DIFFERENT FORMS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL

DIFFERENT FORMS OF

SOCIAL CAPITAL

2

Pierre Bourdieu 1986 The Forms of Capital

Economic Capital

Cultural Capital

Social Capital

The Relations?

3

Putnam 1995 SOCIAL CAPITAL

One of the most popular definitions of social capital refers to the set of “features of social life - networks, norms, and trust - that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives”(Putnam, 1995)

Ｃａｓｅｓ： networks norms trust 　

4

Four Ｔ ypes of Social Ｃ apital

1. Bonding ｓｏｃｉａｌ　ｃａｐｉｔａｌ　结合型社会资本 strong ties

2. Bridging 　ｓｏｃｉａｌ　ｃａｐｉｔａｌ 桥接型社会资本 weak ties

3. Linking 　ｓｏｃｉａｌ　ｃａｐｉｔａｌ 连结型社会资本

4. Corporate 　ｓｏｃｉａｌ　ｃａｐｉｔａｌ 社团型社会资本

5

BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL

The term “bonding” (Putnam 1993) holds a negative connotation and generally refers to small circles of homogeneous people that do not cooperate with others outside the boundaries of the group.

Ex: Banfield (1958) partly attributed the backwardness of Southern Italy to the inability of citizens “to act together for their common good or, indeed, for any end transcending the immediate, material interest of the nuclear family”

Max Weber, the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,1904-1905

Family business contributes to economic development in East Asia.

6

BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITAL• Bridging social capital (Putnam 1993) is given by

horizontal ties shaping heterogeneous groups of people with different backgrounds.

• The term bridging refers to the ability of such networks to create “bridges” connecting sectors of society that, otherwise, would have never come into contact.

• The common claim is that such relationships have positive effects on the diffusion of information and trust, thus fostering transactions and economic growth.

• Mark Grannovette: Weak ties are more useful for job searches.

• Ex: Alumni Association

7

Question 1

• Through some cases to show the bonding and

bridging social capital in your life.

• How do they work?

8

LINKING SOCIAL CAPITAL• The term linking social capital (Knack and

Keefer,1997) describes ties connecting individuals, or the groups they belong to, to people or groups in position of political or financial power.

• For example, civil society organizations allow citizens to come into contact with the institutions to carry out advocacy activities through collective action.

• This kind of networks is critical for leveraging resources, ideas and information beyond normal community linkages and, therefore, may play a significant role for social well-being.

• Ex: Environmentalists protect environment through collective action. mass disturbances

9

Collective action for protecting environment

• Making decision without civic participation and supervision——project implementation——public protest——project canceling

• April, 2012 ， Tiangjin PC project • July, 2012, Qidong, Jiangsu• Oct. 16th till 28th, 2012, Ningbo, Zhejiang PX project by

Sinopec

10

11

CORPORATE SOCIAL CAPITAL

• Professional associations, labour unions and political parties that pursue the special interests of their members

• organizations can behave pro-socially as well as anti- socially

• Ex: Democratic Parties (Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang)

• 18th congress CPC represents common people’s interests, no special interests

• Falun Gong for its special interests

12

Question 2

• Analyzing these 4 types of social capital through

cases, and discuss their advantages and

disadvantages.

13

References

Banfield, E.G. (1958). The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New York: Free Press.

Olson, M. (1965), The logic of collective action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Knack, S. & Keefer, P. (1997), Does Social Capital Have An Economic Payoff? A Cross Country Investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112/4, 1251-1288.

Putnam, R.D. (1995), Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, VI: 65-78.

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

Sabatini, F. (2008b), Social Capital and the Quality of Economic Development. Kyklos, Vol. 61, No. 3, 466-499.