Social Capital
From Geography
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | Social capital can be described as a concept of social contacts who affect the productivity of individuals and groups. In general this means the actual or potential resources which are available in a (individual) society who form social structures. Those resources can also be linked to group-membership, which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word (Bourdieu, 1986). According to Gregory (et al, 2009) social capital are relations of abstract trust and reciprocity that inhere in society and facilitate economic transactions. | |
| - | + | == Characteristics == | |
| - | + | Social networks are not naturally given and must be constructed and maintained through investment (by economic and cultural resources) in the group relations. Social capital contains social networks and social agencies in economic development (Gregory et al, 2009). According to Portes (1998) these social networks give actors access to economic resources, cultural capital and affiliation with [[institutions]] that confer valued credentials. It’s thus a group which provides the members collectively owned capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Involvement and participation in groups can have positive consequences for the individual and the community (an idea which dates back to Marx ideas about the society) (Portes, 1998). | |
| - | + | The social capital exists in material or symbolic exchanges and the amount of these exchanges depends on the size of the network and the volume of capital to whom the group is connected (Bourdieu, 1986). Besides social capital is also insurance in time of crisis or protection to avoid one (Gregory et al, 2009). Thus the central theory is that networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs, providing their members with the collectivity-owned capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshla, 1998). | |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| + | The term described is not new at all. It was originated by the sociologist Emile Durkheim[http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim], but the term received more attention when Pierre Bourdieu[http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Bourdieu] wrote about this phenomenon (Bourdieu, 1986). He defined the concept as ‘the 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 or recognition’ (Portes, 1998, p. 5) and used the term to produce or reproduce inequality (Bourdieu, 1986). Since that time the science has used the concept social capital in many different ways. Mainly to show that culture is quite sensible to economics and policy science. Nevertheless is the importation of culture into economics insufficient but still used because this shows how social relations might function as an assurance a certain kind of economic transactions. At the moment researches focus not just on the influence of social capital on the development of human capital anymore but on economic performance of firms and geographic regions or nations as well (Nahapiet & Ghoshla, 1998). | ||
| + | It could be possible that social capital has less desirable or even negative consequences. This is because of the social control, collective sanctions, exclusion of outsiders, restrictions on individual freedoms (social control), downward leveling norms and more (Portes, 1998). | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
Published by Bernard Jansen & Sonny Joziasse | Published by Bernard Jansen & Sonny Joziasse | ||
| - | Edited by Renate van Haaren, 6 Oktober 2012 | + | Edited by Renate van Haaren, 6 Oktober 2012--[[User:RenateVanHaaren|RenateVanHaaren]] 18:27, 8 October 2012 (CEST) |
Latest revision as of 16:27, 8 October 2012
Social capital can be described as a concept of social contacts who affect the productivity of individuals and groups. In general this means the actual or potential resources which are available in a (individual) society who form social structures. Those resources can also be linked to group-membership, which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word (Bourdieu, 1986). According to Gregory (et al, 2009) social capital are relations of abstract trust and reciprocity that inhere in society and facilitate economic transactions.
Characteristics
Social networks are not naturally given and must be constructed and maintained through investment (by economic and cultural resources) in the group relations. Social capital contains social networks and social agencies in economic development (Gregory et al, 2009). According to Portes (1998) these social networks give actors access to economic resources, cultural capital and affiliation with institutions that confer valued credentials. It’s thus a group which provides the members collectively owned capital (Bourdieu, 1986). Involvement and participation in groups can have positive consequences for the individual and the community (an idea which dates back to Marx ideas about the society) (Portes, 1998). The social capital exists in material or symbolic exchanges and the amount of these exchanges depends on the size of the network and the volume of capital to whom the group is connected (Bourdieu, 1986). Besides social capital is also insurance in time of crisis or protection to avoid one (Gregory et al, 2009). Thus the central theory is that networks of relationships constitute a valuable resource for the conduct of social affairs, providing their members with the collectivity-owned capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshla, 1998).
The term described is not new at all. It was originated by the sociologist Emile Durkheim[1], but the term received more attention when Pierre Bourdieu[2] wrote about this phenomenon (Bourdieu, 1986). He defined the concept as ‘the 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 or recognition’ (Portes, 1998, p. 5) and used the term to produce or reproduce inequality (Bourdieu, 1986). Since that time the science has used the concept social capital in many different ways. Mainly to show that culture is quite sensible to economics and policy science. Nevertheless is the importation of culture into economics insufficient but still used because this shows how social relations might function as an assurance a certain kind of economic transactions. At the moment researches focus not just on the influence of social capital on the development of human capital anymore but on economic performance of firms and geographic regions or nations as well (Nahapiet & Ghoshla, 1998).
It could be possible that social capital has less desirable or even negative consequences. This is because of the social control, collective sanctions, exclusion of outsiders, restrictions on individual freedoms (social control), downward leveling norms and more (Portes, 1998).
References
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. Retrieved from[3]
Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., Whatmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography (5th edition). United Kingdom; Wiley-Blackwell.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshla, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review. Vol. 23. No. 2. 242-266.[4]
Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital; Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 24. (1998), pp. 1-24.[5]
Contributers
Published by Bernard Jansen & Sonny Joziasse
Edited by Renate van Haaren, 6 Oktober 2012--RenateVanHaaren 18:27, 8 October 2012 (CEST)
