SOCIAL CAPITAL – ROBERT PUTNAM

Introduction
* Humans are a social organism; we have evolved to be social. We want to help, share, and
give to each other and receive in kind. Many things that we want, and need, cannot be created
simply by our own efforts, so require some form of collaboration or reciprocity. The benefits
we derive from that sociability we could call social capital.
* Social capital arises from the human capacity to consider others, to think and act generously
and cooperatively. The concept of social capital relates to important questions of human
behaviour and motivation, such as why people give or help others even when there is no
foreseeable benefit for themselves.
* Social Capital relates to the dichotomy between competition and cooperation, self-interest
and selflessness, rationality and morality, and instrumental and intrinsic actions.
* The appeal of social capital stems from its intriguing integration of sociology and economics.
* Although the term social capital is relatively new, the concept is not as it encompasses a
variety of other concepts that have been around since at least the 19th century. Intellectuals
such as David Hume, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, Georg Simmel, Émile Durkheim, and Max
Weber provided cultural explanation of economic phenomena.
* Social capital is a complex multidimensional concept encompassing repertoire of cultural
and social value systems. The fundamental notion of social capital is to incorporate socio-
cultural factors to explain development outcomes.
* The concept of social capital as a topical issue, however, came into the spotlight only in late
1980s and attracted growing research interest thereafter. The scientific study of social capital
is relatively new, but the growth of literature on the topic is enormous.
* Today, the theory of social capital is particularly rooted on the notion of trusts, norms, and
informal networks and it believes that ‘social relations are valuable resources’.
* Social capital has hybrid theoretical origins having been explored by theorists from
economics, sociology, political science and virtually every other social science. Social capital
is applicable to anyone investigating human sociability and cooperation, and its evolution.
* The initial theoretical development is typically credited to three authors who each approached
social capital from vastly different perspectives and created different theoretical and conceptual
findings.
✓ Theory of capital – Pierre Bourdieu
✓ Rational-choice approach – James Coleman
✓ Democratic or civic perspective – Robert Putnam
Democratic or civic perspective – Robert Putnam
* Robert David Putnam is an American political scientist most famous for his controversial
publication Bowling Alone, which argues that the United States has undergone an

1
unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational, and political life (social capital) since the
1960s, with serious negative consequences. Putnam is generally credited with popularized the
term social capital.
* Robert Putnam’s approach to social capital focuses on volunteering and civic action as well
as democracy and community.
> Communities with higher social capital have an easier time with volunteerism due to norms
of reciprocity within the networks of those who are active in the community.
> He generally defines social capital in connection with the characteristics of organizations
such as, “…trust, norms, and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating
coordinated actions…”
> These attributes are what must be seen and considered for the effective implementation of
his social capital theory.
* Putnam explains social capital as located in the social tie between two actors or is inherently
found within a community network of relations. Thus, social capital lies within one’s network
and more specifically, in the relationships therein.
* Putnam views social capital as a public good and not a privately and self-developmental
theory. Social capital is formed as a by-product of some other social event, as such, he sees
trust as a key indicator of social capital because of its link to the norm of reciprocity as well as
the broad and localized benefits that are derived from social or generalized trust.
* Putnam has made the argument that social capital is essentially the ‘amount’ of ‘trust’
available and is the main stock characterizing the political culture of modern societies.
* The activity of a civic community, a major factor behind economic and governmental
effectiveness, is measured in Putnam's study in terms of voting activity, the reading of
newspapers, and participation in sports clubs and voluntary cultural associations. The quality
of the civil society “predestines” to a large extent the future economic and political
development of a region.
* The concept of social capital expresses the sociological essence of communal vitality. A
solution to the problem of common action and opportunism presupposes the development of
voluntary collective action, and it is connected to the inherited social capital in the community.
* Forms of social capital are general moral resources of the community, and they can be divided
into three main components:
1. trust (and more generally 'positive' values with respect to development);
2. social norms and obligations; and
3. social networks of citizens' activity, especially voluntary associations.
Trust
* When we speak about trust in modern societies we speak about "generalized trust". Individual
actors do something for the general good not because they know other interactors but because
they trust that their own action will be "rewarded" via the positive development of communal
relations.

2
* In the modern world we will need trust when we leave the sphere based on familiarity and
enter a world dominated by contingency, complexity and risk. Trust is needed when role
expectations and familiar relationships no longer help us to anticipate the reactions of our
individual or collective interaction partners.
* Well-functioning modern societies have to have a value basis that is based on the voluntary
regulation of social relations between persons who are foreigners to each other. Generalized
trust creates the basis for "brave reciprocity", and social networks and associations that are not
means for realizing the short-term interests of any specific groups. These two factors in turn
create trust. The circle is ready: trust creates reciprocity and voluntary associations; reciprocity
and associations strengthen and produce trust.
* The more social capital is used, the more it grows.
Social Norms and Obligations
* Trust helps in the building of social norms and obligations that help in the growth of the
individual as well as the society. They outline the guidelines for the behaviour.
Voluntary Associations
* Putnam's concept of voluntary association connects his ideas to one of the currents within the
American theory of pluralism. Voluntary association is the most important form of horizontal
interaction and reciprocity. Voluntary associations influence social interaction and co-operation
between actors in several ways.
* Associations first “increase the potential costs to a defector in any individual transaction”;
second, “foster robust norms of reciprocity”; and third, “facilitate communication and improve
the flow of information about the trustworthiness of individuals”.
* Voluntary associations can be regarded as socially organized groups based on mutual trust
between the members. As a rational form of solving administrative problems and reducing the
complexity of the environment (Umwelt) voluntary association is also a central embodiment
of confidence.

* For Putman, there are four important functions of social capital.

> First, social capital reduces the complexity of solving “collective problems.” Putnam
identifies networks and social norms as the mechanisms that allow for ease in solving
community issues.
> Putnam argues that social capital allows for people to achieve a common consciousness,
where they realize that their lives and consequences are linked.
> Putnam argues that social capital allows for people to achieve a common consciousness,
where they realize that their lives and consequences are linked. Participating with others toward
a common goal of helping others is social capital.
> Putnam further develops the concept of social capital to include bonding capital and bridging
capital. One can think of the main difference between bonding and bridging social capital in

3
terms of the type of tie or relationship that exists between two actors. The type of tie dictates
the type of social capital.
Bonding Social Capital
# According to Putnam, bonding social capital refers to social resources that lie within ones’
community and close network.
# Accordingly, bonding social capital is an exclusionary form of social capital that helps to bind
people together based on their similarities.
# Bonding social capital is characterized by strong ties and close personal relationships. It
references those in-groups that feed off one another’s similarities and reject differences.
# In sum, bonding social capital is based on relationships or memberships that are exclusive
where some restrictions apply to membership, for example, based on race, gender, class, or
kinship. Therefore, bonding social capital includes the ties between family members and close
friends.
# It has been said that bonding social capital can encapsulate the darker “side” of social capital,
also noted by Weber as social closure, where bonding social capital can have deleterious effects
on social inequality.
Bridging Social Capital
# Bridging social capital refers to ties with resources that extend outside of one’s immediate
community or network.
# Ties that can be construed as bridging social capital tend to “generate broader identities and
reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves”. In fact, most of what
Putnam refers to as “thin” trust underlies bridging social capital.
# At the empirical level, bridging social capital is involved in networking.
# Groups that are considered inclusive are linked to bridging social capital. Bridging social
capital lies in the diversity of relationships and promotes the appreciation of differences.
* However, within his discussion on bridging versus bonding social capital, Putnam
emphasizes that neither is exclusive of the other. He notes that groups (his unit of analysis is at
the community level) have the ability to create bonding and bridging social capital
simultaneously.
* Putnam argues that people tend to have more bonding social capital than bridging. However,
bridging social capital is important to branching out and increasing the breadth of one’s social
resources.
Criticism
* Putnam has been widely criticised for fundamental conceptual and methodological flaws.
> Perhaps most problematic is the drastic over-simplification of complex and interrelated
processes to a single or small set of factors, i.e. trust as an aggregate indicator of social capital.

4
> This is further complicated by logical circularity. As a property of communities and nations
rather than individuals, social capital is simultaneously a cause and an effect.
> One of Putnam's problems is the explanation of the origin of social trust.
> Putnam's central problem is that in practice he reduces the concept of civil society to
voluntary associations of a specific type.
> It is typical of Putnam that he does not discuss conflicts between interests (new social
movements, parties). This holds true for three kinds of conflicts. First, there are conflicts
between those associations that are functional in creating and supporting social consensus, and
those associations and movements that are critical of the dominant political values. Second,
Putnam is nothing to say about conflicts between civil society and the political society. Third,
Putnam neglects the vertical dimension of voluntary associations and the power relations that
are inherent in all modern associations.
> Putnam has little to say about the problems of internal democracy in existing voluntary
associations, and their internal power structures. It has to be remembered too that Putnam's
voluntary associations consist mainly of sports clubs and cultural associations, which have
positive functions concerning the development of social integration and consensus. Putnam is
not able to deal with distrust, and those social movements and voluntary associations that
present challenges to the prevailing consensus or to integrative institutions.