Policy Implications of Different Types of Social Capital - Coursework Example

Social Capital Professor (Tutor) The Name of the School (University) The City and State Date Social Capital Social capital has emerged as a significant concept in social sciences and the overall well-being of the society. The ideas behind social capital have been credited for numerous benefits such as improved health, tax evasion reduction, better education programs, enhanced child welfare, reduced crime rates, and improved government efficiency. Nonetheless, social capital has drawn increased interest in the area of public policy. Social capital relates to the social networks, norms, and trust that enable collaboration between or within groups in society. Social capital can have different implications in the overall well-being of society including negative and positive. Public policy is aimed at enhancing social capital, meaning that understanding the ideas behind social capital can enhance public policy. The following essay aims at discuss the relevance of social capital ideas to contemporary public policy. It will address in particular the main policy implications of different types of social capital including bonding, bridging, and linking. Evidently, social capital tends to illustrate the numerous foundations of the principles used to develop social laws or in this case public policy. Before discussion policy implications of social capital, it is relevant to understand the concept of social capital. According to the World Bank, a society’s social capital comprises of relationships, institutions, values, and attitudes that govern connections among societies and contribute to social and economic development (Productivity Commission 2003). However, social capital is not merely the number of institutions that support society, but the glue or connection that holds them together. This means that institutions and society have mutual rules and values for social conduct conveyed in personal relationships, trust/dependence, and a shared sense of civic responsibility. According to the Productivity Commission (2003), what is commonly agreed on about social capital is that social networks and norms are vital elements in its existence while trust is an important element still. Therefore, social capital can be viewed as a resource that enables cooperation between or within groups of people. Woolcock (2010), argues that like all capital, social capital is a type of resource that can be used productively. This means that it can appear in relationships in numerous fields of life including families and friends, ethnic, religious, community, and school groups, firms, occupational groups, and government institutions. This means that social capital cannot occur without the relationships among actors and between actors. Meadowcroft & Pennington (2007), suggest that social capital is the generalized standards of trust and mutuality that exists in a community-wide or societal level. The social norms illustrated in social capital refer to the informal rules that condition or regulate behaviors in numerous situations (Woolcock 2010). Some of the common social norms is respecting and willing to help the elderly such as surrendering seats for old people on buses or trains as well as being honest, helping the needy, and avoiding trashing the environment. Social networks in the concept of social capital involve an inter-linked group of individuals who generally have a characteristic in common (Meadowcroft & Pennington 2007). For instance, people in society may share the same religion, occupation, or political party as well as like a similar sport. Families and friends also illustrate social networks. In today’s society, social media has created a new level of social networks where billions of people are linked in a single platform such as Facebook. Trust is also an integral part of social capital and is defined as the level of assurance that individuals have that others will behave as they are expected or as they say (Rothstein 2005). An example of social trust is the assurance that an individual can trust a stranger not to hurt them or to offer them help as well as the level of confidence in new institutions or programs. Social capital comes in numerous forms including bonding, bridging, and linking. According to Putnam (2000), bonding involves the relationships in society that are among homogenous or close groups such as socioeconomic, family, ethnic, or religious groups. Bridging social capital refers to the relationships between heterogeneous or mixed groups such as civil rights movements (Meadowcroft & Pennington 2007). Linking social capital refers to the relationships among groups and individuals in different social strata or levels defined by a hierarchy that delineates access to power, wealth, and social status (Woolcock 2010). All these social capital types are based on the level of confidence that individual possess or hold that those within their relationships will act as expected as they say. Additionally, social capital is also defined in terms of economic, social, and cultural capital. Economic capital can be translated to money in terms of how much finances or economic opportunities can people access under bonding, bridging, and linking social capitals (Putnam 2000). Cultural capital refers to the norms and values passed down from one generation to another that can be used for future development. It may also mean the symbolic resources that are passed down generations for the purpose of maintaining social class status. All these types and modes of social capital have significant implications to public policy. Public policy is meant to develop the overall well-being of the society. However, different public policies may enhance or discourage social capital. As indicated earlier, social capital is meant to help in productive outcomes. Social capital can help in increasing knowledge and innovation, reducing transactional expenses, and encouraging socially-minded and cooperative behavior. The ideas behind social capital in each of its kind have numerous implications in public policy. Social capital can effectively help to revise or develop new public policy that is focused on enhancing social well-being and economically. The first implication of social capital to public policy is based on the ideas behind bonding social capital. Bonding social capital refers to the relationships shared among groups with similar characteristics such as family, clans, and religious groups (Lockhart 2005). The close relations among such individuals tend to reduce their overall gains economically, culturally, and socially. According to Cox (1995), one example of bonding social capital is when mothers are obligated or inclined to rear their children from an early age as opposed developing public policy that ensures the child rearing process is standardized. Mothers cannot be able to rear their children into civic individuals or people who can be expected to behave civically. Cox (1995), argues that there is need to develop a culture for child nurturing that requires children to be mindful of others, act cooperatively, and have the ability to work in groups. This means that most of the children reared under the care of their parents are not socially-developed as expected or as required. This is because parents lack the necessary skills to develop proper trust relationships (Cox 1995). Moreover, the bonding social capital tends to reduce the level or degree of trust within a set group of people. This is where people such as religious groups tend to limit personal freedom or teach a culture that ends up developing individuals who do not have the skills to develop trust within society. Therefore, the bonding social capital or links in families, clans, and religious groups among others should be connected to experiences in the wider community. Such outside communities should open outwards while not limiting diverse viewpoints and views. When families, religious groups, and ethnic groups are isolated in a society or country, there is partial social contact that tends to reduce or waste social capital. Such communities are likely to resist change, turn inwards, and reject those who criticize. Such groups are a detriment to both social capital and public policy and can feature different types including professional associations, elite clubs, local groups, and political factions. Such groups tend to eliminate social capital by not allowing their members to develop egalitarian and voluntary relationships that can cultivate social trust and civic virtues. Therefore, family, religious, ethnic, and professional among others can only achieve economic and social well-being benefits by developing ties with other social groups. This enables the development of a cohesive network of cross-cutting social associations at all levels. For instance, Scandinavian countries have led in the international measure of social capital where they are ranked highest in terms of trust (Kumlin & Rothstein 2005). These countries have higher levels of social inclusion than all other countries globally, which has resulted in increased peace and economic success. Policy makers should work on developing policy design mechanisms and policies that reflect such associations. According to Narayan-Parker (1999), when the cross-cutting linkages are feeble or non-existent, the interests of excluded groups or isolated groups can be channeled through formal institutions of the government. For instance, micro-credit policies or programs are viewed as a means of excluding the poor or those without the adequate collateral to afford or access formal banking institution (Narayan-Parker 1999). In the long-term such micro-credit policies tend to create increased loss of social capital where no civic values or trust relationships can be developed. Moreover, whenever such cross-cutting connections lack, there is a high risk of violence and conflict based on different social determinants such as class, family, race, or religion. Therefore, public policy should focus on enhancing the cross-cutting associations of binding groups or groups with similar or mutual attributes and other extend groups in society. For instance, many citizens from Scandinavian countries often come into direct individual contact with various types of public services and agencies (Kumlin & Rothstein 2005). These may include benefit systems, social insurance, child care, unemployment insurance, public health, elder care, and public education. The direct contact allows for effective development of social capital as well as achievement of social well-being and economic benefits (Kumlin & Rothstein 2005). Another implication of public policy lies in the vertical and horizontal association of social capitals. Here, horizontal associations tend to unite agents/individuals/groups with equal status and power whereas vertical associations tend to connect unequal agents/groups/individuals in distorted relations of hierarchy and dependence (Putnam 1993). The difference between horizontal and vertical associations is the fact that vertical associations are based on dependence rather than mutuality as illustrated in horizontal associations. Therefore, vertical associations are unlikely to generate any norms and trust of reciprocity since individuals among the groups are not based on a common attribute but their interdependence. According to Putman (1993), the democracy witnessed in Northern Italy is effective than what is witnessed in Southern Italy basically because Northern Italy has more cultural associations and sports clubs. The need to establish social interaction thus becomes a paramount feature of any productive development in the case of public policy. Public policy should be developed on the basis of enhancing or increasing social interaction to foster voluntary interactions is social circles that can eventually enable development of reciprocity trust and norms in society. When the public is allowed to interact socially in all levels or manners, there is an increased ability to foster interpersonal trust from businesses, institutions, and individuals. The issue of power is also significant in underling the implications of social capital on public policy. Although different groups in society especially in the bridging social capital have power, it varies in extent and durableness. Bridging allows businesses to develop trust for goods and services to consumers (Meadowcroft & Pennington 2007). Nonetheless, the power of consumers and the businesses is unequal, thus making it challenging to develop any benefits out of such relationships. Moreover, when certain groups in society are often composed of similar people, and are not connected to outside or external groups, resources, information, and power, they can only serve a significant solidarity and insurance function (Narayan-Parker 1999). Nonetheless, such groups do not become agents of change or transformations into high profit or return production associations or influential social movements that can challenge the running or laws of a country. For instance, it is clear that the connection between student, parents, and school groups leads to enhanced educational performance. Nonetheless, lack of associations between businesses, suppliers, and farmers groups results in over-priced goods as well as net losses in revenues for exporting countries and raw material producers. Public policy makers should understand that even though bridging offers increased benefits by mixing different groups together, not all of them can work for a positive purpose (Productivity Commission 2003). The need to develop horizontal associations is important for public policy. Governments need to develop public policy mechanisms and ideas that link businesses to external groups that are often excluded resulting in low development of reciprocity trust that can help in acquiring the benefits of social capital. They should develop groups that can be mutually characterized based on the amount of power, resources, associations, and information offered to such groups. This means that public policy should focus on increasing the availability of resources, information, and social inclusion of different types of groups as part of the developing bridging social capital. Public policy should enable the ability of social groups such as minorities to share similar platforms as well as enjoy similar information and powers with more influential groups (Narayan-Parker 1999). This is because groups such as minority groups can only hold rallies or demonstrations to get the attention of government. Therefore, the longer it takes to include these social groups into the suitable social strata as well as setting in terms of power, participation, and resources the more public policy and continued distrust will increase. The linking social capital is also relevant in ensuring the improvement of public policy through economic, social, and cultural aspects. Most people who are in countries where democracy is least efficient do not trust their institutions including public, health, insurance, education, and financial institutions. This is because the type of public policy developed has a lot to teach or imply to the public about the overall society and its relations with government institutions (Kumlin & Rothstein 2005). Lack of policies that signify increased inclusion or effort for inclusion of all society equally tends to create the challenge faced in most democracies. The lack of trust in institutions tends to develop a culture of corruption and mistrust. Such indications eventually lead to economic and social losses where innovation is limited and social welfare diminished (Narayan-Parker 1999). Nonetheless, public policy can alter this by developing systems for inclusion of those formerly excluded into formal systems of education, governance, and finance. Additionally, public policy should encourage change in norms and values to support inclusion. This means developing all-inclusive services and systems rather than developing different kinds of systems and services based on the social determinants or situation of different groups in society. Participation is also important to ensure that power can be distributed to those excluded in various spheres especially in the development of public policy (Kumlin & Rothstein 2005). There is need for the state to understand civic life rather than rely on social determinants to enable the development of cross-cuttings that can result in increased economic, cultural, and social benefits. In conclusion, social capital relates to the social networks, norms, and trust that enable collaboration between or within groups in society. Social capital can have different implications in the overall well-being of society including negative and positive. Public policy is aimed at enhancing social capital, meaning that understanding the ideas behind social capital can enhance public policy. Social capital can help in increasing knowledge and innovation, reducing transactional expenses, and encouraging socially-minded and cooperative behavior. The ideas behind social capital in each of its kind have numerous implications in public policy. Social capital can effectively help to revise or develop new public policy that is focused on enhancing social well-being and economically. References Lockhart, WH 2005, 'Building Bridges and Bonds: Generating Social Capital in Secular and Faith-Based Poverty-to-Work Programs', Sociology of Religion, no. 1, p. 45. Narayan-Parker, D. 1999, Bonds and bridges: social capital and poverty (Vol. 2167). World Bank Publications. Productivity Commission, 2003, Social Capital: Reviewing the Concept and its Policy Implications, Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra, Chpts 1, 2 & 4, pp. 1-23; 53-68. Woolcock, M., 2010, ‘The Rise & Routinization of Social Capital, 1988-2008’, Annual Review of Political Science, 13, pp. 469-87. Cox, Eva, 1995. A Truly Civil Society, Sydney, ABC Books. Kumlin, S. & Rothstein, B. 2005, 'Making and Breaking Social Capital: The Impact of Welfare-State Institutions', Comparative Political Studies, 38, 4, pp. 339-365. Meadowcroft, J. & Pennington, M. 2007, Rescuing Social Capital from Social Democracy, Institute of Economic Affairs, London, Chpts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7, pp. 17 45; 64-83. Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press. Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon & Schuster. Rothstein, B. 2005. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust, Cambridge University Press. Read More