Globalisation,Social Issues and Public Policy - Article Example

Running Head: Social Capital Name ID Number Course Instructor Social Capital Social capital can be defined from various perspectives. One of the perspectives is viewing it as the valuable asset found in individual association with other people in an association that results in mutual benefits. It can also be defined as the value of relationships between people that aid in attaining shared goals. Social capital can be defined as “the network of social connections that exist between people, and their shared values and norms of behavior, which enable and encourage mutually advantageous social cooperation” (Collins English Dictionary, 2009). In economic terms, it is basically an economic concept that refers to linkages between entities and persons that can be of economic importance or value. Social linkages consisting of individuals who trust and help one another is a strong economic asset. These associations between persons and corporations can result in a situation where they think and consider one another for accomplishment of tasks and achievement of objectives. In the same way that financial capital leads to economic growth, so does social capital. However, it is not possible to define social capital in distinct terms for theoretical and practical; therefore there is no shared definition. Nevertheless, it can simply be defined as corporations, association and practices that define the quantity and quality of a society’s mutual relations. The notion of social capital aspires to emphasize the importance of social contacts within and between societal associations. It also highlights the point that these social associations can lead to efficiency in individuals, groups and the entire society. According to Bourdieu (1990), the social arena can be compared to a roulette table where we gamble not only with black chips, but also with blue and red chips, which implies economic, cultural and social capital respectively. This basically implies that, social capital is as good for social sustenance just like human, physical and financial capital. Bourdieu defines social capital as “the sum of the resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 119). Field (2008) sums up social capital in two words: “relationships matter” or simply put, “we are defined by whom we know”. He suggests that through establishing and maintaining contacts, individuals are capable of working together to accomplish tasks more easily. Individuals maintain contact through a cycle that shares mutual objectives with each other such that these cycles prove to be a resource or capital that can be used in diverse situations. Basically, the more people one maintains contact and relation while sharing common goals, the richer one gets as regards social capital. Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank (2002: 18) point out that persons don’t decide on anything on their own beyond reach of a given social outlay nor follow a scripted path passed down by certain segments of a social unit that they belong to but instead their attempts at guided action are joined in solid and dynamic systems of social interactions. Connections within and between persons are the foundations of a larger social system. In spite of quantity, reach, complexity and brevity that make up modern social associations, society doesn’t become a mix-up of pieces but rather persons are connected by associations which go beyond brief moments when those connections are established. Networks therefore function to provide a basis for social cohesion since it lets people to associate with one another for shared and mutual benefit (Field, 2008: 13-14). Social capital can also be approached by examining the methods and ways in which perceived assets in social cycles are portrayed as resources. This bridges the conceptual divide in understanding the link between associations and individuals which is essential for examination of social capital (Lin, 2002). Koput (2010: 16) defines capital as a valuable resource belonging to a social structure and therefore social capital is a collective product resulting from the association between individuals and not personal. It is only of value within that social grouping and cannot be substituted by any other type of capital. Ideally, capital is an extra value and represents that resource expected to return benefits. Therefore, in relation to social capital, it is an investment in social associations and relations with an expected return value (Lin, 2002). (Grootaert, Bastelaer, & World Bank, 2002: 7) suggest that just like any other type of traditional capital, social capital value similarly increases as stock that gives returns through means of mutual choices and information. It demands an initial investment and continuous cultivation by way of constant and increased social contact which takes a long time to build. It also has a differing nature from physical and individual capital. Nonetheless, in the same manner as human capital, its stock increases when used as opposed to decreasing. Inferred capital in social networks raises the levels of action outcomes by way of facilitating flow of information. This is evident in informal hiring procedures where an individual gives information to personal social networks on existing opportunities within organizations, thus leading to hiring which works both ways. Implied capital also influences promotions and acts as a form of reference or recommendation that adds on to individual capital or abilities. Social capital also provides emotional support and demonstrates a social or group approval of a person’s claim to collective resources. This in turn strengthens recognition and identity as individuals feel assured of their importance (Lin, Cook & Burt, 2001: 6-7). A myriad of approaches have been deployed in studying social capital. Several factors go into consideration of different approaches which include whether to utilize hypothetical or available and utilized capital, the choice of a single or several measures and how to consolidate diverse resources over differing networks. The choice of qualitative or quantitative measurement equally determines development of corresponding methodologies. Approaches could also merge co-dependent factors like governance arrangements, local and state institutions, networks, local customs, trust, and values. However, effective approaches focus on particular factors to be able to produce practicable results and improve comprehension of social capital. Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank (2002: 3-6) suggest some approaches to examining social capital. These include institutions, communities, networks, and synergy views. The community approach refers to local groupings and associations while narrowing down to productive social capital. The network approach includes linkages within and among both vertical and horizontal association and narrows down to positive and negative effects of social capital. It highlights gains of social capital to individuals in a communal setting as well as pointing out disadvantages of individualistic behavior. In as much as social capital brings together community members, it tends to exclude non- members. The institutional approach suggests that institutional, legal and political environments shape the vibrancies of social networks while the synergy approach integrates all elements of social networks with an assumption that none of the players have exclusivity to resources that are important for meaningful and equitable growth. Synergy approach emphasizes the association linking civil society and government (Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank, 2002). Research on social capital has also illuminated the theory of social capital which considers effect of social structures and associations on behavior. The designs developed for research uses two perspectives which are total network or ego-network focused. In the total network approach, saturation sampling is used to collect information from every branch or individual within a social network while with ego-network approach, data is only collected from one individual, known as the ego, within a network (Washington, 2008: 70). These two perspectives make use of “three general ways of collecting data in social capital researches which are name generation, position generation and ethnography. The name generation method asks respondents to list names of individuals in their social networks while position generation method utilizes a given sample of selected structural positions and tasks respondents to indicate if they have any contacts in those positions. Ethnographic approaches, on the other hand, involve use of partly designed interviews.” (Washington, 2008: 71). It would be beneficial to collect data from every individual in a network but that is not practical and hence, it is better to use ego-network approach. Analysis of social networks involves a theoretical approach that analyzes association within individuals and groups’ relations as opposed to features as practiced in traditional surveys. Quantitative and qualitative tools have been built for usage in methods utilized to measure social capital. These include social capital catalogues, statistical data on social capital, focused inquiries on social capital, inclusion of a regulated module of social capital in thematic surveys and three- dimensional surveys including social capital. Qualitative tools include qualitative procedures in statistical reviews, case studies on social capital, meta-analysis of social capital, social capital observatory, including the social capital view to develop and assess projects and programs and using demonstration schemes on advanced social capital policies. Another approach that has been developed utilizes the social capital assessment tool which incorporates both quantitative and qualitative information to baseline references of social capital and observes development over the regression of project execution. This ensures a proper examination of associations between progress pointers and accumulation of social capital (Krishna & Shrader, 1999: 8). Designing of this tool takes considers different variations in cultures while at the same time providing a mutual theoretical structural framework that promotes and ensures unity of various social capital dimensions. Types of associations or organizations included in measuring and determining social capital are decided on through a careful examination of association’s structures. This implies that examination and analysis of organizational levels must go hand in hand with evaluations of social capital between households and communities (Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank, 2002: 19). Chengappa et al., (2007) make use of a study conducted to analyze the status of prevailing social capital and examine relationship within given variables in a pastoralist village of Kamataka, India. In this case, limitations to social capital assessment present challenges through available variables where only men were interviewed due to cultural barriers. However, independent variables like age were used for the study and corresponding interview schedules developed, tested and utilized. Development of methodologies and tools for measuring social capital presents hurdles that include appropriate determination of social cohesion and the role it plays in development of social capital. Scholars agree that social capital is based on trust in various forms while quantification of trust is only possible through surveys as opposed to behavioral data hence limiting its availability and application. Placing participation and networks as key components of social capital creates more limitations as it is not easy to obtain data on the same (Jenson, 2010). Traditionally, social capital has been defined in terms associated with densities of horizontally aligned networks. However, diverse dimensions that compare structural and cognitive capital exist. Considering this information, organizational fundamentals of social capital including network relations, rules, responsibilities and practices are examined differently from cognitive fundamentals that include customs, principles, beliefs and attitudes. This is in recognition that cognitive and structural fundamentals go hand in hand in representing combined potential for the purposes of shared gainful combined action that is in a community (Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank, 2002: 19). Horizontal organizations as regards vertical organizations ought to be examined too. This is considering that vertical organizations do not necessarily limit formation of social capital while horizontal networks are not obvious indicators of increased social capital presence. In other words, trust and public collaboration are associated with better economic functioning but that relationship is not independent of trust. Homogeneous organizations in relation with heterogeneous organizations should also be scrutinized as a dimension of social capital. Formal and informal organizations make up an equally important dimension of social capital. All these dimensions come into play in developing methodologies for measuring social capital. Variations in shared collective activities should also be able to provide a good locus for evaluating social capital in any given social window (Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank, 2002:19-22). Membership in formal and informal networks and associations are commonly utilized measures of social capital especially in developing countries. This is achieved by capturing informal give-and-take scenarios through communal events including sports events, communal festivals and various traditional ways of promoting connectedness. Population and poverty assessment surveys also provide data used to develop social capital indices. Bebbington (2006) presents the example of “the national participatory poverty assessment in Tanzania which consisted of a household poverty and social capital survey” where data obtained was utilized in developing an “index of social capital at both household an community level encompassing density and characteristics of informal and formal groups and networks to which people belonged”. The index aspects included group operatives, contributions, participation levels in making of shared decisions and extensiveness of association. A sequence of gauges was also built on shared trust and changes over time. Measurement of social capital has been done in various environments which demand various appropriate methodologies and tools. There is a choice to explore either individual or collective social capital. Measurement of individual social capital focuses on access and use while collective social capital examines entire networks. Approach to social capital could also aim to utilize empirical measurements as opposed to theoretical studies. Matous & Ozawa (2010) present a case example of measurement of social capital in a Philippine slum. Considering that individuals in slums meet their basic needs through informal and individual connections, it is proper to quantify individual social capital available by means of their respective networks. Data collection in slums presents challenges and a relevant tool should be used. In the case of this Philippine slum, the position generator tool with a catalog of occupations is utilized. The respondents are then interviewed on whether they have contacts in these occupations. This method is suitable for diverse cultures on the general assumption that social inequality is heavily influenced by labor divisions in society (Van der Gaag, Snijders & Flap, 2004). Different occupations with corresponding deviations that are fitting to an Asian slum setting can then be utilized as pointers to various social resources available to an individual. Quantifying deviations presents challenges in individual social capital levels in slums due to the difficulty of tracing physical addresses. This difficulty is overcome through utilizing a simple theory- based technique. Slum occupants were arranged into consistent groups based on religion, mutual infrastructure and years spent together. In the Philippine slum, semi-structured interviews were carried out in select associations and narrowed down to a deeper social capital survey on a single community association. Distinct slum characteristics influenced the structure of social capital survey. These include educational literacy levels, safety, language diversities, low incomes and various cultures (Matous & Ozawa, 2010:7-8). Various methods have been adopted to highlight character of the associations within social variations and growth. Despite this, there is an acceptance that quality of information is still below acceptable thresholds. Due to increased demand to provide simple measures of characteristically complicated and symbiotic associations, there is a risk of expectations exceeding capacity while speedily constructed and poorly conceived measures will not serve the set objectives and these dangers ought to be recognized. A balance should be established between quantity and quality gauges through splitting social capital into its components and subsequently, generate innovative data sets concerning social capital that are applicable and analogous across nations (Bebbington, 2006). The concept of social capital is dynamic. It is therefore expected that approaches to defining and measuring it are bound to similarly develop in various directions. All in all, the underlying factor is the shifting world dynamics especially regarding political, social and economic developments which in turn determine how social capital takes shape. Traditional social network boundaries and formations have evolved in line with these changes which call for novel approaches in developing gauges to quantify these emerging dynamics. There ought to be continuous strive in developing methodologies tailored to measure emerging dynamics of social capital. However much its composition features may be dynamic, social capital is still fundamentally based on social networks and ties that exist to serve mutually beneficial and dependent interests. References Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. California: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chengappa, P.G., Nagaraj, N., Kanwar, R., University of Agricultural Sciences (Bangalore, India) Staff & Institute for Social and Economic Change. (2007). International Conference on 21st Century Challenges to Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Biotechnology, Environment, Nutrition, Trade and Policy, 15th-17th March, 2007. New Delhi: I. K. International Pvt Ltd. Bebbington, A. (2006). The Search for Empowerment: Social Capital As Idea And Practice at the World Bank. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press. Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged (ed 10). (2009). Social capital. (n.d.). May 2, 2013. Retrieved from Field, J. (2008). Social capital (ed 2). New York: Routledge. Grootaert, C., Bastelaer, T, & World Bank. (2002). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital: A Multidisciplinary Tool for Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Jenson. (2010). Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion. London: Commonwealth Secretariat. Koput, K. W. (2010). Social Capital: An Introduction to Managing Networks. Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing. Krishna, A. & Shrader, E. (1999). Social Capital Assessment Tool: Prepared for the Conference on Social Capital and Poverty Reduction. Washington DC: The World Bank. Lin, N. (2002). Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action Vol.19 of Structural Analysis in the Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lin, N., Cook, K. S. & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social capital: theory and research. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Matous, P. & Ozawa, K. (2010). Measuring Social Capital in a Philippine Slum. Field Methods, 22(2): 133-153. Van der Gaag, M., Snijders, T. A.B. & Flap, H. D. (2004). Position Generator measures and their relationship to other Social Capital measures. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam , University of Groningen Utrecht University. Washington, M. L. (2008). It's Whom You Know and what You Know: A Social Capital Perspective of the Effect of Small Firm Organizational Learning on Firm Performance. Michigan: ProQuest. Read More