal ties include, free communication in the community even across the ethnic lines. Secondly, there is a seizure to falsehood or rumors, and finally, it helps the administration carry out its job, which revolves around facilitating security, peace, as well as justice in society. In either case, the relationship in society can take either form; inter ethnic or Intra ethnic. Either way, there are numerous advantages as well as disadvantages that emanate from social ties or they either facilitate or diminish social capital. According to various studies in the political structure of countries, it has been noted that social capital has a direct input on political involvement and democracy (Dasgupta & Serageldin, 2000). It is evident that social capital has numerous definitions, uses as well as interpretations. Some opine that the popularity endowed to the concept is derived from the basic principle of duality where economics is an essential factor while also inculcating the importance of a socially upright world. Researchers on the other had a peg on the idea of social capital as it can be used as an explanation for an array of outcomes. This is disadvantageous to the world of academia as a multiplication of uses would only result into a multiplication of explanations and definitions. In various instances, social capital has been used to explain improved performance of diverse groups, strategic alliances, and improved relations along the supply chain as well as superior managerial performance. In the ancient days, scholars deemed it fit to explain social capital based on the fact that, there were advantages that would be deduced from the relations at a future date. In essence, the world of academia illumined that social capital would enhance mutual relations and support within communities, nations and would inherently combat societal disorders facing the modern society (Chan & Oxley, 2004). This was quite to the contrary as the political analysts focused on the individual benefit that would be achieved as a result of the societal web of networks attributed to social capital. It is apparent that social capital resonated to increased access to information, skills and other resourced allied to enhancing power to an individual or a nation. According to the proponent’s ideology, society would adopt this view to enhance personal benefits in their own career negating the common good for all. In a general perspective, social capital has a more individualistic approach. This is even illustrated from the definition which seeks to illustrate that the main aim of the network with other members of society is the financial advantage. It is evident that social capital is an avenue for growth and development pegged on social ties. However, the necessity for a strong arm of law governing the social ties is overwhelmingly vital as it will govern the political institution as well as individuals to negate individualism in the relations. In essence, a strong democracy permits the eventuating of a strong social capital that will pave the way for a strong economic country or society. Familism is among the societal ties that undermine the concept of social capital. This is because; on many instances, an individual is obliged to respect the opinion of family members. The underlying concept is trust, and it has to prevail beneath all social relations for social capital to prevail and succeed in modern society. There is a foundation known as the social capital foundation and it seeks to ensure that there is a stunt difference between social capital and its ideal manifestation (Baron, Field & Schuller, 2000). This is because; in many instances, social capital definitions fail to distinguish between social capital and civic engagement. Civic engagement is similar to social capital despite the fact that, civic engagements does not bear the collective agenda that enhances the communal spirit. Another proponent that discussed social capital sought to clarify that; social capital can be disintegrated into three clusters namely; the cognitive, relational, and structural ties. The dimensions sought to clarify the dimensions that social capital would take either a collaborative or individual agenda. The conclusion of a research undertaking by business magnets agreed that many definitions forwarded for consideration did not meet the basic cut off to describe what social capital entails. This is because; the definition needs to clearly identify what social capital is all about and what it would achieve in the instance that it is used in the correct way (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Measurement of social capital The debate surrounding the measurement of social capital is enormous. This is because; right from the definition, it is evident that social capital elicits different views. In the same light, the antics purported to enhance measurability of social capital. Social capital is a subject that poses a challenge to many scholars and the practicability, possibility and desirability of the measuring social capital is also flawed by multiple challenges (Field, 2003). One of the examples is a trust which forms the backbone of a workable social capital mechanism. Trust would be described as a form, component, source or a collective asset that resonates to social capital. It is evident that social capital is a subject not only hard to measure but the analysis from measurements which rely on proxy indicators might be exposed to subjectivity in explanation. The only possible solution includes inferring social capital from its significant effects, as well as the breath and concept of the observation unit used. It is evident that due to the complexity of the social capital concept, it cannot be fully depicted or measured by a single concept. The multiple factors affecting social capital require a number of factors to measure fully. There are various factors that undermine social capital measurement. Among the key notable dimensions is the question as to whether social capital is measured on a communal or individual basis. Additionally, given the different definition of terms revolving around social capital by eminent researchers in the modern times, it is inherent that there will be a difference in views revolving around social capital. In addition, the complexity allied to social capital renders the search for qualitative analysis as well as tangible evidence a hard measure for social capital. In a more clear perspective, the following issues need a speedy resolution to ensure that the measurement of social capital is reliable and objective. First, there has to be a clear understanding explaining the purpose of measuring social capital (Hsung, Lin & Breiger, 2009). Secondly, it is vital to note the limitations allied to measuring social capital and thus ensuring that the measurement antics in use comply with these limitations. It is essential to rely on community feedbacks garnered through community representation and resource mobilization. There is a need to have a benchmark that will be used to measure an increase or decrease in the fluctuation of social capital. Fourth, it is crucial to formulate a workable mechanism to deal with the qualitative information, complexity, diversity and variation present in the concept of social capital. Finally, the nature of social capital indicators is fundamental in the measurements as well as the interpretation of the deduced information to ensure that worthy conclusions and recommendations are availed. The use of indicators Scholars assert that the use of reliable indicators of social capital is the easiest measurement methodology. This appreciates the fact that, social capital can be expressed through expectations or attitudes which would emanate from observations, actions, reported or recorded activities then comparing them with an individual’s interpretations as well as expectations. It is noteworthy that the conceptual framework fails to depict the bet indicators but only avails ideal characteristics of the indicators. They include; the indicators should be specifically targeted and measurable with ease. Additionally, the indicator should be comprehensive, reliable and consistent. Social capital is a new concept that is based on a rather old idea. This is the main reason as to why the concept faces inherent challenges related to complexity. Hard data relating to social capital are not readily available. The empirical studies undertaken in the past had to rely on proxies and as such the results obtained need careful interpretation. This is the reason as to why, various empirical studies indicate suggestive measurements rather than definitive (Farquhar, 2001). Horizontal associations The indicators rely on the number of associations, the extent of membership and decision making as well as homogeneity with the associations. The horizontal integrations depict the reliance of households on networks to garner income. In addition, the extent to which income and occupation are homogenous to the association will also be depicted. The horizontal indicators also illustrate the trust bestowed to the government as well as village association by members of the community and households. Civil and political society The index in use relays vital indexes, which include; the index of civil liberties, the population size exposed to political, social and economic discrimination. The indicator also depicts the intensity of discrimination and the percentage of the populace in separatist’s movements. These indicators measures the strength bestowed to democratic institutions referred tom as human liberty. In addition, the civil and political indicator measures the political instability, the degree of decentralization in governments as well as voter turnout and constitutional amendments inculcated by the legislative arm of government. Social integration The indicator measures the social mobility enhanced by social capital, the strength of social tensions and fragmentations emanating from riots as well as protest demonstrations. In addition, the indicator reveals the suicidal rates, homicide and strikes as they affect the workability of social capital. Crime rate is also an indispensable element that indicates the legitimacy, unemployment rates in youths as well as the divorce rate. Legal and governance rates The indicator seeks to measure the quality of bureaucracy and independence from the judiciary. In addition, the legal and governance indicator seeks to evaluate the nationalization and exploration risks. These indicator measures contracts by governments and their enforceability to resonate to intensive money (Ervasti, 2012). In a general perspective, the indicators workability relies on how the indicators are applied. The relative success of these indicators has been underpinned by a number of challenges that are yet to be overcome. Some of the benefits allied to social capital include the following; Benefits of social capital Empirical studies and literature of modern times clearly indicate that there are tremendous advantages that emanate from the adoption of social capital in modern society. However, this sentiment is made with the exception of the definitions complexity and metamorphic character that have resonated to tentative research as well as controversial debates. The debates revolve around trying to resolve the significance of human relations, organizations and networks to the quality of life or the development performance. There is a worldwide application of the social capital concept that illustrates the significance of the theoretical input relayed through research analysis, as well as other forms of information dissemination. Studies dating many years back indicate the pervasiveness of the concept along the social, economic and political influence. However, some measurement models used to assess the impact of social capital are ambiguous and might be unclear in indicating the benefits emanating from social capital. This implies that a majority of the benefits indicated in this discussion have not been tested empirically but have been theoretically extrapolated (Kawachi, Subramanian & Kim, 2008). The significance of the social capital theorem lies within the fact that, it brings an array of sociological concepts together for instance social cohesion, integration and support within the societal setting (Lin, 2001). This view has garnered the support of various authors, who indicate that, micro level mechanisms coupled with micro sociological structures have a remarkable impact on social concepts. Secondly, social capital has a positive impact on the modern societal setting through the inculcation of democracy or liberalism. His is because; social capital is a product of cooperation across various power differences. Social capital hence bears the shaping of the regional patterns as indicated in current times. It is evident that social capital is necessary for the modern well being of society in general as well as restores the sanctity of institutions, governments and optimism in perception. In various economies around the globe, social capital is charged with the benefit of facilitating higher growth levels in gross domestic product, efficiency in the labor markets, lower levels of crimes, and more effective governments. This implies that social capital is a vital attainment of the modern times that positively affect the public health, community governance and alleviating problems that are grappling modern societies such as crime. In another dimension, social capital enhances production improving the overall business and economic performance. This is because; with the right inculcation of social capital in the modern business management, better problem solving antics are eminent. This implies that business will have an easier mechanism to resolve issues that hinder performance as well as enhance innovation. This will indubitably be advantageous to the corporation enhancing performance in a general perspective as well as cohesion ((Weimer, 2009). The downside or limitations of social capital It is evident that a majority of elements that cause advantages or productive elements are capable of resonating to negative externalities. Social capital is no exception. For instance, the possibility to improve the social well being emanating from social capital would at times worsen the situation rather than improve it (Halpern, 2005). In addition, social capital would facilitate social exclusion and immobility hence causing division rather than unifying the society. Social capital if inculcated in the modern society in a wrongful manner would enhance a wider disparity between the rich and poor hence facilitating crime, as opposed to combating the social vice. Social capital would also be aligned with educational under achievements as well as damaging health related services. In the light of these sentiments, it is inalienable that, all the advantages derived from social capital would be transformed to limitations in an eventuality that the governing party fails to incorporate a workable mechanism to regulate social capital. For instance, social capital has an orchestrating mechanism that reduces transaction cost. In the same light, social capital would have a limitation of increasing the transaction cost incurred while transacting in the market exchange. Various scholars have tried to describe this phenomenon citing the reason that, social capital can be inculcated using the required structure hence deriving the required features. On the other hand, social capital would amount to an immense liability producing unwanted results that depreciate the economic milestones achieved through other societal mechanisms. This implies that there is a way that social capital would amount to a constraint in an individual or institution choices and actions. For instance; there is a high risk of negative results associated with social capital in the many urban poverty stricken situations. A stock comprising of social capital as a resource would be constructive or perverse depending on the implementation of the concept of social capital (Weimer, 2009). Conclusion It is evident that there is a range of societal relations governing economic and political functions in a country. Social capital is among this interaction governing social, economic and political interactions. It entails a resource that emanates from networks in the organizational or social setting. There are various methodologies used to measure the social capital concept. However, given the fact that, social capital is a new concept based on a new idea, there is lack of benchmark information for recent studies. However, with time and the prevalent dynamic forwarded in the field of academia, it is evident that social capital limitations will be negated in due course. References Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T. (2000). Social capital: critical perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chan, J. B., & Oxley, D. (2004). The deterrent effect of capital punishment a review of the research evidence. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: how social capital makes organizations work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Dasgupta, P., & Serageldin, I. (2000). Social capital a multifaceted perspective. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Dudley, W. (2000). Opposing viewpoints in social issues. San Diego, Calif.: Greenhaven Press. Ervasti, H. (2012). The future of the welfare state: social policy attitudes and social capital in Europe. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Farquhar, I. (2001). Investing in health: the social and economic benefits of health care innovation. Amsterdam: JAI. Field, J. (2003). Social capital. London: Routledge. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Hsung, R., Lin, N., & Breiger, R. L. (2009). Contexts of social capital: social networks in markets, communities, and families. New York: Routledge. Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2004). Social capital and information technology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S. V., & Kim, D. (2008). Social capital and health. New York: Springer. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Svendsen, G. L., & Svendsen, G. T. (2004). The creation and destruction of social capital: entrepreneurship, co-operative movements, and institutions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Weimer, D. L. (2009). Investing in the disadvantaged assessing the benefits and costs of social policies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Read More