2010 Westlund & Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]
On: 17 March 2013, At: 08:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Planning Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20
Social Capital and Economic

Performance: A Meta-analysis of 65
Studies
a b c d
Hans Westlund & Frane Adam
a
Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden
b
Centre for Innovation Systems, Entrepreneurship and Growth
(CISEG), Jönköping International Business School, Jönköping,
Sweden
c
Institute for Developmental and Strategic Analyses (IRSA),
Slovenia
d
Department of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,
Slovenia
Version of record first published: 13 May 2010.
To cite this article: Hans Westlund & Frane Adam (2010): Social Capital and Economic
Performance: A Meta-analysis of 65 Studies, European Planning Studies, 18:6, 893-919
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654311003701431
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
European Planning Studies Vol. 18, No. 6, June 2010
Social Capital and Economic

Performance: A Meta-analysis
of 65 Studies
Downloaded by [The University of British Columbia] at 08:45 17 March 2013
HANS WESTLUND∗ ,∗∗ & FRANE ADAM†

∗
Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden,
∗∗
Centre for Innovation Systems, Entrepreneurship and Growth (CISEG), Jönköping International Business
School, Jönköping, Sweden and †Institute for Developmental and Strategic Analyses (IRSA), Slovenia, and
Department of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
(Received May 2009; accepted November 2009)
ABSTRACT This paper summarizes 15 years of empirical research at various spatial levels on social
capital and economic performance. On the firm level, results are unambiguous: there is strong
evidence of the impact of social capital on firms’ performance. However, the results become less
clear for spatial units with a large number of anonymous actors. The contradictory results of
studies on national and regional levels can be explained in part by insufficient measures of the
main component parts of social capital: social networks and the norms and values distributed
among them. To develop measures for values like creativity, entrepreneurship and tolerance, and
to find better measures for social networks, are the main challenges to future research.
1. Introduction
Putnam’s (1993) analysis of the regional reform of Italy has had an enormous influence on
the social capital literature. As well as demonstrating co-variations between measures of
regional variations in social capital and the success of the reform in terms of citizen
engagement and trust in political institutions, he also found connections between measures
of social capital and the economic development of the Italian regions.
In the wake of Putnam, a large number of studies have scrutinized the connections
between various measures of social capital and various measures of economic growth
and development.
While the findings do converge to some extent, in other important aspects the results are
divergent and even contradictory and inconsistent, something that might call into question
the hypothesis that social capital has a positive effect on economic performance. In
Correspondence Address: Hans Westlund, Division of Urban and Regional Studies, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. Email: hanswes@infra.kth.se
ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/10/060893–27 # 2010 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/09654311003701431
894 H. Westlund & F. Adam
this paper, possible reasons for this divergence will be indicated and briefly discussed.
According to some authors (Grootaert & van Bastelaar, 2002), social capital research is
still in its pilot phase, comparable to human capital research as it was in the 1960s.
Others speak of social capital as the new paradigm and predict the transition from the
pre-paradigm phase into paradigm (Fulkerson & Thompson, 2008). In the last 10 years,
numerous studies have been carried out in an attempt to establish the connection
between social capital (mainly expressed in two ways: trust and/or associational involve-
ment) and economic parameters.
The problem lies in the fact that diverse and selective research strategies have mainly
been employed on the basis of secondary data analysis, so that comparability of these
studies is limited. Different indicators have often been used for social capital or for
economic performance. For example, some believe that generalized trust represents the
best predictor of the level of social capital, whereas others consider trust to be an epiphe-
nomenon that arises as a result of social capital, but not constituting social capital itself
(Sabatini, 2008). Some authors operate with only a small amount of indicators/measures,
while others apply hundreds of variables (Sabatini, 2008).
Very little effort has been made to establish the validity and quality of the input data from
cross-national surveys. Many studies rely on one single data set (e.g. the World Value
Surveys (WVS)) instead of using complementary and alternative data from other (compar-
able) sources or data sets in the sense of meta-analysis.1 Regarding cross-national surveys
(which provide empirical evidence for the study of social capital), country-specific seman-
tic, cultural and institutional differences are not systematically considered and analysed.
The situation for research on the level of individual firms is different. Here the context is
specific, based on field research where the researcher can control the research design, with
specific elements and indicators.
Table 1. Quantitative figures on the surveyed studies’ divisions in spatial levels, measures
of social capital and its impact on economic growth
Mixed,
Spatial level Number SC measure Number Positive Negative ambivalent
Nations 23 Trust 15 9 5 1
Associations 8 3 4 1
Regions/states/ 14 Trust 7 3a 2 2
communities in one Associations 11 6b 2 3a
country
Regions/states in 7 Trust 6 4 2 –
several countries Associations 5 3 1 1
c
Firms (and households) 21 Various 21 18 3
Total 65
Source: See appendix for further details.

Note: Several studies examine the role of two types of trust and/or two types of associations, and can thus show
both positive and negative results for the social capital variables. These studies have been classified as mixed or
ambivalent.
a
Two of these studies are of Italian regions.
b
Three of these studies are of Italian regions.
c
In some firm-based studies, certain measures of SC have a negative relationship with certain growth measures,
but the majority of tests give significant positive results in these studies.
Social Capital and Economic Performance 895
Table 1 (based on the appendix) summarizes some quantitative data from 65 studies.
In principle, we have included all the studies we have found, which means that the most
frequently cited and well-known studies has been taken into account; this is especially
true for studies on national and regional levels. However, it should be underscored that
we do claim the collection is completely representative. These studies have been performed
on spatial levels of great variety. Whole countries are the most common single basic unit of
data, but data on various sub-country levels, from US states to local communities, have also
been used. The vast majority of studies take place at these spatial levels. Furthermore, there
are a large number of studies with a focus on firms, of which 20 of an unknown total are
summarized in Table 1 and the appendix.
The measures of social capital and the sources of these measures have also shown vari-
ations. The single most used measure of social capital is the share of people having “trust
in other persons”, for which the WVS and other international surveys have been the source.
The second most used measure is the number of, or membership in, associations. However,
there are examples of studies that have used other, economy-related measures. On more
detailed spatial levels, or when the focus has been on certain actors, such as enterprises,
social capital has been measured by specific surveys and accordingly it has been possible
to make the measures more specified. Most often, it is the stocks of the social capital measures
that have been used, but some studies have also used changes in these measures.
As shown in the appendix, nor has economic growth been measured in a uniform way in
the analyses with social capital. Frequent measures have been gross domestic product
(GDP)/capita, incomes, investments, employment and unemployment and the changes
in these variables in analyses on higher spatial levels. On more detailed levels and
where the analyses have focused on certain actors, turnover and profits and their
changes have been used.
The methods of the analyses have been varying too. Putnam (1993) did not present
anything more than simple analyses of correlation. Thereafter, the most used method
has been multiple regressions of ordinary least square (OLS) type, where measures of
social capital have been complemented and tested together with traditional explanatory
variables of economic growth. Other methods have been two and three-stage least
square tests, instrumental variables tests, pooled or panelled data, probit and tobit
models, and various tests of the models’ robustness. Other methods like Ragin’s fuzzy-
set analysis or qualitative methods have been utilized as well.
As shown in Table 1, the results of the studies are mixed. At the national level, a clear
majority of the studies that tested “trust” as a measure of social capital show a positive
relationship, but when social capital has been measured by “associations” most studies indi-
cate a negative impact.2 However, studies based on regional data show somewhat different
results. The few studies where regions of several countries have been included are over-
weighted towards positive results. A larger number of studies of regions of only one
country show a clear majority of positive impacts of both “trust” and “associations”.
However, if the four studies of Italian regions are excluded, there is no preponderance for posi-
tive or negative impacts. Finally, regarding the level of individual firms, there seems to be a
clear positive connection between different measures of social capital and performance.
Based on the different results of the 65 studies of the relationships between social capital
and economic performance (summarized in the appendix), the aim of this paper is to
discuss the reasons for the divergent results and what possible consequences these will
have for further research on social capital’s impacts on economic growth. Section 2
contains a discussion on why different actors build social capital and the potential econ-
omic gains of these social capitals at different spatial levels. Section 3 analyses the
measures used for social capital and their theoretical connections to economic growth.
Section 4 discusses a number of reasons for the divergent results. Section 5 examines
what consequences the findings obtained in the three previous sections might have on
further empirical research on social capital’s impact on economic growth at different
spatial levels. Finally, Section 6 contains some concluding remarks.
2. Aims and Gains of Social Capital

2.1. Social Capitals with Various Aims
Social capital is built with various purposes, depending on the actors and their preferences.
An individual person can invest in social relations to improve his/her social status, pro-
fessional career or leisure. For the individual, economic aspects can be one motive
behind social capital investment, but social aspects are often of great importance too.
Collective actors can be of different kinds. Formal groups and organizations deliber-
ately build social capitals with the aim of facilitating fulfilment of organizational aims,
which in general terms can be expressed as maximizing the utility of the organizations’
members or owners. Another type of collective actor is a group with no formal organiz-
ation that is held together by ethnic, cultural or geographical factors. Feelings of solidarity
in groups is the basis for the creation of formal organizations aimed at representing the
interests of the whole group.
An organization can have the aim to only fulfil the aims of its members or owners (e.g. a
firm) or to represent the interests of a larger group that consists of individuals with some
common denominators (e.g. residents of a local community or region). The various aims of
organizations determine their investments in social capital, what networks they build and
to whom they connect—and what norms and values they spread through these networks.
Thus, organizations exist for various reasons, building different social capitals. The
social capital of firms is connected to their production and sales and is thus directly con-
nected to the economy of society. The social capital of a sports club centres on its main
activities and its direct connections to the economy are limited to the possible economic
activities of the sports club (like purchases of products, or internal employment).
A conclusion of these examples is that social capital is built by all types of actors, but
that the economic impacts of these social capitals still vary. As illustrated in Table 1, it can
hardly be doubted that firms’ social capitals impact on their production and thus on the
aggregated economic growth of society. The issue investigated in a large number of
studies is how social capital of the civil society, which is mainly built for non-economic
purposes, influences the economy. The main argument has been that people who use co-
operative action in the non-economic realms of civil society also show their readiness for
collaboration in entrepreneurial and other spheres (for instance in university or research
work in the form of team work or project organization).
2.2. Economic Gains of Social Capital

The economic effects of social capital have been frequently discussed in the literature.
While there seems to be a fairly broad support for a definition of social capital that
consists of networks of actors and the norms and values being distributed in these
networks,3 in practice, as shown in Table 1 and the appendix, social capital has often
been measured in a very simplified way. This holds in particular for the studies based
on national levels. In these, all the norms and values of a society are most often
reduced to one single value of interpersonal trust (trust in other people) and based on
the WVS/European Value Survey (EVS) or similar surveys of parts of the world. In
a similar way, the formal and informal networks in which actors interact are measured
by the number of civic organizations/associations per capita and (if such data exist) the
number of members.4
The arguments for using trust as a proxy for a social capital which can have impacts on
economic variables are well known. Trust reduces transaction costs as it reduces the
amount of resources needed for detailed contracts, controls and surveillance.5 Also,
trust speeds up informal information flows and knowledge exchange as it reduces the
need for controls. In this way, trust contributes to innovations. There is nothing to
object to in these arguments.6 By analogy, the number of networks and organizations
and membership numbers should stand in a positive relationship to trust as more
network activity should mean more interactions which would support trust-building. In
this way, associational activity should support economic growth mainly via co-operative
behaviour.7
3. Trust and Associations as Proxies for Social Capital

As pointed out by Cersosimo and Nisticò (2008, p. 403) in the Handbook of Social
Capital: “In the economics literature the importance of social capital seems basically to
rest on the trust generated by social relations”. The use of trust as a prime measure of
social capital goes back to the theoretical arguments of Putnam (1993) and is in line
with his assumption that the effects of social capital are positive and that negative
conditions are caused by lack of social capital.
The importance of trust between societal actors cannot be questioned. Not only is trust
good for the economy as pointed out above; it is positive for democracy and citizens’
general welfare as well. However, the strong connection between trust and homogeneity
has brought several scholars to question its positive impact on economic growth. Portes
and Landolt (1996) have provided examples where communities with egalitarian features
discourage entrepreneurship and innovation.
A core problem is to what extent citizens’ “trust in other persons” is connected to trust in
the economic sphere, between actors of business life, within and between companies and
financial actors. To what extent are values common to all societal sectors and to what
extent do they differ between sectors? From a historical perspective, the division of
society in different sectors is a basic product of the division of labour. In societies or
communities that are dominated by primary sector production, economic production,
public and civil activities are still largely intertwined. With economic development, the
separation of the economic sphere, the public sphere and the civil sphere takes place.
Simultaneously, these spheres begin to develop differences in their social capitals.
Taking Polanyi’s (1944) historical analysis of the emergence of the market economy as
a point of departure, it can be argued that although social relations have become embedded
in the economic system, the principles of the market are not governing the whole society.
Other principles of exchange still play a predominant role outside the market sector. The
basis of the politically controlled public sector is what Polanyi denominated a principle of
redistribution: the state collects resources through taxes and distributes them in accordance
with certain priorities. The civil society, consisting of voluntary and interest organizations
and more or less organized social movements, networks and opinions, can to a large extent
be considered to act in accordance with a reciprocity principle, in which mutual interests
create mutual obligations within a society or a group.
If different sectors of society are governed by different principles, what does this mean
for the possibility of trust and other common norms and values among the sectors? First it
means that trust is related to different activities of the three sectors. While trust in the
market sector is related to fulfilment of contracted qualities and quantities and payments,
trust in the redistributive sector is related to fulfilment of promises on welfare distribution.
In the civil society, trust is often related to the fulfilment of tacit obligations.
Secondly, trust does not fall down from the sky. It is a result of history, of previous inter-
actions among actors and promoted by a common culture. The actors of different societal
sectors build networks of principally intra-organizational and intra-sectoral character, in
order to perform the activities of the group, organization or sector. In fulfilling their
basic tasks, through repeated interactions these networks also preserve and reproduce
the basic principles, norms and values of the organization or sector.8 This means that
the actors in the three sectors are building social capitals of norms and values on the
one hand and networks on the other, and that although these social capitals have factors
in common, they also diverge from each other.
Thus, it is hardly self-evident that trust in other persons within groups or associations of
the civil society should be strongly connected to trust in people of the redistributive sector
or the market sector, or vice versa. Instead, it can be argued that trust is context-dependent
and that it varies between sectors and sub-sectors of a society.
An additional problem is that of various spatial levels of society and the character of the
norms/values and networks on these different levels. Westlund and Bolton (2003) have
shown that the homogeneity of social capital stands in converse ratio to the level of aggre-
gation. A neighbourhood is normally composed with a population of higher homogeneity
than a whole city—and should thus have a more homogeneous social capital. Regions of a
country may or may not be comparable when it comes to ethnic, cultural and other types of
diversity, but they always differ concerning their internal interactions over time and their
positions in the inter-regional systems, which have contributed to differences in regional
cultures and social capitals. Aggregation of measures of social capital from lower spatial
levels to higher levels hides these differences and creates heterogeneous averages. Glaeser
et al. (2000, p. 5) underscore this when they point out that “the complexity of aggregation
means that the determinants of social capital at the individual level may not always deter-
mine social capital at the society-level”. This, of course also holds true in the opposite
direction.
The arguments referred to above show that the relationship between the most frequently
used measures of social capital and economic growth is more complicated than usually
discussed. This becomes even more obvious when the relationship is observed on
various spatial levels. It is of course impossible to know exactly how interviewees interpret
“trust in other persons”, but it is not unreasonable to believe that most people refer to
persons in the country in which they live.9 If this interpretation is correct, it means that
the general trust measure does not mainly refer to conditions on regional or local levels.
Thus, “trust in other persons” can be interpreted as “trust in persons in the different societal
sectors of my country”, that is, a measure of sector-bridging social capital on a national

level, while it only to a lesser extent measures trust within a region or local community.
In that case, the general trust measure should have its strongest connections to economic
growth on national levels, as indicated in Table 1. On the other hand, the general trust
measure should have weaker connections to economic growth on regional and in particular
on local levels, since it does not refer to trust within those spatial levels. The weaker con-
nection between trust and growth on regional levels shown in Table 1—especially if the
“special case” of Italy is omitted10—could be a reflection of this.
The reverse might perhaps be the case for the relationship between organizational/asso-
ciational activities and economic growth. Activities in associations represent normally
only a small part of human interaction and accordingly also a small part of norm-building.
Family, schools, work, public policies, media, internet, etc. are other networks that have
strong impacts on norms and values. The role of associations in general trust-building is
therefore limited. Rothstein (2002, 2003) has stressed the impact of governmental policies
for building trust on a national level.
On regional and local levels, the connections between civic engagement in the form of
associational activity and economic factors might be stronger. A possible reason is that the
relationship between associational activity and important norms and values such as trust is
probably more interconnected on these levels. Associational activity is basically local and
in these activities trust and other important values are being built from below with people
in the local community and the region. But as we have argued, this local trust is not the
trust being measured in the trans-national surveys. It is thus not impossible that associa-
tional activity is a “less bad” measure of trust on local and regional levels than the
general measure of interpersonal trust being measured in the big surveys. However, also
on local and regional levels, associational activities represent only a small fraction of
human network interaction.
The results of the firm-based studies of social capital and economic performance can be
regarded as support for this conclusion. When trust and other aspects of social capital are
measured by firms’ relations to internal and external stakeholders, who are mainly located
in the local community or the region, the social capital measures are positively related to
economic variables in almost all the studies included in this scrutiny.11
4. Why all These Divergent Results?

At the level of firms, it appears as if the effects of social capital are more significant and
important than on other (aggregated) levels. On the other hand, the indicators of social
capital are different, adjusted to the frame/level of firms and their environment. The
authors use a wider palette of social capital measures that they can often design themselves.
Regional and national levels show a somewhat different picture. A detailed analysis
would reveal that studies focusing on (inter)-national and regional levels differ in many
aspects. The vast majority of studies are based on secondary data analysis (usually from
the same data sets, like WVS) and yet their findings and conclusions are different. We
interpret the reasons as follows:
(1) The sample and composition of sample (the units of observation). Existing studies
encompass varying selections and composition of countries. Some studies focus
solely on the developed countries, others focus on European countries, whereas still
others pay attention to a majority of the states considered in the WVS/EVS. It is

self-evident that differences in selection affect the results of analyses and hamper
generalizations. The main misunderstanding lies in the fact that many authors
derive general conclusions based on their limited or extensive sample (see more in
Nannenstad, 2008).
(2) The selection of database for cross-national surveys. The majority of studies are
grounded on secondary data analyses from WVS/EVS databases; some also use
other databases, like the Eurobarometer (EB) or the European Social Survey (ESS).
The underlying assumption is that all these databases contain similar and reliable
data on trust and other values. However, this is often not the case. In particular
with respect to some specific countries, the differences in scores—as a consequence
of incongruent indicators and samples and also country-specific semantic and insti-
tutional contexts—can be very large (Morales, 2004; Adam, 2008). Relying on a
single database (like WVS) can in no way guarantee the quality of the data. Therefore
the use of several data sets seems to be the most plausible strategy.
(3) Divergent results can also emerge as a consequence of using different methods of stat-
istical processing and analysis. One such typical example was shown by Sabatini
(2008) who applied two methods, factorial analysis and structural equations model
(SEM), for the analysis of four-hundred variables. The first method indicated a
strong negative correlation between bonding social capital in human development
and social equality. By contrast, bridging and linking social capitals were positively
connected to these two variables. On the other hand, the results according to the
SEM analysis showed that bonding and bridging social capital had significant negative
effects on human development, whereas weak ties (that are most typical for voluntary
organizations) exerted positive effects on human development. Furthermore, it was
also important that bonding social capital in the form of strong family ties did not
play merely a negative role, but contributed positively to youth employment.
(4) As previously mentioned, authors are using different indicators for both social capital
(independent variable) and economic development (dependent variable). For example,
some authors rely solely on trust as the only indicator for social capital, whereas other
authors apply a wider palette of indicators. This also contributes to divergent findings.
(5) The level of analysis is also important. At the firm level, the measures and indicators of
social capital and economic performance are related to the individual firms and these
indicators are not directly transferable to regional or national levels. In addition, on the
level of firms, it is possible to operate with primary data, derived from own research.
(6) In both a theoretical and an empirical sense it still remains unclear how social capital
of the civil society affects economic parameters. The mechanisms of this relation and
the spillover effects remain under-researched (Torsvik, 2000). We can only conclude
that indirect influence seems to be prevailing. Social capital of the civil society can
induce co-operation in otherwise competitive environments and thus have a positive
impact on economic factors. In this way, social capital functions as a catalyst that,
in interaction with other types of capitals (financial, human, intellectual), is setting
the conditions for development of dynamic and creative environments. Somewhat
blurred is the cause – effect logic: are the levels of social capital increasing through
economic development or does social capital represent a pre-condition for develop-
ment? We believe this relationship is far more complicated and consists of mutual
reinforcements and positive feedback loops.
5. Consequences for Further Research

What do the analyses and interpretations in Sections 3 and 4 suggest for further research on
social capital and growth? This question is discussed in this section with respect to three
levels of investigation: the national level, the regional and local level, and the firm level.
5.1. Social Capital on a National Level

5.1.1 What is the trust measure useful for?. Among the different measures of social capital
used in studies based on data at a national level, trust is the most commonly used. One
explanation is that trust is the variable which gave the clearest positive results in the
early studies of social capital and growth, while the use of associations as a measure of
social capital mainly gave negative results (Bjørnskov, 2009). The relatively high
number of studies with positive results summarized in Table 1 also support the hypothesis
of a positive impact of trust on growth. Even if many questions remain about the cause-
and-effect chain between “trust in other persons” and aggregated economic growth, it is
possible to draw the conclusion that interpersonal trust is a fairly good measure of differ-
ences between countries concerning trust across societal sectors. As most people are not
business-owners and do not represent the supply of goods and services, it is possible to
interpret this measure of trust as mainly an expression of consumer demand or the
demand side’s trust in the actors of the three societal sectors. Thus, it can be argued
that the measured “trust in other persons” is mainly a factor that influences economic
growth from the demand side.
However, even if “interpersonal trust” can be regarded as a fairly good measure of
differences between countries, it cannot be considered a reliable measure of differences
over time in countries. By comparing measures over time from the WVS, the EVS and
the ESS, Adam (2008) has observed a number of changes in trust and associational activity
in individual countries for which no reasonable theoretical or logical explanation can be
found. The decrease in trust in many post-communist countries has of course plausible
explanations, but among the changes in this group of countries are also unexplainable
increases. “In some cases, the question remains open as to whether the findings reflect a
real increase (or decrease) or whether this can be attributed to methodological artefacts,
statistical errors or problems relating to cultural-semantic issues (. . .) Some findings and
atypical oscillations are hard to explain” (Adam, 2008, p. 167f). This suggests that the
few studies that have used changes in trust as an explanatory variable (Roth & Schüler,
2006; Roth, 2007) are based on unreliable data.
5.1.2. Other important norms and values missing. The availability of the trust measure
in international value studies, and its often statistically significant connection to economic
growth, has meant that of all the possible norms and values of a society that might influ-
ence economic performance, trust has frequently been used as the sole measure. This lop-
sided variable selection has theoretical support only if social capital is defined as “trust and
the networks that are built on trust”. If social capital is defined as networks and norms and
values that contribute to the forming and maintenance of these networks, then trust is one
of a number of important norms and values, but not always the most important one. In par-
ticular when we discuss the impact on economic factors, there are a number of values,
norms and attitudes that often are more important than mere trust. The reason is that
economic activity is not only based on trusting other people, but also on other values and
attitudes.
Among the norms and values that according to the literature should have an impact on
national economic development we can find risk propensity (Knight, 1921), entrepreneur-
ial attitudes (Weber, 1904– 1905/1930), creativity (Andersson, 1985, Florida, 2002, 2005)
and tolerance (Florida, 2002, 2005). Westlund (2006) hypothesizes that stable conditions,
of which trust can be regarded as a measure, were of greatest importance for economic
growth during the late manufacturing-industrial economy, while the current knowledge
economy has a greater need for qualities like entrepreneurship, creativity and tolerance
(see also Fischer et al., 2004). In the survey made for the appendix to this paper, these
variables were entirely missing in the studies based on national data and only occurred
in one study at the regional level. It goes without saying that the absence of tests of
these norms and values’ impacts on economic growth is a general weakness of the
social capital literature on these spatial levels.
5.1.3 Where are the norms and values of the supply side?. With the exception of the
Keynes-predominated decades during the post-war period, economics has in general
regarded the supply side of the economy as the source of economic growth. Contemporary
emphasis on innovation, which increases productivity and creates new products, is no
exception. However, as suggested above concerning the trust measure, in a developed
economy surveys that measure public opinion tend to measure employees’ and consumers’
views, as most people are not manufacturers or business owners. This means that these
surveys mainly reflect the norms and values of the agents of the demand side of the
economy. This is of course not unimportant, but they might give a one-sided view of
the norms and values which can be expected to influence economic growth. If we
believe that the economy in the long run is supply-driven, it is the norms and values of
the agents of the supply side that are of the greatest interest. It would, ceteris paribus,
be a compelling reason to expect that businessmen’s trust in each other and in the econ-
omic system have a higher impact on economic variables than the average citizen’s
“trust in other people”.
This problem has not been explicitly discussed in the literature, although there are
examples of some studies that have used the amount of “contract-intensive money
(CIM)” and loans/GDP as measures of social capital (see appendix). These kinds of
measures illustrate certain attitudes pertaining to economy’s supply side, but they consti-
tute merely a few one-off examples and only provide indirect measures of the values and
norms of the actors of the supply side. The conclusion is that the norms and values of the
supply side must be given greater attention in future studies.
5.1.4 Supplementary determinant variables. As shown in the appendix, in most studies,

social capital is supplemented by a number of traditional explanatory variables of econ-
omic growth, such as initial GDP, investment and human capital/education. However,
one of the variables focused on in Putnam’s (1993) original study of the effects of the
regional reforms in Italy, institutional and governmental performance, has seldom been
included among the explanatory variables.
Social capital can often be regarded as an informal counterpart to formal institutions
(Westlund, 2006) but as Stiglitz (2000) has pointed out their various component parts
and importance vary respectively with economic developmental level. One of the few
examples of studies that have included institutions (Ahlerup et al., 2007) also came to the
conclusion that the positive impact of interpersonal trust on economic growth vanishes
with increasing institutional strength. This result can be connected to the abovementioned
hypothesis that other aspects of social capital than interpersonal trust (entrepreneurship,
creativity and co-operation) might be of greater importance for economic growth in the
knowledge economy compared to the manufacturing-industrial economy. The inclusion
of institutional and governmental performance among the explanatory variables would
mean a necessary test of alternative social capital measures.
5.1.5 The measurement of networks. A conclusion in Section 3 was that associational

activity normally accounts for only a very limited share of actors’ network interactions,
and that associational activity thus is of minor importance for the creation and reproduc-
tion of norms and values. This does of course not mean that human networks and the inter-
action in them might not be of any importance for economic growth, but in that case the
network measure should include much more than the number of formal associations and
their members. Human actors take part in an infinite number of informal but unregistered
networks, many of which are flexible and loosely organized. Many of them are related to
professional activities and are thus directly connected to economic variables like pro-
duction, productivity and innovation—but these networks are not registered or measured.
An associated problem concerning associations and other networks is that activities in
some types of networks probably have a stronger impact on the economy than activities
in other network types. This is taken into consideration in studies that make a division
between “philanthropic Putnam” and “rent-seeking Olson” organizations—the fact that
networks are formed for different reasons and built on different values12—but this
problem also has another dimension. It is highly probable that professional organizations
and networks are more important for economic growth than leisure associations. In the
same way as trust within business life is likely to be more important for the economy
than the trust of the average citizen, networks of business actors are likely to be of
more importance than networks of football fans.
The conclusion is that social capital research so far dealt with the main components of
social capital in a very simplified way. By focusing almost entirely on measuring civic
organizations, most human networks—and consequently those having most influence on
the economy—have been neglected. The lack of sources is probably the main reason
for this bias, but the implicit assumption that social capital is only a feature of civil
society has also contributed to this narrow focus.
5.2. Social Capital on Regional and Local Levels

In principle, all the conclusions drawn for the national level are valid for the regional and
local levels as well. However, as regions and smaller spatial units are parts of nations, their
conditions deviate from nations in certain respects and so do the potential data sources.
These differences are obvious in the case of institutions. Formal institutions vary
between countries while their differences within countries often are small or insignificant.
However, as Putnam (1993) demonstrated for Italy, it is possible that governmental
performance differs even within the same national institutional framework. This suggests
that institutional issues should not be neglected in studies on sub-national levels.
The other important difference between the national level and sub-national levels is the
potential data sources. In some cases much more detailed statistics can be found on social
phenomena in regions within a country than on a national level for a number of countries,
not least because of institutional variations. However, the most used social capital
measures, trust and associations, are often only available or usable on national levels,
due to small data samples in each country and lack of regional data for associations.
What remains are own-data surveys, which on the one hand are time and resource inten-
sive but on the other hand provide an opportunity to collect data better adapted to the
research problems. The latter is the great advantage of studies on sub-national levels.
Whereas the studies of social capital on national level by necessity are reduced to the
using of existing data with their obvious limitations, studies on regional and local
levels—with enough resources—have the opportunity to collect their own, tailor-made

data. Considering the fairly great number of cross-national studies having been performed
(including regions of several countries), the marginal utility of a large number of
additional studies based on the same types of data can be questioned. This suggests that
the future of social capital research on aggregate levels lies in studies on sub-national
levels, in which data is collected for the research purpose—while waiting for possible
databases over various social capital measures on sub-national levels.
5.3. Social Capital on the Firm Level

The importance of trust and networks for a firm’s performance has often been studied
without explicit reference to the concept of social capital. However, as these two
factors belong to the core of social capital it is hard to find any objections against including
studies on these issues in the social capital literature.
To an even larger extent than regions and other sub-national spatial levels, studies of
firms’ social capital require own surveys in order to obtain relevant data. The compilation
of empirical studies showed significant connections between the measures of social capital
and various economic variables of firms. This can only be interpreted as a confirmation of
the impact of social capital on economic performance when there are direct connections
between the two variable blocs, in the form of direct links within the firm or between
the firm and other actors.
As the connection between social capital and economic variables can thus be considered
as established on firm level, research in these fields is already dealing with a number of
interconnected and underlying issues. These issues can be summarized under the question
of how differences in firm characteristics, their networks and norms/values are influencing
the role and structure of firms’ social capitals—and how this in the next step is reflected in
firms’ economic performance. Examples of the various firm characteristics being analysed
are branch, size, age, location. Network characteristics that are analysed are size, actor
composition, spatial extension, link usage frequency and link stability. Among the
norms and values of firms that is of interest are the firms’ aims, growth ambitions, trust
in partners and employees.
However, the strength of the studies on firm level—their detailed, own-collected data
sets that allow for multifaceted analyses—is also their main weakness. Lack of uniform
measures makes comparisons difficult. Most studies analyse a sample of firms in one
country and cross-country analyses are rare. Consequently, a challenge for social capital
studies on the firm level is to develop international data sets, possibly connected to existing
international surveys such as the global entrepreneurship monitor (GEM) surveys.
6. Concluding Remarks
This paper has summarized and reflected on 15 years of empirical research at various
spatial levels on the impact of social capital on economic growth. At the lowest level,
that of the individual firm, the results are unambiguous: there is strong evidence of the
impact of social capital on a firm’s performance. However, when the unit of research is
moved from single actors to spatial units with a large number of anonymous actors, the
results become less clear.
The conclusion of this paper is that the contradictory results of studies on national
and regional levels can be explained in part by insufficient measures of the two main
components of social capital: social networks and the norms and values that are being
distributed in them. “Trust in other persons” is only one of several values that according
to the literature would influence economic variables. Associations within civil society
represent a small fraction of all the social networks of human interaction. To develop
measures of values, norms and attitudes connected to creativity, tolerance, entrepreneur-
ship and sharing of knowledge, and to find better measures for social networks, are the
main challenges facing future research into the economic impact of social capital.
Notes
1. This approach is not a single type of method or analysis but “a set of methods: a methodology for the
systematic combination of information from several different sources . . . It provides researchers with
methods to combine the outcomes of different studies and analyse the results to investigate potential
differences between countries or cultures” (De Leeuw & Hox, 2003, p. 329).
2. Taking the majority of European countries, it is quite clear that the countries with high associational
involvement also have higher levels of economic development (Adam et al., 2005). For the most pros-
perous countries, like the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, we find a positive correlation.
3. See, e.g. Putnam (1993, 2000), OECD (2001), Westlund (2006).
4. Here it should be recognized that certain studies have separated “Putnam” (public interest) associations
and “Olson” (rent-seeking) associations in their analyses.
5. See Lyon (2005).
6. However, arguments have been raised saying that too much trust between people decreases the compe-
tition necessary to encourage economic growth (Roth & Schüler, 2006).
7. Here it might be necessary to distinguish between different types of organizations (see note 4).
8. Cf. Giddens’ (1979, 1984) structuration theory.
9. This problem would deserve an inquiry of its own. However, arguments for the country-interpretation
include a common culture, government, media and news reporting.
10. A possible interpretation is that the regional disparities of Italy in some aspects are so significant that
they function like differences between countries.
11. However, it should be taken into account that more and diverse indicators are utilized in the more trans-
parent context where some experimental methods are viable (using experimental and control groups).
We have here the problem of comparability, for instance: we can confirm our thesis that firm X is
rich with social capital and therefore more efficient only if we have another (control) firm Y (or by
showing that firm X was in the past poor of social capital, but with investment in social capital
became more economically successful).
12. The interconnectedness of networks and values which is reflected in the example of “Putnam” vs.
“Olson” organizations also indicates a potential to measure the relative strength of various values by
the size of organizations representing such values.
References
Adam, F. (2008) Mapping social capital across Europe: Findings, trends and methodological shortcomings of
cross-national surveys, Social Science Information, 47(2), pp. 159–186.
Adam, F., Makarovič, M., Rončevič, B. & Tomšič, M. (2005) The Challenges of Sustained Development. The
Role of Socio-cultural Factors in East-Central Europe (Budapest, Hungary: CEU Press).
Ahlerup, P., Olsson, O. & Yanagizawa, D. (2007) Social Capital vs Institutions in the Growth Process, Working
Papers in Economics No 248, Gothenburg University. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/2077/3140
(accessed 19 March 2010).
Akcomak, I. S. & ter Wel, B. (2007) How Do Social Capital and Government Support Affect Innovation and
Growth? Evidence From the Eu Regional Support Programmes, UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series
#2007-009, United Nations University. Available at http://ccp.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2007/
wp2007-009.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Akcomak, I. S. & ter Wel, B. (2008) Social Capital, Innovation and Growth: Evidence From Europe, IZA
Discussion Paper No 3341. Available at http://ftp.iza.org/dp3341.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Andersson, Å. E. (1985) Kreativitet: Storstadens Framtid (Stockholm: Prisma).
Baliamoune-Lutz, M. (2005) Institutions, Social Capital and Economic Development in Africa: An Empirical
Study, Working Paper No 18/2005, International Centre for Economic Research. Available at http://
www.icer.it/docs/wp2005/ICERwp18-05.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Batjargal, B. (2000) Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Performance in Russia: A Panel Study, Davidson Insti-
tute Working Paper Series, Working Paper No 352, University of Michigan Business School. Available at
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/39736/3/wp352.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Berggren, N., Elinder, M. & Jordahl, H. (2008) Trust and growth: A shaky relationship, Empirical Economics,
35(2), pp. 251–274.
Beugelsdijk, S. & Smulders, S. (2004) Social Capital and Economic Growth, Tilburg University, Department
of Economics. Available at http://www.dur.ac.uk/economics.guestspeakers/2003_04/Smulders.pdf
Beugelsdijk, S. & van Schaik, T. (2005) Differences in social capital between 54 Western European regions,
Regional Studies, 39(8), pp. 1053–1064.
Beugelsdijk, S., de Groot, H. L. F. & van Schaik, A. B. T. M. (2002) Trust and economic growth, Tinbergen
Institute Discussion Paper TI 2002-049/3. Available at http://www.tinbergen.nl/discussionpapers/
02049.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Bjørnskov, C. (2006) How Does Social Capital Affect Economic Growth? Department of Economics, Working
Paper 02-06, Aarhus School of Business. Available at http://www.hha.dk/nat/wper/06-2_CB.pdf
Bjørnskov, C. (2009) Economic growth, in: G. T. Svendsen & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds) Handbook of Social
Capital, pp. 337–353 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Bosma, N., van Praag, M., Thurik, R. & de Wit, G. (2004) The value of human and social capital investments for
the business performance of startups, Small Business Economics, 23(3), pp. 227–236.
Casey, T. (2004) Social capital and regional economies in Britain, Political Studies, 52(1), pp. 96–117.
Casey, T. & Christ, K. (2003) Social Capital and Economic Performance in the United States. Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. Available at http://www.rose-
hulman.edu/~casey1/US%20Social%20Capital%20(Casey-Christ).pdf (accessed 19 March 2010)
Cersosimo, D. & Nisticó, R. (2008) Social capital in economics, in: D. Castiglione, J.W. van Deth & G. Wolleb
(Eds) The Handbook of Social Capital, pp. 386–410 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Chen, C.-N., Tzeng, L.-C., Ou, W.-M. & Chang, K.-T. (2007) The relationship among social capital,
entrepreneurial orientation, organizational resources, and entrepreneurial performance for new ventures,
Contemporary Management Research, 3(3), pp. 213–232.
Clague, C., Keefer, P., Knack, S. & Olson, M. (1997) Contract-intensive Money: Contract Enforcement, Property
Rights, and Economic Performance, Working Paper No. 151, IRIS Center, University of Maryland at College
Park. Available at http://www.iris.umd.edu/download.aspx?ID¼1a5bc584-8870-4928-b16d-03d6f71ff21b
Coates, D. & Heckelman, J. C. (2003) Interest groups and investment: A further test of the Olson hypothesis,
Public Choice, 117(3–4), pp. 333–340.
Cook, P. (2007) Social capital, embeddedness and market interactions: An analysis of firm performance in UK
regions, Review of Social Economy, LXV(1), pp. 79–106.
Cook, P. & Clifton, N. (2004) Spatial variation in social capital among UK small and medium-sized enterprises,
in: H. L. F. de Groot, P. Nijkamp & R. Stough (Eds) Entrepreneurship and Regional Economic Develop-
ment: A Spatial Perspective, pp. 107–137 (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).
Cook, P., Clifton, N. & Oleaga, M. (2005) Social capital, firm embeddedness and regional development, Regional
Studies, 39(8), pp. 1065–1078.
De Clerk, D. & Arenius, P. (2003) Effects of Human Capital and Social Capital on Entrepreneurial Activity.
Working Paper Steunpunt OOI (in progress): June 2003. Available at http://www.ondernemerschap.be/
Upload/Documents/STOOI/Working%20Papers/2003/effects_of_human_capital.pdf (accessed 19
March 2010).
De Clercq, D. & Dakhli, M. (2003) Human Capital, Social Capital and Innovation: A Multi-country Study,
Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series, 2003/18. Available at http://www.vlerick.com/en/2722-
VLK/version/default/part/AttachmentData/data/vlgms-wp-2003-18.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
De Leeuw, E. D. & Hox, J. J. (2003) The use of meta-analysis in cross-national studies, in: J. Harkness, F. de
Vijver & P. Mohler (Eds) Cross-Cultural Survey Methods (New York: Willey Interscience).
Dincer, O. & Uslaner, E. (2007) Trust and growth. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota di lavoro 73.2007.
Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=999922 (accessed 19 March 2010).
Eliasson, K., Westlund, H. & Fölster, S. (2005) Does social capital contribute to regional economic growth?
Swedish experiences, in: K. Kobayashi, H. Westlund & K. Matsushima (Eds) Social Capital and Develop-
ment Trends in Rural Areas, pp. 221–230 (Kyoto, Japan: MARG, Kyoto University).
Fafchamps, M. & Minten, B. (2002) Return to social network capital among traders, Oxford Economic Papers,
54(2), pp. 173–206.
Fischer, G., Scharff, E. & Ye, Y. (2004) Fostering social creativity by increasing social capital, in: M. Huysman &
V. Wulf (Eds) Social Capital and Information Technology, pp. 355–399 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Florida, R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class: And How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and
Everyday Life (New York: Basic Books).
Florida, R. (2005) The Flight of the Creative Class: The Global Competition for Talent (New York: Harper
Business).
Fulkerson, G. & Thompson, H. G. (2008) The evolution of a contested concept: A meta-analysis of social capital
definitions and trends (1988– 2006), Sociological Inquiry, 78(4), pp. 536–557.
Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis
(London: Macmillan).
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press).
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. & Sacerdote, B. (2000) The Economic Approach to Social Capital, Working Paper
7728, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Granato, J., Inglehart, R. & Leblang, D. (1996) The effect of cultural values on economic development: Theory,
hypotheses and some empirical tests, American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), pp. 607–631.
Grootaert, C. & van Bastelaar, T. (Eds) (2002) The Role of Social Capital in Development (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press).
Grootaert, C. & Narayan, D. (2004) Local institutions, poverty and household welfare in Bolivia, World
Development, 32(7), pp. 1179–1198.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P. & Zingales, L. (2004) The role of social capital in financial development, American
Economic Review, 94, pp. 526–556.
Hauser, C., Tappeiner, G. & Walde, J. (2007) The learning region: The impact of social capital and weak ties on
innovation, Regional Studies, 41(1), pp. 75–88.
Helliwell, J. F. (1996a) Economic Growth and Social Capital in Asia, Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper
5470, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Helliwell, J. F. (1996b) Do Borders Matter for Social Capital? Economic Growth and Civic Culture in US States
and Canadian Provinces, Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper 5863, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau
of Economic Research.
Helliwell, J. F. & Putnam, R. D. (1995) Economic growth and social capital in Italy, Eastern Economic Journal,
21(3), pp. 295–307.
Jenssen, J. I. & Greve, A. (2002) Does the degree of redundancy in social networks influence the success of
business start-ups? International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 8(5), pp. 254–267.
Johnson, N., Suarez, R. & Lundy, N. (2002) The Importance of Social Capital in Colombian Agro-enterprises,
CAPRi Working Paper No 26. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Available
at http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/capriwp26.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Kilkenny, M., Nalbarte, L. & Besser, T. (1999) Reciprocated community support and small town—small business
success, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11(3), pp. 231–246.
Knack, S. (2003) Groups, growth and trust: Cross-country evidence on the Olson and Putnam hypothesis, Public
Choice, 117(3–4), pp. 341–355.
Knack, S. & Keefer, P. (1997) Does Social capital have an economic payoff: A cross-country investigation,
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), pp. 1251–1288.
Knight, F. H. (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin).
Knudsen, B., Florida, R. & Rousseau, D. (2007) Bridging and bonding: A multi-dimensional approach to regional
social capital. The Martin Prosperity Institute, Joseph L Rotman School of Management, University of
Toronto. Available at http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/userfiles/prosperity/File/Bridging_and_Bonding.
w.cover.pdf (accessed 23 September 2008).
Krishna, A. (2001) Moving from the stock of social capital to the flow of benefits: The role of agency, World
Development, 29(6), pp. 925–943.
Kunz, V. (2000) Determinanten der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung im internationalen Vergleich. Kölner Zeits-
chrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 2(2), pp. 195–225.
Landry, R., Amara, N. & Lamari, M. (2000) Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent? Paper
prepared for 4th International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, Curitiba. Brazil, August
28–31.
La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A. & Vishny, R. W. (2000) Trust in large organizations, in: P.
Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, pp. 310–325 (Washington,
DC: The World Bank).
Lechner, C., Dowling, M. & Welpe, I. (2006) Firm networks and firm development: The role of the relational mix,
Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), pp. 514–540.
Lock Lee, L. G. (2008) Corporate social capital and firm performance in the global information services sector,
PhD dissertation, The University of Sydney.
Lou, X., Griffith, D. A., Liu, S. S. & Shi, Y. (2004) The effects of customer relationships and social capital on firm
performance: A Chinese business illustration, Journal of International Marketing, 14(4), pp. 25–45.
Lyon, T. P. (2005) Making capitalism work: Social capital and economic growth in Italy 1970–1995. Fondazione
Eni Enrico Mattei, Nota di lavoro 70.2005. Available at http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/
NDL2005/NDL2005-070.pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Miguel, E., Gertler, P. & Levine, D. I. (2005) Does socila capital promote industrialization? Evidence fron a rapid
industrializer, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(4), pp. 754–762.
Morales, L. (2004) Changing patterns of associational involvement in Europe. Paper presented at European
Consortium for Political Science Research, Uppsala.
Mustre del Rio (2005) The social capital effect on economic growth, Senior Honors thesis, The Ohio State
University. Available at http://dspace03.it.ohio-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/369/1/socialcapital.
pdf (accessed 19 March 2010).
Nannestad, P. (2008) What have we learned about generalized trust, if anything? Annual Review of Political
Science, 11(1), pp. 413–436.
Neira, I., Vászquez, E. & Portela, M. (2008) An empirical analysis of social capital and economic growth in
Europe (1980– 2000), Social Indicators Research, 92(1), pp. 111–129.
OECD (2001) The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital (Paris: OECD).
Pérez Garcı́a, F., Serrano Martı́nez, L., Montesinos Santalucı́a, V. & Fernández de Guevara Radoselovics, J.
(2006) Measurement of Social Capital and Growth: An Economic Methodology (Fundacion BBVA, Docu-
mentos de Trabajo 4/2006). Available at http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/dt4_2006.pdf (accessed 19
March 2010).
Polanyi, K. (1944) The Great Transformation (Boston, MA: The Beacon Press).
Portes, A. & Landolt, P. (1996) The downside of social capital, The American Prospect, 26(1), pp. 18–21.
Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press).
Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon &
Schuster).
Raiser, M. (2008) Social capital and economic performance in transition economies, in: D. Castiglione, J.W.
v Deth & G. Wolleb (Eds) The Handbook of Social Capital, pp. 491–519 (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Roth, F. (2007) Trust and Economic Growth: Conflicting Results Between Cross-sectional and Panel Analysis,
Ratio Working Paper No 102. Available at http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/fr_trust.pdf (accessed 19 March
2010).
Roth, F. & Schüler, D. (2006) Trust and economic growth: a panel analysis, Mimeo. Manuscript draft, University
of Göttingen.
Rothstein, B. (2002) Sweden: Social capital in the social democratic state, in: R. D. Putnam (Ed.) Democracies in
Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society, pp. 289–332 (Oxford: Oxford University
Press).
Rothstein, B. (2003) Sociala fällor och tillitens problem (Stockholm: SNS Förlag).
Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J. & Freshwater, D. (2000) Social capital and economic growth: A county-level
analysis, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32(3), pp. 565–572.
Sabatini, F. (2008) Social capital and the quality of economic development, Kyklos, 61(3), pp. 466–499.
Schneider, G., Plümper, T. & Baumann, S. (2000) Bringing Putnam to the European regions: On the relevance of
social capital for economic growth, European Urban and Regional Studies, 7(4), pp. 307–317.
Smerek, R. E. & Denison, D. R. (2007) Social capital in organizations: Understanding the link to firm perform-
ance, in: G. T. Solomon (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings of the Sixty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of
Management (CD), ISSN 1543-8643.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2000) Formal and informal institutions, in: P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds) Social Capital: A
Multifaceted Perspective, pp. 59–68 (Washington, DC: The World Bank).
Temple, J (1998) Initial conditions, social capital and growth in Africa, Journal of African Economies, 7(3),
pp. 309–347.
Torsvik, G. (2000) Social capital and economic development: A plea for the mechanisms, Rationality and
Society, 12(4), pp. 451–476.
Weber, M. (1904–1905/1930) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, English translation (New York:
Scribner).
Westlund, H. (2006) Social Capital in the Knowledge Economy: Theory and Empirics (Berlin: Springer).
Westlund, H. & Bolton, R. E. (2003) Local social capital and entrepreneurship, Small Business Economics, 21(1),
pp. 77–113.
Westlund, H. & Calidoni-Lundberg, F. (2007) Social Capital and the Creative Class: Civil Society, Regional
Development and High-tech Industry in Japan, CESIS Working Paper No 112. Stockholm: Centre of Excel-
lence for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS).
Westlund, H. & Nilsson, E. (2005) Measuring enterprises’ investments in social capital—a pilot study, Regional
Studies, 39(8), pp. 1079–1094.
Whitely, P. F. (2000) Economic growth and social capital, Political Studies, 48(3), pp. 443–466.
Wu, W.-P. & Leung, A. (2005) Does a macro-micro link exist between managerial value of reciprocity, social
capital and firm performance? The case of SMEs in China, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(4),
pp. 445–463.
Zak, P. J. & Knack, S. (2001) Trust and growth, The Economic Journal, 111(470), pp. 295–321.
Zhang, Q. & Fung, H.-G. (2006) China’s social capital and financial performance of private enterprises, Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(2), pp. 198–207.
910
Appendix
H. Westlund & F. Adam

Authors Spatial level Measures of SC Source Other regressors Growth measures Analysis type SC impact Additional
Putnam (1993) Italian regions Civic traditions None Industrialization Correlations Positive
1870s–1970s (association rate
membership, etc.)
Helliwell and Italian regions Civic index Institutional GDP/capita growth OSL and Positive
Putnam (1995) (newspaper performance, instrumental
reading, citizen satisfaction variables
associations,
referenda turnout,
preference voting)
Granato et al. 25 countries Achievement WVS Initial GDP, GDP/capital OLS Achievement
(1996) 1960–1989 motivation index, education, growth motivation positive
postmaterialistic investment (sig.),
values postmaterialism
negative (partly
sig.)
Helliwell (1996a) 17 OECD Trust, organization Education, efficiency Productivity growth OLS Negative significant Implicit support for
countries membership gap towards the 1962–1989 Olsen
US
Helliwell (1996b) US states/ Canada Trust, organization ? Growth of SUR and POOL Negative
provinces membership incomes/capita
Knack and Keefer 29 countries Interpersonal trust, WVS Incomes, education, GDP growth 1980– OLS Trust and civic norms Trust’s impact
(1997) (market civic norms index, investments 1992 positive (sig.), larger in poorer
economies) association association countries
membership membership
negative insig.
(both Olson and
Putnam groups)
Temple (1998) 23 African “Social capability Various Ethnic diversity, GDP growth LTS, RWLS Positive, often
countries index” (socio- income significant
1965–1990 structural distribution,
variables) education, initial
incomes
Kilkenny et al. 800 small firms in Perceived support Own survey Firm and town Firms’ own opinion Logistic regression Positive significant
(1999) 30 towns in from local characteristics, use on their success
Iowa community, of new
reciprocated technology, etc
support
community-firms
La Porta et al. 39 countries Trust WVS GDP/capita 1994 GDP growth OLS Positive (sig.)
(2000) 1970–1993
Batjargal (2000) 75 Russian Embeddedness Own Industry type, firm Sales growth, profit OLS Relational and
entrepreneurs (structural, interviews size, region, firm margins, return resource

relational and origin on assets embeddedness
resource) positive, structural
embeddedness no
influence
Kunz (2000) 19 countries Social trust, Employment in Mainly negative Negative in
associational agriculture, “consensus
membership proportion of democracy” and
import “neo-
corporative”
countries
Schneider et al. 58 European Trust, political EB Initial income, GDP growth OLS Trust and cultural
(2000) regions 1980– discussions, investment, public values negative
1996 economic vs. consumption, (sig.) political
cultural values openness discussions
positive (sig.)
Whitely (2000) 34 countries Trust in others Investment, GDP/capita growth OLS and Positive significant
Social Capital and Economic Performance

1970–1992 education, GDP robustness tests
1970 plus control
variables
Landry et al. 440 firms near Relational assets Own survey Investment in R&R, Innovation Logit model, Positive Relational assets
(2000) Montreal level of regression matter more for
technology innovation than
the ratio of R&D
and technology
Rupasingha et al. 3.040 US counties Associations/capita, Varoius Urban/rural, Income/capita OLS Associations positive, Both “Putnam” and
(2000) 1990–1996 crime rates, sources highway, public growth crime negative, “Olson” groups
charitable giving, investment, region both significant positively
voting turnout type significant
Krishna (2001) 60 Indian villages Index of labour- Surveys Distance, Index of village OLS SC index positive only
sharing, infrastructure, development if combined with
cooperative literacy, land performance agencies’/
norms, trust, quality, caste associations
solidarity and homogeneity strength
reciprocity. Extra-
regional agencies/
associations
strength
911
(Continued)
912
Continued

Zak and Knack 37 countries Interpersonal trust WVS Initial income and Income/capita OLS Positive significant
(2001) 1970–1992 investment, growth,
education, formal investment/GDP
institutions, social
homogeneity
Beugelsdijk et al. 29 countries Interpersonal trust, WVS Incomes, education, GDP growth 1980– Various rubustness Trust’s impact Knack’s and
(2002) (market civic norms index investments + 26 1992 tests uncertain and not Keefer’s results
economies) control variables robust depend on the
choice of
conditioning
variables
Johnson et al. 50 Columbian Number and strength Interviews Firm size, capital Revenue/worker OLS Positive (sig.)
(2002) agroenterprises of firm value, education,
relationships region
Fafchamps and 739 agricultural Networks: number of Survey Capital, labour, Sales, value added OLS, IV Positive (sig.)
Minten (2002) traders in relatives in the internal (number of
Madagascar trade, traders organization, relatives negative
known, and human capital, (sig.))
potential informal communication,
lenders competition,
startup history,
location
Jenssen and Greve 100 Norwegian Entrepreneurs’ social Own survey Access to Revenues Correlations, OLS Positive (non-sig.) for
(2002) start-ups networks information, revenues, positive
finance and (sig) for
support information,
finance and support
Casey and Christ 48 US states Putnam’s SC index Labour, physical and GDP/capita and OLS Negative significant
(2003) 1980–2001 and 5 of its human capital GDP/capita for GDP/capita,
components (incl. growth, negative (insig.) for
trust and productivity, GDP growth
associations) employment,
unemployment
De Clerk and 4536 Belgian and Knowing an GEM survey Human capital, fear Launching a new OLS Knowing entrepreneur
Arenius (2003) Finnish entrepreneur, of failure, venture positive (sig.),
individuals involvement as availability of being investor
informal investor opportunities, positive (insig.)
gender, age,
country
Knack (2003) 38 countries Association WVS Initial income, Income/capita Mainly insignificant Neither Putnam nor
memberships education, growth, Olson hypothesis
property rights, investment/GDP supported (but
inflation expected sign)

De Clercq and 59 countries Social and WVS ESS Human capital Patents, R&D Bivariate Partly positive relation Human capital more
Dakhli (2003) institutional trust. investment, correlations (associational important than
Associational high-tech export activity and social capital
involvement innovation), trust
positive
Coates and 42 countries Number of interest GDP/capita Investment/GDP OLS Negative (sig.) in Mixed support for
Heckelman groups (total and OECD countries, Olsen
(2003) private) positive (sig.) in
non-OECD
Grootaert and 1000 rural Index. Membership in Survey Household size, Households’ OLS, probit, IV Mainly positive (sig.) SC more positive
Narayan households in local associations, education, expenditure/ for poor
(2004) Bolivia community household head capita households and
participation and characteristics, where
contribution land, animal and institutions are
farm tools weaker
ownership

Bosma et al. 1100 Dutch firm Firm founders’ Data base- Human capital, Firms’ survival, Regressions Mainly positive (sig.)
(2004) founders information based on financial capital, profits and
gathering through surveys gender, affiliation employment
various relations, with other
networks with business, goals
entrepreneurs and motives, hours
worked at firm
start
Guiso et al. (2004) 95 Italian Trust, referenda Italian sources, GDP/capita, age, Households’ Panel, probit, tobit Positive significant in
provinces, 20 turnouts, voluntary WVS (trust) education, income, portfolio and OLS most tests
regions (trust) blood donation, wealth allocation, check
incidence of use, loans
cooperatives availability,
before 1915 reliance on
informal lending
Beugelsdijk and 54 EU regions Indices for bridging Incomes, neighbour GDP growth/ 2SLS Bridging SC positive,
Smulders 1950–1998 and bonding SC regions’ incomes, country mean bonding SC
(2004) based on group education, negative (both
membership investments, most often
materialistic significant)
attitudes
913
(Continued)
914
Continued

Beugelsdijk and 54 EU regions SC index (trust, EVS Initial GDP GDP growth OLS Positive (sig.)
van Schaik 1950–1998 passive and active
(2005) group
membership)
Three papers: 455 UK firms Contacts/relations, Own survey None Innovation and Correlations “Social capital is
Cooke and clubs, trust in growth in firms indeed a key
Clifton (2004), collaborators ingredient of
Cook et al. successful SME
(2005), Cook performance”
(2007) (Cook, 2007)
Casey (2004) 11 British regions Indices for civic WVS, BSA None Economic Correlations Trust and civic Support for Putnam
engagement, trust survey performance association high and (indirect)
and association index (stock) positive corr. Olsen
membership Economic hypotheses
associations
negative, civic
engagement nearly
null
Lou et al. (2004) 262 Chinese urban Customer Own survey Manager’s position, Sales growth, return Hierarchical Customer
firms relationships, industry, market on investment moderated relationships are
business-partner knowledge, firm regressions the prime drivers of
social capital, size, ownership firm performance.
governing-agency structure The two other
social capital measures have a
synergistic
influence
Knudsen et al. 127 PUMAs (US) Indices (incl. trust) Human capital Growth of OLS Bridging SC positive,
(2007) 1990–2000 for bridging and population, bonding SC
bonding SC employment, negative on income
incomes, growth (both sig.),
housing values same signs but
insignificant for
employment
growth, bonding
negative (sig.) for
housing values
(bridging zero)
Eliasson et al. 288 Swedish Firms’ own opinion Survey Initial income, human Income/capita OLS Local business climate SC impact
(2005) municipalities on (a) local capital, population growth positive (sig.), decreases with
business climate, density, enterprise municipality size

and (b) enterprise accessibility associations insig.
associations
Miguel et al. 274 Indonesian Trust, cooperation, National Labour, education, OLS Growth of Most often negative.
(2005) districts association surveys district type, initial manufacturing Never positive sig.
activity manufacturing workers’ share
share
Mustre del Rio 36 countries Voting turnouts Initial GDP, capital GDP/capita 2000 OLS, 2SLS, IV Negative (insig.) SC positive for
(2005) 1950–2000 stock, schooling, government
religion, legal performance
origin plus socio-
economic
variables
Lyon (2005) 20 Italian regions Voting turnouts, Initial value added, Value added, OLS? Mainly positive SC negative in
1970–1995 newspaper investments, growth, TFP significant for simple
readership, civic employment growth value added, correlations
participation, negative for TFP (convergence).

associations growth. Much Olson hypothesis
stronger SC impact supported in
in South than North North, Putnam in
South
Baliamoune-Lutz 39 African CIM Literacy, openness, Incomes/capita Panel Positive significant
(2005) countries property rights,
civil liberties
Westlund and 50 firms in an Investment in relation Survey None Growth of turnover Correlations Relation building,
Nilsson (2005) industrial building, and employment sponsoring and
estate sponsoring, marketing covary
marketing positively with
employment
growth
Wu and Leung 177 Chinese Managerial value of Survey None Firms’ own opinion Chi-squares Trust positively (sig.)
(2005) SMEs reciprocity, trust, on for both measures,
network ties competitiveness reciprocity positive
and performance (sig.) for
competitiveness,
networks positive
(insig.)
(Continued)
915
916
Continued

Adam et al. 27 European Spent time in clubs WVS/EVS, Social cohesion, GDP/capita, Fuzzy-set method Positive, significant
(2005) countries and associations, 1999–2000 cognitive number of
unpaid work in mobilization, patents
voluntary entrepreneurial
organizations spirit, quality of
politics,
international
openness
Westlund (2006) Biotech firms in Environment-related Own surveys None Turnover sales, Correlations No significant Possible
Sweden, Japan, social capital, number of correlation found explanation: too
California market-related SC employees short
and external social investigation
capital in the form period
of informal
contacts
Lechner et al. 60 venture capital- Various types of Survey None Time-to-break- OLS Relational mix is more
(2006) financed firms networks and their even, sales important than
relational mix network size alone
for firm
performance
Pérez Garcia et al. 23 OECD Index of economic Official Labour, physical and GDP/capita Panel Positive significant
(2006) countries variables, incl. statistics human capital
1970–2001 loans/GDP,
education, gini
index,
unemployment,
life expectancy
Roth and Schüler 49 countries Trust, stocks and WVS Incomes, education, GDP/capita growth OLS, SUR, panel Trust stock mainly Negative effect of
(2006) 1990–2003 changes, investments, positive significant, change in trust is
interpersonal trust openness, public change in trust stronger in
and systemic trust expenditure/GDP, negative and often OECD countries
union density significant
Bjørnskov (2006) 82– 54 countries Trust WVS Initial GDP, GDP/capita growth OLS, 2SLS, 3SLS Positive Trust influences
education, growth through
investment, plus a quality of
number of socio- schooling and
economic government
variables
Zhang and Fung 3073 Chinese SC investment in the Own survey Capital/employee, Return to assets, OLS Investment in social
(2006) firms form of donations firm size, taxes sales capital are
and entertainment, positively

association significant for firm
membership performance,
association
membership is not
Smerek and 102 firms Organizational Employee None Return-on-assets, Correlations Adaptability and
Denison (2007) culture surveys sales growth, involvement
(involvement, market-to-book contribute most to
consistency, ratio firm performance
adaptability and
mission)
Ahlerup et al. 61 countries Trust WVS Institutions, initial GDP/capita growth OLS Positive (sig.) for Trust and
(2007) income, 1995–2005, GDP growth institutions are
investment, investment 2000 complementary.
education Effect of trust
decreases with

institutional
strength
Hauser et al. 51 European 14 variables EVS Human capital, R&D Patent applications Factorial analysis Associational activity
(2007) regions integrated in five investment positive impact on
(NUTS1) factors (basic trust, innovation
friendship ties, (comparable with
associational human capital),
activity, political trust insignificant
interest)
Chen et al. (2007) 104 new Social interaction, Survey Entrepreneurial Returns on Canonical Positive (sig.)
Taiwanese relationship orientation, investment, correlation
ventures quality, external organizational equity and analyses, OLS
networks resources, external assets; growth of
conditions sales, profits,
market shares
and employees
Akcomak and ter 83 EU regions Trust and a social ESS Funding by EU GDP/cap. value OLS, 2SLS Positive (sig.) for both Social capital
Wel (2007) 1990–2002 capital index incl. structural funds added, growth and improves the
trust, associations, innovation index innovation effects of EU
altruism programs
(Continued)
917
918
Continued

Dincer and 44 US states Trust GSS and other Education, initial Growth of income/ OLS, maximum Positive (sig.)
Uslaner (2007) 1990–2000 surveys dependent variable capita, housing likelihood,
prices and robustness tests
employment
Roth (2007) 41 countries Change in trust WVS, EB Incomes, education, Incomes/capita OLS, pooled Panel fixed-effects
(interpersonal and investments, growth panel, panel negative (sig.)
systemic) openness fixed and other analyses
random effects positive (sig.)
Westlund and 46 prefectures and Indices of trust, Human capital, Growth of high-tech OLS Non-existent at
Calidoni- eight large tolerance and accessibility sectors, prefecture level,
Lundberg regions (Japan) value enterprises and trust and tolerance
(2007) homogeneity, population positive (sig.) at
number of NPOs/ large region level.
capita NPOs mainly
negative
Akcomak and ter 102 EU regions Trust ESS Initial GDP, GDP/capita growth OLS, 2SLS, 3SLS Positive (sig.) but Possible chain: trust
Wel (2008) 1990–2002 education, insig. if innovation innovation
innovation, is included growth
institutions
Berggren et al. 63 countries Trust WVS, EB, Education, GDP/capita growth EBA, RLS and Trust insignificant in Removing outliers
(2008) 1990–2000 Latinobaró investment, initial LTS rubustness 90% of cases with makes trust-
metro GDP, plus a tests robustness tests growth
number of socio- relationship non-
economic rubust
variables
Lock Lee (2008) 155 North Corporate social Internet data Firm size, Return on OLS CSC is a significant
American IT capital (CSC) bases profitability, sub- investment, predictor of firm
services firms (market network industry sector market to book performance
centrality, ratios (TobQ),
absorptive total shareholder
capacity, internal return
capital, human
capital and
financial
soundness)
Neira et al. (2008) 14 EU countries Trust, organization WVS Human capital, GDP/capita OLS, GLS, panel Positive, significant
1980–2000 membership investment
Sabatini (2008) 20 Italian regions Strong family ties, Human Principal PCA: bonding SC Two methods give
weak informal development, component negative (sig.), different results
ties, voluntary index of well- analysis (PCA), weak ties and
organizations, being SEM membership
active political positive. SEM:
participation bonding and
bridging SC
negative (sig.),
only voluntary
organizations
positive (sig.)
Raiser (2008) 21 transition Membership, general WVS, ESS, Governance Income/capita Growth rate Membership: positive, Trust in public
countries trust EB 1989–1998 trust: no impact institution
relevant

TFP, total factor productivity; NPO, non-profit organization; GSS, general social survey.
919

2010 Westlund &amp; Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2010 Westlund &amp; Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2010 Westlund &amp; Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [The University of British Columbia]

On: 17 March 2013, At: 08:45

European Planning Studies

Social Capital and Economic

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654311003701431

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

Social Capital and Economic

HANS WESTLUND∗ ,∗∗ & FRANE ADAM†

(Received May 2009; accepted November 2009)

ISSN 0965-4313 Print/ISSN 1469-5944 Online/10/060893–27 # 2010 Taylor & Francis

Source: See appendix for further details.

2. Aims and Gains of Social Capital

2.2. Economic Gains of Social Capital

3. Trust and Associations as Proxies for Social Capital

sectors of my country”, that is, a measure of sector-bridging social capital on a national

4. Why all These Divergent Results?

others pay attention to a majority of the states considered in the WVS/EVS. It is

5. Consequences for Further Research

5.1. Social Capital on a National Level

5.1.4 Supplementary determinant variables. As shown in the appendix, in most studies,

5.1.5 The measurement of networks. A conclusion in Section 3 was that associational

5.2. Social Capital on Regional and Local Levels

levels—with enough resources—have the opportunity to collect their own, tailor-made

5.3. Social Capital on the Firm Level

H. Westlund & F. Adam

entrepreneurs (structural, interviews size, region, firm margins, return resource

Social Capital and Economic Performance

H. Westlund & F. Adam

inflation expected sign)

Social Capital and Economic Performance

H. Westlund & F. Adam

business climate, density, enterprise municipality size

Social Capital and Economic Performance

H. Westlund & F. Adam

and entertainment, positively

Social Capital and Economic Performance

H. Westlund & F. Adam

Social Capital and Economic Performance

You might also like

2010 Westlund & Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

2010 Westlund & Adam (2010) 09654311003701431

2010 Westlund & Adam (2010) 09654311003701431