Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at auoauoo@gmail.com.

At collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. collapseofsocialcapital.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

social capital

The notion of social capital is a useful way of entering into debates about civil society – and is central to the arguments of Robert Putnam and others who want to ‘reclaim public life’. It is also used by the World Bank with regard to economic and societal development and by management experts as a way of thinking about organizational development. We examine its nature, some of the issues surrounding its use, and its significance for educators.

The notion of social capital is said to have first appeared in Lyda Judson Hanifan's discussions of rural school community centres (see, for example, Hanifan 1916, 1920). He used the term to describe 'those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people' (1916: 130). Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among those that 'make up a social unit'. It took some time for the term to come into widespread usage. Contributions from Jane Jacobs (1961) in relation to urban life and neighbourliness, Pierre Bourdieu (1983) with regard to social theory, and then James S. Coleman (1988) in his discussions of the social context of education moved the idea into academic debates. However, it was the work of Robert D. Putnam (1993; 2000) that launched social capital as a popular focus for research and policy discussion. 'Social capital' has also been picked up by the World Bank as a useful organizing idea. They argue that 'increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable' (The World Bank 1999). In this piece we explore the the idea of social capital, review some of the evidence with regard to the claims made about it, and assess its significance for educators.

Social capital for starters

For John Field (2003: 1-2) the central thesis of social capital theory is that 'relationships matter'. The central idea is that 'social networks are a valuable asset'. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people.

Trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and expectations within society as a whole. Without this interaction, on the other hand, trust decays; at a certain point, this decay begins to manifest itself in serious social problems… The concept of social capital contends that building or rebuilding community and trust requires face-to-face encounters. (Beem 1999: 20)

There is now a range of evidence that communities with a good 'stock' of such 'social capital' are more likely to benefit from lower crime figures, better health, higher educational achievement, and better economic growth (Halpern 2009b). However, there can also be a significant downside. Groups and organizations with high social capital have the means (and sometimes the motive) to work to exclude and subordinate others. Furthermore, the experience of living in close knit communities can be stultifying - especially to those who feel they are 'different' in some important way.

Exhibit 1: Defining social capital

---

Bourdieu: 'Social capital is the 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition' (Bourdieu 1983: 249).

Coleman: 'Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities, having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure' (Coleman 1994: 302).

Putnam: 'Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital' (Putnam 2000: 19).

The World Bank: 'Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions... Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together' (The World Bank 1999).

---

The three thinkers that most commentators highlight in terms of developing a theoretical appreciation of social capital are Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. Bourdieu wrote from within a broadly Marxist framework. He began by distinguishing between three forms of capital: economic, cultural and social. A basic concern was to explore the processes making for unequal access to resources and differentials in power - and the ways in which these fed into class formation and the creation of elites. He understood social capital to be 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition' (Bourdieu 1983: 249). The possession of social capital did not necessarily run alongside that of economic capital, but it still was, in his view, an attribute of elites, a means by particular networks held onto power and advantage. In Field's word, he 'presumed that social capital generally functions to mask the naked profit-seeking of its holders, and is therefore inimical with the open democratic society that he espoused in his journalism and political activism' (2003: 19).

James Coleman's (1988) contribution to the development of the notion of social capital was to theorize it in a way that illuminated the processes and experiences of non-elite groups. In other words, he argued that those living in marginalized communities or who were members of the working class could also benefit from its possession. Drawing upon a base of rational choice theory James Coleman (1990, 1994) looked to social capital as part of a wider exploration of the nature of social structures. He argued that social capital was defined by its function. 'It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities, having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure' (Coleman 1994: 302). However, as Portes (1998), Foley and Edwards (1999) and others have pointed out, a number of problems flow from defining social capital by its function. In particular, the same 'outcome' could flow from very different processes. However, Coleman's explorations were to highlight the possibility that different institutions and social structures were better suited to the cultivation of reciprocity, trust and individual action than others. Like other social investigators he highlighted the role of the family and kinship networks, and religious institutions in the creation of social capital. He believed that changes in both spheres were problematic. They were less able to socialize in appropriate ways; ties appeared to be looser and weaker (see Portes 1998).

It is interesting to compare Coleman's and Bourdieu's contributions to thinking about social capital. John Field brings out some interesting dimensions:

Bourdieu's treatment of social capital is somewhat circular; in summary it boils down to the thesis that privileged individuals maintain their position by using their connections with other privileged people. Coleman's view is more nuanced in that he discerns the value of connections for all actors, individual and collective, privileged and disadvantaged. But Coleman's view is also naively optimistic; as a public good, social capital is almost entirely benign in its functions, providing for a set of norms and sanctions that allow individuals to cooperate for mutual advantage and with little or no 'dark side'. Bourdieu's usage of the concept, by contrast, virtually allows only for a dark side for the oppressed, and a bright side for the privileged. (Field 2003: 28)

It was into this situation that Robert Putnam's work on social capital exploded. Returning to commentators such as de Tocqueville, and drawing on some of the debates around, and insights from, Coleman's contribution, he looked to the significance of association and civic community (see Putnam 1993). He wrote from a background in political science and, as such, brought out some important dimensions. Based, initially, on a detailed study of Italian political institutions he argued for the significance of social capital and the quality of civic life in the cultivation of democratic society. He then turned his attention to social capital in the United States - first in an influential article (Putnam 1995) then in a major study: Bowling Alone. In the latter Putnam discussed social capital as follows:

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Putnam 2000: 19)

Robert Putnam's ability to draw upon a wide range of theory, to synthesize and write for a wider audience, and to catch the public mood in the United States would have been enough to encourage a wider embrace of the notion of social capital. However, when this was added to the depth and range of data he and his team were able to access and analyse with regard to social capital in the United States it was not surprising that Bowling Alone became a powerful focus for debate.  

Exhibit 2: Putnam - why social capital is important

---

First, social capital allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily… People often might be better off if they cooperate, with each doing her share. ...

Second, social capital greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly. Where people are trusting and trustworthy, and where they are subject to repeated interactions with fellow citizens, everyday business and social transactions are less costly….

A third way is which social capital improves our lot is by widening our awareness of the many ways in which our fates are linked... When people lack connection to others, they are unable to test the veracity of their own views, whether in the give or take of casual conversation or in more formal deliberation. Without such an opportunity, people are more likely to be swayed by their worse impulses….

The networks that constitute social capital also serve as conduits for the flow of helpful information that facilitates achieving our goals…. Social capital also operates through psychological and biological processes to improve individual’s lives.  … Community connectedness is not just about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable and well-documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference to our lives.

Robert Putnam (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster: 288-290

---

His conclusion that that the possession of social capital held great significance in terms of human wellbeing struck a chord. 

Types of social capital

Those concerned with social capital have looked to the density of social networks that people are involved in; the extent to which they are engaged with others in informal, social activities; and their membership of groups and associations (see la via associative). Their big worry is that in the USA, for example, there has been a significant decline in the active membership of associations (like PTAs, football teams and community groups) and a corresponding increase in individualized leisure activities (most especially watching television). For example, there has been drop in the number of people involved in league (team) bowling and a growth in individual bowling (hence the title of Putnam’s (2000) book – Bowling Alone). The result is that social capital is weakened (see below).

Exhibit 3: Bridging, bonding and linking social capital

---

Michael Woolcock, a social scientist with the World Bank (and Harvard) has helpfully argued that many of the key contributions prior to Bowling Alone failed to make a proper distinction between different types of social capital. He distinguished between:

Bonding social capital which denotes ties between people in similar situations, such as immediate family, close friends and neighbours.

Bridging social capital, which encompasses more distant ties of like persons, such as loose friendships and workmates.

Linking social capital, which reaches out to unlike people in dissimilar situations, such as those who are entirely outside of the community, thus enabling members to leverage a far wider range of resources than are available in the community. (Woolcock 2001: 13-4)

---

The Putnam team looked to whether social capital is bonding (or exclusive) and/or bridging (or inclusive). Putnam suggested that the former may be more inward looking and have a tendency to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. The latter may be more outward-looking and encompass people across different social divides (Putnam 2000: 22). 

Bonding capital is good for under-girding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity… Bridging networks, by contrast, are better for linkage to external  assets and for information diffusion…. Moreover, bridging social capital can generate broader identities and reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves…. Bonding social capital constitutes a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a sociological WD-40. (ibid.: 22-23)

These were not seen as either-or categories to which social networks can neatly assigned – ‘but “more-or-less” dimensions along which we can compare different forms of social capital (ibid.: 23).  However, Putnam did not really look at linking social capital nor did he come to grips with the implications of different forms of social capital i.e. that 'different combinations of the three types of social capital will produce different outcomes (Field 2003: 42).

The decline of social capital in the USA

Putnam demonstrated that on a range of indicators of civic engagement including voting, political participation, newspaper readership, and participation in local associations that there were serious grounds for concern. It appeared that America’s social capital was in decline.  First in the realm of civic engagement and social connectedness he was able to demonstrate that, for example, over the last three decades of the twentieth century there had been a fundamental shift in:

Political and civic engagement. Voting, political knowledge, political trust, and grassroots political activism are all down. Americans sign 30 per cent fewer petitions and are 40 per cent less likely to join a consumer boycott, as compared to just a decade or two ago. The declines are equally visible in non-political community life: membership and activity in all sorts of local clubs and civic and religious organizations have been falling at an accelerating pace. In the mid-1970s the average American attended some club meeting every month, by 1998 that rate of attendance had been cut by nearly 60 per cent.

Informal social ties. In 1975 the average American entertained friends at home 15 times per year; the equivalent figure (1998) is now barely half that. Virtually all leisure activities that involve doing something with someone else, from playing volleyball to playing chamber music, are declining.

Tolerance and trust. Although Americans are more tolerant of one another than were previous generations, they trust one another less. Survey data provide one measure of the growth of dishonesty and distrust, but there are other indicators. For example, employment opportunities for police, lawyers, and security personnel were stagnant for most of this century - indeed, America had fewer lawyers per capita in 1970 than in 1900. But in the last quarter century these occupations have boomed, as people have increasingly turned to the courts and the police. (summarized from Putnam 2000)

He went on to examine the possible reasons for this decline. Crucially, he was able to demonstrate that some favourite candidates for blame could not be regarded as significant. Residential mobility had actually been declining for the last half of the century. Time pressure, especially on two-career families, could only be a marginal candidate. Some familiar themes remained though:

• Changes in family structure (i.e. with more and more people living alone), are a possible element as conventional avenues to civic involvement are not well-designed for single and childless people.
• Suburban sprawl has fractured the spatial integrity of people’s. They travel much further to work, shop and enjoy leisure  opportunities. As a result there is less time available (and less inclination) to become involved in groups. Suburban sprawl is a very significant contributor. (See, for example, Duany et. al. 2000)
• Electronic entertainment, especially television, has profoundly privatized leisure time. The time we spend watching television is a direct drain upon involvement in groups and social capital building activities. It may contribute up to 40 per cent of the decline in involvement in groups

However, generational change came out as a very significant factor. A "long civic generation," born in the first third of the twentieth century, was passing from the American scene. 'Their children and grandchildren (baby boomers and Generation X-ers) are much less engaged in most forms of community life. For example, the growth in volunteering over the last ten years is due almost entirely to increased volunteering by retirees from the long civic generation' (http://www.bowlingalone.com/media.php3).

Subsequently, there has been some evidence appearing linked to working patterns - with only one third of British workers, for example, working 'normal hours'. Halpern (2009a) comments, 'A consequence of our modern service economy appears to be that the majority of people now work part-time or do shift work, leading to a ‘de-synchronisation’ of our leisure and social activities'. One study, by Matt Clark and associates (forthcoming but quoted by Halpern), found that 'even controlling for levels of working hours, those who do shift work end up spending substantially less time in social and participative activities' (op. cit.).

Some critiques and developments of the Bowling Alone thesis

Francis Fukuyama (1999) raised some useful questions around the ‘Putnam thesis’ and the late Everett C. Ladd (1999) was very critical of the approach – disputing the interpretation much of the evidence in Putnam's original (1995) article. Ladd's argument was that American civic life was not so much in decline but rather 'churning'. Some organizations had lost members, others had sprung up in their place. He believed that 'the individualism at the heart of the country's conception of citizenship gave Americans no alternative but to cooperate with one another' (Lenkowsky 2000). Lenkowsky continues:

This being so, ebbs and flows in organizational membership should be seen as stemming not from any broad disaffection with civic groups or public life per se but from uncertainty about how best to work together during changing times. The very concern sparked by Putnam's lament was itself, Ladd suggested, a sign of America's still abundant supply of social capital.

However, Ladd was writing prior to the marshalling of evidence in Bowling Alone (Putnam 2000). In many respects, Ladd's central thesis was undermined by the data assembled by Putnam.

Four more recent contributions have shed new light on the interpretation put on the data.

From membership to management in American civic life

First, Theda Skocpol has powerfully demonstrated that one of the most significant changes lies in the changing shape of associational life. In particular she questions the over-focus in the work of Putnam and others on the workings of local groups and associations. 'American civic voluntarism', she writes, 'was never predominantly local and never flourished apart from national government and politics' (Skocpol 2003: 12). Social capital theorists have tended to examine 'all forms of social connectedness at once' (ibid: 176). Rather than there being some major generational shift, she suggests, a 'confluence of trends and events sparked a shift from membership mobilization to managerial forms of civic organizing'. She continues:

After 1960 epochal changes in racial ideals and gender relationships delegitimated old-line US membership associations and pushed male and female leaders in new directions. New political opportunities and challenges drew resources and civic activists toward centrally managed lobbying. Innovative technologies and sources of financial support enabled new, memberless models of association building to take hold. And finally, shifts in American class structure and elite careers created a broad constituency for professionally managed organizing... The most privileged Americans can now organize and contend largely among themselves, without regularly engaging the majority of citizens. (Skocpol 2003: 178)

There may well have been a decline in social capital, but these shifts are perhaps more significant and have led to 'fraying' of vital links in US associational life.

Community participation

A second significant contribution has come from those theorists exploring the realities and experiences of family and work life. Here, the work of Ann Bookman (2004) is of interest. She argues that we need to extend our appreciation of what constitutes community participation - especially if we are interested in what women do. Bookman has drawn attention to the informal connections formed to help with family care - and which do not register with many social capital commentators.

New forms of "social capital" - just as important as money in the bank - are developing among working families in both urban and suburban environments. These new relationships are binding us together and reshaping our communities in a literal and social sense. (Bookman 2004: 19)

Bookman charts the ways in which working families reach out to each other and to community-based programmes to address the issues they face - especially around caring for children and relatives (ibid.: 25). In addition she draws attention to the impact of what she describes as the 'stalled gender revolution' - and the extent to which women are still expected to shoulder disproportionate responsibilities for care, community engagement and domestic functioning.

Hybrid associations

Third, as Robert J. Sampson and his associates on the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, have shown in their multi-cohort study, while traditional associations like close relationships with neighbours are declining, other 'hybrid' associations are beginning to be significant. One of these is the non-profit organization which is an important site of collective action (Sampson et. al. 2005).

Social capital and inequality

Last, there has been some significant discussion with regard to the relationship between social capital and inequality. As Wilkenson and Pickett (2009: 54) put it, 'does inequality create low levels of trust, or does mistrust create inequality?'. Putnam (2000: 359) viewed community and inequality as 'mutually reinforcing', with casual arrows running in both directions. However, commentators such as Eric Uslaner (2002) along with Bo Rothstein (Rothstein and Uslaner 2005; Rothstein 2005) have argued that it is inequality that affects trust rather than the other way around. The causality lies with inequality.

While we can see that there have been some significant changes in the ways that people engage with local institutions and networks, we need, thus, to be careful of arguing for an overall decline. There may well have been a movement, as Skocpol (2003) put it, away from active membership toward professionalization and management in civic life. There may also have been a decline in involvement in local associations and groups, and in national membership organizations and fellowship groups - but whether this adds up to a significant diminution in social capital s another matter. At present, the balance of evidence as far as the USA, UK and other Anglo-Saxon countries, as well as France, are concerned is that there has been a broadly similar decline (Halpern 2009b). In other countries, such as in Scandinavia, trust levels have remained relatively high and even increased. As Bo Rothstein (1998) has argued, this can in part be explained by differing moral and political logics in societies. Thus, while in the USA and UK there has been a significant shift towards privatisation and individualism, this can be contrasted with a less egotistic and more mutual or 'solidaristic individualism' in some societies (ibid.: 199. See, also, Rothstein 2005).

The concrete benefits associated with social capital

While the jury may be out over aspects of the arguments around decline, Putnam's assessment of the benefits of what he defines as social capital remains an important reference point. He is able to demonstrate that:

• Child development is powerfully shaped by social capital. Trust, networks, and norms of reciprocity within a child’s family, school, peer group, and larger community have far reaching effects on their opportunities and choices, educational achievement, and hence on their behaviour and development (ibid.: 296-306).
  
• In high social-capital areas public spaces are cleaner, people are friendlier, and the streets are safer. Traditional neighbourhood “risk factors” such as high poverty and residential mobility are not as significant as most people assume. Places have higher crime rates in large part because people don’t participate in community organizations, don’t supervise younger people, and aren’t linked through networks of friends (ibid.: 307-318). As Sampson and his associates have also shown those communities with 'collective efficacy' - the confidence to intervene born of higher rates of social capital - are characterized by lower crime rates.
  
• A growing body of research suggests that where trust and social networks flourish, individuals, firms, neighbourhoods, and even nations prosper economically. Social capital can help to mitigate the insidious effects of socioeconomic disadvantage (ibid.: 319-325). The growing presence of non-profit organizations in some areas as one aspect of this (see Sampson et. al. 2005). Another is the quality of the networks in the 'underground economy of the urban poor' (Venkatesh 2006).
  
• There appears to be a strong relationship between the possession of social capital and better health. ‘As a rough rule of thumb, if you belong to no groups but decide to join one, you cut your risk of dying over the next year in half. If you smoke and belong to no groups, it’s a toss-up statistically whether you should stop smoking or start joining’ (ibid.: 331). Regular club attendance, volunteering, entertaining, or church attendance is the happiness equivalent of getting a college degree or more than doubling your income. Civic connections rival marriage and affluence as predictors of life happiness (ibid.: 333). (See, also, Wilkinson and Pickett 2009).
  

Many of these findings have been underlined by subsequent explosion in studies around happiness and well-being (see, for example, Haidt 2006, Offer 2006).

The World Bank (1999) has also brought together a range of statistics to make the case for the social and economic benefits of social capital. For example they argue that there is evidence that schools are more effective when parents and local citizens are actively involved. 'Teachers are more committed, students achieve higher test scores, and better use is made of school facilities in those communities where parents and citizens take an active interest in children’s educational well-being'. They also indicate some negative impacts, for example, when disgruntled local elites joined together to close health clinics in Uttar Pradesh. Child mortality rates soared as a result (The World Bank).

Social capital in organizations

The idea of looking at social capital in firms and organizations was, as Cohen and Prusak (2001: 6) said, relatively new. This may be because of the way in which the dominance of more mechanistic and system-oriented conceptions of organizational activity have 'masked their deeply social nature (op. cit.). A number of those concerned with organizational development, like Cohen and Prusak, have become increasingly suspicious of the 'people, processes, technology' mantra, 'ceaselessly intoned as a summary of the sources of organizational effectiveness' (ibid.: 8). There has, of course, been a significant embracing of the notion of human capital - but those writing about it rarely approach the social nature of organizations - and often fall prey to a tendency to draw upon theories and metaphors that derive financial and physical notions of capital. The argument of those concerned with social capital is that when harnessed it generates economic returns. More particularly, the benefits claimed include:

Better knowledge sharing, due to established trust relationships, common frames of reference, and shared goals.

Lower transaction costs, due to a high level of trust and a cooperative spirit (both within the organization and between the organization and its customers and partners).
Low turnover rates, reducing severance costs and hiring and training expenses, avoiding discontinuities associated with frequent personnel changes, and maintaining valuable organizational knowledge.
Greater coherence of action due to organizational stability and shared understanding. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 10)

Given the relative infancy of the application of social capital to organizational life there is little sustained or substantial research that can support attention to the notion within organizations. It certainly isn't the key to success (ibid.: 11), but it is part of the fabric of organizational life - and the need to engage with it is, arguably, growing. The increasing complexity of organizations and the scale of informational activity; globalization; external and internal volatility; and what Cohen and Prusak (2001: 155-181) call 'the challenge of virtuality' (work carried out over a distance of time and space) all contribute here. 

Informal education and social capital

Robert Putnam’s discussion of social capital, in particular, provides informal educators with a powerful rationale for their activities. After all the classic working environment for the informal educator is the group, club or organization. The evidence and analysis also provides a case against those who want to target work towards those who present the most significant problems and tie informal educators’ activities to the achievement of specific outcomes in individuals. Several points need underlining here.

First, from the material marshalled by Putnam and others we can see that the simple act of joining and being regularly involved in organized groups has a very significant impact on individual health and well-being. Working so that people may join groups – whether they are organized around enthusiasms and interests, social activity, or economic and political aims – can make a considerable contribution in itself. Encouraging the development of associational life can also make a significant difference to the experience of being in different communities. Here we might highlight the case of schooling. Educational achievement is likely to rise significantly, and the quality of day-to-day interaction is likely to be enhanced by a much greater emphasis on the cultivation of extra-curricula activity involving groups and teams.

Second, informal education’s longstanding concern with association and the quality of life in associations can make a direct and important contribution to the development of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that is usually involved) and the strengthening of democracy. Informal educators interest in dialogue and conversation, and the cultivation of environments in which people can work together, take them to the heart of what is required to strengthen and develop social capital and civic society. Their ethical position also demands they attend to the downsides of networks – in particular, the extent to which they are oppressive and narrowing. A focus on tolerance and the acceptance, if not the celebration, of difference is required. There is a place for bridging, bonding and linking social capital.

Third, there is a strong argument here against those who wish to concentrate the bulk of resources on groups and individuals who present the strongest social problems (currently the received thinking among many policymakers). If we follow Putnam’s analysis through then we can see that, for example, crime can be reduced, educational achievement enhanced and better health fostered through the strengthening of social capital. Significantly this entails working across communities – and in particular sustaining the commitment and capacities already involved in community organizations and enthusiast groups, and encouraging those on the cusp of being actively involved. The majority of the people we are talking about here cannot be classified as suffering from multiple disadvantage, will not be engaged in criminal activity, and will be (or have been) engaged with education systems and/or the world of work. In other words, open and generic work needs to be afforded a far higher priority – and so-called ‘issue-based’ work needs to be more closely interrogated as to the benefits it brings.

Conclusion - some issues with the notion of social capital

To conclude it is worth highlighting four key issues with regard to the notion of social capital. The way in which the notion of social capital is used by the central writers Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam while offering some important insights, and a focus for data collection and analysis, is not as yet rich theoretically. This may simply mean that more work needs to be done, or imply that the concept itself is problematic.

First, while the notion of social capital clearly has some utility we need to be aware of the dangers of 'capitalization'. As Cohen and Prusak (2001: 9) have commented, not everything of value should be called 'capital'. There is a deep danger of skewing our consideration of social phenomenon and goods towards the economic. The notion of capital brings with it a whole set of discourses and inevitably links it, in the current context, to capitalism. 

Second, there has been a tendency not to locate exploration properly within a historical framework. Coleman and Putnam do analyse data and material over time - but fail to fully contextualize it. Skocpol (2003), by placing her work within historical analysis, has been able to show just how some of the important assumptions made by Putnam, for example, need to be questioned.

Third, much of the main work undertaken around social capital has failed to properly address the gender dimension of social capital. As we saw in the work of Skocpol (2003), Bookman (2004) and others, the way in which women engage and create local networks, and have to manage caring often falls beneath the radar of social capital researchers and theorists. To give him his due, Putnam does address gender in terms of changing patterns of local involvement - but does not theorize it substantially, nor does he really connect with the sorts of concerns that Bookman has been subsequently voicing around the way in which we think about networks of caring, for example.

Fourth, much of the discussion of social capital has treated it as a 'good thing'. Bourdieu, at least, was interested in the notion as a way of explaining how some were able to access resources and power, while others were not. However, the scale of local surveillance that can be involved, the possible impacts around what is deemed acceptable behaviour, and the ways in which horizons may be narrowed rather than expanded are not unambiguously 'good things'.

In terms of developing social analysis it might well be that those theorists who have explored individualization and globalization within society (and most particularly Beck 1992, 1999) have something more to offer than social capital theorists. That said, though, some of the empirical work that has been done linking involvement in associational life and participation in social networks to the enhancement of educational achievement, the promotion of health and the reduction of crime is of great significance. Social capital researchers, and Robert Putnam in particular, has done us a great service. While aspects of his argument and research will continue to be disputed over the coming years, his central message is surely true. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric.

Social Capital: A Crucial Concept in Understanding Social Production

1.      Definition

The concept and theory of social capital dates back to the origins of social science; however, recent scholarship has focused on social capital as a subject of social organization and a potential source of value that can be harnessed and converted for strategic and gainful purposes. According to Robert David Putnam, the central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all "social networks" and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other. Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions. Increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable. Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions that underpin a society; it is the glue that holds them together

However, social capital may not always be beneficial. Horizontal networks of individual citizens and groups that enhance community productivity and cohesion are said to be positive social capital assets whereas self-serving exclusive gangs and hierarchical patronage systems that operate at cross purposes to communitarian interests can be thought of as negative social capital burdens on society.

2.      History of the research on the concept

Robert David Putnam, if not the first one to write on the issue, is considered as the major author on the concept of social capital. He is a U.S. political scientist and professor at Harvard University, and is well-known for his writings on civic engagement and civil society along with social capital.

However, his work is concentrated on the United States only. His most famous (and controversial) work, Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences. Though he measured this decline in data of many varieties, his most striking point was that virtually every traditional civic, social, and fraternal organization had undergone a massive decline in membership.

From his research, a working group has formed at Harvard University and is called Saguaro Seminar. Most definitions around the social capital concept, notably those used by the World Bank, come from Putnam’s work and this research. 

3.      Measuring social capital

The Saguaro Seminar, in the continuation of Putnam’s work, has been elaborating various means to measure the level of social capital in different contexts. It says on its website that measurement of social capital is important for the three following reasons:

(a)   Measurement helps make the concept of social capital more tangible for people who find social capital difficult or abstract;

(b)   It increases our investment in social capital: in a performance-driven era, social capital will be relegated to second-tier status in the allocation of resources, unless organizations can show that their community-building efforts are showing results; and

(c)   Measurement helps funders and community organizations build more social capital. Everything that involves any human interaction can be asserted to create social capital, but the real question is does it build a significant amount of social capital, and if so, how much? Is a specific part of an organization’s effort worth continuing or should it be scrapped and revamped? Do mentoring programs, playgrounds, or sponsoring block parties lead more typically to greater social capital creation?

The working group has undertaken the following measurement activities:

1. Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey:

In 2000, we conducted the largest-ever survey on the civic engagement of U.S. Americans, in partnership with nearly three-dozen community foundations (and other funders). Nearly 30,000 respondents were surveyed in 40 communities across 29 states. For more information on this survey follow this link:

2. Social Capital Short-form Survey:

Based on the 2000 survey and other surveys in 2001/2002, the Saguaro Seminar has distilled down the 25–minute Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey into a Short Form that has 5–10 minutes of questions.

3. Social capital toolkit:

The Saguaro Seminar has developed a framework for how community leaders and others should think about efforts to build local social capital.

4. Program evaluation guide:

The Program Evaluation Guide is intended for nonprofit organizations, businesses, or other entities that want to examine the social capital impact of their work. It is less directive than the Social Capital Short Form Survey in suggesting the questions one should use and which respondents one should survey. See the website at: 

5. Social capital impact statement:

The working group has spent some time into trying to think about the social capital impact of various actions (prospectively):

4.      Related concepts

(a)   Civil society and social capital

Social capital within a nongovernmental organization (NGO)

Trust and willingness to cooperate allows people to form groups and associations, which facilitate the realization of shared goals.

Grameen Bank (Bangladesh) lends money to rural poor, especially women, at a daily loan volume of $1.5 million and has a 98% repayment rate. The organization was started in 1976 by Muhammad Yunus, who lent money to 42 persons, because he trusted they would repay it. Since then members have developed rules to maximize repayment of loans, but trust still plays a critical role in the organization’s success, particularly in the absence of collateral (Uphoff, Esman and Krishna, 1997).

Social capital and civil society can promote welfare and economic development

When the state is weak or not interested, civil society and the social capital it engenders can be a crucial provider of informal social insurance and can facilitate economic development.

Six-S (Burkina Faso) is a loose federation of rural organizations supported by more formal international NGOs. Social capital has helped Six-S to mobilize over 1 million villagers in 1,500 communities in West Africa in an effort to create better agriculture opportunities during the dry season. (Uphoff, Esman and Krishna, 1997).

Social capital across sectors

State, market and civil society can increase their effectiveness by contributing jointly to the provision of welfare and economic development. The success of this synergy is based on complementary rather than substitutable inputs, trust, freedom of choice and incentives of parties to cooperate (Evans 1996, Ostrom 1996).

Social Capital Workshop

Earlier this year, the Policy Research Initiative (PRI) launched an interdepartmental research project entitled Social Capital as a Public Policy Tool. The objectives of this project are to understand the potential of social capital to affect public policy outcomes in Canada; to develop and build consensus around an analytical and measurement framework that will have practical applications for various federal policy departments; and to transfer lessons learned and policy recommendations to key players in the policy and research communities.
Members of the interdepartmental working group on social capital met on March 26, 2003. At that time they indicated that an important early step in the project would be to gather input from departments as to the directions an analytical and measurement framework should take. As a result, an interdepartmental consultation workshop was organized for June 19, 2003.
The one-day workshop was designed to solicit structured input from informed federal policy researchers and managers. Representatives from 15 departments and agencies attended, and in total there were about 50 participants. In advance of the workshop, the PRI prepared and circulated a set of background papers (which follow this report) and discussion questions around three themes:

• conceptualization of social capital;
• measurement of social capital; and
• policy implications of social capital.

This report presents key messages that emerged from the workshop. As many of the same messages were raised repeatedly across the thematic areas, the findings below are not broken down by discussion questions. Rather, they reflect an attempt to distill and synthesize key elements that arose from the discussion as a whole. These findings will guide the production of a discussion paper presenting an analytical and measurement framework for federal policy research and development on social capital, and recommendations for the use and integration of social capital in the Canadian policy agenda.

Findings
…on the definition and measurement of social capital
A leaner definition of social capital may be more widely useful.

• While social capital may contain multiple dimensions with complex interconnections to the wider social, political, economic, and cultural environment, it may not be helpful to attempt to capture all these elements in a single definition.
• A leaner definition would lend itself to being operationalized in many different ways, depending on the issue in question.
• There was some degree of consensus (with a vocal dissenting minority) that social capital should be defined primarily in terms of networks of social relations.
• It is these networks that convey social capital and provide their members with access to various kinds of resources and supports.
• Other more qualitative dimensions of social capital associated with how these relations work (i.e., network-specific values, norms, and trust) may or may not be important to study depending on the specific issue at hand.

Policy questions should drive the way we operationalize a theoretically informed approach to studying social capital.

• Those aspects of social capital we wish to study and measure cannot be determined in the abstract but will depend on the policy questions of interest. A conceptual focus on networks provides a means of ensuring consistent measurement across a variety of policy applications.
• We must ensure that government efforts to research and operationalize social capital are connected to federal policy and program objectives.
• Immigrant integration and diversity, health, economic participation, and social inclusion were among the policy areas identified at the workshop as likely to benefit from a social capital perspective.

Context matters.

• Social capital networks are dynamic, not static; they can be quite episodic and context specific. (A network that forms around one issue or activity may or may not continue to be active after the original issue or activity is concluded.)
• Specific manifestations of social capital may be highly useful in achieving certain outcomes, while of limited value or even counterproductive in achieving others.
• For example, bonding social capital (homogeneous ties inside the group of belonging) is crucial for new immigrants in "getting by" on a day-to-day basis, but may later be less useful than bridging social capital (linkages to groups and institutions outside of the ethnic community) for "getting ahead."
• Similarly, different dimensions of social capital (e.g., levels of trust within the network or the gender of the network members) may be critical for determining outcomes in one area, but of only marginal importance in others.
• The potential impact of social capital on various outcomes will vary depending on the ways in which its effects are enhanced or diminished by the wider social, political, economic, and cultural environment.
• Organizations and institutions may play an important and varied role in facilitating or hindering the development and operation of social capital.

Greater care is necessary when studying social capital at higher levels of aggregation.

• As social capital is a highly context-dependent phenomenon, the validity and reliability of measures of social capital and its impact are much greater at the micro-level (e.g., among individuals in particular networks or within specified neighbourhoods).
• Depending on the policy issue at hand, it may however be desirable to study social capital at higher levels of aggregation (e.g., region, province, nation).
• Serious concerns exist about many of the present approaches around the world to studying social capital at the national aggregate level.
• The ability to link micro and macro spheres is conceptually possible if, in both cases, we start with a common framework based on individuals and the networks of social relations of which they are a part.

Specific and generalized trust should be distinguished.

• This is a particular example of the same issue.
• Trust between members of a specific network is an important feature that allows that network to function and endure.
• We cannot assume that this necessarily translates into more generalized trust.
• As a result, the emphasis on measures of generalized trust as a proxy for social capital may be misplaced.
• The widely used "classic question" on trust is poorly designed. There is evidence from the United Kingdom that the answer given by respondents will vary enormously depending on the wider theme of the survey in which it is included (i.e., a health survey that includes the classic trust question gets dramatically different results from a crime survey).

Distinctions must be made between social capital's core components, its determinants, and its outcomes.

• Mixing up these components is the source of much of the confusion in the literature and in policy discussions about social capital.
• We may wish to end up talking about any or all of these depending on the policy question and specific context, but they should be kept analytically distinct.
• We need to better understand the actual mechanism of social capital formation (i.e., "what's inside the black box").
• Other dimensions of social life that are often (but inaccurately) categorized under the broad banner of "social capital" (e.g., generalized trust, civic and social participation, attitudes, etc.) are important and can be the object of study in their own right.

…on the policy implications of social capital
Social capital is a possible means to an end, not an end in itself.

• We should not be thinking about a national strategy to build social capital or a policy statement to increase the social capital of Canadians for its own sake.
• Social capital itself is best understood as a means or process for accessing various forms of resources and support through networks of social relations.
• The idea is to place emphasis on the possible role of social capital, as a resource and a process, in facilitating the achievement of broader policy objectives, such as immigrant integration, economic participation, or improved education and health outcomes.

Social capital is not a panacea.

• More social capital will not necessarily always lead to better outcomes; while there are high levels of social capital in certain First Nations communities, for example, its presence is not sufficient to overcome extreme poverty.
• Social capital can sometimes also facilitate negative or perverse outcomes.
• Social capital alone may not always be enough to achieve objectives, but it may be a useful complement or reinforcement for other policy tools and resources in achieving policy/program objectives. For example, it is particularly relevant in the area of immigrant integration where it can complement other integration tools such as language training.
• We may not be able simply to switch social capital on or off by itself and produce desired outcomes. Rather, we must appreciate that it is only one element in a wider world of complex social processes.

Steps could be taken to better integrate a social capital lens into the development and implementation of federal programs and policies.

• A social capital lens in policy/program development and implementation could start with raising awareness across government about its potential role in achieving (or obstructing) policy objectives.
• While many policies and programs are already incorporating elements of social capital (e.g., social capital-building practices, such as inter-community partnerships, are often used as funding requirements), there could be more systematic tracking of the use of social capital in achieving program outcomes.
• To this end, the government can be more active in developing and refining measurement tools and indicators to register the presence of social capital and assess its impacts on program outcomes.
• Identifying the effects of social capital on existing program outcomes could facilitate their reproduction in other program areas.
• We must ensure that programs and policies across government do not work at cross-purposes in the ways in which they incorporate or affect social capital; seemingly unrelated government interventions (e.g., in areas of transportation, housing, etc.) might actually undermine social capital resources that other programs are counting on to achieve their objectives.
  

Appendix A - Discussion Questions, June 19 Social Capital Workshop
On Conceptualization
Social capital involves networks of social relations that can facilitate outcomes. This said, we must consider the best way to define and conceptualize social capital more precisely, given the differences in approach in the literature.

• Specifically, should norms generally, and trust in particular, be considered an integral component of social capital itself - or are they only complements and/or potential outcomes?
• Similarly, should the resources or abilities of each of the members of a social network be considered a part of social capital, or only a complement?
• Can we conceptualize social capital in a way that has a consistent meaning at both the micro-levels of individuals, families, and neighbourhoods, and at the macro-levels of cities, regions, and nations?
• Are there other potential configurations of social capital we might identify beyond bonding, bridging, and linking that would be helpful for public policy research and development?

On Measurement
The United Kingdom and Australia have adopted the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition for framework development and measurement:
networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups.

• Is this the operational definition that should be adopted to guide measurement in the Canadian context?
• What are the key components of social capital that need to be operationalized and measured?
• What is the appropriate unit of analysis/measurement?
• What levels of aggregation are needed (e.g., geographic areas, population groups)?
• What outcome measures are most important?

On Policy Implications

• What policy areas could benefit most from a social capital perspective? Are there any particular policy issues that can be informed by additional research on social capital?
• What programs in the federal government (or other levels of government) already affect the accumulation of various forms of social capital, even if not articulated in these terms?
• Is there a need to develop a more consistent and integrated approach to the use of social capital for policy across the federal government?
• There are several ways of incorporating a social capital perspective into policy. These range from
  • viewing social capital formation as a primary policy objective;
  • including social capital as a tool, among others, for achieving mainstream policy objectives; and
  • using a social capital "lens" in policy development and implementation.
• In light of these various models, what are the prime opportunities for action?
• What are the potential jurisdictional issues/implications?

Elderly and Internet and Computer Skills, An Update

Social Capital Divide between the young and the elderly
A social capital divide between elderly and younger people on the Internet is best described as a difference in resources that are created in social networks and relationships between people and that have a certain value or benefit for individuals participating in this network/relationships. Social capital can be created with participating in online networks such as Myspace. Age differences in online networking in Myspace exist. Elderly have fewer friends and mostly from age groups outside their own age compared to teenagers. Older people tend to be more careful and selective when choosing their friends on MySpace and only want to add to their friends list people that they know very well. Older people tend to represent themselves in a more formal and official way compared to teenagers. They tend to use less videos, music and the exchange of comments.

Learning computer skills
Another problem with the elderly can be a lack of computer skills. Despite the advantages of the Internet and advances in electronic communication, utilization of the Internet among older adults is relatively low. Improving computer skills of the elderly can enable them to access health information on the Internet and improve their health knowledge. Courses such as e-health programs can enhance the use of computers for improving knowledge of online health information. Your never to old to learn computer skills. Moreover, experience with technology, and not age, accounts for observed lifelong changes in digital literacy skills. Digital literacy improves with training in all age groups, the adult group improved significantly more than the younger participants.

A digital generational divide is developing
This indicates a gap between digitally literate users and the elderly. This has disadvantages especially for the elderly since new media and co-creation have the potential to increase individuals’ flexibility, expand opportunities for information retrieval and learning, and compensate for functional limitations such as reduced mobility, vision, hearing, and cognitive abilities. If you want to read more about how the elderly differ from the young in Internet use please read The Generational Divide in Internet use. Why this is important? These points should be kept in mind when creating a social network for the elderly. If you want to speed up the process of changing the elderly peoples’ use of computers and online communities think about these findings.

Social Capital and Health

Social capital is a by-product of our social relationships that makes possible the achievement of certain aims that cannot be accomplished by individuals in its absence . It is premised upon the notion that an “investment” in a relationship will ultimately result in some sort of “return”. In other words, social capital has (1) a relational element residing in the social organizations of which the individual is a member, and (2) a material element that relates to the resources to which that individual has claim by virtue of his or her membership within the group. Accordingly, social capital enables individuals to use the relationships they develop to “get by” (e.g., gain emotional support and caregiving) or to “get ahead” (e.g., information sharing) (Lin, 2001), both of which have implications for health and well being.

The contribution of social capital to health has been demonstrated in a variety of fields, particularly within epidemiology. Wilkinson (1996) first introduced social capital to the public health field, arguing in 2000 that “an important part of the social gradient in human health is attributable to the direct effects of social status, rather than to other influences on health like poorer housing, diet and air pollution” (p. 413). Since then, Macinko and Starfield (2001) determined social capital has been applied in four ways in the epidemiology literature: “(1) as an explanatory ‘pathway' in the relationship between income equality and health status; (2) as a factor in the study of social networks and health; (3) as a mediator of the performance of health policies or reforms; and (4) as synonymous with social deprivation or social cohesion in relationship with violence and crime” (p. 400). Meanwhile, Szreter and Woolcock (2004) noted social capital has links to health in three main ways: social support, inequality, and political economy. Our intent here by noting the various ways social capital has been studied is simply to demonstrate the breadth of the social capital scholarship within the epidemiological literature. More importantly, we emphasize that the volume and diversity of the empirical evidence demonstrating the significance of social capital as a determinant of at least some important health outcomes is quite impressive. Indeed, health researchers have long known that, at an individual level, networks, social participation, and supportive social relationships are good for individual health. People with strong social ties, for instance, have mortality half or a third of that of people with weak social ties (Berkman, 1995; House, Landis & Umberson, 1988), and low social support predicts coronary heart disease (Bosma et al., 1997). Notwithstanding the importance of these findings, studies in epidemiology have focused on social capital and its effects without considering context, notably place, as a serious dimension in such examinations.

Third Places

Here, we use the term place deliberately, in contrast to space , which is “a realm without meaning” (Cresswell, 2004, p. 10). Place is defined by more than biophysical elements; it refers to the socio-cultural meanings and emotional attachments held by an individual or group for a spatial setting. Accordingly, this conceptualization recognizes that places are social constructions insofar as their meanings are “created and reproduced through interpersonal interaction, formalized in social behaviour, and ultimately persist in collective memory” (Stokowski, 2002, p. 372). Put another way, the accumulation of experiences within a place personalizes it and gives it meaning (Stedman, 2003; Tuan, 1977). By attributing meaning to a space, individuals become attached to the meanings themselves (Stedman, 2003). Consequently, “the connections people have with a place extend far beyond use; they are layered with very passionate and deep-seated personal elements” (Cheng, Kruger & Daniels, 2003). Ultimately, Stokowski (2002) argued, “each effort to create a place becomes an elaboration of the beliefs and values of some collection of people, expressed and fostered in their promotion of a preferred reality” (p. 374). The construction of place, therefore, involves a process of relationship building that ultimately reflects a collective identity that we believe can be used as a resource to aid in the maintenance and enhancement of individual health. This proposal aims to investigate this possibility.

In particular, we are interested in third places , informal gathering places apart from home (the first place) and work (the second place). Oldenburg, the originator of this concept, defined third places as “havens of sociability where conversation is the main activity and conviviality prevails” (2003, p. 1373). In his writings about third place, Oldenburg has argued third places give extended meaning to the concept of the support group. That is, they provide “not only emotional support but practical assistance as well. As acquaintances evolve into friends, the desire to help others grows. Needed items are loaned or given, as is skill, advice, and expertise. Time, effort, and money are saved when needs and problems are mentioned in the company of friends” ( Oldenburg , 2003, p. 1375). This description is consistent with social capital theory, yet Oldenburg and other scholars have failed to identify the explicit connection. It does, however, fit well with a theoretical framework we have developed to explain the process of social capital development for health and well-being (Glover & Parry, 2005).

A Model of Social Capital Development

Our model (see figure 1) begins with sociability at its core. Indeed, if social capital is about anything, it is about what Portes (1998) called “the positive consequences of sociability” (p. 2). Settings, like third places (e.g., Gilda's club), that encourage social contact draw relative strangers together routinely and frequently, thus building a durable social network for those involved. Moreover, these social contexts serve an important function in terms of facilitating the ongoing maintenance and sustainability of social relationships. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) noted, “social relationships generally, though not always, are strengthened through interaction but die out if not maintained” (p. 258). This observation ultimately speaks to an accepted notion upon which social capital is premised: The maintenance and reproduction of social capital are made possible only through the social interactions of members and the continued investment in social relationships (Portes, 1998). Repeated social contact reaffirms the sociable bonds among individuals. To this end, ongoing sociability is paramount to the sustainability of relationships that provide some return to the individual. 

The relationships developed in social contexts can lead to certain spin off effects or byproducts of those relationships. These by-products, conceptualized here as social capital (e.g., norms of reciprocity, obligation, group sanctions), are crucial to an individual's health, for they can facilitate three forms of action: (1) expressive, (2) instrumental, and (3) obstructive. The first, expressive action , fits within the social support school of thought insofar as it facilitates emotional support, thereby helping individuals maintain their emotional well-being. Here, group solidarity is cemented by a common experience of adversity (e.g., dealing with cancer). The second form of action, instrumental , is tied to the material dimension of social capital, which gives members of a social network access to resources. Acquiring valuable information from friends and acquaintances is one of the most common, yet important by-products of relationships. Cancer patients, for instance, may share their treatment experiences, notes about doctors, and various tips or advice they received regarding their conditions. By providing access to this information, these individuals help to advance their own health and that of their friends who are also dealing with cancer. While getting ahead does not necessarily mean “curing” their cancer, the information they gain and put to use places them further along in coping with their experiences and aids in their decision making processes. In short, instrumental action allows individuals to “get ahead” by gaining access to resources to which they would otherwise have no access. Finally, the third form of action, obstructive , recognizes the harm relationships can have on individual health. Correspondingly, its inclusion in the model provides a more balanced perspective related to social capital and health insofar as it acknowledges the ill-effects relationships can create for individuals. In direct contrast to instrumental action, obstructive action can represent a set back or keep an individual from getting ahead. In our findings from our study of women dealing with infertility, we offered many examples related to this outcome. Notably, research participants who remained infertile felt compelled to support friends who conceived or adopted children, even though such support made them feel uncomfortable and upset about their own situations. The activities that generated stress in the participants were, more often than not, child centered activities such as birthday parties, baby showers, toy-shopping, Easter egg hunts, and Halloween parties. All of these events served to remind the research participants of their own childlessness, thereby creating further stress in their lives. Nevertheless, the social norms and sanctions embedded in their friendships (e.g., social capital) compelled them to continue to support their friends under stressful circumstances. We aim to further explore the potential outcomes (e.g., expressive, instrumental, and obstructive action) of social capital developed in the context of Gilda's Club, with particular emphasis on the role of place as a container for the sociability that impacts upon health and well-being.

The Power of Participatory Education: Social Capital in Zimbabwe

“Woman’s place is in the Home, but Home is not contained within the four walls of an individual home. Home is the community.” – Rhetta Childe Dorr, 1910

Zimbabwe is a country in crisis. This is what the international news agencies tell you, and for the most part they are correct. As one moves around the country the signs that things are not well are everywhere: shops with little to nothing on their shelves or that have simply closed; long queues outside of supermarkets as shoppers hope to purchase half a loaf of bread; power fluctuations in Harare; no fuel available at the gas stations; and an inflation rate that has at last estimate surpassed 7,000%. However, not all is as it appears at first glance.

In fact, despite this apparent economic collapse, there are portions of Zimbabwean society that have thrived and increased their capital over the years. In the urban centers like Harare and Makoni, the amazing number of brand new luxury cars and SUVs show that the middle and upper class are thriving off of the black market that has supplanted the regular economy and now supports all life and commerce. In this Zimbabwe, people have clearly increased their access to financial, and in turn physical, capital. On the other hand, in some of the rural areas, even those considered to be the poorest and most vulnerable in all of Zimbabwe, communities are increasing their capital of another sort; social capital. Generally, social capital refers to the connections among individuals, including the social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.