Social Capital and the Capability Approach - CiteSeerX

6 downloads 104 Views 152KB Size Report
This paper highlights the methodological limitations of the World Bank's .... together under one thematic banner, a wide range of socioeconomic studies that do ...
1

Social Capital and the Capability Approach: A Social Economic Theory

Alexandre Bertin [email protected] Nicolas Sirven [email protected]

Centre d’Economie du Développement – IFReDE Université Montesquieu – Bordeaux IV Ave. Léon Duguit, 33600 Pessac France Tel. + 33 (0) 556 842 938 Fax. +33 (0) 556 848 506 Abstract:

This paper highlights the methodological limitations of the World Bank’s analysis of “social capital” and legitimates the use of an alternative definition of this concept. Social capital refers here to the rights an agent has over the resources of his social network. It is an asset households can mobilize in event of need. We argue that Sen’s capability approach makes it possible to analyze the social interactions linked to the access to social resources. By integrating social capital into this approach, we thus suggest it is an alternative social economic framework to the traditional neo-classical theory.

Key Words: Social Capital, Capability Approach, Entitlements

1

2

Introduction

According to Robert Putnam (2001), who found trace of the expression in Hanifan’s work since 1916, social capital seems to be a quite early notion in human sciences. Nevertheless, this concept is conventionally attributed to the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1980), who developed and popularized it with an eye to highlight the phenomenon of preservation of social class, in a macro-social perspective. Social capital thus refers to the entirety of resources an agent can obtain from his social network: “Social capital is the current or potential resources linked to the possession of a durable social network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual knowledge and mutual acknowledgement; or in other words the idea of belonging to a group” (Bourdieu 1980: 2, authors’ translation.)

Having been influenced by Bourdieu’s work, James Coleman (1988) proposes to introduce the concept of social capital in a more micro-socioeconomic framework, with the aim to rely on the hypothesis of rational individuals. Therefore, social capital is seen as a productive asset derived from the social structure that facilitates the cooperation among people. Since the mid-1990s, Putnam popularized Coleman’s conception of a new factor of production through its ability to explain why some countries or regions develop further than others. According to him, being involved in social organizations and sharing the same norms and values promote trust and facilitate cooperation and coordination for mutual profit (Putnam 1993; Helliwell and Putnam 1995). Subsequently, Francis Fukuyama (1995) emphasises the role of social capital as the key element to foster economic growth and development because it produces trust. His assertion relies on the usual neo-institutional

2

3

theory stipulating that trust among people reduces transaction costs and by the way, fosters economic growth (North 1990).

Little by little, and notably following the work of Coleman, Putnam and Fukuyama, the notion of social capital evolved from its original conception to finally take into account the entirety of social interactions among all economic agents. Such a derivation from Bourdieu’s prior work leads to two main issues. First, social capital is seen as a public good, whereas Bourdieu highlights that it is an exclusive resource for some individuals. Second, the various forms of social features associated with social capital reduce the explanatory power of this concept. Put differently, “social capital means different things to different persons” (Dasgupta and Serageldin 1999: x).

The ever-increasing importance of social capital in the economic literature does not refer to a general agreement on its definition. By and large, the idea crystallized in the metaphor of social capital seems to stress that the social environment (norms, values, networks, social activities, etc.) has an effect on individuals’ well-being. Notice this idea is simultaneously shared by social economics and the capability approach. Social economists long last recognized that the (social) environment influences how preferences are formed and decisions are made by individuals (Dolfsma 2002, Davis 2003), while the capability approach recognizes social interactions as a central human functional capability1 (Nussbaum 2000). Both of these approaches are powerful alternative analytical frameworks for human development and economic policy. One attractive pathway between the two frameworks focuses on the challenge to find both a strict definition of social capital and an analytical framework that could support the idea of access to resources. More precisely, the concept of

3

4

social capital can be criticized from a social economic perspective (e.g. Dolfsma and Dannreuther 20003) so as to reinterpret Bourdieu’s work in a capability approach.

This chapter is structured as follows: Section 1 aims to overcome the limitations of the mainstream analysis by means of an alternative definition of social capital based upon the rights an agent has over the resources of his social network. We then turn to social capital and its mobilization in order to get access to resources (section 2). In Amartya Sen’s words, the resources an agent can obtain from his social network are part of an entitlement set. Those entitlements are individual means people can use to achieve their own way of life. In other words, social capital can improve people’s capabilities. Following this scheme, Sen’s capability approach provides a rigorous framework to evaluate the role social capital plays in poverty reduction (section 3).

An Alternative Definition of Social Capital

Ever since the development of social capital in the literature, some scholars pointed out the limitations of such a fuzzy concept (Arrow1999; Solow 1999). Most of those criticisms arise from a partial analysis of Bourdieu’s work by Coleman. Indeed, the latter’s conception of social capital gives little attention to the importance of access to resources, which is in the heart of Bourdieu’s aim. Therefore, it seems possible to conceptualize another definition of social capital based upon a reinterpretation of Bourdieu’s work in a micro economic framework.

4

5

Some Limitations of the Mainstream Approach to Social Capital

In the last fifteen years, the spectrum of social capital has grown from a micro to a macroeconomic level of analysis. Some authors thus denounced the abundance of definitions of social capital that enhance the multifaceted vagueness of the concept (Portes 1998, Dasgupta and Serageldin 1999, Sobel 2002). Since 1996, the World Bank launched the Social Capital Initiative (SCI) in order to unify most of the heterogeneous approaches dealing with social interactions into the same analytical framework. It has been proposed to hold back a multidimensional and multiform perspective where several different elements make part of social capital (Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002a; 2002b). By and large, this concept refers to the features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and values that have an economic outcome. Social capital is widely understood as bonds within the family, groups or social networks members; bridges linking together different associations and other civic organizations; and ties between institutions from the civil society and local or national governments. As underlined by Grootaert and Van Bastelaer (2002a: 4), such a frame takes into account some large effects of complementarities and substitution between the forms and dimensions of social capital.

However, the analytical framework provided by the World Bank associates together under one thematic banner, a wide range of socioeconomic studies that do not always share the same conception of social capital. For example, some authors stress the negative effects of social capital on economic performance (Portes and Landholt 1996; Rubio 1997), whereas it is usually described as a productive factor. One reason of such misunderstandings about social capital resides in the will mainstream economists want to use social capital as a synonymous for institution in the analysis of economic growth determinants. There are some

5

6

‘productive’ forms of social capital as well as some ‘perverse’ ones, just like one can account for ‘good’ and bad’ institutions.

The World Bank (2003: 38) actually recognized that “the difference between social capital and institutions is often fuzzy and there are strong influences among the different social assets.” Therefore, social capital is very closely related to the concept of institutions – such as seen by the New Institutional Economics (North 1990) – and the former is more and more used as a substitute of the later in recent studies. Such a practice can be explained by Arrow’s position stipulating “institutions are a form of capital”. Nevertheless, it does not justify the use of the term capital. Indeed, a form of capital is a specific asset with the properties of being accumulated, fungible and rentable. Most of the literature does not deal with the two first issues. There is no consensus on the third one, which considers social capital as rentable when its effects on economic performance are positive. In other words, social capital – as conceived by the World Bank – should be seen as an asset, rather than a form of capital.

Another problem raised by the mainstream approach of social capital is relative to the measure of the concept. Due to several topics it embeds, social capital can be evaluated using a lot of different variables (e.g. Helliwel and Putnam 1995; Knack and Keefer 1997; Narayan and Prichet 1997; 2000; Krishna and Uphoff 1999; Krishna and Shrader 1999; Grootaert 2000; Narayan and Grrotaert 2004). So as to make possible comparisons between empirical results, some studies use an index of trust as a proxy for social capital (Whiteley 2000). However, this methodology raises some complications. Firstly, there is some evidence, unlike Putnam2 (2000), that “trust” capture poorly the effects of social capital on growth

6

7

(Beugelsdijk and Schaik 2001). Secondly, the OECD (2001) stress some misunderstandings about the meaning of “trust” according to relationships among people in different time, space, and culture. Thirdly, Durlauf (2002: 495) raises some econometric difficulties linked to the use of community-based data so as to explain individual economic performance: “In light of the vagueness of the concept, I believe that the use of observational data to identify substantive forms of social capital is unlikely to be successful.” On the whole, it seems quite difficult to search for a good index of social capital as long as a strict, simple, and operational definition of social capital is not given.

Social capital as an Endowment

In order to provide an alternative definition of social capital, it may be interesting to come back to its roots. More precisely, one can focus on the derivation of Bourdieu’s macro-social conception into Coleman’s micro-economic one. According to Bourdieu, a fundamental propriety of social classes is to ensure their reproduction by excluding non class members from the resources (e.g. social capital) of the social network. Hence, the main difference with Coleman’s reinterpretation is that one can no longer consider social capital as a public good because its use is exclusive. Taking that into account, an alternative way of defining social capital is to consider it as a private form of capital in a micro-economic framework. In other words, the analysis of this concept should take its private good characteristics as a starting point.

Note that such a viewpoint may raise some debate about the formation of social capital. Since it is a private good, standard economics suggest individuals rationally invest time and/or money in social activities with the aim to benefit from positive social externalities

7

8

or social support from their network of relationships. Now, the anthropological literature indicates that a ‘gift’ from an individual to another member of his network is not necessarily rational, but may follow from a set of normative obligations. According to prior work by Marcel Mauss (1924), individuals within a community are submitted to three kind of obligations: the gift has to be given, accepted and ‘repaid’. The latter obligation is consistent with the principle of reciprocity that means each giver is entitled (through norms, values, and informal institutions of the community) to a gift that the given has to make in turn. To sum up this idea: “(…) one gives because one is constrained to, because the given has a kind of property right over everything the giver owns” (Mauss 1927: 19; authors’ translation). Following this, we can turn a rights-based definition of social capital.

Assume that an individual within a social network or a community can benefit from the help of other members in event of need. This means he has the ‘right’ to access resources that other people would afford him. Assume this norm is the same for all members, anyone that can ask for help is conversely supposed to provide social support to any other member (Mahieu 1989). For example, if agent i is given money by members (j, k, l, m, …) of his network at time t; in turn, one can expect i helps j at time t+1. Such reciprocity is guaranteed by strong norms and values that discourage free riding behaviours. In other words, every time agent i asks his network for help, he has in turn, the obligation to provide subsequent social support to other members that already helped him. Note that the result being the same if i provided social support before asking for help. The network is no longer seen as social capital, but rather as the social structure in which are embedded social resources (Lin 2001). Social capital is defined as the rights an agent can exercise over his social network so as to access some particular resources.

8

9

This definition breaks up the “fuzzy” conception of social capital and avoids any functionalist considerations. Social capital becomes a causal notion because social interactions (such as remittances) lead to expectations of gift-giving and thus create reciprocity and cooperation. The analogy with other forms of capital is now undeniable: while human capital comes from investments in oneself, social capital can be accumulated through investments in others. The main difference is that whereas other forms of capital can be obtained on the market (capital markets for financial capital, goods markets for physical capital, the labor market for human capital), it appears that the mobilisation space3 for social capital is only within the network of an agent’s sustainable relationships. In summary, social capital refers here to the rights an agent has over the resources of his social network. These rights can be accumulated and transformed in other kind of resources; that is why we consider social capital as an endowment an individual can mobilize in event of need.

Social Capital and Access to Resources

Once social capital is defined as an endowment, its analysis has to take into account the accumulation and the use of the rights an agent has over his social network. In this perspective, Sen’s (1981) entitlement approach of poverty and famines provides an analytical framework where all the forms of capital (physical, financial, human) are considered as a mean to access resources. The challenge is to incorporate social capital as defined here into this approach, and to specify its particularities as a special form of capital.

The Entitlement Approach

9

10

A quarter of a century ago, Sen (1981) proposed a new interpretation of the causes of famine that is radically different from the standard approach based on the lack of food available in the society (Malthus’ population principle). Sen (1981: 45) focused on the inability to “command food through the legal means available in the society.” For him, famines could occur even when there is enough food to feed the entire community, and those who suffer from famines are those who are not able to convert their endowments into food; Sen uses the expression of ‘entitlement failure.’ This failure appears when poor people do not have access to a category of goods because their endowments are insufficient or not adapted to produce those goods or to gain them by transactions. Endowments are then defined as the stock of different forms of capital (physical, financial, human, and social) an agent possesses.

Sen argues that it is not the amount of resources that is important to avoid poverty, but the transformation from endowments to some bundles of goods required for living well. This transformation is legitimated by a system of property rights. Those rights are guaranteed when the transformation respects some “entitlement relations”: (1) production-based entitlement, when one is entitled to what one produces by using one’s own resources and one’s own labor force, or (2) transaction-based entitlement, when one is entitled to goods gained by market mechanisms and transfers.

All the bundles of goods one can obtain by transactions of endowments are called ‘exchange entitlement,’ and the ‘exchange entitlement mapping’ is “the relation that specifies the set of exchange entitlements for each ownership bundle” (Sen 1981: 3). Poverty can thus be analyzed as an inadequate exchange entitlement set that does not contain suitable goods to obtain those that are necessary to avoid poverty. At this stage of analysis, it is easy to

10

11

understand endowments from social networks as a subset of an agent’s entitlements set and social capital as a part of endowments transformed into social resources.

A Particular Focus on Social Capital

An individual’s stock of social capital is made of the whole rights that give him access to some of the resources of its own social network. Those potential resources represent part of the entitlements set an agent can get with a given social capital endowment. Following above analysis, an agent can mobilize its social capital so as to get resources that would enhance his well-being. Figure 1 illustrates the incidence on poverty of a conversion of social capital into purposeful resources.

FIGURE 1 NEAR HERE

In figure 1, x0 stands for the amount of social capital agent i is endowed, whereas y0 is the potential social resources associated to x0. To simplify, the relation between entitlements and social capital is of the form y = -p.x where p is the transformation rate of social capital (x) into resources (y). In situation S0, agent i is below the poverty line Z; i.e. one consider him has poor because his resources are insufficient to fulfil his needs. Now, assume agent i asks his network for help. Put differently, he chooses to exercise the (informal) rights he has over the members of his network. Note that exercising those rights in order to get resources can be analysed as ‘selling off’ his social capital. This is so because, consistent with reciprocity hypothesis, agent i will have to provide subsequent resources to members of his network, he thus transforms part of his rights into social obligations. The stock of social capital declines from x0 to x1 but is associated with an increase in resources agent i has

11

12

available. To sum up, an agent can benefit from the resources of his network by becoming somehow indebted to the group.

As a result, an individual mobilizes his social capital when he takes advantage of his ownership rights on the resources of his social network. It seems that these rights are necessarily distinct; they are the sum of those rights to which an individual may lay claim once he has honored his obligations vis-à-vis his community. According to Mahieu (1989), these rights become apparent via the exchange of one’s time or goods, which elicit a certain level of obligation. By bringing this last property into play, it may be considered that an agent’s rights and social obligations take the form of transfers with other agents (not taking place in a market but within a social network).

Social capital and Poverty Reduction

Sen’s entitlement approach laid the foundational stone of a much more complex analysis of welfare: the capability approach. Considering social capital as an endowment in the entitlement approach, lead us to evaluate its impact on well being using the capability approach. Although there is a constantly growing body of literature on both the capability approach and social capital, and although they put forward new ways of analyzing poverty, few studies have linked the two concepts together. Therefore, in order to be able to explore this new analytical framework, this section will offer an interpretation of the capability approach, before going on to identify how social capital works alongside it.

12

13

The capability approach

Of the various interpretations of the capability approach, the greatest importance can be given to that which focuses on rethinking the utilitarian precepts which aim to measure the happiness of individuals. Essentially, the utilitarian doctrine rests on the principle that utility can only be measured in an indirect way, if one wants to make inter-personal welfare comparisons. In this reading, the standard neo-classical approach considers utility to be a growing function of consumption (the monotonicity hypothesis), or an increasing function of income (more generally, of the resources available to the representative agent). For a long time, this argument has been vaunted as the keystone in the majority of pro-developmental policies, to increase wealth in order to improve living conditions. It has only been relatively recent that theories have begun to appear that offer a less simplistic vision of human development. Here, Sen’s work provides the principal point of reference. The capability approach Sen developed, brings into question this direct link between the resources available to an agent and his level of welfare.

According to Sen, at least two obstacles exist to equivalence between an agent’s resources and his level of well-being. First, it can be considered that an agent’s resources are potential, for as long as he has not made good use of the ownership rights he has on those resources. In other words, an agent’s standard of living does not depend solely on the total value of his resources (commodities), but also on his ability to transform his resources into baskets of goods that he is then free to make use of. Second, once an agent does have a stock of goods or resources available to him, the usage (doings and beings) he can make of them is conditional on a whole range of personal characteristics (age, sex, handicap, etc.) and social characteristics (the position he holds in the community, etc.), all of which represent what Sen

13

14

(1985) names the functions of utilization. They determine an agent’s ability to use the goods he has available (capability) in order to be free to choose a way of life that suits him (functionings). In summary, these three elements – resources, entitlements and functions of utilization – will determine the extent of choices open to an individual (his options for being and doing). The more curtailed the capability extent is, the poorer an individual will be in terms of life choices. Therefore, poverty is not a lack of resources anymore, but rather a lack of capabilities.

Interest ands limits of the Capability Analysis of Social Capital

The main interest of the capability approach for social capital is to make a strict distinction between the concept, its social environment, and its effects. Indeed, social capital as an endowment is made of informal rights of property that gives it the status of an asset. Because those rights can be accumulated, social capital has the characteristics of a special form of capital. This conception differs from the World Bank’s point of view where the concept is a ‘fuzzy’ combination of several social interactions that have an economic payoff. In contrast, the capability approach separates those social interactions between the informal social rights an agent accumulates (social capital) and the social environment, composed of norms and values that ensure these rights. More precisely, the social environment is different from social capital because the former plays the role of a function that transforms the latter into a vector of capabilities.

Nevertheless, even if this theoretical clarification gives social capital a precise conception, several difficulties apply at the empirical level. More precisely, according to Jérôme Ballet and François-Régis Mahieu (2003), the evaluation of social capital is quite

14

15

possible in this framework using inter vivos remittances, but the main problem deals with the measure of capabilities (Robeyns 2003). Remember, the capability set represents all the individual freedoms an agent can enjoy among all the achievable functionings. Therefore, if one wants to measure the level of individual capabilities, one will be confronted with a problem of multidimensionality. Indeed, the capability set of an agent is made of infinity of achievable functionings that are not all observable. Moreover, Sen (1985) underlines that achieved functionings take into account additional information in the sense that there is a process of choice of life absent in the measure of capabilities. Consequently, most of the empirical studies focus on functionings rather than capabilities (Chiappero-Martinetti 2001; Lelli 2001). Therefore, the capability approach tends to be nothing more than a complement of the usual welfarist conception of poverty (Ravallion 1998; Lachaud 2002).

Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter has been to find an alternative framework of analysis to the concept of social capital through agency of a social economics perspective. The main difficulty with social capital relies on the fuzziness of its definition. One source of confusion comes from the derivation of Bourdieu’s conception of this concept by Coleman, who tries to apply the hypothesis of individual rationality to social behavior. Nevertheless, by doing so, Coleman leaves behind the notion of access to resources rooted in the original function of social capital. Therefore, social capital is seen as an element of the social structure that acts on it, and, further, the definition of social structure is vague. The World Bank provided a unified framework for a wide range of heterogeneous studies on social capital but without establishing an operational definition of this concept.

15

16

To shed light on this concept, we adopt a rights-based definition of social capital. Thus, social capital is an asset made of the informal social rights that an agent can acquire upon his social network. Such an interpretation makes it play the same role as other forms of capital: people can mobilize it in event of need. In Sen’s capability approach, social capital refers to an endowment, i.e. a set of means to achieve a life people reason to value. More precisely, this theoretical framework distinguishes social capital from its social environment (network, norms, and values, etc.) and allows a much more precise evaluation of people’s endowments to struggle against poverty. At this stage, further research could build empirical evaluations of social capital following a rights-based approach.4 The main limitation of the capability approach rests on the empirical methodological difficulties to evaluate people’s capability level.

16

17

Endnotes 1

Affiliation is defined as the 7th central human functional capability as follows: “Being able

to live with and toward other, to recognize and show concern for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction (…)” Nussbaum (2000: 79). 2

Actually, Putnam found a strong correlation between “trust” and some components of social

capital (number of associations, number of people involved in associations, etc.). 3

One could define this expression as both real and virtual places where resources are

allocated. Markets, social networks, the State, and any institutions that guarantee entitlements according to the law, norms and values common to those who belong to them, all enter into this definition. 4

For example, studies by Ballet and Mahieu (2003), propose a monetary measure of social

capital through remittances.

References

Arrow, J. K. (1999) “Observations on Social Capital”, in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (ed.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, pp.3-5, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Ballet, J. and Mahieu, F.-R. (2003) “Le Capital Social : Mesure et Incertitude du Rendement”, in Ballet, J. et Guillon, R. (eds.) Regards Croisés sur le Capital Social, pp.41-56, Paris : L’Harmattan.

Bourdieu, P. (1980) “Le Capital Social,” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n°31, pp. 2-3.

17

18

Beugelsdijk, S. and van Shaik, T (2001) “Social Capital and Regional Economic Growth,” Tilburg University, discussion paper, unpublished.

Chiaperro-Martinetti, E. (2001) “A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Well-Being Based on Sen’s Functioning Theory”, Revista Internazionale di Scienza Soziale, 108 (2): 207-239.

Coleman, J. S. (1988) “Social capital in the creation of human capital”. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (supplement).

Davis, J. B. (2003) The Theory of the Individual in Economics, New York: Routledge.

Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (1999) “Preface” in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (ed.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, pp. ix-x, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Dolfsma, W. (2002) “Mediated Preferences: How Institutions Affect Consumption,” Journal of Economic Issues, 36(2): 449-457.

Dolfsma, W. and Dannreuther, C. (2003) “Subjects and Boundaries: Contesting Social Capital-Based policies,” Journal of Economic Issues, 37(2): 405-413.

Durlauf, S. (2002) “On the Empirics of Social Capital”, The Economic Journal, 112:. 459497.

Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: The Free Press.

18

19

Grootaert, C. (2000) “Social capital, household welfare and poverty in Indonesia”, Local Level Institutions Study Working Paper No.6, Social Development Family, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network, Washington D.C.: The World Bank, unpublished.

Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T. (2002a) The role of social capital in development, Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press.

—. (2002b) Understanding and measuring social capital. Washington D.C. : The World Bank.

Grootaert, C. & Narayan, D. (2004) “Local Institutions, Poverty and Household Welfare in Bolivia.” World Development, 32(7): 1179-1198.

Hannifan, L. J. (1916) “The Rural School Community Center”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67: 130-138.

Helliwell, J. and Putnam, R. (1995) “Economic Growth and Social Capital in Italy”, Eastern Economic Journal, 21: 295-307.

Knack, S. et Keefer, P. (1997) “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A CrossCountry Investigation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112 (4): 1251-88.

19

20

Krishna, A. et Shrader, E. (1999) “Social Capital Assessment Tool”, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper n°22, Washington D.C: The World Bank, unpublished.

Krishna, A. et Uphoff, N. (1999) “Mapping and Measuring Social Capital: A Conceptual and Empirical Study of Collective Action for Conserving and Developing Watersheds in Rajasthan, India”, Social Capital Initiative Working Paper n°13, Washington D.C: The World Bank, unpublished.

Lachaud, J.-P. (2002) Pauvreté monétaire et privations des capacités en Afrique, Contribution à l’analyse des interactions, Série de recherche n°6, Centre d’économie du développement, Université Montesquieu-Bordeaux IV

Lelli, S. (2001) “Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: assessing the influence of different techniques on Sen’s functioning approach”. 1st International Conference on the Capability Approach, 5-7 June, Cambridge, U.K.

Lin, N. (2001) “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital”, in Lin, N, Cook, K et Burt, R. S. (ed.) Social capital – Theory and Research. New York: De Gruyter.

Mahieu, F.R. (1989) Les Fondements de la crise économique en Afrique, L’Harmattan, Paris.

Mauss, M. (1924) “Essai sur le don. Formes et raisons de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques,” L’Année Sociologique, seconde série, Tome I.

20

21

Narayan, D. and Pritchett, L. (1997) “Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania”, Policy Research Working Paper No.1796, Social Development and Development Research, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

—. (2000) “Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania”, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47: 871-897.

North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge (USA): CUP.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, New York: Cambridge University Press.

OECD (2001) The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital, Paris: OECD.

Putnam, R. D. – with Leonardi, R. and Nanetti, R. (1993) Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon Schuster.

—. (2001) foreword in Saegert, S., Thompson, J. T., and Warren, M. R. (ed.) Social capital and poor communities, New York: Russell Sage.

21

22

Portes, A. (1998) “Social Capital: Its Origins and Application in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology: 1-14.

Portes, A. et Landolt, P. (1996) “The Downside of Social Capital”. The American Prospect, 26: 18-22.

Ravallion, M. (1998) “Poverty lines in theory and practice”. Living Standard Measurement Study Working Paper 133, Washington: The World Bank.

Robeyns, I. (2003) “Sen's Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities”, Feminist Economics, 9(2-3): 61-92.

Rubio, M. (1997) “Perverse Social Capital: Some Evidence From Colombia”, Journal of Economic issues, 31.

Sen, A. (1981) Poverty and famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

─ (1985) Commodities and Capabilities, Oxford India Paperbacks: Oxford University Press (5th edition 2000).

Sobel, J. (2001) “Can We Trust Social Capital?”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. XL: 139-154.

22

23

Solow, R. M. (1999) “Notes on Social Capital and Economic Performance”, in Dasgupta, P. and Serageldin, I. (ed.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, pp. 6-10, Washington: The World Bank.

World Bank (2003) World Development Report, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

Whiteley, P. F. (2000) “Economic Growth and Social Capital”, Political Studies, 48 (3): 443466.

23