Definition of Social Capital - Assignment Example

Name ID Number Course Instructor Social Capital Definition of Social Capital The dictionary defines social capital as “a network of social connections between people, and their shared values and norms of behavior, which enable and encourage mutually advantageous social cooperation” (Collins English Dictionary, 2009). The basic concept is that an individual’s shared connections serve to foster social co-operation for mutual benefit. Nevertheless, social capital cannot be defined in clear terms due to practical and conceptual reasons; hence there is no common definition. However, social capital can simply be defined as the organizations, relationships and customs that define the amount and quality of a society’s shared relations. The concept of social capital aims to stress the significance of social contacts between and within societal groupings. It also emphasizes that these social linkages result in efficient persons, groups and society at large. 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 goes to say that, in the same way that human, physical and financial capital is good for societal sustenance, so is social capital. 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 via a cycle that shares common goals with each other such that these cycles prove to be a resource or capital that can be utilized in different settings. In essence, the more individuals you associate and share common objectives with, the wealthier you are in terms of social capital. Concept of Social Capital Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank (2002: 18) point out that individuals do not make decisions as atoms beyond the scope of a social setting and neither do they follow a written script handed down by specific sections of a social group that they belong to but instead their attempts at guided action are joined in solid and dynamic systems of social interactions. Connections between individuals form the basis of a greater social structure. In spite of volume, extent, intricacy and brevity that define neo-social relationships, society doesn’t become a muddle of compared bits but rather individuals are joined by relatedness which exceeds brief instants when altercations are made. Networks therefore serve to give a foundation for social unity as they allow individuals to associate with each other for common gain (Field, 2008: 13-14). In order to properly grasp the concept of social capital, it is prerequisite to shed light on the idea of capital itself. This implies that social capital can be well comprehended through the eyes of the means and systems under which implied resources in social cycles are depicted as assets. This helps to join the theoretical gap in comprehending the connection between the organization and persons which is essential for analysis and exposition of social capital (Lin, 2002). Koput (2010: 16) approaches social capital through defining 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 therefore only valuable within the social association and is not redeemable for any other form of capital. Ideally, capital is essentially a surplus value and is representative of an asset that is expected to give returns. Therefore, in relation to social capital, it is an investment in social relations with expected returns (Lin, 2002). In the same manner as conventional forms of capital, social capital accrues as stock that returns gains by way of shared information and choices. It demands a first investment and steady preservation through regular social contact which takes ages to build. It also has a different character from human and physical capital. However, similarly to human capital, its stock does not decrease but can increases when utilized (Grootaert, Bastelaer, & World Bank, 2002: 7). Implied capital in social networks improves the results of actions through facilitation of information flow. This can be seen in informal recruitment processes where an individual provides information to their social networks on existing opportunities within organizations, eventually resulting in hiring and vice versa. Further, 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). Different methodologies developed to measure social capital Various methodologies have been developed to examine social capital. These methods incorporate interdependent factors including state institutions, governance structures, local institutions and networks, trust, local practices and values. However, it is prudent to develop a methodology focusing on specific factors so as to produce practicable results and enhance understanding of social capital. Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank (2002: 3-6) put forward four approaches to studying social capital. These include the community, network, institution and synergy views. The community approach refers to local associations and groups while focusing on productive social capital. The network approach covers links among and inside both vertical and horizontal organization with a focus on positive and negative effects of social capital. It also points out the gains of social capital to individuals in a communal setting as well as highlighting the detriments of individualistic behavior. It acknowledges that 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). Lillbacka (2006) suggests a game theory that has four parameters to measure social capital including membership in voluntary associations, self worth, social network and trust. There are variables fitting to a survey focus for each of these four parameters. Use of this particular approach gauges social homogeneity through empirical measurements and not theoretical postulations. This game theory approach was utilized in Finland with excellent results. Social Capital Theory Research on social capital has also focused on the theory of social capital itself which takes into account the 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 so as 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 prudent to collect data from every member in a network, however, it is not practicable and therefore, it makes research sense to use the ego-network approach. Analysis of social networks concerns an experimental methodology that examines relationships between persons and groupings and not their features as seen in conventional surveys. Quantitative and qualitative tools have been developed to be utilized in the methodologies used to measure social capital. These include but not limited to Statistical data on social capital, social capital catalogues, specific inquiries on social capital, incorporation of a regulated module of social capital in thematic surveys, three- dimensional surveys including social capital. Qualitative tools include use of case studies on social capital, using qualitative procedures in statistical reviews, meta-analysis of social capital, social capital observatory, including the social capital view to develop and assess projects and programs, using demonstration schemes on advanced social capital policies. Social Capital Assessment Tool Another approach that has been developed makes use of the social capital assessment tool which makes use of both quantitative and qualitative information to baseline references of social capital and observes development over the regression of project execution. This allows for proper examination of the associations between progress pointers and accumulation of social capital (Krishna & Shrader, 1999: 8). Designing of this tool takes into consideration variations in cultures while at the same time providing a shared theoretical framework that ensures unity of various social capital dimensions. Kinds of organizations included in measuring and determining social capital are decided on by thorough scrutiny of association’s structures. This means that analysis of organizational levels should go hand in hand with evaluations of social capital between households and communities (Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank, 2002: 19). Chengappa et al., (2007) present a study carried out to examine status of prevailing social capital and analyze relationship within given variables in the pastoralist village of Kamataka, India. This makes a good example where limitations to social capital assessment present challenges through available variables. In this case, only men were interviewed due to cultural barriers. However, independent variables like age were utilized and interview schedules developed, tested and utilized. Challenges in developing methodologies Development of methodologies and tools for measuring social capital presents challenges including proper determination of social cohesion and the role it plays in development of social capital. Scholars generally concede that social capital is based on trust in many forms while quantification of trust is gained through survey as opposed to behavioral data thereby limiting its availability. Placing participation and networks as key constituents of social capital creates more limitations as it is not easy to obtain data on the same (Jenson, 2010). In the past, social capital has been defined in terms associated with densities of horizontally aligned networks. However, a different dimension exist that compares structural and cognitive capital. In this context, 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 in relation to vertical organizations must also be examined. This is considering that vertical organizations do not necessarily inhibit formation of social capital while at the same time; horizontal networks are not obvious indicators of increased social capital presence. In other words, trust and public collaboration are related with better economic functioning but that relationship is not detached from 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. Different case examples of Social capital measurement in various environments Measurement of social capital has been carried out in different settings which demand various appropriate methodologies and tools. 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. In Greece, social capital measurement was conducted using various parameters including, voluntary and community participation with a focus on social protection. The study made use of surveys in different non-governmental sectors and discovered a low level of social capital as a result of political transformations and destruction of traditionally existing social networks and associations (Lyberaki & Paraskevopoulos, 2002). Matous & Ozawa (2010) present a good 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 imperative to measure an individual’s social capital available through their respective networks. However, data collection in slums presents its challenges and a relevant tool should be utilized. In the case of this Philippine slum, the position generator tool with a catalog of occupations is utilized. The respondents are then interrogated 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 appropriate adjustments to an Asian slum setting can then be utilized as pointers to various social resources available to an individual. There is a challenge in measuring deviations in individual social capital levels in slums due to the difficulty of tracing their physical addresses. This difficulty is overcome through utilizing a straightforward theory- based technique. Slum dwellers are organized into consistent groups usually 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). Game –Theory, which is mentioned earlier in this essay, was also deployed to measure capital in Finland with excellent results. It aimed to utilize an experimental approach and develop a proper gauge of social capital that goes beyond theoretical assumptions while measuring social capital (Lillbacka, 2006). Conclusion While many approaches have been adopted in an attempt to point out the character of the association within social variations and growth, there is a general recognition that the quality of information is still below par. With increased pressure to avail simple gauges of characteristically complicated and symbiotic associations, there is a risk of capacity being exceeded by the expectations while at the same time, speedily constructed and poorly conceived measures will not serve the set objectives and these dangers must be acknowledged. Therefore, a balance ought to be established between quantity and quality gauges through splitting social capital into its components and thereby generate innovative data sets concerning social capital that are applicable and analogous across nations (Bebbington, 2006). Globalization has opened new frontiers concerning social capital aspects and emerging approaches to measuring it must be developed to mirror those developments. Increased rural to urban migration has disenfranchised previously close-knit communities and created new social orders that exist for convenience, eliminating the need for traditional values like trust and this calls for adaptive approaches when developing methodologies for measuring social capital in the twenty first century. Increased conflict in different parts of the world has also broken down existing networks of communities and subsequently social capital on which it is based such that conventional measures used to establish social capital may no longer be appropriate as such. Novel and open- ended approaches would be the best approach so as to allow application of established benchmarks across nations or diverse communities. References Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. California: Stanford University 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.). April 21, 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. Lillbacka, R., (2006). Measuring Social Capital: Assessing Construct Stability of Various Operationalizations of Social Capital in a Finnish Sample. Acta Sociologica, Vol. 49(2: 201-220). 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. Lyberaki, A. & Paraskevopoulos, J. C., (2002). Social Capital Measurement in Greece. International Conference on Social Capital Measurement. London U.K 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

Connections between individuals form the basis of a greater social structure. In spite of volume, extent, intricacy and brevity that define neo-social relationships, society doesn’t become a muddle of compared bits but rather individuals are joined by relatedness which exceeds brief instants when altercations are made. Networks therefore serve to give a foundation for social unity as they allow individuals to associate with each other for common gain (Field, 2008: 13-14). In order to properly grasp the concept of social capital, it is prerequisite to shed light on the idea of capital itself.

This implies that social capital can be well comprehended through the eyes of the means and systems under which implied resources in social cycles are depicted as assets. This helps to join the theoretical gap in comprehending the connection between the organization and persons which is essential for analysis and exposition of social capital (Lin, 2002). Koput (2010: 16) approaches social capital through defining 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 therefore only valuable within the social association and is not redeemable for any other form of capital. Ideally, capital is essentially a surplus value and is representative of an asset that is expected to give returns. Therefore, in relation to social capital, it is an investment in social relations with expected returns (Lin, 2002). In the same manner as conventional forms of capital, social capital accrues as stock that returns gains by way of shared information and choices. It demands a first investment and steady preservation through regular social contact which takes ages to build.

It also has a different character from human and physical capital. However, similarly to human capital, its stock does not decrease but can increases when utilized (Grootaert, Bastelaer, & World Bank, 2002: 7). Implied capital in social networks improves the results of actions through facilitation of information flow. This can be seen in informal recruitment processes where an individual provides information to their social networks on existing opportunities within organizations, eventually resulting in hiring and vice versa.

Further, 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). Different methodologies developed to measure social capital Various methodologies have been developed to examine social capital.

These methods incorporate interdependent factors including state institutions, governance structures, local institutions and networks, trust, local practices and values. However, it is prudent to develop a methodology focusing on specific factors so as to produce practicable results and enhance understanding of social capital. Grootaert, Bastelaer & World Bank (2002: 3-6) put forward four approaches to studying social capital. These include the community, network, institution and synergy views.

The community approach refers to local associations and groups while focusing on productive social capital. The network approach covers links among and inside both vertical and horizontal organization with a focus on positive and negative effects of social capital. It also points out the gains of social capital to individuals in a communal setting as well as highlighting the detriments of individualistic behavior. It acknowledges that 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.

Read More