Search results

The concept of social capital has become more important in understanding contemporary economic development in the era of globalization. This concept, however, requires a theoretical framework that could help to distinguish between forms of social capital with positive effects on local development and other forms that may have negative consequences. This article argues that in order to understand this difference, two conditions are crucial. First, social capital has to be considered in terms of social relations and social networks, rather than in terms of culture and civicness. The second condition is that the interaction between social capital and other institutions, especially political institutions, has to be carefully analysed. Therefore, this article points to the crucial role of political factors - of the `embedded autonomy' of political action - in favouring a positive role of social capital in local economic development.

Evaluates the current state of research on the sources of social capital's attitudinal aspects. Following an overview of the debate on social capital's sources, attention turns to detailing two specific debates, highlighting the work of Robert Putnam (eg, 1993). It is suggested that while historical factors drive the formation of generalized trust & the forms & density of social interactions, current social & political institutions & various levels of government are also involved. Demonstrated is that the relevance of voluntary institutions as the key measure of social capital has been challenged & that the assumption regarding the efficacy of such associations in producing generalized norms & values such as trust should be handled gingerly. Further, institutional analysis of social capital sheds light on the importance of looking beyond organizations & social interactions for mechanisms that generate, foster, or disturb the development of generalized trust & norms of reciprocity. In addition, family is seen to play an important role in generalized & cooperative attitudes & perhaps societal engagement. Social capital is also found to be embedded deeply in the three-way state-family-civil society relationship. 94 References. J. Zendejas

Recent interdisciplinary theoretical work has suggested that social capital, or the interpersonal trust of citizens, plays an important role in explaining both the efficiency of political institutions, & in the economic performance of contemporary societies. This paper examines the relationship between social capital & economic growth in a sample of thirty-four countries over the period 1970 to 1992, within the framework of a modified neoclassical model of economic growth. The findings suggest that social capital has an impact on growth that is at least as strong as that of human capital or education, which has been the focus of much of the recent work on endogenous growth theory. It appears to have about the same impact on growth as catch-up or the ability of poorer nations to adopt technological innovations pioneered by their richer counterparts. 4 Tables, 2 Appendixes, 67 References. Adapted from the source document.

The paper begins with an investigation of two metaphors central to the 'social capital' framework – 'glue' and 'capital'. Both are found to be inappropriate descriptions of the kinds of human relationships supposedly being alluded to by the term 'social capital'. While the inappropriateness of the term 'glue' is not a major threat to the discourse, the case of 'capital' is more serious. The rest of the paper is devoted to unravelling the connotations of 'capital' and the implications of applying it to relationships where the kinds of calculations necessary for sound economic performance have no place. The competitiveness inherent in the functioning of capital belies the cooperation assumed to exist in 'social capital', while the requirement for 'productiveness' has disquieting implications for those who, for whatever reason, cannot be productive in the economic sense. The final section of the paper argues that those who are supposedly the main, if not the only, beneficiaries of 'social capital' – the 'disadvantaged' or the 'socially excluded' – do not in fact benefit from whatever is being alluded to by the term 'social capital'. The paper concludes by asking, but not answering, the question: Why, if 'social capital' cannot diminish poverty, is it being posited as a substitute for the welfare state, the only institution that does address poverty (if minimally)?

S. Baron, J. Field and T. Schuller (eds) (2000) Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, Oxford University Press, OxfordA. Portes (1998) 'Social capital: its origins and perspectives in modern sociology', Annual Review of Sociology, 243, 1, 1–24.R. Putnam (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York