Social capital: recent debates and research trends - CiteSeerX

Trend report Etat de la question Frane Adam and Borut RoncÏevicÂ

Social capital: recent debates and research trends Abstract. The aim of this article is not only to provide an overview of the state of recent discussion about the concept of social capital, it is also an attempt at critical re¯ection on theoretical and empirical research efforts. The question is whether the concept of social capital is a fashionable (and short-lived) term proposed as a cure-all for the maladies affecting contemporary communities, organizations and societies as a whole or whether it has more long-term strategic ± theoretical as well as applicable ± meaning for sociology and other social-science disciplines. Despite the de®ciencies of the recent research ®ndings, we argue that the latter is true. The concept represents a very important conceptual innovation which can facilitate the theoretical integration within sociology and the inter- and trans-disciplinary collaboration of sociology and other disciplines, especially economics. The article emphasizes the problems of reception, de®nition and operationalization, and the developmental role of social capital. Key words. Development ± Intermediary institutions ± Networks ± Social capital ± Trust

ReÂsumeÂ. Cet article a pour but de donner un apercËu de l'eÂtat de la question quant aux discussions reÂcentes sur le concept de capital social; il se veut aussi un effort de reÂ¯exion critique sur les recherches theÂoriques et empiriques. La question est de savoir si le concept de capital social est un concept aÁ la mode (et donc eÂpheÂmeÁre) servant de panaceÂe universelle aÁ tous les maux qui affectent nos communauteÂs, organisations et socieÂteÂs contemporaines ou s'il a une porteÂe aÁ plus long terme et un inteÂreÃt strateÂgique ± pour la recherche theÂorique et appliqueÂe ± en sociologie et dans d'autres disciplines des sciences sociales. En deÂpit de certaines lacunes dans les reÂsultats des recherches reÂcentes, nous penchons pour cette dernieÁre interpreÂtation. Ce concept repreÂsente une innovation

Social Science Information & 2003 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi), 42(2), pp. 155±183. 0539-0184[200306]42:2;155±183;033604

156 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 importante pouvant faciliter une inteÂgration theÂorique en sociologie et une collaboration inter- et trans-disciplinaire entre la sociologie et d'autres disciplines, en particulier l'eÂconomie. L'article met l'accent sur les probleÁmes que posent la reÂception, la deÂ®nition et l'opeÂrationalisation du concept de capital social et sur son roÃle dans les Âetudes sur le deÂveloppement. Mots-cleÂs. Capital social ± Con®ance ± DeÂveloppement ± Institutions intermeÂdiaires ± ReÂseaux

According to some authors, the notion of free association as a basis of social capital and effective democracy is actually an old idea connected with thinkers such as Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, Toennies, Weber and Simmel (Newton, 1999; Whiteley, 1999). The ®rst, because of his enthusiastic report of the vibrant associative life in America in the 1830s (Tocqueville, 1990), has even been described as the ``patron saint of contemporary social capitalists'' (Putnam, 2000: 292). It seems that the intellectual history of social capital has deep and diverse roots. But it can also be argued that we are dealing with a revival of this concept in a different historical context and with some kind of `ìnvention of tradition''. Indeed, since the early 1990s, and especially after the publication of Putnam's study of ``civicness'' and institutional performance in the Italian regions (Putnam, 1993), we have witnessed what is perhaps an unprecedented acceptance, study and application of this single concept, which manifests itself both in the number of works published on the concept of social capital and in the variety of studies in which this concept is used as either an explanandum or an explanans. Instead of listing the ®elds of application of social capital, it would perhaps be easier to describe where it has not been applied. It could even be argued that social theory is being rewritten through the lens of social capital (Fine, 2000: 125). Furthermore, social capital is one of those sociological concepts that has not remained con®ned to social sciences, but has also entered public debates. Certainly social capital is not the only trendy concept, not to say buzzword, that has risen to widespread prominence. Globalization, postmodernism and civil society, to name just a few, are examples of other well-known concepts.1 Social capital differs signi®cantly from other fashionable concepts in at least two respects. First of all, while having clearly sociological origins, this concept was from the outset readily accepted by a

Adam and RoncÏevicÂ

Trend report 157

variety of social sciences. Among the three fathers of the concept, only Bourdieu can be classi®ed as a ``pure'' sociologist, although he began his academic career as an ethnologist, and his philosophical background always played an important role in his theorizing. Putnam, the most popular of the three, is a political scientist. Although Coleman is a sociologist, he has strong connections with rational-choice theory, which is a basis of economic analysis.2 Needless to say, a signi®cant number of the authors who deal with the study of social capital are economists. The interest of organizations like the World Bank and the OECD (Healy et al., 2001) in this question is also telling. Secondly, the variety of issues to which this concept is applied is indeed broad, probably broader than is the case with other comparable concepts. In fact one may approach practically any social entity or situation through the conceptual framework of social capital. It is used not only to provide a description and analysis of current or past developmental trajectories, but is in a way a ``timeless'' concept (see Rothberg, 2001). This could be interpreted either as evidence of the heuristic potential of the conceptual framework under scrutiny or, as a review of the literature might suggest, as a manifestation of its stag¯ation, of its turning into a cure-all robbed of any distinct meaning (Portes, 1998: 2). Thus the frequent use of the concept as a metaphor that encompasses all sociological ideas (Sandefur and Laumann, 1998) begs the question of whether it might perhaps be time to divest in social capital (Foley and Edwards, 1999). Is this judgement correct? The answer probably lies somewhere between the two extreme views on the explanatory power of this concept, emphasizing either the emptiness of its catch-all character or its great analytical potentials. However, we believe that the former view is closer to the truth. The `àdded value'' of this concept is potentially high. But if social scientists are to realize its potential and employ it meaningfully in social research, it has to be applied in a coherent methodological framework. This does not imply a uni®ed research programme, as some authors suggest (e.g. Lin, 2001; Lin et al., 2001). Rather, the problems of its de®nition, operationalization and measurement, and the problem of the ontological status of social capital ± its sources, forms and consequences ± have to be resolved coherently within a particular approach or research programme.

158 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 Social capital as a genotype with many phenotypic applications Needless to say, even those authors who enthusiastically embrace the concept are well aware of the dif®culties regarding its de®nition. This results in the interesting structure of the substantial body of work which employs the concept in one way or another. Even a decade after social capital started gaining relevance, it is very common that an author applying the concept in a particular analysis ®rst discusses the concept and points to its intellectual origins, to its diversity of applications and to some unresolved issues. Most authors then also adopt one of the schools of thought and sometimes contribute their own de®nition to the general framework of this school. Only then do they start dealing with their speci®c issue. As a result, we now have a substantial stock of de®nitions at our disposal. If the introduction of social capital has been hailed with pungent observation as a ``plethora of capitals'' (Baron and Hannan, 1994), the current phenomenon can justly be described as a ``plethora of de®nitions''. This is not so strange if one considers that, in a relatively short period of time, several quite distinct schools of thought have developed as this concept has gained acceptance. Most authors agree that there are three basic traditions which are in turn internally heterogeneous.3 The ®rst is based on the work of Bourdieu, who de®ned social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition ± or in other words, to membership in a group ± which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a ``credential'' which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word. (Bourdieu, 1986: 248)

This de®nition has many variations, the most important being the one developed by Portes, who de®ned social capital as the ability to secure bene®ts through membership in networks and other social structures (Portes, 1998: 8). Regarding Bourdieu's contribution, some tentative explanations and additional information are needed in order to understand his notion of social capital in the context of his critical theory of society as opposed to the (rather) normative approach exempli®ed by Putnam and Coleman, and the networkbased utilitarian approach of Burt and Lin. It is important to


Trend report 159

point out that Bourdieu already introduced the notion of social capital as `à capital of social connections, honourability and respectability'' in his well-known book Distinction (Bourdieu, 1984: 122), published in French in 1979. A year later he re®ned this concept in a seminal paper, ``Le Capital social: Notes provisoires'' (Bourdieu, 1980). Although his notion of social capital, unlike the concept of cultural capital, has not been included in a systematic empirical analysis, he must be regarded as a pioneer who laid down the frame of reference for theorizing and research in this area. However, his elaboration of different forms of capital (economic, cultural, symbolic) is aimed at explaining the mechanisms of preservation of the social strati®cation system and the legitimization of dominantclass reproduction strategy. In other words, Bourdieu's primary concern is to develop a theory of social strati®cation on the basis of distinction by volume and composition of different forms of capital, taking into account as well the conversions from one type of capital to another, since ``the convertibility of different types of capital is the basis of strategies aimed at ensuring the reproduction of capital (and the position occupied in social space)'' (Bourdieu, 1986: 253). A second school has been formed on the basis of Coleman's approach. Studying educational outcomes, Coleman asserted that [social] capital is de®ned by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors ± whether persons or corporate actors ± within the structure. (Coleman, 1988: S98)

Elsewhere he added an important observation: ``Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence'' (Coleman, 1990: 302). His de®nition is very important, for it contains a cautious shift from individual (egocentric) outcomes ± which predominate in the approach developed by Bourdieu (who considers social capital in the broader framework of symbolic capital and of critical theories of class societies) as well as in network-based approaches ± to outcomes for groups, organizations, institutions, or societies (a sociocentric perspective). Putnam, who is considered to be the father of the third tradition, ultimately introduced his (sociocentric) focus in his mezzo- and macro-analysis of the role of civic tradition and active citizenship in the regional and

160 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 national contexts of democracy and developmental performance. Drawing on Coleman's account of the productive and achievement-enhancing nature of social capital, Putnam offers the following de®nition of social capital: ``Social capital here refers to features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the ef®ciency of society by facilitating co-ordinated actions'' (Putnam, 1993: 167). This situation raises an important question. Is the whole discussion about social capital about a vague and inaccurately de®ned concept, or does it concern a variety of concepts? It is telling that in organization research ``for a growing number of organisational researchers, the concept of social capital offers a way to bring more theoretical speci®city to a broad range of phenomena'' (Adler and Kwon, 2000: 90, emphasis added). For epistemological reasons it is not possible to devise a single concept and a single valid measure of social capital. First, we do not have a strong consensus on what social capital is: it seems that the more popular the concept becomes, the further we get from such a consensus. True, it is possible to discern a ``genotype'' of social capital: regardless of their disciplinary or theoretical background, most authors agree with Coleman's formulation that we are dealing with certain aspects of social structure which enable social action. However, this formulation is too broad for a more uni®ed research programme. Alternatively, there is already an impressive (and growing) body of ``phenotype'' de®nitions and applications in concrete social-scienti®c research due to the fact that social capital is highly context-speci®c. This means that any of the aspects of the social world considered to be social capital are so de®ned ``by virtue of institutions or social networks in which they are embedded. Moreover, the social capital available . . . stems not only from the subjective attributes . . . but more profoundly from emergent and existing social infrastructures which facilitate individual and collective actions of many kinds'' (Foley and Edwards, 1999: 154). Finally, there are certain issues which remain unresolved: for example, the problems of operationalization, measurement and the relation between sources, forms and consequences of social capital, and the question of whether social capital is a dependent, independent or intermediary variable.


Trend report 161

Problems with operationalization and measurement We do not see the variety of theoretical approaches to the study of social capital as a problem. In fact, as we shall claim later, it is a necessity, proceeding from the context-dependent nature of social capital and the different levels of analyses. In comprehensive and coherent research programmes, the operationalization and measurement of social capital would simply follow the line of argument of the theoretical foundations. In this case, we would most likely be dealing not with a single, but nevertheless with a limited, number of measures of social capital, which would enable comparative cross-national research. Review of the empirical research clearly shows that this is not the case, however. The palette of measurements is indeed impressive. Of the three social scientists who have most signi®cantly in¯uenced recent theoretical discussions on social capital, in Bourdieu's work one can ®nd some fragments of empirical analysis, while Putnam and Coleman were extensively involved in empirical research and formulation of indicators, thereby strongly in¯uencing the empirical research that in one way or another employed the concept of social capital. The best known and most widely applied measure is the so-called ``Putnam instrument''. When referring to this instrument, one usually has in mind the data on membership of voluntary organizations, as gathered in international surveys such as the World Values Survey (see Inglehart, 1997). Interestingly, Putnam's instrument is not really Putnam's but an (overly) simpli®ed version of his elaborate index of ``civicness'', whereby membership of voluntary associations is only one of four indicators.4 Following from his de®nition of social capital, these indicators measure a third component: networks. Trust, as the ®rst component, is usually measured by expressions of generalized trust in people and occasionally with other variations of this measure, such as trust in institutions. A variety of ``political culture'' variables are employed as a measure of the second component, norms of reciprocity. Coleman used very different measures in his own classic article. He measured social capital inside the family by the physical presence of the adults and the attention a child receives from its parents. In his analysis of educational outcomes, he applies the difference between two-parent and single-parent families as a measure of the physical presence of the adults, and the number of children in the family as

162 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 a measure of the attention a child receives. As a proxy measure for outside-family social capital, he employs the number of times a child had to change school because the family moved (Coleman, 1988). These two approaches are the basis upon which the bulk of empirical work has been conducted in the past decade. The ®rst, deriving from Putnam's operationalization, focuses mainly on behavioural variables and attitudes (trust, norms, values) as measured in various surveys. One of the most simple and ± perhaps due precisely to its simplicity ± the most famous is the approach developed by Fukuyama, who practically equates social capital with trust: ``Social capital is a capability that arises from the prevalence of trust in a society or in certain parts of it'' (Fukuyama, 1995: 26). In his comparative case-study of the development of economic organizations and industrial structure, he uses the simple difference between high-trust societies (Germany, Japan, the United States) and low-trust societies (Taiwan, Hong Kong, Italy, France) to explain the outcomes.5 However, given the problems with the de®nition of social capital and the complexity of the concept itself, the use of a single indicator as a measure of social capital can be criticized as overly simplistic and liable to lead to the wrong conclusions. For example, if the relationship between social capital and an alleged indicator changes over time, and if this change remains concealed, one automatically draws a false conclusion about the amount of social capital (Paxton, 1999: 90). Some authors have acknowledged problems associated with the use of a single measure and have applied several measures. Knack and Keefer (1997) adopt two measures of social capital in their comparative study of the impact of social capital on economic growth and investment. The ®rst is the mean value of expressed general trust in people as measured by the standard variable from the World Values Survey (``Can people generally be trusted?'') and the second is a composite index of norms of civic co-operation constructed from several questions.6 Paxton (1999) also espoused the use of multiple indicators in her reassessment of Putnam's claims about the decline of social capital in the United States. According to her de®nition, social capital consists of two measurable components: objective associations between individuals and a subjective type of tie, which must be reciprocal, trusting, and involving positive emotions (1999: 93). Taking her data from the General Social Survey, she uses a variety of indicators to measure both components. The ®rst is measured by three variables (spending evenings with neighbours,


Trend report 163

spending evenings with friends, and total number of memberships of voluntary organizations). The second is measured by trust in individuals (three survey questions on helpfulness, trustworthiness and fairness of people) and trust in institutions (organized religion, education system, executive and legislative branches of government). Only after testing whether the model ®ts in each of the relevant years and whether estimated parameters remain stable did she attempt to estimate change of social capital in this period. Another author who is critical of Putnam's supposedly neoDurkheimian approach (stressing the signi®cance of consensus and shared norms) calls attention to the ®ndings on the basis of a more complex (triangulating) and historical approach, which indicates that ``contemporary Americans are ®nding new ways to relate to one another and accomplish shared tasks''. New kinds of associations in the form of advocacy groups, which are focused on lobbying, research and media projects, have been emerging (Skocpol, 1999: 499). A second and quite different approach, which has developed as a synthesis of network research and certain aspects of Bourdieu's and Coleman's work, focuses on variables indicating the position of the individual inside social networks. Perhaps the most in¯uential empirical work in this line has been done by Ronald Burt, who measures social capital in terms of network constraint: more constraint means fewer structural holes. Because structural holes are the source of social capital, fewer structural holes result in poorer social capital (Burt, 1997, 2001). Network constraint depends on three dimensions: size, density and hierarchy of a particular network, the premise being that smaller networks, dense networks and hierarchical networks are more constraining (Burt, 1997). Burt applied this approach at the micro-level in his analysis of senior managers in a large US electronics ®rm. The study of the formation of a network of enterprises in biotechnology (Walker et al., 1997) indicates that this approach can also be expanded to analyse the behaviour of collective actors, as Coleman once emphasized that purposive organizations can also be analysed as actors (Coleman, 1988: S98).7 This very short presentation effectively demonstrates that we have a very substantial number of different operationalizations and measures of social capital at our disposal. This is clearly a consequence of the unresolved issues in the theoretical accounts of social capital mentioned above; more importantly, it is evidence of

164 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 the weak relationship between theoretical and empirical work on social capital. As many have observed, much empirical work related to social capital has in one way or another been theoretically unre¯exive (Sandefur and Laumann, 1998), and ``[the] lack of an obvious link between theory and measurement has, in some cases, led to the use of questionable indicators of social capital'' (Paxton, 1999: 90). The World Bank's attempt to create measures for what it calls the Global Social Capital Survey is perhaps one of the clearest examples of the use of a broader repertoire of indicators as well as of a rather weak link between theory and operationalization (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001). Interestingly, Bourdieu's conceptualization of social capital, which is theoretically the most re®ned (Portes, 1998; Foley and Edwards, 1999) and offers a framework for the development of a coherent research programme, has resulted in much less research than Coleman's and especially Putnam's. Bourdieu himself provided a starting point by proposing a measure of social capital; it would be operationalized as the sum of the resources attainable through a network of more or less institutionalized relations (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 119). Instead of such coherent operationalization, we have the following situation: `À handful of aggregate indicators, readily available in existing survey data sets, thus come to stand in for Coleman's (and Bourdieu's) context-speci®c notion of social capital: `generalisable social trust', membership in organisations, and norms such as reciprocity, cooperation and tolerance'' (Foley and Edwards, 1999: 145). The problem is how to execute procedures of operationalization and measurement consistent with certain theoretical premises while at the same time remaining sensitive to context. Another important question is whether it is possible ± and how ± to differentiate between three interrelated yet distinct issues related to social capital: sources of social capital, its consequences, and social capital itself, while avoiding tautological statements (Portes, 1998: 5; Lin, 2001). Sources, dimensions and consequences of social capital From the beginning of the debate on social capital, much has been said about the issue of sources or determinants, dimensions or forms, and outcomes or consequences. In this case, too, several dilemmas and disputes remain unresolved. One important dilemma


Trend report 165

concerns networks vs norms as a source of social capital. In his study of educational outcomes, Coleman focused on social relations as the source of social capital. He speci®cally emphasized that certain types of social relations are especially important. The ®rst is closure of social networks, which can provide collective sanctions and foster emergence of effective norms. The second is appropriable social organization ± especially multiplex ties ± which allows the use of resources of one relationship to be appropriated in others. Some forms of social capital are obligations, expectations and trustworthiness of structures, information channels, norms, and effective sanctions. Portes criticized Coleman on the grounds that his de®nition was too vague, that it in fact opened a Pandora's box of social capital and, even more importantly, that he did not distinguish between the ``possessors'' (i.e. owners) of social capital, the sources of social capital, and the resources themselves (Portes, 1998: 5). His intention was to provide a more systematic de®nition based on a distinction between consummatory and instrumental motivations for human action. He de®ned four sources of social capital: value introjection and bounded solidarity, based on consummatory norms, and reciprocity exchanges and enforceable trust, based on instrumental motivations. The outcomes of social capital can be both positive (norm observance, family support, network-mediated bene®ts) and negative (restricted access to opportunities, restrictions on individual freedom, excessive claims on group members, downward-levelling norms) (1998: 8). The second important dilemma is the choice between bottom-up and top-down approaches. The former is strongly present in Putnam's conceptualization, which focuses on the role of civic associations and norms in creating social capital. However, while we can clearly distinguish the outcome of social capital ± as is evident in Putnam's analysis of the performance of Italian regional institutions and economic development (Putnam, 1993) or in his warnings about possible threats to democracy in the United States (Putnam, 2000) ± the analytical and conceptual distinctions between social capital and its sources are less clear. In particular, Putnam understands networks as both a source and a form of social capital. This approach has been countered by a top-down perspective which focuses on the role of the state, in terms of a coherent and dependable system of public institutions, in creating state±society synergy (Evans, 1996). Woolcock has attempted to overcome this and other divisions by developing a comprehensive, multilevel model of social capital(s)

166 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 and taking into account the well-established distinction between ``bridging'' and ``bonding'' social capital (Woolcock, 1998). Nahapiet and Ghosal (1998) have attempted a more robust de®nition and made a distinction between three dimensions of social capital: structural, relational and cognitive. The ®rst describes the impersonal pattern of ties between people, the ``hardware'' of social networks. The second describes the personal relationships which in¯uence people's behaviour and ful®l their social motives, such as respect and friendship. Trust and trustworthiness are a part of this dimension. The third dimension refers to resources that have so far been neglected in this discussion. These are resources which provide shared representations, interpretations and systems of meaning. With this dimension, the authors emphasize how dif®cult it is to ``reap the bene®ts associated with building social capital'' (Lesser, 2000: 7) without a shared understanding of the common terms. Based on this observation (and a review of a substantial mass of literature), Adler and Kwon concluded that ``[there] is considerable confusion in the research to date in the sources of social capital. The views of the different authors appear to depend on their disciplinary background and on the questions they address with the social capital concept'' (Adler and Kwon, 2000: 95). They thus decided to focus on networks (structural dimension), shared norms (relational dimension) and shared beliefs (cognitive dimension). In addition to these mainly theoretical accounts, the problem of sources, forms and consequences of social capital has also been tackled in empirical research. Narayan and Cassidy have developed a multidimensional model of social capital. On the basis of an empirical study in Ghana and Uganda, they have devised the socalled Global Social Capital Survey. They mention two illustrative proximate determinants (communication and empowerment), seven forms (group characteristics, generalized norms, togetherness, everyday sociability, neighbourhood connections, volunteerism and trust) and ®ve illustrative social, political and economic outcomes (government competence, government honesty and corruption, quality of government, peace and safety, and political engagement) (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001). In short, we are still far from any kind of consensus on these issues. The measurement of social capital is still in its infancy. What some authors claim to be a consequence, others describe as


Trend report 167

a source. The quality of government structures is a notable example of this. While Narayan and Cassidy (2001) and Putnam (1993) claim that it is a consequence of social capital, others (e.g. Healy et al., 2001) see it as one of the determinants. Hence, any measure of social capital should be interpreted with considerable caution. The measure of generalized trust is perhaps the most obvious example of enthusiastic application, even though there are numerous problems connected with this measure. A literature survey clearly indicates that trust is understood as either a source (Coleman) or a dimension (Putnam, Fukuyama, Narayan and Cassidy) of social capital. The interpretation of trust as a consequence of other dimensions of social capital (co-operation) is also possible: ``Trust . . . is not the universal lubricant that oils the wheels of cooperation wherever it is applied. Rather, cooperation is achieved through a variety of mechanisms . . . Where cooperation succeeds, trust may be presumed to follow'' (Foley and Edwards, 1999: 162; see also Luhmann, 1988; Gambetta, 1993; Sztompka, 1999). It seems that any attempt to solve two basic problems ± ®rst, the problem of sources and consequences, and second, the problem of whether social capital is a dependent, independent or intermediary variable ± in a simple straightforward ``positivist'' manner is fundamentally doomed to failure as such attempts usually fail to recognize the complexity of social phenomena and processes. For example, let us take the question of whether the quality of governance is a source or a consequence of social capital. As we have said, some claim that it is a source, while others describe it as a consequence. Both sides provide evidence in support of their hypotheses. Claiming that only one or the other is true would imply that social systems are linear in their nature even though they are in fact non-linear (Parker and Stacey, 1994) and even chaotic (Ormerod, 1994). The answer has to incorporate a fundamentally different vision of society. Hence explanations should employ the more complex mechanisms of the feedback loop, which can in reality lead to either a vicious or a virtuous circle. The interpretation of a virtuous circle would be that quality governance encourages participation of the citizens, which in turn increases the quality of the governance. Claiming that social capital can be studied only as a dependent or independent variable ignores the possibility of complex causal mechanisms, which are not an exception but the rule.

168 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 Emerging research programmes It is quite understandable that, because of the divergent phenotypic applications of social capital, its operationalization and measurement cannot be subsumed under a common denominator. Some researchers are not satis®ed with this loosely de®ned epistemic situation and seek more stable and strict methodological rules. One author, working from the tradition of network analysis, argues that social networks are the foundation of social capital. In other words, in order to maintain and develop this concept as scienti®cally relevant, all research should focus on social capital de®ned as a resource embedded in social relations within various types of egocentric networks (Lin, 2001). This model contains three segments. The ®rst represents an individual's structurally conditioned position which facilitates or limits the investment of social capital. The second segment accentuates the process of mobilization, access to and use of contact resources. The third segment is related to the effects of social capital in terms of instrumental and/or expressive returns (2001: 21). Such kinds of operationalization allow a clear distinction between causal variables (position within network), processes of mobilization of embedded resources (contacts, support, information), and outcomes (better jobs, social promotion, etc.). The measurement procedure is based on ego-network sampling techniques like name or position-generator (Angelusz and Tardos, 2001; Lin et al., 2001). In view of such propositions, it is not surprising that Coleman's functional de®nition of social capital and his argument that social capital is not a single entity but a variety of different entities have been heavily criticized (Lin, 2001: 11). According to the proponents of the network approach, the assertion that social capital is de®ned by its function may be a tautology and may lead to conceptual confusion. It is not acceptable to de®ne a causal factor by its effect; they are separate entities with independent measurements. Coleman is also criticized because he views social capital as a collective good which contains norms, trust, sanctions, etc. Or to put it differently, social capital has to be seen ± according to the network analyst ± as a purely utilitarian concept, and thus has to avoid elements that are dif®cult to operationalize and measure. All the confusion could be removed if the research programme were to be focused on distinguishable and measurable (causal, processing and outcome) variables within the egocentric network approach (Lin, 2001: 11±12).


Trend report 169

There is no doubt that such a research design is appropriate in some contexts and may provide the most effective means for reaching some goals. But the exclusivist claim is in many regards highly problematic. The main question concerns the notion of validity: do proponents of the network approach actually know what they are measuring? Some networks can easily be transformed into mechanisms not only for the creation or use of social capital but also for its abuse and destruction (Levi, 1996; Portes, 1998). If we proceed from purely egoistic and pragmatic considerations, avoiding any normative assumptions and aspiring to rigorous measurement, how can we know when unsocial or negative social capital comes to the fore? For instance, what kind of social capital is exercised when persons take advantage of resources embedded in networks ± i.e. contacts and mutual acquaintances, or so-called good connections ± in order to promote themselves or to reach higher positions, even though they have lower levels of human capital than persons who cannot (or will not) mobilize such support? In the long run, this means the destruction of social capital, the appearance of distrust and social disintegration. This would be the end of meritocratic societies and societies based on the rule of law. The network approach is micro-oriented. Its focus is on individuals, that is, on their ability to secure bene®ts by virtue of membership and position in a social nexus (Portes, 1998: 6). This is a more or less instrumental and utilitarian (non-normative) approach. It is theoretically less elaborated, but the degree of operationalization is high, and the methodology of empirical research extremely developed (Angelusz and Tardos, 2001). In contrast, the approach inaugurated by Putnam is macro- (or mezzo-)oriented and sociocentric, and has a clear normative point. Social capital is considered to be a public good (see the contributions in van Deth et al., 1999). Putnam's approach is theoretically more re¯exive, but its operationalization and methodology are not as coherent or rigorous. These two approaches can be considered to be the two main pro®led research programmes. Bourdieu's and Coleman's conceptualizations are important points of reference (and some elements are clearly integrated in the network approach), but they have stimulated very little empirical investigation. In recent years the third research programme has eventually started to evolve. This is the approach initiated by World Bank researchers, focusing on the developmental policy of Third-World countries where the notion of social capital `òffers a way to bridge sociological and economic

170 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 perspectives and to provide a potentially richer and better explanation of economic development'' (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000: 240; see also Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2002). In some regards this research programme resembles the ``Putnamian'' line of interpretation of social capital. In order to gain more insight into developmental dynamics of modern societies and policy relevance of social capital, we shall continue with a more detailed analysis of Putnam's and related approaches. The signi®cance of social capital for developmental theory and policy It is evident from our analysis concerning the nature and epistemic status of social capital that there exist different levels, contexts, frames of reference and theoretical backgrounds of social capital. Certain de®nitions and operationalizations make sense at the micro (or macro) level or in speci®c contexts. They may not, however, be automatically applied at other levels or in other contexts, for we are dealing with different phenotypic applications of social capital. One such (macro) application involves the issue of the development and economic success of a particular region or country, an issue introduced by Putnam in his famous analysis of the roots of developmental discrepancies between the northern and southern (Mezzogiorno) regions of Italy (Putnam, 1993). In recent years a research group from the World Bank has been conducting an indepth study of the relationship between developmental ef®ciency and social capital in Third-World countries (Woolcock, 1998; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000), and research into the signi®cance of social capital for local development in Western Europe is being initiated as part of the Fifth Framework Programme (HPSE-CT-1999-000017). As in many other cases, in this context social capital ``matters'' ± in other words, it exerts an in¯uence on socio-economic effectiveness; however, studies have yet to provide more consistent or convincing answers to how this resource works and how it is related to other developmental factors. We may agree with the ®nding that research on social capital is still at an `èarly stage'' (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000: 243). Nevertheless, few deny the signi®cance of theoretical or developmental, policy-oriented research on social capital (the exception is Fine, 2000).


Trend report 171

Putnam himself, in his research on Italy, oscillates between two approaches to social capital. On the one hand, he considers social capital to be a ``lubricant'' or catalyst of co-operative relations; on the other, we ®nd formulations in which social capital is raised to the level of a sort of algorithm for providing a de®nitive solution and explanation for all dilemmas of development and political effectiveness. Putnam writes: `Ìn summary, economics does not predict civics, but civics does predict economics'' (Putnam, 1993: 157). This implies that civic tradition in the form of civil-society formations and political participation is a more reliable indicator of socio-economic development than past developmental performance itself (1993: 156). If one turns to the model in which Putnam examines the in¯uence of four variables on institutional performance during the 1980s (these include civic involvement during the 1900s, socio-economic development during the 1900s, civic involvement during the 1970s and socio-economic development during the 1970s), one concludes that the intensity of initiative and participation on the part of citizens at the beginning of the 20th century (civic involvement in the 1900s) to a great extent determines the political effectiveness of regional governments during the 1980s. Putnam goes on to substantiate this path-dependency explanation by arguing that the differences between the northern and southern regions developed and have persisted from the Middle Ages (approximately the 12th century) onwards; furthermore, he asserts that institutional reforms will not erase these differences that easily. Many have criticized this aspect of Putnam's work (see Levi, 1996; Sabetti, 1996), which in turn raises some important questions. First, one may ask if it is possible to employ a different model ± as every model is limited and is derived from certain theoretical expectations ± with different variables or if it is possible to add new variables to the four chosen by Putnam in his model. Here we are referring to education level (in other words, levels of human and cultural capital), a variable that has been shown to be a crucial factor (stimulus) of political participation in numerous analyses. In fact, Putnam employed this variable in his statistical analysis. He is also aware of the impact of education on political behaviour. But he came to the conclusion that educational attainment does not explain the differences in institutional performance. Emilia Romagna and Calabria are supposed to have almost the same proportion of people who attended school beyond the minimum

172 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 school-leaving age (46% vs 45%), yet they differ greatly in institutional ef®ciency. ``Historically, education may have played an important role in strengthening the foundations for the civic community'', Putnam asserts, ``but it seems to have no direct in¯uence on government performance'' (Putnam, 1993: 118). In our opinion this aspect should be considered more carefully. It is not clear, for instance, what share of the (active) population completed secondary and tertiary education. The issue is quite intriguing, given that Italy as a whole lags behind in this respect in comparison not only with the EU average but also with East- and Central-European countries (Slovenia, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic). In other words, Italy has a relatively low level of human capital. On the other hand, its economic performance is above the EU average. Is it possible that social capital is a substitute for human capital? Yet it is also known that Italy ®gures among the low-con®dence countries (see Fukuyama, 1995). The second question concerns mono- or multicausal explanations. Although Putnam may not adequately emphasize this point, he argues that `àny single factor interpretation is surely wrong'' and that civic tradition should not be considered the only factor or cause which triggered the process of economic progress and political ef®ciency in northern Italy. He himself states that takeoff was occasioned by changes in the broader, national, international and technological environment. On the other hand, civic tradition helps explain why the North has been able to respond to the challenges and opportunities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries so much more effectively than the South. (Putnam, 1993: 159)

It is highly questionable whether this last statement is consistent with the model mentioned earlier. In any case, it is evident that the author is aware of the temptation to explain all the essential differences between the developmental trajectories of northern and southern Italy by a single factor (social capital). At the same time he wishes to make the point that one should approach social capital as the catalyst of the more effective co-operation and social organization that allowed the North to develop a higher capacity for adapting and responding to developmental stimuli from its environment. Some critics have overlooked this point; however, it is also true that the author does not have a coherent or clear position on this issue. The third question concerns whether the concepts of civic tradition, civicness and civic involvement are equivalent to the notion


Trend report 173

of social capital. We believe that the former are concepts which transcend the notion of social capital, for they contain elements of habit, competence (knowledge and information) and ideology which stimulate active citizenship and the ¯ourishing of civil society. In other words, the use of the concepts mentioned above implies an indirect measurement of social capital (especially if one is dealing with different historical frameworks) and it is not clear whether such indicators contain elements which do not have any direct links with social capital. The fourth question addresses the nature of the relationship between civic participation and business (economic) activity. For example, does membership of choirs, bird-watching societies or other interest groups contribute to the development of entrepreneurship and innovation? Finally, such analysis also begs the question of the relationship between co-operation and competition, between collective and individual approaches and between egocentric and sociocentric perspectives. The case of the technologically powerful region of Silicon Valley in the United States may shed light on some of the questions and dilemmas raised above. Before turning to this case, however, it must be emphasized that, despite the criticism and questions Putnam's ®rst study has provoked, his ®ndings are extremely important, for they have paved the way for fruitful and innovative discussions concerning the role of social capital in development. We can even argue that, as far as Putnam and the entire discussion of social capital are concerned, controversy and debate represent not a weakness but an advantage, for they stimulate new attempts at veri®cation as well as a search for more appropriate solutions. Some authors (e.g. Cohen and Fields, 2000) believe that the phenomenal growth of high-tech industry and services in Silicon Valley has little to do with the civic community. In this case, instead of a tradition of solidarity or generalized reciprocity at the community level, we can speak of ``rampant individualism among its most talented workers'' (Lesser, 2000: 10). What operates in this context is ``performance-based trust'' (2000: 12). People who wish to succeed with their ideas and their technological innovations must trust each other and work together. An ef®cient system of interaction and communication at the institutional level is also crucial. Co-operation among large research universities, government, venture capital, law ®rms, business associations, the stock exchange and the labour

174 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 market creates the basis for rapid transfer of knowledge and innovations in the business environment of a networked economy. It is interesting to note that Putnam also mentions the Silicon Valley phenomenon in his recent book, in which he argues that the success of Silicon Valley does not contradict his thesis. It is true that the civic community does not play such a strong role in this case; however, Putnam argues that the productivity of this region depends on the existence of social capital based on formal and informal networks of connection and co-operation between ®rms and other institutions (Putnam, 2000: 324). Social capital in this context is generated on the basis of the selfinterest and entrepreneurship of individual actors and institutions. However, Putnam describes a similar situation in the case of the so-called industrial districts of Terza Italia in terms of a ``seemingly contradictory combination of competition and cooperation'' between small ®rms endowed with ¯exible specialization (Putnam, 1993: 160, 2000: 160±1). Even Putnam recognizes the possibility that co-operation may occur because of the pressure of competition and that co-operation and competition may occur simultaneously. Furthermore, it is also possible that egocentric interests do not necessarily imply a zero-sum game, but may often require a cooperative positive-sum game. Thus we can argue that Putnam does not subscribe to romantic ideas of solidarity and altruistic community (Levi, 1996) as the only sources of social capital. The norms of generalized reciprocity embodied in the networks may also be of a purely utilitarian nature. Alternatively, it is quite obvious that Putnam's approach contains strong normative elements, namely, that civic community is ultimately a desirable end. Economic prosperity is considered to be an expression of the dynamism and creativity as well as the moral consistency of a democratic civil society. There exist numerous sources of social capital; however, the bearers of social capital are ®rst and foremost active citizens. In other words, social capital is the capital of active (and altruistic) citizens. The role of social capital in developmental performance The question is which aspects and conceptualizations of social capital provide the most convincing explanations of the differences in development of (post)modern societies. On the basis of Putnam's


Trend report 175

critical analysis and that of others (Fukuyama, 1995; Woolcock and Narayan, 2000) ± including our own investigations on the developmental dynamics of Central-European, postsocialist candidates for membership in the European Union in the year 2004 (Adam et al., 2002) ± we may select the following aspects and conceptualizations of social capital. 1. Social capital as a catalyst for disseminating human and intellectual capital The possession of knowledge and competence ± even supposing the existence of economic capital ± is not suf®cient for the optimal realization of certain developmental goals. Mechanisms of transfer and intermediation are also necessary: a typical case is the transfer of knowledge and innovation from the academic sphere to the industrial or policy-making spheres so that accumulated human capital may be ef®ciently and appropriately applied. Human capital can be ``dead capital'' unless it is put into circulation with the aid of mechanisms of recombination and recon®guration so that it may be made useful for technological application or for the solution of social problems (see Gibbons et al., 1994). Social capital in this context may be considered to be an asset that can perform this role. The existence and maintenance of different networks on the basis of generalized reciprocity, trust and readiness to co-operate are a precondition for the transfer and dissemination of knowledge and innovations (Giddens, 2000). 2. Social capital as the basis for greater levels of synergy and co-ordination According to some authors, synergy is linked to complementarity and embeddedness (Evans, 1996); investigations conducted by the World Bank emphasize the linkages between government and civil society or the formation of public±private partnerships (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000). This conceptualization may also be de®ned as a discreet re-integration of individual and collective projects and resources into more complex frameworks of strategic steering. Of course this steering is not hierarchical in nature, but can occur only in the form of contextual steering on the basis of `ìntermediary

176 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 negotiation systems'' (Mayntz, 1993; Willke, 1995). Here once again the linking and bridging functions of social capital come to the fore. In settings where this kind of social capital is absent, disturbances in co-ordination and consequently suboptimal institutional ef®ciency are the most probable outcomes. 3. Social capital as a ``lubricant'' of network (project) organizations More about this type of organization can be found in Kanter and Eccles, 1990. One of the problems of transition (postsocialist) societies has to do with the domination of bureaucratic organizations, with the insuf®cient diversity of ad hoc organizational forms (see Mintzberg, 1989). Bureaucratic types of organization are maintained even in those areas where different forms of organization and management should already have been developed. The higher level of development presupposes project-based organizations, which are less hierarchical and more ¯exible and require a more demanding form of leadership and communication. In this case, ``spontaneous sociability'' (Fukuyama, 1995) is important, along with speci®c know-how as well as a capacity for empathy and co-operation. In those settings where there is too little social capital (as in the case of transition countries), these forms of organization ± including association-based types of organizations typical of NGOs ± evolve with great dif®culty. The same is true for establishing team groups in different areas, from industry to research teams at universities and institutes. 4. Social capital as a facilitator of intermediary institutions This aspect is linked to project- and association-based organizations, though it also has broader implications. Essentially it concerns relationships and networks within civil society ± an aspect which Putnam refers to as ``horizontal networks of civic engagement''. This deals with the nature of structures that occupy the sphere between individuals or small life-worlds and big instrumental institutions (see also Berger and Luckmann, 1995). In other words, here we can have transparent and (in principle) democratic formations of interest groups or, on the other hand, groups in which


Trend report 177

clan-like forms of clientelistic and rent-seeking networks (in extreme cases the Ma®a and organized crime) dominate. This aspect may have direct repercussions on developmental dynamics. In the latter case, malign social constellations emerge (these can be observed in certain settings in Latin America, the Balkans, Russia and southern Italy) which have destructive effects on trust and co-operation (see Gambetta, 1989). In this manner a vicious circle may develop, leading to stagnation and path dependency. These conceptualizations are neither new nor unique. Indeed, they can be extracted from some of the aforementioned approaches to the study of social capital. However, most of these approaches assume concealed or overtly exclusivist attitudes towards others. This can be viable in the case of a very focused micro-level approach, but in order to study complex processes of societal transformation underway in countries of Eastern Europe or differences in developmental performance of more developed societies, a more holistic and comprehensive approach ± one in line with the aforementioned conceptualization ± is required. It should be added that social capital in Eastern Europe remains curiously under-researched. Numerous studies focus on the implications of social capital in developed countries, and due to the interest of the World Bank signi®cant effort has also been devoted to ThirdWorld countries, but we are still waiting for a substantial systematic contribution to the study of social capital in postsocialist countries, although it is perhaps the crucial determinant of differences in developmental performance between a group of more advanced postsocialist countries of East-Central Europe and core countries of the European Union (Adam et al., 2002). Concluding remarks There is no doubt that social capital can be regarded as a conceptual innovation in contemporary sociology and other social science disciplines. Despite problems with its de®nition as well as its operationalization, and despite its (almost) metaphorical character, social capital has facilitated a series of very important empirical investigations and theoretical debates which have stimulated reconsideration of the signi®cance of human relations, of networks, of organizational forms for the quality of life and of developmental performance.

178 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 What could be problematic, from our point of view, is the tendency to consider social capital as the only variable that can explain micro- as well macro-phenomena and is responsible for many positive outcomes, thus seeing it as the cure-all for the maladies of our communities and societies. Our conclusion is that social capital must be treated as a part of a broader (multicausal) model containing numerous (sociocultural) variables or factors. The explanatory potential of social capital is limited. Therefore it is time to reduce the overly high expectations some authors have invested in it. Three methodological peculiarities can be discerned from our analysis. At the level of de®nitions, we are dealing with a genotype having various phenotypic applications. At the level of operationalization, we must take into account the fact that relations between sources, dimensions and consequences are not unilinear but circular and multilinear; the same is true for relations between independent, intervening and dependent variables. In this sense the concept of social capital ®ts nicely into the framework of so-called postpositivist (postnormal) science or the mode-2 production of knowledge (see Gibbons et al., 1994). Beyond this, there are also other characteristics of the cognitive and research ®eld focused on social capital that may be considered as parts of a new (postpositivist) epistemic and institutional situation: context of application, policy relevance, impact on public discourse (double hermeneutics), transdisciplinarity and involvement of various actors (``hybrid fora''). What needs to be stressed here is the (potentially) integrative role of the social capital concept within sociology as well as within other social science disciplines. The dialogue between sociologists and economists concerning the impact of social capital on organizational behaviour and developmental policies seems to be especially important in this regard. By focusing on the developmental performance of East-Central European countries which have gone through the process of being made institutionally compatible with the European Union and are now facing the challenge of building systemic competitiveness, we could shed some new light on the question of which set of factors and policies should be taken into account in order to improve institutional ef®ciency and quality as well as mobility of human resources.


Trend report 179

Frane Adam is an associate professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, and head of the Centre for Theoretical Sociology at the Institute of Social Sciences. His research interests are elite formation and democracy in postsocialist countries, civil society, sociocultural factors and indicators of development. His most recent publications are: with M. TomsÏ icÏ `Èlite (Re)Con®guration and Politico-Economic Performance in Post-Socialist Countries'', Europe±Asia Studies (2002) 54(3): 435±54; with M. MakarovicÏ (2002) ``Postcommunist Transition and Social Sciences: the Case of Slovenia'', East European Quarterly (2002) 36(3): 365±83. Author's address: Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. [email: [email protected]] Borut RoncÏevicÂ is a junior research fellow and a PhD student at the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana. His research interests are social policy, models of developmental strategies, and economic sociology. He has recently published (2002) ``The Path from (Semi)Periphery to the Core: The Role of Socio-Cultural Factors'', in A. Kirch and J. Sillaste (eds) Monitoring Preparations of Transition Countries for EU-Accession, Tallinn: Institute for European Studies. Author's address: Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva pl. 5, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. [email: [email protected]]

Notes 1. Interest in social capital is a postmodern and global phenomenon, and can to some extent also be interpreted as an extension of the older but still ongoing debate on civil society. In this regard it is also worth mentioning the communitarian debate (see Etzioni, 1993). 2. Coleman was a close colleague of Gary Becker, a Nobel laureate in economics who made an important contribution to discussions on social capital. The mutual in¯uence of these two authors is very strong. Becker (1964) is the father of the concept of ``human capital''. Coleman conceptualizes social capital as the catalyst of human capital (Coleman, 1988). Becker attempted to incorporate the ``social'' into his analysis. Hence his citation of Duesenberry, that `èconomics is all about choice, while sociology is about why people have no choices'' (in Becker and Murphy, 2000: 22). Becker attempts to demonstrate ``that rational-choice theory is not inconsistent with the importance of social structure, but rather is crucial in understanding how this structure gets determined'' (2000: 23). 3. Portes mentions two basic traditions, the ®rst derived from Bourdieu's work and the second derived initially from the work of Loury and later re®ned by Coleman (Portes, 1998: 3±5). Narayan and Cassidy (2001) make an analogous distinction. Fine (2000) adds Becker to the list of traditions. 4. Putnam's ``civicness'' index consists of four components: vibrancy of associative life, incidence of newspaper readership, referenda turnout and preference voting (Putnam, 1993: 91±4). 5. While using this simple dichotomy, Fukuyama pays attention to the distinction between what was later conceptualized as a difference between ``bonding'' and ``bridging'' social capital. Hence, when talking about low-trust societies, he acknowledges the abundance of social capital in the framework of the familial structures. In his

180 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 subsequent work, he also applied other measures, proxy indicators of the absence of social capital, especially indicators of anomie (Fukuyama, 1999). 6. These questions were about following behaviours which ``can always be justi®ed, never be justi®ed or something in between''. These actions are (a) claiming government bene®ts which you are not entitled to, (b) avoiding a fare on public transport, (c) cheating on taxes if you have the chance, (d) keeping money that you have found, (e) failing to report damage you have done accidentally to a parked vehicle (Knack and Keefer, 1997: 1265). 7. Another example of a structural interpretation, distinctive in terms of its ethnographic approach, is the research undertaken by Bebbington. In his analysis, Bebbington focused on the existence of local branches of developmental organizations (in terms of Coleman's appropriable organizations and Bourdieu's access to networks) and the presence of important individuals (as guiding actors who trigger change) as a measure of the social capital of a speci®c rural community (Bebbington, 1997).

References Adam, F., MakarovicÏ, M., RoncÏevicÂ, B. and TomsÏ icÏ, M. (2002) ``Socio-cultural Factors of Developmental Performance. East-Central European Countries and the European Union in Comparative Perspective'', unpublished manuscript. Adler, P. and Kwon, S.-W. (2000) ``Social Capital: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'', in E. L. Lesser (ed.) Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp. 89±115. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Angelusz, R. and Tardos, R. (2001) ``Change and Stability in Social Network Resources: The Case of Hungary under Transformation'', in N. Lin, K. Cook and R. S. Burt (eds) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 297±323. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Baron, J. and Hannan, M. (1994) ``The Impact of Economics on Modern Sociology'', Journal of Economic Literature 32(3): 1111±46. Bebbington, A. (1997) ``Social Capital and Rural Intensi®cation: Local Organisations and Islands of Sustainability in the Rural Andes'', The Geographical Journal 163(2): 189±97. Becker, G. S. (1964) Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press. Becker, G. S. and Murphy, K. M. (2000) Social Economics: Market Behavior in a Social Environment. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Berger, P. L. and Luckmann, T. (1995) Modernity, Pluralism and the Crisis of Meaning. The Orientation of Modern Man. GuÈtersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1980) ``Le Capital social: Notes provisoires'', Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 31: 2±3. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London and New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. (1986) ``The Forms of Capital'', in J. G. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, pp. 241±58. New York: Greenwood Press.


Trend report 181

Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992) An Invitation to Re¯exive Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Burt, R. S. (1997) ``The Contingent Value of Social Capital'', Administrative Science Quarterly 42: 339±65. Burt, R. S. (2001) ``Structural Holes versus Network Closure as a Social Capital'', in N. Lin, K. Cook and R. S. Burt (eds) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 31± 56. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Cohen, S. S. and Fields, G. (2000) ``Social Capital and Capital Gains in Silicon Valley'', in E. L. Lesser (ed.) Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp. 179±200. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Coleman, J. S. (1988) ``Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital'', American Journal of Sociology 94 Supplement: S95±S120. Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit of Community: the Reinvention of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster. Evans, P. (1996) ``Government Action, Social Capital and Development: Reviewing the Evidence on Synergy'', World Development 24(6): 1119±32. Fine, B. (2000) Social Capital versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium. London and New York: Routledge. Foley, M. W. and Edwards, B. (1999) `Ìs It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?'', Journal of Public Policy 19(2): 141±73. Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Penguin Books. Fukuyama, F. (1999) The Great Disruption: Human Nature and the Reconstitution of Social Order. London: Pro®le Books. Gambetta, D. (1988) ``Ma®a: the Price of Distrust'', in D. Gambetta (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 158±75. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Gambetta, D. (1993) ``Trust and Cooperation'', in W. Outhwaite and T. Bottomore (eds) The Blackwell Dictionary of Twentieth-Century Social Thought, pp. 678±80. London: Blackwell. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Giddens, A. (2000) The Third Way and its Critics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Grootaert, C. and van Bastelaer, T., eds (2002) The Role of Social Capital in Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Healy, T., CoÃteÂ, S., Helliwell, J. F. and Field, S. (2001) The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: OECD. Inglehart, R. (1997) Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ and Chichester: Princeton University Press. Kanter, R. M. and Eccles, R. C. (1990) ``Making Network Research Relevant to Practice'', in N. Nohria and R. C. Eccles (eds) Networks and Organisations: Structure, Form and Action, pp. 521±7. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

182 Social Science Information Vol 42 ± no 2 Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997) ``Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country Investigation'', The Quarterly Journal of Economics 62(4): 1251±88. Lesser, E. L. (2000) ``Leveraging Social Capital in Organisations'', in E. L. Lesser (ed.) Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, pp. 3±16. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Levi, M. (1996) ``Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work'', Politics & Society 24(1): 45±55. Lin, N. (2001) ``Building a Network Theory of Social Capital'', in N. Lin, K. Cook and R. S. Burt (eds) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 3±29. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Lin, N., Fu, Y.C. and Hsung, R.-M. (2001) ``The Position Generator: Measurement Techniques for Investigations of Social Capital'', in N. Lin, K. Cook and R. S. Burt (eds) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 57±81. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Luhmann, N. (1988) ``Familiarity, Con®dence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives'', in D. Gambetta (ed.) Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, pp. 94±107. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Mayntz, R. (1993) ``Governing Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm'', in J. Kooiman (ed.) Modern Governance: New Government±Society Interactions, pp. 9±20. London: Sage Publications. Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on Management: Inside our Strange World of Organizations. New York: The Free Press. Nahapiet, J. and Ghosal, S. (1998) ``Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage'', Academy of Management Review 23(2): 242±66. Narayan, D. and Cassidy, M. F. (2001) `À Dimensional Approach to Measuring Social Capital: Development and Validation of a Social Capital Inventory'', Current Sociology 49(2): 59±102. Newton, K. (1999) ``Social Capital and Democracy in Modern Europe'', in J. W. van Deth, M. Maraf®, K. Newton and P. F. Whiteley (eds) Social Capital and European Democracy, pp. 3±24. London and New York: Routledge. Ormerod, P. (1994) The Death of Economics. London: Faber and Faber. Parker, D. and Stacey, R. (1994) Chaos, Management and Economics: The Implications of Non-Linear Thinking, Hobart Paper 125. London: Institute of Economic Affairs. Paxton, P. (1999) `Ìs Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator Assessment'', American Journal of Sociology 105(1): 88±127. Portes, A. (1998) ``Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology'', Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1±24. Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Rothberg, R. I., ed. (2001) Patterns of Social Capital. Stability and Change in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sabetti, F. (1996) ``Path Dependency and Civic Culture: Some Lessons from Italy about Interpreting Social Experiments'', Politics & Society 24(1): 19±44. Sandefur, R. and Laumann, E. O. (1998) `À Paradigm for Social Capital'', Rationality and Society 10(4): 481±501.


Trend report 183

Skocpol, T. (1999) `Àdvocates without Members: The Recent Transformation of American Civic Life'', in T. Skocpol and M. Fiorina (eds) Civic Engagement in American Democracy, pp. 461±509. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tocqueville, A. de (1990) Democracy in America, Volume 1. New York: Vintage Books. van Deth, J. W., Maraf®, M., Newton, K. and Whiteley, P. F., eds (1999) Social Capital and European Democracy. London and New York: Routledge. Walker, G., Kogut, B. and Shan, W. (1997) ``Social Capital, Structural Holes and the Formation of an Industry Network'', Organization Science 8(2): 109±25. Whiteley, P. F. (1999) ``The Origins of Social Capital'', in J.W. van Deth, M. Maraf®, K. Newton and P. F. Whiteley (eds) Social Capital and European Democracy, pp. 25±44. London and New York: Routledge. Willke, H. (1995) Systemtheorie III: Steuerungstheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer. Woolcock, M. (1998) ``Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework'', Theory and Society 27(2): 151±208. Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D. (2000) ``Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy'', The World Bank Research Observer 15(2): 225±49.