Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Social capital: Social capital denotes the value of social networks, trust, and shared norms within a community or among individuals. It encompasses the relationships, connections, and reciprocity that enable cooperation, resource access, and collective action. Strong social capital enhances societal resilience, facilitates information flow, and fosters collaboration, contributing to a cohesive and supportive social fabric. See also Society, Community, Communication, Social Networks, Social Media, Networks, Information, Cooperation._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Political Philosophy on Social Capital - Dictionary of Arguments
Gaus I 59 Social capital/political philosophy/Forbes: [Robert] Putnam maintains that ‘social trust’ (which he also calls social capital) is the variable connecting associational density to democratic performance (Putnam 1993(1). >R. Putnam. Gaus I 60 VsPutnam, Robert: Since its publication, Putnam’s remarkably suggestive analysis has been exposed to a great deal of critical scrutiny. >Social capital/Putnam. VsPutnam: Other comparative studies are not so encouraging, however. Peter Hall’s (1999)(2) detailed study of Britain suggests that changes in norms and trust over time may be unrelated to changes in the vibrancy of associational life. Susan Pharr (2000)(3) and Donatella della Porta (2000)(4) make strong cases for attributing high levels of distrust and dissatisfaction with politics in Japan and Italy respectively, not to changes in social capital (in the sense of networks), or to the performance of the economy, but simply to the conduct in office of each nation’s politicians (cf. Jackman and Miller, 1998)(5). A number of critics (e.g. Berman, 1997(6); Fukuyama, 2001;(7) Levi, 1996(8); Varshney, 2001(9)) have argued that different kinds of social capital may have different effects, so that democratic political performance may be threatened by its ‘bad’ or ‘uncivic’ forms, difficult to distinguish in principle from its more desirable forms. (...) a simple horizontal–vertical (or secular–sacred) distinction seems to have worked well for Putnam in Italy (>Social capital/Putnam), but it may not be so easy to apply and justify elsewhere. (In fact it is silently dropped in Putnam, 2000(10).) Even if civic norms and trust are consistently related to performance, associational activity may not be (Knack and Keefer, 1997)(11). And heterogeneous communities, where ‘bridging’ social capital is most needed, may be the least able to develop it (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2000(12); 2002(13)). 1. Putnam, Robert D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 112 2.Hall, Peter A. (1999) ‘Social capital in Britain’. British Journal of Political Science, 29: 417–61. 3.Pharr, Susan J. (2000) ‘Officials’ misconduct and public distrust: Japan and the trilateral democracies’. In Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Putnam, eds, Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Democracies? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 173–201. 4.Della Porta, Donatella (2000) ‘Social capital, beliefs in government, and political corruption’. In Susan J. Pharr and Robert D. Putnam, eds, Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Democracies? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 587–704. 5.Jackman, Robert W. and Ross A. Miller (1998) ‘Social capital and politics’. Annual Review of Political Science, 1: 47–73. 6.Berman, Sheri (1997) ‘Civil society and political institutionalization’. American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 562–74. 7.Fukuyama, Francis (2001) ‘Social capital, civil society and development’. Third World Quarterly, 22 (1): 7–20. 8.Levi, Margaret (1996) ‘Social and unsocial capital: a review essay of Robert Putnam’s Making Democracy Work’. Politics and Society, 24: 45–55. 9.Varshney, Ashutosh (2001) ‘Ethnic conflict and civil society: India and beyond’. World Politics, 53: 362–98. 10. Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster. 11. Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer (1997) ‘Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 1251–88. 12. Alesina, Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2000) ‘Participation in heterogeneous communities’. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115: 847–904. 13. Alesina, Alberto and Eliana La Ferrara (2002) ‘Who trusts others?’ Journal of Public Economics, 85: 207–34. Forbes, H. Donald 2004. „Positive Political Theory“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. & Kukathas, Chandran 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Political Philosophy Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
||
> Counter arguments against Political Philosophy
> Counter arguments in relation to Social Capital
