The Concept of Social Capital, Its Measurability - Report Example

Running Header: Social Capital Student’s Name: Name of Institution: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Introduction Indeed, recent years have seen an increasing prominence of the concept of ‘social capital’ as part of social science. This is especially envisaged in the number of articles mainly aimed at discussing, presenting and implementing it. Generally, the social capital is conceptualized as an examination of the relationship between social relations and actions, i.e. how social relations can influence actions. In this sense, social capital has been used to study and examine social issues and institutions such as governance and democracy, public health, families, community life, problems related to youth behaviors, schooling and education, as well as other problems related to collective actions (Adler & Kwon, 2002). The concept has also been used in organization studies. For instance, it is an important factor in the attempts to explain the relative successes of the actors in various arenas related to organizations. These include career success, the ability of workers to find jobs, product innovation and resource exchange between different organizational units, turnover rates, supplier relationships, etc. This paper is aimed at examining the concept of social capital. This involves evaluating the various theoretical approaches developed by different people to understand it. Part of this will include the assessment of the various methods of measuring social capital that have been developed. Finally, this paper will look examine how the concept has been used to address health promotion as a social issue. The Concept of Social Capital The various theories developed to examine and explain social capital are based on the premise that people’s goodwill towards each other is a vital and valuable resource. The term ‘goodwill’ here encompasses a wide range of factors related to human emotions, such as trust, sympathy, forgiveness and networks- amongst others- between friends, family members and other acquaintances. Goodwill, being the main character of social capital, therefore shapes information, solidarity and even the influences that it avails (Adler & Kwon, 2002). Such direct effects equally lead to other kinds of effects. Moreover, it is worth noting that each effect offers a different value to different actors. This mainly depends on various moderating factors within the context in which the said actor and effect(s) interact (Ponthieux, 2004). In agreement, Adler and Kwon (2002) contend that the sources of social capital lie within the social context (‘social structure’) in which the actor is concerned. Social capital, as a resource, can be distinguished from other resource types based on specific underlying social structure/context dimension, i.e. social capital, according to Adler and Kwon (2002), is a feature/function of the actors location within the broad scope of their social relations. The element of social structure referred to here is understood in three different dimensions: market relations, i.e. the context where goods and services are bartered or exchanged for money; hierarchical relations, i.e. where obedience to authority is offered in exchange for spiritual and material security; social relations, i.e. where gifts and favors are exchanged (Adler & Kwon, 2002). It is mainly the social relations dimension that underlies social capital. There is much debate surrounding the relationship between the three dimensions. One, some view social capital relationship as involving all the three dimensions (Adler, 2001). Two, in trying to understand how the market and hierarchical relations lead to social relations- which is inevitable in the process of repeated interaction- Adler (2001) argues that the other social structure dimensions only play an indirect role in forming social structure. Three, considering the different exchange types, many have debated on whether referring to social resources as ‘capital’ is legitimate. Against this backdrop, many social scientists have presented different definitions of social capital. These definitions differ depending on the main focus of the definition, e.g.: the focus may be on the sources, the substance or the impact of social capital; the focus may also be on the actor/actors, i.e. how an actor maintains his/her relation with others, the relational structure of actors in a collectivity, or both. For example, Coleman (1990, cited in Erben et al, 2000) saw social capital as forming part of the role of social relations in the society, i.e. between the people in specific social contexts. These people exercise social capital through demonstrating confidence and trust towards each other- what Adler & Kwon (2002) refer to as ‘goodwill’. This goodwill- in all its constituents- facilitates and enhances the success of social groups in social and political terms. Coleman (1990, cited in Erben et al, 2000) ultimately views social capital as a factor of sociability and individual social status. Putman (1994, cited in Erben et al, 2000) presented a slightly different definition of social capital, shifting social capital beyond individual to organizational relations. He evaluated how social institutions and organizations in Italy collaborated in shared/common projects. Like Coleman (1990, cited in Erben et al, 2000), Putman (1994, cited in Erben et al, 2000) concluded that confidence and trust are key factors for the success of organizational performance in both governmental and political reforms. These variations notwithstanding, the concept of social capital, as slightly alluded to above, rests on one key premise, i.e. it concerns the actors’ quality of social relations and the impact of such relations on the actors’ overall lives. Social capital focuses on the mechanisms of cooperation as well as conflict within or between different social groups. The main assumption is that this cooperation develops and enhances further cooperation. This cooperation is mainly driven by the benefits it generates and which the actors are aware of. The underlying idea is that of a balanced social system characterized by mutual agreement within and between various social agencies and groups to cooperate and sustain the system. As Erben et al (2002) put it, just like financial capital, social capital is a resource by which to gain and exercise power in relation to those who do not have or only have a limited access to it. Related to the question of social capital is empowerment, which is developed within the context of community organization and social work. According to Erben et al (2002), empowerment here is mainly focuses on: improving both individual and communal skills that could help them regain control over their living and working conditions, and thereby influence their well-being; the organization of the community; and continual processes that enable individuals and other social groups to participate in communal/collective action. Ultimately, empowerment is the process through which individuals and groups interact socially mainly for the purpose of enhancing their skills, as well as range and scope of their abilities to take control of their lives. The success of such empowerment therefore depends on mutual tolerance, respect and social support among the actors within specific social contexts/structures (Erben et al, 2000). Methodologies for Measuring Social Capital There has been much debate, and an apparently inherent controversy, surrounding the question on whether measuring social capital is possible and practical. Many question how validity of the theories developed for measuring social capital, especially considering that its ‘actual’ features and potential remain elusive (Durlauf 2002b). Even the proponents and theorists of the measurability of social capital face difficulties, especially in separating substance, source and impacts of social capital. Still, many have claimed to have not only found justification for the measurability of social capital, but also developed the methodologies for the efforts. Grootaert and Van Bastalaer (2002a cited in Claridge, 2004), for instance, said it is both possible to measure as well as pinpoint the consequences of social capital. Onyx and Bullen (2000b cited in Claridge, 2004) claimed to have developed a method for measuring social capital, which was easy to apply, reliable and valid. Nonetheless, all the controversy notwithstanding, this paper will examine some of the methodologies developed to measure social capital. According to Cox and Caldwell (2000), ideal indicators of social capital recognize and acknowledge that it (social capital) is manifest in: expectations and attitudes; observed, reported and recorded activities and actions; comparisons of the ways that people interpret how things not only happen, but also expected to happen. As such, methods for measuring social capital are supposed to be based on and linked to the underlying conceptual framework within which the specific study falls. Different authors have used various social capital indicators in different social contexts. These indicators include trust, membership, trust and membership, a combination of membership, trust and the norms of reciprocity, and network resources. According to Grootaert (2001), the following indicators had been used to measure social capital in empirical studies: horizontal associations, i.e. number of social institutions, membership, occupation and income, trust, etc.; civic and political society, e.g. civil liberties and freedoms, political discrimination, political rights, etc; social integration, i.e. social mobility, ethnolinguistic fragmentation, social tensions, homicide and suicide rates, strikes/riots/protest demonstrations, etc; and legal and governance issues, i.e. independence of the judicial system, quality of bureaucracy, etc. The appropriateness and relative success of these indicators depend on the context in which they are applied. However, this measure, and others like it, does not consider the multi-dimensional characteristic of social capital, as well as the inherent problems related to substance, source and impact. Against this approach therefore, other multi-dimensional approaches to measuring social capital have been developed. Some of these include: Narayan and Princhett’s (1997) developed their measurement methodology based on their survey of 87 rural villages in Tanzania in which they examined social capital versus outcomes at the village levels; Onyx and Bullen (1997) based their methodology on their 68-question survey of five different localities in Australia’s New South Wales; Barr (1999) applied techniques of experimental game theory examine and measure familiarity and trust in specific Zimbabwean black communities (cited in Claridge 2004). Putnam (2000) also developed a multi-dimensional methodology based on his survey of social capital indicators in the US. He divided his survey on five major indicators within which were also other minor indicators. Following is a summary of Putnam’s (2000) methodology: organizational life or community, i.e. the number of local social and civic organizations, leadership in these organizations, number of club memberships and meetings; engagement in public agendas or affairs, i.e. percentage turnout of people in presidential elections and percentage of people who attended meetings on school or town affairs; community volunteerism, i.e. how many non-profit groups and organizations are available, hours spent on community projects, the number of people who did volunteer work; informal sociability, i.e. individuals who visit friends, the number of people entertained at home; and social trust, i.e. how many people agree most people are trustworthy, how many people agree most people are honest, etc (Claridge, 2004). There are many other methodologies. Unfortunately the scope of this paper will not permit an examination of them all. However, an aspect revealed in the examination here is that social capital cannot be measured directly. Instead, it can only be measured through an indicator and a proxy. In other words, social capital is generally seen as a manifestation of the quality and structure of social networks. This premise therefore offers a valid basis on which to develop measurement methodologies and frameworks (Stone 2001, cited in Claridge, 2004). Social Capital in Health Promotion The aim of health promotion is to improve working and living conditions that favor health. Studies have found that socio-economic conditions (such as education levels, income, employment and unemployment, occupational position, etc) influence public health, and as a result, it equally influences people’s quality of life (Wilkinson 1996, cited in Erben et al, 2002; Thomas, 2000). The ‘quality of life’ here is all-round, i.e. socio-cultural, physical, political and biological environment in which an actor lives. Both of these (i.e. the environmental and socio-economic conditions) are part of society. It is partly for this that- despite their influence on individual growth and development- they are beyond the control of individuals. In other words, although the conditions can be changed, an individual alone cannot effect this change to suit his/her own preferences. This is where social interaction (capital) comes into play. Like in many other contexts, the main aim of social capital/interaction in the public health context is empowerment. According to the Ottawa Charter (cited in Erben et al, 2002), so that people are able to develop lifestyles suitable for health, they should take control of both their living and working conditions. This control can only be gained through alliances (i.e. cooperation between individuals and organizations/groups on specific social issue and characterized by mutual support and assistance to the cause) aimed at gaining the political might necessary to effectively support the set causes (Thomas, 2000). But it should be noted that alliances are strategic in nature, i.e. the parties involved do not necessarily share the same interests, beliefs and values. Instead, their eyes only remain set on the main reason for the alliance despite possible differences. Against this backdrop, the Ottawa Charter provides a strategic framework to address the issue of health promotion. According to the Ottawa Charter (WHO 1986, cited in Erben et al. 2002), health promotion should facilitate and enhance processes of social change that aim to improve both living and working conditions that favor health. Health promotion is guided by three key principles: “enabling, mediating and advocating, and the promotion of health” (Erben et al, 2002). Health promotion then aims to address the following five categories of related issues: developing and establishing healthy policies; creating environments that support health; strengthening the actions of communities; developing favorable personal skills; and reorienting/reforming and transforming health services (Erben et al, 2002; Thomas, 2000). These areas together demonstrate that efforts towards the promotion of health focus on the degree of collective action in relation to improving both individual and collective/communal health conditions. The key factor that guides the Ottawa Charter is empowerment. According to Erben et al (2002), the key idea underlying the application of social capital in public health is known as homo oeconomicus sanitatis. This refers to human beings who: see themselves essentially as actors who aim to achieve and enjoy maximum advantage from their investments in and expectations of themselves; calculate their actions and behaviors on the basis of individual/personal risk assessment, interpreted in both social and monetary terms; and direct act for the purpose of generating power, trust and influence so as to be accepted in partnerships that aim to provide equal advantages for all stakeholders (Erben et al, 2002; Thomas 2000). Therefore, within the contexts of health promotion and public health, social capital lies in the hands of the person who understands that health is a key factor for improving his/her chances of success in the social markets, as well as taking advantage of the opportunities therein (Thomas, 2000); what Erben et al (2002) call ‘health entrepreneur’. Simply put, the individual ‘owns’ his/her social life. Conclusion In conclusion, this paper has only made a feeble examination of the concept of social capital, its measurability and its application in the context of public health. Otherwise, there is much more to discuss here, especially the debate that accompanies the question of whether social capital is really a ‘capital’, whether it can really be measured, and exactly what measurement methodologies are appropriate. Still, this paper provides an important framework against which to discuss social capital. References; Adler, P. (2001). ‘Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism’, Organization Science, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 215-234. Adler, PS & Kwon, S. (2002). ‘Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy of Management Review,’ vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 17-40. Retrieved 15th May, 2012, http://www.csee.wvu.edu/~xinl/library/papers/social/social_capital.pdf Claridge, T. (2004). Social Capital and Natural Resource Management. Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. Social capital Research. Retrieved 15th May, 2012, http://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/measurement.html Cox, E. & Peter, C. (2000). Making policy social, I. Winter (ed.), in Social capital and public policy in Australia. Melbourne: National Library of Australia, pp. 43 - 73 Durlauf, S.N. (2002a). 'On the empirics of social capital,' The Economic Journal, vol. 112, no. 483, pp. 459-479. Erben, R., Franzkowiak, P. & Wenzel, E. (2000). ‘People Empowerment vs. Social Capital: From Health Promotion to Social Marketing’, Health Promotion Journal of Australia, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 179-182 Grootaert, C. (2001), Social capital: the missing link, in E.M. Uslaner (ed.), Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life. London: Routledge, pp. 9 - 29 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster Ponthieux, S. (2004). The concept of social capital : a critical review, 10th CAN Conference, Paris 21-23 January. Thomas, D.R. (2000). How is "social capital" relevant to public health? Seminar presented to Division of Community Health, University of Auckland November. Retrieved 15th May, 2012, http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/How_is_social_captial _relative_to_public_health.pdf Read More