Conflicting Approaches to the Study of Social Capital

Abstract

In recent years, the concept of social capital (i.e. the presence of networks, trust and reciprocity) has become quite fashionable in social science research. Especially Robert Putnam’s ‘Making Democracy Work’ 2 has provoked an enormous amount of research on this societal resource. It has become customary to make a distinction between network and attitudinal approaches of social capital, focusing on individual network positions and the role of civic attitudes respectively. We argue that these two approaches do not exclude one another: it is just as legitimate to study the larger societal benefits of social capital (Putnam and others) as it is to study the individual benefits of networks positions (Lin and others). The question on how social capital can be generated seems more promising for future research, and here we can distinguish society-based approaches (social capital is generated by day-to-day social interaction) and institutional approaches (political and economic institutions determine social capital levels). The available research demonstrates that day-to-day interaction can have significant effects on democratic attitudes, e.g., by a process of value convergence. There is, however, also considerable evidence to show the effect of institutions, boosting social capital levels by ensuring impartiality and transparency and by promoting income inequality. Both from a political science, as from a social perspective, we urge the scientific community to pay more attention to the question how social capital might be generated by the political system.