Conceptualisation and Theories of Social Capital

What is Social Capital？

According to the World Bank, research findings and the experience of CIIF funded-projects, social capital refers to the institutions, relationships and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions. Social capital includes social norms (personal attitudes and social values), networks and institutions.

Specifically, the six core social capital dimensions are (1) social networks; (2) trust and solidarity; (3) mutual-help and reciprocity; (4) social cohesion and inclusion; (5) social participation; and (6) information and communication.

Theorising Social Capital

In academia, well-known scholars in social capital theory mainly include Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman and Robert Putnam. Among them, Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman mainly studied social capital at an individual level, while Robert Putnam studied social capital at a community level.

Social Capital in Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory

Pierre Bourdieu’s (1977, 1980, 1986, 1990¹) main focus was on the ways in which society is reproduced. For Bourdieu, class reproduction could not only be explained by economics, but also by using cultural knowledge (i.e. cultural capital) in the dynamics of social class relations (i.e. social capital) (Bourdieu 1986; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992²). Social capital for Bourdieu is related to the size of the network and the volume of past accumulated social capital commanded by the agent (Bourdieu 1986: 249). The volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent depends on the size of the network of connections that people can effectively mobilise and on the volume of the capital (economic or cultural) possessed in their own right by each of those to whom they are connected (Bourdieu 1986). Bourdieu (1984³) argued that the different distribution of cultural capital among different kinds of people is linked to class distinctions. Both Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1986, 1990) and Crook (1997⁴) have pointed out that education can affect cultural practices. Through formal and informal (such as receiving education from parents) education, people from different classes obtain different types and levels of cultural capital. For example, people who go to some universities may have more chance to study classical music. The dominant class passes its cultural capital (such as high class manners and lifestyle) to its children as a way of securing its own social reproduction. Through this transmission of cultural capital, the classes of society (i.e. social capital) can be reproduced, and their economic capital can be maintained.

However, some scholars (Alexander 1996, Jenkins 1992⁵) have argued that Bourdieu’s theory is reductionist in its privileging of economic capital as the last source and eventual exchange form of all other capitals. In addition, similar to human capital and rational action theories (Goldthorpe 1996⁶), Bourdieu can be faulted for attributing an interest-bound, utility-orientation in all human action. This makes any automatic aggregation of social capital problematic (Schuller 2001: 12⁷).

Social Capital in James Coleman’s Theory

Like Bourdieu, Coleman (1988, 1990⁸) also views social capital as an individual asset and a collective resource. However, unlike Bourdieu, for Coleman, social capital is an aspect of a social structure, and it facilitates certain actions of individuals within the structure (1990: 302). Social capital is the resources, real or potential gained from relationships. In order for their interests to gain from the outcome of an event, actors engage in exchanges and transfers of resources. These social relationships serve important functions in facilitating the actions of individual actors; they form the basis of social capital.

For Coleman, social capital is productive, i.e. social capital has a clear instrumental purpose and is used so that actors can achieve particular ends that would have been impossible without it. Like Bourdieu, Coleman defines social capital as a collective resource which can be used by actors who are goal-oriented. Social capital needs an element of embeddedness in social structure. In addition, like Bourdieu, Coleman sees social capital as crucially inhabiting in the social structure of relationships among people. This is different from both financial and human capital. However, unlike Bourdieu, Coleman argues that social capital is as a bonding mechanism which is used to the integration of social structure (Coleman 1988, 1990).

Finally, for Coleman, social capital is viewed as a public good. Direct contributions by actors will benefit the whole. Strong families or communities accrue from strong social bonding among members (Coleman 1988, 1990). However, as many scholars (Fraser and Lacey 1993, Molyneux 2002, Tonkiss 2000⁹) have argued, Coleman can be faulted for paying little attention to structural inequalities and power relationships in general.

Social Capital in Robert Putnam’s Theory

Putnam not only adopts all the theoretical principles suggested by Coleman, but also extends his study to analyse social capital from a political perspective (1993a, 1995, 2000¹⁰). For Putnam, social capital refers to ‘features of social organisation, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and co-operation for mutual benefit’ (1993a: 35). Putnam argues that social capital is a quality that can be a facilitator of interpersonal co-operation. Putnam’s work on participation in voluntary associations in democratic societies strongly reflects the use of this perspective. He argues that such social associations and the degree of participation indicate the extent of social capital in a society. These associations and participation promote and enhance collective norms and trust, which are central to the production and maintenance of the collective well-being (Putnam 1993a, 1995).

According to Putnam’s argument, voluntary associations enable a horizontal linking of people, and produce trust, the norm that causes interpersonal bonding. Putnam argued that trust creates the basis for reciprocity, and social networks and voluntary associations that are not means for realising the short-term interests of any specific groups. There is a circle among trust, reciprocity and voluntary associations: trust creates reciprocity and voluntary associations; reciprocity and voluntary associations strengthen and produce trust (Putnam 1993b: 163-185¹¹). Putnam specifically connects trust and its concomitant reciprocity to civil engagement as an index of the strength of civil society. In short, social capital is associated with political involvement, especially through voluntary associations. Therefore, Putnam argues that social capital amounts to a direct assessment of the democratic strength of American society and becomes a collective trait functioning at the aggregate level and can be a tool for reflecting societal, political and economic prosperity (1993a, 1995, 2000). However, some scholars (Portes 1998, Brucker 1999, Foley and Edwards 1999, Swain 2003¹²) argue that the direction of causation between social capital and, societal, political and economic prosperity is never convincingly made clear. Putnam does not discuss conflicts and internal power structures among different parties and voluntary associations, and conflicts between civil society and the political society (and the state) (Siisiäinen 2002¹³).

Types of Social Capital?

There are different forms of social capital:

• Social capital in cognitive dimension, which relates to beliefs and perceptions, can be measured by the levels of trust among neighbours, reciprocity and civil identity (e.g. whether one feels to be a member of society) at the community level. At the individual level, it can be measured by individuals’ perceptions of their communities, such as the sense of trust and belonging to the communities and the atmosphere of reciprocity. (Putnam 2000¹⁴; Uslaner 2002¹⁵)
• Social capital in relational dimension refers to the relationships across multiple actors. Tie strength (Granovetter 1973¹⁶) (e.g. relationship frequencies and durations, and the levels of mutual trust, reciprocity, cohesion and inclusion in relationships) is frequently used to measure the social capital in the relational dimension. Moreover, inter-relationships among people can be categorised in the following two forms according to their different social backgrounds:
  • Bonding social capital is an intra-group phenomenon and relies on strong ties among members from relatively similar backgrounds. This can be reflected in their homogeneity, strong behavioural norms, loyalty and exclusivity. A typical example is a small close-knit group comprising new arrival families which need mutual support (Onyx and Bullen 2001¹⁷; Putnam 2000);
  • Bridging social capital is outward facing and links different groups in society (Putnam 2000). Examples include social ties among loose friendships, workmates and different ethnicities.
• Social capital in structural dimension refers to relationships, networks, associations, and institutions that link people and groups (Coleman 1988¹⁸). Structural social capital can be measured by an analysis of linkages and network density (Bourdieu 1986¹⁹). Woolcock (2001²⁰) emphasises the importance of these relationships by using the term of linking social capital:
  • Linking social capital refers to linkages between different people and groups in society and people and groups with power and resources. Through these linkages, culture, values and institutions within an organisation, society and even a country can be changed.

What are the Advantages and Disadvantages of Social Capital Development?

Advantages:

Micro-level (such as individuals and families)	Improving individuals’ ability in handling stress and risks Gaining support from others when facing crises or emergencies Building a harmonious relationship with others
Meso-level (such as communities and work units)	Enhancing regional service efficiency or enterprise productivity Strengthening the society’s or enterprises’ ability in handling crises Cultivating a culture of mutual-trust and mutual-help in the society or enterprises, with a view of achieving integration
Macro-level (such as the society as a whole)	Improving countries’ ability in handling crises Cultivating a culture of mutual-trust and mutual-help among countries and races, with a view of achieving integration

Disadvantages:

The impact of social capital on individuals, societies and countries is not necessarily completely positive²¹. For example, strong solidarity among groups sharing the same belief will increase the chance of “altruistic suicide”²² and the tendency of rejecting others in the groups. Therefore, it is very important to make good use of social capital.

¹ Bourdieu, Pierre (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1980) ‘Le capital social: Notes provisoires’ Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 3, 2-3.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The forms of capital’ in J.G. Richardson. Westport (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, CT: Greenwood Press, 241-258.
² Bourdieu, Pierre and Loic Wacquant (1992) An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
³ Bourdieu, Pierre (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
⁴ Crook, C.J. (1997) Cultural Practices and Socioeconomic Attainment – The Australian Experience, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
⁵ Alexander, Claire, E. (1996) The Art of Being Black: The Creation of Black British Youth Identities, London: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, R. (1992) The Work of Pierre Bourdieu, London: Routledge.
⁶ Goldthorpe, J.H. (1996) ‘The quantitative analysis of large-scale data-sets and rational action theory: For a sociological alliance’, European Sociological Review, 12(2), 109-126.
⁷ Schuller T. (2001). ‘The complementary roles of human and social capital’, Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 18-24.
⁸ Coleman, James S. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’ American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-121.
Coleman, James S. (1990) Foundation of Social Theory, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
⁹ Fraser, E. and N. Lacey (1993) The Politics of Community, New York: Harvester/ Wheatsheaf.
Molyneux, M. (2002) ‘Gender and the silences of social capital: Lessons from Latin America’, Development and Change, 33(2), 167-188.
Tonkiss, F. (2000) ‘Trust, social capital and economy’ in F. Tonkiss, A. Passey, N. Fenton and L.C. Hems (eds) Trust and Civil Society, Houndmills, UK: MacMillan Press Ltd.
¹⁰ Putnam, Robert D. (1993a) ‘The prosperous community: Social capital and public life’, The American Prospect, 13 (Spring), 35-42.
Putnam, Robert D. (1995) ‘Bowling alone: American’s declining social capital’, Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revised of American Community, New York: Simon and Schuster.
¹¹ Putnam, Robert D. (1993b) Making Democracy Work: Civil Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
¹² Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1-24.
Brucker, G. (1999) ‘Civil traditions in premodern Italy’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 29(3), 357-377.
Foley, M.W. and B. Edwards (1999) ‘Is it time to disinvest in social capital?’, Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 141-173.
Swain, N. (2003) ‘Social capital and its uses’, Archives of European Sociology, XLIV, 2, 185-212.
¹³ Siisiäinen, Martti (2000) Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam, Paper prepared for ISTR Fourth International Conference in Dublin, Ireland.
¹⁴ Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Touchstone.
¹⁵ Uslaner, E.M. (2002) The moral foundation of trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
¹⁶ Granovetter, Mark (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’ American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
¹⁷ Onyx, J and P. Bullen (2001) ‘The Different Faces of Social Capital in NSW Australia’ In Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life, edited by Dekker, P. and Uslaner, E.M. London: Routledge.
¹⁸ Coleman, J.S. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’ American Journal of Sociology, 94, Supplement: S95-S120.
¹⁹ Bourdieu, Pierre (1986) ‘The forms of capital’ in J.G. Richardson’ In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by Westport. CT: Greenwood Press, 241-258.
²⁰ Woolcock, M. (2001) ‘The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes’ Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1): 11-17.
²¹ Moore, S., M. Daniel, L. Gauvin and L. Dube (2009) ‘Not all social capital is good capital’, Health and Place, 15, 1071-1077.
²² Durkheim, E. (1952[1897]) Suicide, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

This article is part of a thesis submitted to the University of Essex, United Kingdom. You should reference this work as:
Chan, Chi Wai (2018) The Mental Health of Unemployed and Socially Isolated Middle-aged Men in Tin Shui Wai, Hong Kong. PhD thesis, University of Essex.