The Concept of Social Capital - Term Paper Example

The Concept of Social Capital Introduction Numerous definitions of the concept of social capital have been advanced by different scholars. Jacob defined social capital as “networks of strong, cross-cutting personal relationships that develop over time and that create a basis for trust, cooperation and collective action among individuals in a community” (Bartkus & Davis, 2009, p. 18). Putnam (2001) on the other hand defines social capital as the totality of characteristics of social organisation such as norms, networks and trusts which facilitate actions that help to increase social affiance. It is a product of social structure and constitutes more elements than just network configurations. The core idea of social capital is that social networks have value on individuals. Social networks, just like human capital and physical capital, affect the productivity of individuals and groups. Whereas human capital refers to individual properties and physical capital refers to physical objects, social capital refers to social connections characterised by norms of trustworthiness and reciprocity (Klein & Poulymenákou, 2006). Social capital is a resource that is easily accessible by individuals and makes it possible for individuals involved to achieve ends that would otherwise not be attainable in its absence (Rotberg, 2001). There is no specific method for measuring social capital among individuals and groups, though various tools have been developed which are used to measure it from different directions. Social capital is one of the factors that have shaped the increased women engagement in politics in the contemporary society. In view of these points, the main purpose of this paper is to evaluate the concept of social capital and its relevance in our societies. The paper first gives an overview of this concept, detailing how social capital is developed and maintained. This is followed by a discussion of how social capital can be measured. Finally, the paper examines how the concept of social capital has shaped the issue of women’s participation in politics in our society. Overview of the concept of social capital The concept of social capital is discussed by different scholars in two different but related ways. In the first perception, sociologists such as Nan Lin, Ronald Burt and Alejandro view social capital as individual resources such as ideas, information and support (Bartkus & Davis, 2009). According to them, these resources constitute social capital given that unlike human (skills, education) capital and physical (technology, tools) capital, they can only be accessed in and through relationships with other people. This perception holds that the structure of any social network – that is how different individuals interact, on what terms and the frequency of interactions - has a major bearing on how these resources flow in the network. Individuals holding strategic positions in a social network have more social capital compared to others especially because the network provides them with increased access to more and better resources. The other approach, usually associated with Robert Putman, refers social capital as the nature and extent of an individual’s involvement with informal networks as well as with formal civic organisations (Grootaert, 2004; Grootaert & Word Bank, 2001). This implies how an individual chats with others, how one engages in recreational activities with other people and even how one engages in different organizations and issues in the society. This perception generally defines social capital as the different ways in which individuals interact in the society. In both perceptions, the concept of social capital is used to describe sets of relationships created and used by people to collectively solve their problems in the present and in the future. The concept reflects how groups of individuals interact normatively, culturally, institutionally and structurally. Thus, the concept of social capital describes the impact of these relationships on personal incentives and behaviour and the resulting social, political, economic and other changes. Social capital is thus relevant when individuals intend to achieve collective goals within a society. However, according to Bartkus and Davis (2009), social capital does not only create opportunities; it may present constraints to those individual involved in collective problem solving. A good example of social network is an established friendship network. While people in many cases build such networks to gain capital assets, real friends spend considerable time together. They build reputation by reciprocating favours and being friendly and reliable. These behaviours, which are present in friendship networks, are driven by the obligations that come with being a friend. According to Bartkus and Davis (2009), to be able to build an effective friendship network, individuals involved sacrifice time and efforts from their personal activities, though this is usually done unconsciously. This activity counts most in creating social capital. Then, an individual has a chance to access the resources which are inherent in the network to gain access to new opportunities or to gain assistance in difficult times. Unlike physical capital which wears out with continuous use, social capital grows with appropriate use. Friends who assist each other strengthen their network as they use it. However, if friends start taking advantage of past trust and fail to reciprocate favours, social capital rapidly disintegrates. When disintegration occurs, it may be difficult to rebuild social capital, compared to physical capital (Bartkus & Davis, 2009). Methodologies for the measurement of social capital According to Field (2008), there is no widely agreed methodology for the measurement of social capital. Though it is possible to intuitively sense the amount of social capital that is present in a given network, quantities measurement has proved to be somehow difficult. As a result, different metrics for different functions have been advanced. One of the ways developed by Robert Putman is to measure the size of a society’s membership in its groups (Gaag, 2005). Putman tried to measure social capital by counting the groups in civil society. He tracked the number size of membership of the society of study in political clubs, literally societies, bowling leagues and sports clubs. He examined how they varied over time and across different regions. From his results, Putnam explained that individuals from societies that have higher membership in groups have more to social capital compared to individuals from societies that have lower memberships. He however noted that groups with low memberships significantly add up to social capital (Gaag, 2005). Other scholars have tried to measure social capital by examining the levels of trust and civil engagement among individuals in a society. Hsung, Lin and Breiger (2009) measured the correlations between civil cooperation norms and confidence in various countries. Their research found that confidence and civil cooperation have a significant effect on economic growth. The researchers found that in highly polarised societies in terms of ethnic differences and inequality, social capital is smaller. Daniel (2009) also conducted as study to assess the relationship between the level of association and economic performances in various organisations in Tanzania. This research found that individuals who had higher incomes in areas with highest poverty indexes participated more in collective organisations (Daniel, 2009). This high participation enabled the individuals to accumulate a lot of social capital which brought about personal benefits for them. The researchers found that agricultural practices of those individuals who participated more in civil organisations were better than those of individuals who never participated. They had more information about seeds, fertilizers and agrochemicals (Daniel, 2009). Also, they were better informed about market for their agricultural products and were more prepared to take risk since they had well established social networks that made them feel more secure. They participated more in schools, had higher influence on improvement of public services and had higher contribution level developments. Generally, these two studies explain how social capital can be measured using level of participation in civil organisations (Daniel, 2009). The level of cohesion of individuals within a group also affects the level of social capital. However, as Harrison and Huntington (2000) explained, no specific quantitative method has been developed for measurement of the level of cohesiveness within a social network. Rather, scholars make use of a collection of social network models to measure this factor. The constraint measure developed by Ronald Burt is one of the methods used, which tries to establish the relationship between tie strength and group cohesion (Gupta & Maiti, 2008). Network transitivity is another model used often used in combination with the constraint measure. Another factor that determines the level of social capital is how a group of people or a network relates to the rest of society. According to Lin, Cook and Burt (2001), a strong network can sometimes weaken the perceived capital of the network in the eyes of the public especially when the group tends to engage in violence, distrust, crime, intolerance or hatred towards others. Good examples of such networks are the Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia. However, there are no quantitative tools developed for the measurement of how groups relate to the rest of the society. Generally, there is no widely agreed methodology for the measurement of social capital of individuals and groups in our societies. Fukuyama (2000) argued that one of the key reasons for lack of a specific methodology for measuring social capital is that it is neither a personal –level nor a group-level phenomenon. Rather, social capital emerges across various levels of analysis as people participate in groups. Fukuyama (2000) argued that the metaphor of ‘capital’ in this case can sometimes be misleading because social capital results from an individual’s participation in organised groups. As such, the benefits of social capital are not held by individuals unlike physical capital which describe resources held by actors and whose benefits are held by individuals. How social capital has shaped women’s engagement in politics There are various factors which influence the drive to engage in or to participate in politics including level of education, civil skills, time and employment (García, Martínez & Santalucía, 2011). Analysis in numerous regions globally has indicated that women do not engage in politics at similar levels with men, with men participating more (García, Martínez & Santalucía, 2011). However, the gap between men’s and women’s participation in politics, including in voting, is diminishing rapidly and in various occasions, women have participated more in voting compared to their male counterparts. A research conducted by García, Martínez and Santalucía (2011) on the impact of social capital provides an explanation for this change. The researchers established that social capital provides individuals and groups with networks and wealth of resources which facilitate engagement in politics. The research found that social capital is available in all communities and enables individuals to override traditional queues for political engagement including level of education, civil skills and employment. García, Martínez and Santalucía (2011) established unique ways in which women organise and form social networks in different communities. First, the study found out that women’s formal and informal networks are often inclined towards care work that is usually considered apolitical. Secondly, the study found that women are increasingly organising themselves in less hierarchical ways and are focusing on creating consensus among themselves and in groups. Third, the researchers noted that women are increasingly able to establish meaningful social networks which enable them to actively participate in social movements’ activities and eventually in local and national politics. According to García, Martínez and Santalucía (2011), this uniqueness from men has helped to make social capital more impressionable and personable to women, thereby generating in them a stronger drive to engage in politics. As well, García, Martínez and Santalucía (2011) found that the nature of social capital among women is largely informal, which allows them to politicise apolitical environments without the need to conform to masculine standards. The researchers noted that it is hard to recognise these differences in the discourse of political engagement and this explains the fact that social capital has not been regarded as a major tool for female political engagement until very recently. A model developed by Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) helps to clearly describe the influence of social capital on women’s participation in politics. These scholars developed a model capturing the major components of the relationship namely resources, networks and psychological engagement. Resources in this case refer to money, skills and time associated with high social-economic status. Networks refer to institutions in which people interact and build social links such as voluntary associations, workplaces and the church. Finally, psychological engagement in this model connotes interest in politics. According to Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995), resources open opportunities for participation, networks make mobilisation easier, while psychological engagement helps to raise awareness and motivation for getting involved. Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) note that women in many societies are disadvantaged when it comes to access to resources. Resources in this case do not only refer to social economic advantages, they also refer to information, time, civil skills and education. These resources affect psychological engagement in politics and hence, lack of access to these resources limits participation. Due to limited access to vital resources, the chances of women’s participation in politics have been low for a long time in all societies. However, Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) point out that women in the contemporary society are increasingly able to make up for the lack access to resources through formation and access to important networks. Though women participate fewer in workforce networks, they tend to participate more in religious and civil society groups. In cases where the purposes of groups or networks involving women resonate well with their roles and responsibilities, they have been able to legitimise the participation of such groups or networks in politics. As a result, women are increasingly showing interest or are increasingly engaging in politics than in the past. In short, the research by Verba, Schlozman and Brady (1995) clearly demonstrates how women are able to develop social capital through engagement in useful networks, thereby opening more opportunities for them to participate in politics, as noted by Harell and Evans (2005). Conclusion In conclusion, the concept of social capital encompasses features of social organisation such as trust, norms and work, which facilitate coordination and cooperation among individuals. Though different scholars perceive this concept differently, they all agree that the concept denotes sets of relationships created and used by people to collectively solve their immediate problems and those that may occur in the future. Thus, when appropriately used, social capital can be very beneficial to individuals. This has been explained well in the paper through evaluation of how social capital has shaped women’s participation in politics. As mentioned, women are disadvantaged in various ways, which limit their access to vital resources such as education, money and employment, which in turn adversely affect their participation in politics. As a result, there has been a huge gap between the number of men and that of women participating in politics. However, as noted, by building strong social networks, women are increasingly gaining access to opportunities to participate in national politics and in various cases they have been able to compete favourably with men. Finally, as discussed, the nature of social capital presents challenges to scholars when it comes to measurement and consequently, no standard methodology has been developed for its measurement. However, scholars have advanced various methodologies which make use of different approaches in the measurement of social capital. Some of these methodologies include measuring the size of a society’s membership in groups, examining the levels of trust and civil engagement in a society, constraint measure and network transitivity. References Bartkus, V. O. & Davis, J. H. (eds) (2009). Social Capital: Reaching Out, Reaching In. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Daniel, B. K. (2009). Social Capital Modelling in Virtual Communities: Bayesian Belief Network Approaches, California: Idea Group Inc (IGI). Field, J. (2008). Social Capital, London: Routledge. Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social Capital and Civil Society, Issues 2000-2074. New York (NY): International Monetary Fund. Gaag, M. V. D. (2005). Measurement of Individual Social Capital, New Delhi: F&N Book Services. García, F. P., Martínez, L. S. & Santalucía V. M. (2011). Measurement of Social Capital and Growth, New Delhi: Fundatsion BBVA. Grootaert, C. (2004). Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire. Washington D. C.: World Bank Publications. Grootaert, C. M. & Word Bank (2001). Local Institutions, Poverty and Household Welfare in Bolivia. New York (NY): World Bank Publications. \ Gupta, K. R. & Maiti, P. (2008). Social Capital, Volume 1, Washington DC: Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. Harell, A. & Evans J. (2005). ‘Gendered Social Capital and Its Political Implications: The Canadian Case in Comparative Perspective.’ Retrieved 8 April 2012 from, http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2005/Harell.pdf Harrison, L. E. & Huntington, S. P. (2000). Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress. London: Basic Books. Herplan, D. (2005). Social Capital, London: Polity. Hsung, R., Lin, N. & Breiger, R. L. (2009). Contexts of Social Capital: Social Networks in Markets, Communities, and Families. London: Taylor & Francis. Klein, S. & Poulymenákou, A. (2006). Managing Dynamic Networks: Organizational Perspectives of Technology Enabled Inter-Firm Collaboration. New Delhi: Birkhäuser. Lin, N., Cook, K. S. & Burt, R. S. (2001). Social Capital: Theory and Research. Cheltenham: Transaction Publishers. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone. Bern: Simon and Schuster. Rotberg, R. L. (2001). Patterns of Social Capital: Stability and Change in Historical Perspective, New York: Cambridge University Press. Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard. Read More