SOCIAL CAPITAL

1. INTRODUCTION
This paper is designed to provide insight on social capital. It will therefore examine what entails social capital. In order to achieve this objective, the paper is divided into various sub-titles.
This paper will first of all attempt to explain the definition of social capital with reference to various scholars. It will then embark on scope and historical background of social capital.
The components of social capital will also come in handy . Putman (2000) argument will provide all the required needs in this regard.
We shall then embark on exploring the social capital is relative to other social aspects of human life. For instance, we shall have a look at social capital and civil society, social capital and the third world and social capital and gender issues.
With the help scholars’ literatures, such as Aldridge and Pantoja, we shall outline the determinants of social capital. The mechanism on how social capital affect outcome will also be discussed. We shall then examine the measurement of social capital.
Finally, we shall conclude our discussion by providing the need to further examine social capital.

2. DEFINITION OF SOCIAL CAPITAL.
Pierre Bourdieu (1972) defined social capital as “aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”.
James Coleman defined social capital functionally as “a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspects of social structure, they facilitate certain actions of actors within the structure”-- that is, social capital is anything that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and social norms.
According to Robert Putnam, social capital “refers to the collective values of all ‘social networks’ and the inclinations that arise from these networks, to do things for each other”
Francis Fukuyama described social capital as the existence of a certain (i.e. specific ) set of informal values or norms shared among members of a group that permit cooperation among them.
Patrick Honout and the Social Capital Foundation have suggested that social capital is a set of attitudes, and mental dispositions that favour cooperation within society and that it equals the spirit of community.
Nan Lin’s concept of social capital , has more individualistic approach : “Investment in social relations with expected returns in the market place”.
Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992): social capital is the sum of the resources, actual and virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.
Wendy Stone and Jody Hughes in “what role for social capital in family policy- and how does it measure up?” (July 2000) state: social capital can be understood quite simply as networks of social relations characterized by norms of trust and reciprocity. The essence of social capital is quality social relations. Thus, social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action, which may lead to a broad range of outcomes, of varying scale.

SCOPE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social capital, referring to connections within and between social networks, is a core concept in business, economics, organizational behaviour, political science public health and sociology. Though there are in fact a variety of inter-related definitions of this term, which has been described as “something of a cure-all” for the problems of modern society, they tend to share the core idea “that social networks have. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual a collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individual and groups”.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SOCIAL CAPITAL


The concept that underlies social capital has a much long history; thinkers exploring the relation between associational life and democracy were using similar concept regularly by the 19th century, drawing on the work of earlier writers such as James Madison (the federalist papers), Alexis de Tocqueville (Democracy in America) to integrate concepts of social cohesion and connectedness into pluralist tradition in America political science. John Dewey may have made the first direct mainstream use of “ social capital “ in the school and society in 1899, though he did not offer a definition.
However, social capital did not really hit the mainstream pop-political science culture until to 1969 hit movie “Easy Rider”. Many believe that this was to dawn of social capital.
Some scholars trace the modern usage of social capital to Jane Jacobs in the 1960s. Political scientific Robert Salisbury advanced the term as critical component of interest group formation in his 1969 article “An Exchange Theory of Interest Groups” in the Midwest Journal of Political science. Pierre Beurdieu used the term in 1972 in his outline of a Theory of Practice. James Coleman adopted Glenn Loury`s 1977 definition in developing and popularizing the concept. In the late 1990s, the term gained popularity, serving as the focus of a World Bank research Programme and the main subject of several mainstream books, including Robert Putman`s Bowling Alone.

5. COMPONENTS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
Putman (2000) speaks of two main components of the concept:

5.1 Bonding social capital – this refers to the value assigned to social networks between
Homogeneous groups of people for instance, criminal gangs.

5.2. Bridging social capital - this refers to that of social networks between social
Heterogeneous groups for instance choirs and bowling clubs.

6. SOCIAL CAPITAL AND CIVIL SOCIETY.
The Third Sector definition of civil society: “Private organizations that are formed and sustained by groups of people acting voluntarily and without seeking personal profit to provide benefits for themselves or for others”. Thus civil society refers to voluntary association and organizations outside the market and state.
According to such authors as Walzer, Alessandni, Newtown, Stolle and Rochon, Foley and Edward, and Walters it is through civil society, that individual are able to establish and maintain relational network. Then voluntary associations also connect people with each other, build trust and reciprocity through informal, loosely structured associations and consolidate society through altruism without obligation. It is “this range of activities, services and associations produced by civil society” that constitutes the sources of social capital.
The idea that creating social capital (i.e. creating network) will strengthen civil society, underlies, current Australian social policy aimed at bringing deepening social divisions. The goal is to reintegrate those marginalized from the reward, of the economic system into the community.
A number of intellectual in developing countries have argued that the idea of social capital, particularly when connected to certain ideas about civil society is deeply implicated into contemporary modes of donor, and NGO driven implications and that it functions, primarily, to blame the poor for their conditions.

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE THIRD WORLD
Many authors suggest that third world communities lack the social capital networks and associations found in Western developed communities but this underestimates the nature of social capital building traditional societies. For example many of the “potlatch” activities in which, rather than accumulating wealth, it is distributed widely, are better understood as form of investment in social capital. Indeed the rate of return on this investment in social capital can be much higher than investment in any form of economic activity, as distributive relationships may establish forms of interpersonal obligations that are permanent and cannot easily be discharged.
In Papua New Guinea for example, the moka cycles, whereby, pigs are raised for distribution of pig’s meat in communal feasts are found widely through the Highlands and the ability to organize and coordinate such events is a major way in which “bikmen” achieve social status.

8. DETERMINANTS PF SPCOA; CAPITAL.
Aldridge Halpern (2002) suggested that the main determinants of social capital include: History and culture; whether social structures are flat or hierarchical; the family;
Education; the built environment; residential mobility; economic inequalities and social class; the strength and characteristics if civil society; and patterns of individual consumption and personal values.
Pantoja (1999) identified a different set again, including: family and kinship connections; wider social networks of associational life covers the full range of formal and informal horizontal arrangements; networks; political society; institutional and policy framework which includes the formal rules and norms that regulate public life; and social norms and values.

9. MECHANISMS FOR HOW SOCIAL CAPITAL AFFECT OUTCOMES
Narayan and Pritchett (1997), described five mechanism for how social capital affects outcomes. They are:
- Improve society’s ability to monitor the performance of government either because government officials are more imbedded in the social network or because monitoring the public provision of services is a public good;
- Increase, possibilities for co-operative action in solving problems with a local common property element;
- Facilitate the diffusion of innovations by increasing inter-linkages among individuals;
- Reduce information imperfections and expand the range of enforcement mechanism, thereby increasing transaction in output, credit, land and labour markets;
- Increase informal insurance (or informal, safety nets) between households, thereby allowing households to pursue higher returns but more risky, activities and production techniques.



10. MEASUREMENT OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

Measurement attempts are flawed by problems with separating form, source and consequences. An example is trust, which is commonly seen as a component of social capital. Some authors equate trust with social capital (Sukuyama 1995; 1997), some see trust as source of social capital (Putnam 1993), some see it as a form of social capital (Coleman 1988), and some see it as a collective asset resulting from social capital construed as a relational asset (Lin 1999).
Some authors have applied various indicators of social capital in different contexts. Examples include:
Trust (Cox and Caldwell 2000, Falk and Guenther 1999);
Membership (Baum and Ziersch 2003; O’Connell 2003);
Membership and trust (Veenstra 2002; Lappe 1997; Lockney 2003);
Membership, trust and norms of reciprocity (Isham 2002; Staveren 2003);and
Network resources (Zhao 2002)
Cavaye (2004) described the development of consistent frameworks and that there are no best indicators, rather some key characteristics that guide the choice of indicators such as:
· Specificity targeted to the variable to be measured,
· Measurability – ease of measurement,
· Comprehensiveness- measures of a range of social characteristics,
· Reliability and vigor, and
· Continuity ability to translate across situations and be consistent in local state or national frameworks
The challenge is to develop consistent indicators that can allow conclusions to be
Drawn across local, state and national frameworks (Cavaye2004).
A useful distinction is the classification into proximal and distal groupings. Proximal indications of social capital are in fact outcomes of social capital related to its core components (networks, trust and reciprocity). Distal indicators are outcomes that are not directly related to its key components and thus may not be valid measures of social capital itself.
Stone (2001, p6) stated that by linking social capital measurement directly to theoretical understandings of the concept we are able to:
· First, recognize that social capital is a multidimensional concept, comprising social networks, norms of trust, and norms of reciprocity;
· Second, understand social capital properly as a resource to action; and
· Third, empirically distinguish between social capital and its outcome” this provides a sound basis for developing a measurement framework but much work is required to ensure the indicators relate to this theoretical understanding.
It is concluded that there is presently no suitable measure of social capital and thus no suitable measure for application to natural resource management.

11. GENDER ISSUES IN SOCIAL CAPITAL THEORY.
One area social capital literature is weak on is gender (kilby, 2002)
Silvery and E1mhirst (2003) argued that for a more complete picture of social capital, specifically one that includes attention to the gendered and intergenerational conflicts and matriarchies within social networks, and the broader context of gender different within which social networks are forged. The authors also posted that social capital that exists within a broader context of gender inequality can exacerbate women’s disadvantages, as women remain excluded from the more powerful networks of trust and reciprocity that exist among men.

12. TYPES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL.
Aldridge Halpern (2002) identified Bonding and Bridging as the main types of social capital. Bonding is horizontal, among equals within a community, whereas bridging is vertical between communities. Wallis (1998) and Wallis and Crocker (1998) referred to bonding capital as localized which he defined as being found among people who live in the same or adjacent communities, and bridging capital, which extends to individuals and organizations that are more removed. Bridging social capital is closely related to thin trust, as opposed to the bonding (splitting) social capital of thick trust (Anheier and Kendall 2002).
The other important distinction of social capital developed by Norman Uphoff and wijayaratna (2000) spans the range from structural manifestation of social capital to cognitive ones. Structural social capital facilitates mutually beneficial collection action through established roles and social networks supplemented by rules, procedures and precedents. Cognitive social capital, which includes shared norms, values, attitudes and beliefs, predisposes people towards mutually beneficial collective action. Cognitive and structural forms of social capital are commonly connected and mutually reinforcing.
There are numerous other examples in the literature for example, whether its ties are strong (intensive and repeated) or weak (temporary and contingent); vertical (operating through formal hierarchical structures) or horizontal (in which authority is more decentralized); open (civically engaged and exercising open membership) or closed (protective and exercising closed membership); geographically dispersed or circumscribed; and instrumental (memberships as social collateral for individual wants) or principled (membership as bonded solidarity) (Heffron 2000).

13. CREATING (AND DESTROYING) SOCIAL COPITAL.
Falk and Kilpatrick (1999) argue that the accumulation of social capital is the outcome of the process of learning interactions. Quality learning interactions include an historical context, external interactions reciprocity, trust, shared norms and values. The planning and implementation of community projects may be one such learning interaction.
Sabel (1994) argue that social capital builds up as a result of all actors committing themselves to ongoing negotiations on shared understanding of common goals. Hechter (1987) suggest a multistage process for building group solidarity. Having joined together members must devise rules and procedures, which get institutionalized overtime. Internalizing rules and procedures, members moderate their behaviour so that these correspond to the expectations others have.
It is argued by a number of practitioners that people’s participation rarely happens spontaneously, but rather involves social preparation (Albee and Boyd, 1997). This is a process of supporting people to:
Gather information about their circumstances and resources;
Analyze the situation;
Prioritize action they wish to pursue;
Join together into a group or an organization of their own choosing and
Work out the means to implement these actions.



14. DISADVANTAGES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL.

Disadvantages of social capital include:
- fostering behaviour that worsens rather than improves economic performance;
- Acting as a barrier to social inclusion and social mobility;
- Dividing rather than uniting communities or societies;
- Facilitating rather than reducing crime, education underachievement and health damaging behaviour. (Aldridge 2002).
The kinds of groupings and associations which can generate social capital always also carry the potential to exclude others (Hunter 2000; Marrow 1999 and Szreter 2000)
Social capital can become a constraint to individual’s actions and choices (Wall 1998). For example, there is a particular high risk of negative social capital in urban poverty situations (Small 2002).
An example of the complexities in calling other forms of social capital “bad” is the example of how gangs might develop in places where social capital is lacking but that they sometimes provide integral functions for the communities they arise in. This might be extrapolated to include the governmental hosting of terrorist groups that serve some positive function the society regardless of their overtly negative connotations.

15. EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW
Some multi-dimensional measures have been undertaken by various studies. These include:
15.1. Narayan and Pritchett (1997) constructed a measurement of social capital from survey of 87 villages in rural Tanzania, which examined social capital and “village level outcomes”;
15.2. Onyx and Bullen (1997) sought to measure social capital in five localities in New South Wales using a 68-questions survey;
15.3. Barr (1999) used experimental game theory techniques to measure trust and familiarity in selected black communities in Zimbabwe; and
15.4. Putnam (2000) developed the following indicators of social capital for the United States:
15.4. 1Measure of community or organizational life:
v Percentage of individual who revel on a committee of a local organization in the last year (0.88a),
Percentage of individual who served as an officer of some club or organization in the last year (0.83)
Civic social organizations per 1000 population (0.78)
Mean number of club meetings attended in the last year (o.78)
Mean number of group memberships (0.74)

15.4.2 Measure of engagement in public affairs:
· Turnout in presidential elections, 1988 and 1992 (0.84),
· Percentage of individuals who attended public meeting on town or school affairs in last year (0.77).
15.4.3 Measure of community volunteerism
· Number of non-profit organization per 1000 population (0.82)
· Mean number of times worked on a community project in last year (0.65)
· Mean number of time did volunteer work last year (0.66).
15.4.4 Measure of informal sociability:
· Percentage of individuals who agree that “ I spend a lot of time visiting friends” (0.73),
· Mean number of times entertained at home last year (0.67).
15.4.5 Measures of social trust:
· Percentage of individuals who agree that “most people are honest” (0.84)
· Percentage of individuals who agree that “most people can be trusted” (0.92)
The figure in bracket indicates the items coefficient of correlation with the final constructed measure across the individual states of the United States.

16. CONCLUSION
Lack of a single agreed upon definition of social capital, reduces it popularity.
From the foregoing discussion, one can further conclude that social capital is neither available to all nor created equally. The consequences of social capital are numerous however the most noted one are exclusion of outsiders, excess claims on members, restrictions on individual freedom and downward leveling norms.
Lack of a single agreed method of measuring social capital, weaken it further. For instance there is no true quantitative way of determining the level of cohesiveness. It is entirely subjective. This is a clear testimony that most of the indicators used by different scholars are subjective hence they lack objectivity in them.
However despite of the several weaknesses of social capital, as instituted by different scholars, it still provides the explanation on how people benefit out of the interaction. Continued study of the subject, we believe will provide the solution to most uncovered questions.

17. REFERENCE
1. Narayan (1997). Voices of the poor: Poverty and social capital in Tanzania, World Bank, Washington DC, USA
2. World Bank (2000). What is social capital? From www.worldbank. org/poverty
3. Putnam, Leonard and Nanethi (1993). Making Democracy work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, and Princeton, U.S.A.
4. Schuller, T. Baron, S. & Field, J. (2000). Social capital: A review and Critic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.