Social Capital

In this article, Putnam defines social capital as a connection among individuals and the networks that arise from them. The more people work together the more social capital is produced. People who network together with shared norms facilitate cooperation. Putnam also defined social capital as "networks, norms, and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives".
Social capital allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily. People often might be better off if they cooperate. Social capital 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.
Social capital improves our life by widening our awareness of the many ways in which our fates are linked. Connecting people to others enables them to see how similar or dissimilar their views are to others. Without seeing different views, people are less likelyto be swayed.
The networks that constitute social capital also serve as conduits for the flow of helpful information that facilitates achieving our goals. 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.
Social capital makes a noticable difference in our lives. The interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can bring great benefits to people.
Putnam found that communities with low social capital also had an ineffective corrupt government. In his book, "Bowling Alone", Putnam feels that although joining groups has a positive outcome, membership in community groups continues to decline. Putnam cites the TV as part blame for this because watching TV left less time to socialize. Another reason for the decline in social groups relates to greater mobility. People are less likely to form ties in a community.
Trust is mentioned as an outcome of social capital. The more social we are, the more likely we are to trust those in out social network. Putnam mentions two types of trust. The trust we have in individuals we do not know and the those we do know.
The term "radius of trust" is used by Fukuyama to describe a circle of people one would trust such as friends and family. Referring to a "radius of trust", a lower standard of behavior would surface. Fukuyama feelsl this would be the fooundation for corruption.
It is important to distinguish between bridging, bonding, and linking social capital. In this article, Putnam does an excellent job in making this distinction. Bonding refers to the realtionship among family members and close friends. Bridging refers to relationships with distant friends, associates, and colleagues. Although these ties are considered to be more weaker, Putnam states they are more important in "getting ahead". This was puzzling to me at first. But it makes perfect sense. Weaker ties increase mobility opportunities because one is free to travel without that feeling of guilt experienced by strong bonds and ties. Linking social capital, which reaches out to unlike people in dissimilar situations, such as those who are entirely outside of the community increase a wider range of resources than are available in the community. (Woolcock 2001: 13-4)
Critics of Putnam's social capital claim the concept of it being a societal good is not always true. One of Ptnam's critics sited documented examples of organized crime or gangs that involved a societal network with shared norms but definitely not a societal good.
It is my opinion you create social capital when you volunteer your time, help a neighbor, or just peform random acts of kindness. Any time you participate in your community, you’re generating social capital, both for yourself and for the other people involved. People with lots of social capital can find help when they need it; those with little social capital can spend a lot of time frustrated and alone. Social capital is the glue that holds a community together and the resources needed for that same community to show growth.




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

http://www.infed.org/biblio/social_capital.htm