Concept of Social Capital and the Different Ways of Measuring It - Essay Example

Social Capital: Author Name: Institutional Affiliation: In a bid to bring about organizational development, the World Bank initiated the social capital with regard to social and economic development. There was a need to bring about integration among international economies. Mechanisms were devised to help countries overcome social challenges that hinder economic development. Social integration thus became very critical in bringing about economic prosperity and overcoming social challenges such as poverty. There has to be some degree of mutuality among all the people for economic prosperity. To achieve economic development, people have to interact and come together as they pursue same goals. Social capital comes in critically to bind all the people. This paper explores the concept of social capital and the different ways of measuring it. It also covers how this concept is being used to address social issues. For cohesion in the society, there has to be a unifying factor that glues all the people together. The sum of beliefs, norms, attitudes, ideologies, social institutions and/or relationships constitutes what is referred to as social capital. This social cohesion is crucial for social-economic prosperity and developmental sustainability. Coleman (1990) defines social capital as a function of production having entities that characterize it. These are social networks, institutions and norms that bring people together. The concept of social capital is a network uniting people with similar views and connecting those with different opinions. This is bound by people’s rules, social ties, norms and more especially the relationships that exist among the people, and how people come together and work towards achieving and/or finding solutions to common problems. Social capital makes people aware of how their fates may be connected. This way, people develop trust among each other, and consequently, they are able to live smoothly. Common social problems can be solved easily when people are glued together through social capital. Networks are best used to describe sympathetic relationships among people in a social setting. Social capital can have advantages and disadvantages in equal measure depending on how it is handled. The extent at which a person gets the social capital depends on how much effort he/she puts in generating it. When there is understanding and co-operation among the people, it means that they can easily work together and achieve common goals. Social capital generation becomes easy. Alongside physical goods that social capital can bring, there are also socio-emotional goods that come with social capital. People support each other both emotionally and physically. This support is needed for one to achieve socio-economic stability. A society that has economic stability has social and even political stability. Two types of social capital are of concern to the society. These are: structural social capital and cognitive social capital. Under structural social capital, sharing of information is enhanced. This promotes collective action among the people. How people make decisions is also boosted by coming together under well-binding rules and beliefs. Collier (1998) and Grootaert (1997) opine that sharing of information among members of an organization and reducing opportunistic tendencies enhance fair-mindedness and collective decision-making prowess. Cognitive social capital entails the shared norms, beliefs and rules that bind people together. According to Uphoff (2000), cognitive social capital is more subjective relative to structural social capital which objective. Cognitive social capital is immaterial to some degree. It is intangible. It is only recognized through perceptions and mentalities. Caution has to be observed here lest it become trivialized and lose it most fundamental role at ensuring social comfort. Both the theoretical and empirical perceptions of social capital can be conceptualized and expressed theoretically. A well informed framework is thus stipulated on how social capital can be measured. This is partly based on empirical data obtained through investigation. Conceptualization on theory upon which to empirically investigate the social capital is a prerequisite for achievement of a rigorous understanding of the theory of social capital. Reciprocity and trust characterize the measure of social capital. To understand social relations, then the concept of viewing social relations as a network has to be mustered. The interdependence that exists between different social networks is very important as the issue of social capital is being explicated. The degree to which people from different social networks interact determines the social capital generated if those people came together to work. It is worth noting that social capital can be measured using different criteria. The approaches that have been employed to measure social capital vary from one scholar to the other. Views of earliest thinkers and even more recent thinkers have been combined in measuring social capital. Some view it as being abstract hence can only be given a theoretical approach while others think that it can best be measured through empirical investigations. Others still think that a combination of both the theoretical and empirical approaches is what can best work for accurate measurement of social capital. All these views constitute different methodologies that can be employed to measure social capital. The Coleman (1988) methodology is one of the methodologies used to measure social capital particularly in Australia. This methodology looks at the family as a network of its own, outside the social network. Relationships between parents and their children influences the total family income generated. Family members can be mobilized to work towards the generation of social capital. Well defined roles in a family facilitate income generation. All members in a family are given duties to perform. However, it should be noted that where there is no understanding among family members, then nothing can be achieved much as the issue of social capital is concerned. The scope if extended to include the extended families, works perfectly. This methodology does not consider those parents who are non-residents. It only emphasizes on parent child ratio without much attention on the quality of relationship between parents and their children. Despite this fact, this methodology has been adopted in many studies. Amato (1998) comes yet with yet another methodology which actually an improvement of the Coleman (1988) methodology. The view is extended to look at the relationship between parent and parents and how it impacts on the social income and the family income. For economic prosperity, stability has to be there in families. This is depended on how well parents relate with each other. It is clear that parents are the ones to mobilize their children and assign them responsibilities. In a case where parents do not relate well, then there will not be any cohesion in the family which can initiate social capital within the family. Social capital research can not be defined explicitly by looking at household families. This is because some parents are non-residents. So as to measure social capital, one has to take the research beyond the household scope. The quality of family relationships and how they interact culturally is used together with other social networks to measure the overall social capital. Putnam’s (1995) came up with yet another methodology of measuring social capital. The view is extended to the neighborhoods. Having good relations with neighbours promotes social capital generation. This association-based approach focuses on such corporations as the social groupings, Red Cross, lion’s club and even political parties among others. An account on how people are attached to each other through social ties and norms helps in measuring social relations and thus, social capital research. People of influence in society are who have social capital. These are respected people and thus, they can influence others in the society. They command respect among their neighbours and can influence others to do things in a certain way thereby promoting social capital. A united neighbourhood finds it easy to pursue common social concerns such as education. These social bonds keep on holding the people together hence making it convenient to achieve other social concerns such as family income. Family income translates to social income and thus social capital. Social capital can also be measured from the work place. Social capital can be viewed as an individual asset and at the same time as a social or collective asset. According to Portes (1998), he argues that inasmuch as social capital generation is dependent on the relationships between people, the capital itself is an individual asset. This contravenes what Putnam (1993) attests. Putnam considers social capital to a collective asset. As to whether social capital is an individual asset or a collective asset should raise eyebrows. It is the presence or absence of social income that matters. A society robust with social capital soars higher and higher in all sectors of development. It is upon the people to observe coherence at all times and come together in working to achieve social capital. The working locale becomes a centre for measuring social capital. Analysis on how people relate at the work environment indicates on how united or divided these people are. The degree of friendship among the staff and workers tells whether there is cohesion among them or not. When there is mutual understanding at the work place, it is expected that people will give their best thereby promoting social capital. Having given an overview on how social capital can be measured, attention is turned to the correlation between social capital and social issues. An issue concern in this paper is poverty. Poverty has always been one biggest problem and challenge to developmental endavours. A poverty stricken society lags behind in everything. Poor leadership structures characterize this kind of a society. Education systems are flawed and poorly organized. In addressing these issues, social capital through social cohesion plays a central role. The distribution of social income and poverty is influenced by social capital. Grootaert (1999) notes that the differences surrounding economic outcomes at household levels can not be explained using the factors of production: land, labour, and capital. Social capital is taken as a function of production. When people are socially organized and motivated to work, returns are expected and this translates to social income and/or capital. Factors of production matter a lot when talking about social capital. Social capital networks and social income can not be separated. Poverty is one the chronic issues that have been ailing societies for decades. However, all is not lost. Social capital has been instrumental in alleviating poverty and how it can be reduced and/or eradicated at best. However, it is necessary to understand the root of any problem before addressing it. Only by understanding poverty can one address it. According to Glewwe and van der Gaal (1988) and the World Bank (1990), it is not easy to eradicate poverty unless its extent is understood. Efforts have to b e directed at understanding poverty levels so as to know the best way to eradicate it. Strategies have thus been formulated to address this issue of poverty reduction. New paradigms have been established just to promote social capital and use it as a major strategy at poverty reduction. This has been through community participation. Governmental and non-governmental organizations have invested in community works social to promote social capital. These organizations are aimed at promoting unity and cohesion among the so as to make them unite and fight poverty out of their societies. Funding organizations which are non-profit have also been started to help alleviate poverty in poor states. When people participate in social fora through registered organizations and clubs, they get to develop interests towards each other. According to Portes (1990), social capital provides the ability to benefit from social network membership or even through other social fora. People’s socio-cultural differences are kept away and the people come together to achieve same set objectives. By working together, they become coherent and therefore promote social capital. Social income is easily earned and this is a major stride towards poverty reduction and eradication. Currently, as things stand, there are some significant undoings in the use of social capital as a strategy to reduce poverty. Social stratification prevalent in many states does not guarantee poverty reduction. There is no social cohesion. Lack of social cohesion impedes existence of mutuality and trust among people. The rich and the poor stand out in two worlds apart. If poverty reduction is anything to go by, then the poor have to be included in the social political systems so that they can find grounds to voice their plight. Political and economic opportunities reinforce each other and therefore, integration of the poor in social politics becomes very crucial in enhancing social capital. Halpern (1999) asserts in his work that a society with low social capital was dominantly ruled by failure governments and a society was highly inefficient and corrupt. Social capital can thus be very instrumental when it comes to poverty reduction. There may seem to be differences among different people but this does not mean that they can not cooperate and pursue similar goals. Issues of social concern can best be solved through people putting their differences aside and mobilizing resources. It is through mobilization of resources that people are able to generate social capital and reduce the scorching effect of poverty. Trust and reciprocity enhance social integration. People engage in voluntary activities and participate in community work. The rich are able to uplift the poor through goodwill support and this promotes social capital. Registered international organizations such as the UNESCO have been established to improve the living standards of the poor in society. This enhances social equity and equality when it comes to distribution of socio-economic resources. Equity in the way resources are distributed promotes social homogeneity and thus alleviates poverty. Education is crucial as far as social capital generation is concerned. An educated people know best they can mobilize resources and synergize themselves to generate income. This translates to a socially stable society. Social stability is a milestone in the reduction and eradication of poverty. A society that has been equipped with sound education is able to observe family planning. Families which are not well planned, end up getting more children than they can provide for. Life becomes full of misery. Social capital becomes a myth and therefore, poverty becomes the people’s way of life!. By educating an individual, posterity is educated and poverty is reduced. Social evils such as robbery are also eradicated. Coherence in society is also promoted among the people when they are educated. Social cohesion is a cornerstone for social capital generation and thus poverty eradication. In conclusion, social capital is very crucial when it comes to addressing social issues and challenges such as poverty. Social capital which is measured in a variety of ways has bought a paradigm shift in the running of social endeavours. Promoted by a well structured and coherent society, social capital encourages reforms which are aimed at the welfare of the larger society. Relationships among people also impact on social income generation. It all starts from the family as a basic social unit. How parent relate with their children and even the parent-parent relationships have an impact on social capital generation. References Amato, P. (1998). More than money? Men’s contribution to their children’s lives. In A. Booth and A. Creuter (eds.), Men in Families: When do they get involved? What difference does it make? New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Coleman J. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (s1), 95-121. Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Collier, P. (1998). "The Political Economy of Ethnicity." Paper Presented at Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics April 12-21, 1998. Washington D.C: World Bank. Grootaert, C. (1997). Social Capital: The Missing Link? Chapter 6 in Expanding the Measure of Wealth - Indicators of Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington, D.C: World Bank. Grootaert, C. (1999): "Social Capital, Household Welfare and Poverty in Indonesia" Local Level Institutions Study, Working Paper No. 6, Social Development Department, Washington, D.C. The World Bank. Halpern, D. (1999). Social Capital: The New Golden Goose Faculty of Social and Political Sciences. Cambridge University, Unpublished Review. Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1), 1-24. Putman, R. (1993). The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life - The American Prospect, No. 13. Putman, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78. Uphoff N. (2000). Understanding Social capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience of Participation. In Dasgupta, P. & Serageldin, I. (Eds) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. The World Bank, Washington D.C., 215-252. Read More