2011(11-51)

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

1/7

B a k u , A z e r b a i j a n | 333

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Part

UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIAL CAPITAL WITHECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Emine Ozmete

Department of Social Work, Faculty of Health Science, Ankara University, Ankara, (TURKEY)

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

It has been proposed that social capital, as an investment in social relations with an expected return indifferent aspects of individuals life. It should be defined that as resources embedded in social structure that areaccessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions. A fundamental concept of the definition is resources. Beyond thebasic individual, economic and, environmental/ physical resources needed to sustain and enhance human life.

It is important that understanding of social capital with ecosystem approach including micro, meso and,macro levels. Micro accounts related to social capital are biology and personality of individuals, age, socialization,education, work, religion, consumption. There are some important factors in the meso level such as civil societyand associational involvement, school and community, physical environment and urban design. The macroenvironment includes some important factors related to social capital such as culture, economy and institutions.

This paper evaluates social capital with ecosystem approach including important factors in micro-level,

meso- level and macro level.

Key words: Social capital, capital, ecosystem, resources

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Definition of the concept

There are many definitions attached to the concept which leads to justifiable confusion about whatconstitutes "social capital". This has been exacerbated by the different words used to refer to the term. Theserange from social energy, community spirit, social bonds, civic virtue, community networks, social ozone, extendedfriendships, community life, social resources, informal and formal networks, good neighbourliness and social glue.Within these there are different conceptualisations depending on the theoretical background which contribute toconceptual confusion (Halpern, 2005).

The notion of social capital is said to have first appeared in Lyda Judson Hanifan's discussions of ruralschool community centres. He used the term to describe 'those tangible substances [that] count for most in thedaily lives of people'(1916). Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship,sympathy and social intercourse among those that 'make up a social unit'. Pierre Bourdieus (1983) contribution tosocial capital is related to social theory, and then James S. Coleman (1994) in his discussions of the social contextof education moved the idea into academic debates. However, it was the work of Robert D. Putnam (1995) thatlaunched social capital as a popular focus for research and policy discussion. 'Social capital' has also been pickedup by the World Bank as a useful organizing idea. They argue that 'increasing evidence shows that social cohesionis critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable' (The World Bank, 1999).According to these different approaches; definitions of the social capital are as following:

Bourdieu: 'Social capital is the 'the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked topossession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance andrecognition' (Bourdieu, 1983).

Coleman: 'Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities,

having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitatecertain actions of individuals who are within the structure' (Coleman, 1994).

Putnam: 'Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties ofindividuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocityand trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have calledcivic virtue (Putnam, 2000).

The World Bank: 'Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the qualityand quantity of a society's social interactions... Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpina society it is the glue that holds them together' (The World Bank, 1999).

Woolcock (2001) suggests that the concept of social capital "risks trying to explain too much with too little[and] is being adopted indiscriminately, adapted uncritically, and applied imprecisely" For John Field (2003) thecentral thesis of social capital theory is that 'relationships matter'. The central idea is that 'social networks are a

valuable asset'. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knitthe social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships oftrust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people. Lin (2001) has stated that

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

2/7

334 | www.ijar.lit.az

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Partsocial capital may be defined operationally as resources embedded in social networks and accessed and used byactors for actions. Thus, the concept has two important components: (1) it represents resources embedded insocial relations rather than individuals, and (2) access and use of such resources reside with actors.

Also Lin (2001) argued that there are two types of resources an individual can gain access to and use:personal resources and social resources. Personal resources are resources possessed by an individual and mayinclude ownership of material as well as symbolic goods (e.g., diplomas and degrees). Social resources areresources accessed through and individuals social connections. Depending on the extensity and diversity of their

social connections, individuals have differential social resources.For Flap (1991), social capital also includes mobilized social resources. Flap specifies three elements of

social capital:1. The number of persons within ones social network who are prepared or obliged to help

you when called upon to do so,2. the strength of the relationship indicating readiness to help,3. the resources of these persons.

From these definitions, It can be distinguished three main underlying ideas: (1) social capital generatespositive externalities for members of a group; (2) these externalities are achieved through shared trust, norms, andvalues and their consequent effects on expectations and behaviors; (3) shared trust, norms, and values arise frominformal forms of organizations based on social networks and associations. The study of social capital is that ofnetwork-based processes that generate beneficial outcomes through norms and trust (Durlauf and Fafchamps,2004)

Social capital is so important to individual and community life. First, social capital allows citizens to resolvecollective problems more easily People often might be better off if they cooperate, with each doing her share.Second, social capital greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly. Where people are trustingand trustworthy, and where they are subject to repeated interactions with fellow citizens, everyday business andsocial transactions are less costly. A third way is which social capital improves our lot is by widening ourawareness of the many ways in which our fates are linked. People who have active and trusting connections toothers whether family members, friends, or fellow bowlers develop or maintain character traits that are good forthe rest of society. Joiners become more tolerant, less cynical, and more empathetic to the misfortunes of others.When people lack connection to others, they are unable to test the veracity of their own views, whether in the giveor take of casual conversation or in more formal deliberation (Halpern, 2005).

Those concerned with social capital have looked to the density of social networks that people are involvedin; the extent to which they are engaged with others in informal, social activities; and their membership of groupsand associations. Their big worry is that in the USA, for example, there has been a significant decline in the activemembership of associations (like football teams and community groups) and a corresponding increase in

individualized leisure activities (most especially watching television). For example, there has been drop in thenumber of people involved in league (team) bowling and a growth in individual bowling (hence the title of Putnams(2000) book Bowling Alone). The result is that social capital is weakened.

1.2. Functional sub-types of social capital: Bridging, bonding and linking social capital

Michael Woolcock, a social scientist has helpfully argued that many of the key contributions prior to BowlingAlone failed to make a proper distinction between different types of social capital. He distinguished about sub-typesof social capital:

Bonding social capital,which denotes ties between people in similar situations, such as immediate family,close friends and neighbours.

Bridging social capital, which encompasses more distant ties of like persons, such as loose friendshipsand workmates.

Linking social capital, which reaches out to unlike people in dissimilar situations, such as those who are

entirely outside of the community, thus enabling members to leverage a far wider range of resources than areavailable in the community (Woolcock, 2001).

The Putnam looked to whether social capital is bonding (or exclusive) and/or bridging (or inclusive). Putnamsuggested that the former may be more inward looking and have a tendency to reinforce exclusive identities andhomogeneous groups. The latter may be more outward-looking and encompass people across different socialdivides including diffrent norms, networks and sanctions (Putnam, 2000). Bonding (exclusive) social capital refersto relations amongst relatively homogenous groups such as family members and close friends and is similar to thenotion of strong ties. Linking social capital refers to relations between individuals and groups in different socialstrata in a hierarchy where power, social status and wealth are accessed by different groups (Halpern, 2005). Inthis point; these functional sub-types of social capital are presented with the three components of social capital:network, norms and sanctions within ecosystem (Figure 1 ), (Halpern, 2005).

2. A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING OF SOCIAL CAPITAL: ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

An ecosystem is the subsystem of human ecology that emphasizes relationship between individuals and theirenvironment. The place where an individual lives is its habitat. The external conditions that surround and influencethe life of an

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

3/7



Fig.1. A conceptual map of social capital (with examples)

Source: Halpern, 2005 individual, a family, or a population constitute i ts physical and socialenvironment. The ecosystem approach is useful because it emphasizes the interaction between individuals and social

conditions that surround them. Also this perspective contributes to understand social capital and human development process(Goldsmith, 2000).

Ecosystem theory is unique in its focus on humans as both biological organism and social beings ininteraction with their environment. Ecosystem perspective is concerned with interaction and interdependence ofhumans (as individuals, groups, and societies) within the social environment. Attention is given to the importance ofselective perception, values, decision making, and the selection and use of resources as means toward attainmentof goals, satisfaction of needs, and quality of the social connections and quality of human life (Bubolz and Sontag,1993).

Consideration of an individuals interrelationships with various dimensions of its environment involves an

expanded view of systems in terms of social capital:The micro environment includes the surrounding elements of the living environment common to all familysystems and family members as individual. The micro environment is made up of physical habitats, including homes

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

4/7


INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Of ACADEMIC RESEARCH Vol. 3. No. 3. May, 2011, I Partand yards and social aspects relating to kin, friends, and neighbours in terms of social connections and socialcapital. While the physical residence and members of any one family are integral to their own system and with eachother as socially (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1988)

The macro environment, especially the social-cultural environment in the macro environment includes; The presence of other human beings (e.g., neighbours who organize community action groups), Abstract cultural constructions (e.g., language, laws, norms, and patterns),Social and economic institutions,(e.g., the social regulatory system, agricultural- industrial system,

and market economy).These provide the basis for communication, order, and coordination of human activities and have powerful

impact on human development in terms of social capital. Governmental policies, for example, regulate wherehouses can be built, how waste is disposed, and who can marry whom. Moral rules govern peoples behaviourtoward each other. The material and symbolic culture permeates the totality of environment. Families andindividuals depend on businesses, all level of government, schools, and other community groups. Schools anduniversities provide formal education; and vocational programs provide training for special skills for social capitaland quality in life (Goldsmith, 2000).

2.1.The micro / meso level evidence

Various measures have been used by Coleman (1994) and Putnam (2000) to measure social capital withinecosystem. The family household, as a place in which social relations characterised by trust and reciprocityoperate, has received relatively little attention in social capital research. Those studies which do focus on social

capital within a family household typically investigate the impact of social capital on a given family outcome oftenchild development or wellbeing. Coleman's development of social capital indicators for children's educationalattainment included personal, family and community dimensions. Measures of personal and family resourcesinclude the following: socio-economic status, ethnicity, number of siblings, number of residential moves, whether ornot mother worked before children started school, the mother's expectation of children's level of educationalattainment, the level of communication between children and parents about personal matters, and whether or notboth parents were present in household both in micro environment and in macro environment. (Coleman,1994).

Families create norms and social ties. They are also the context within which the vast majority of people firstlearn to trust others. In the family, the young child becomes securely bonded to the primary caregiver, and thisbond becomes the secure emotional base from which the child can safely explore the world. It is the existence ofthe strong, secure bond that eventually gives the child the confidence for the life-long period. According toattachment theory; a positive domino effect of trusting relationships spreading out from the family and into widercircles of life. In contrast, disrupted, abusive or absent early relations in life- from the family context to teenage peergroups through to adult isolation and deviancy. Children who see their parents volunteering, engaged in thecommunity and so on are in turn more likely to engage in such behaviours themselves. Indeed, the influence and

community engagement of parents appear to be one of the most robust routes through which social capital isformed or transmitted. (Halpern, 2005).

By expanding the unit of observation and introducing a vertical component to social capital, James Coleman(1994) opened the door to a broaderor mesointerpretation of social capital. His definition of social capital asa variety of different entities [which] all consist of some aspect of social structure, and [which] facilitate certainactions of actorswhether personal or corporate actorswithin the structure implicitly considers relations amonggroups, rather than individuals. This definition expands the concept to include vertical as well as horizontalassociations and behavior within and among other entities, such as firms. Vertical associations are characterizedby hierarchical relationships and an unequal power distribution among members.

2.2. The macro level evidence

Most encompassing view of social capital includes the social and political macro environment that shapessocial structure and enables norms to develop. In addition to the largely informal, and often local, horizontal and

hierarchical relationships of the first two concepts, this view also includes the macro-level formal institutionalrelationships and structures, such as the political regime, the rule of law, the court system, and civil and politicalliberties.

There is a strong degree of complementarity between horizontal and hierarchical associations and macroinstitutions, and their coexistence maximizes the impact of social capital on economic and social outcomes. Forexample, macro institutions can provide an enabling environment in which local associations can develop andflourish; local associations can sustain regional and national institutions and add a measure of stability to them. Acertain degree of substitution is also inherent to the interlocking aspect of the three levels of social capital. Forexample, a strengthening of the rule of law that results in better-enforced contracts may render local interactionsand reliance on reputations and informal ways of resolving conflict less critical to enterprise development. Althoughthe resulting loosening of social ties at the local level would suggest that micro-level social capital has beenweakened, this effect must be weighed against the counterbalancing effect at the national level. Institutions inmacro environment provide some opportunities and services to people. These are health services and education

services and politics related to good social connections and quality of life (Halpern, 2005). Social connections andrelation between social environmental components both in micro environment and in macro environment haveillustrated the Figure 2.

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

5/7



2.2.1. Health

There is a considerable amount of research being carried out on the relationship between health and socialcapital. Halpern (1999) suggest that social capital may act to buffer the effects of social stress and that its presencemight generate a sense of wellbeing and belonging. Most of psychological and medical literature is focused on theindividual, examining the links between individuals personal relationships and their health (a micro levelanalysis).Over the last several decades, psychologists have noticed that individuals with poor health, and

particularly mental health, generally have significantly smaller social networks. In short, those suffering fromchronic illness appear to have fewer intimate relationships and friends. People suffering illness also tend to report alower quality of support, regardless of the number of persons in their social network. It is stated that there arestrong relationship between the size and, quality of peoples social networks and health, with people who are lesssocially isolated and more involved in social and civic activities tending to have better health (Halpern, 2005).

2.2.2. Education and Civic Participation

Education has repeatedly been shown to be associated with higher levels of social capital at both theindividual and aggregate levels. The more years of education an individual has had, the larger and more diverseare their social networks, the more engaged they tend to be in the wider society around them, and more trustingthey report their fellow citizens as being. Research has shown that the human and financial capital of the parentshelps to predict the educational success or failure of children. A large part of the educational impact of parents onchildren seems to be mediated by their aspirations. Parents who are more involved with their children seem

generally to encourge in the child higher educational and occupational aspirations. This in turn halps to explain whythe parents-and especially the mothers own educational attainment is such an important predictor of their childsattainment. High levels of parent-child interactions generally increase the expectations of both child and parent. Atthe individual level, educational achievement is consistently found to predict socail capital. Individuals with highereducational attainment hav egreater civic and voluntary engagement, larger and more diverse social Networks,higher trust in others (Halpern, 2005). The evidence suggests that social capital at the micro-, meso-, andmacrolevels has a significant impact on educational outcomes.

At the micro level, higher levels of child- parent contact generally lead to higher educational aspirationsandattainments, but it is the quality, not just quantity, of time spent that counts. A childs early interactions withattentive, responsive and consistent primary caregivers are critical to his or her mastering the basic social andcognitive skills on which later learning is based. Parents social capital- the support they receive from the rest of thefamily, their friendship networks and their relationship with the childs school can also positively affect the childseducational outcome.

At the meso- level both school and community effects are found stronger parent- school relationships andparent-parent relationships appear to help explain the effect. The positive direction of the effect is conditional onthe communitys own outward looking orientation and high aspirations.

The macro level reveals evidence of a startlingly strong relationship between social capital and educationalattainment. It have been seen that there is a strong relationship between past educational attainment, normallymeasured as years in education, and social capital. In other words, education appears to create social capital aswell as social capital helping to foster educational attainment (Halpern, 2005).

Both Putnam (2000) and Halpern (1999) identified education as a key to the creation of social capital andgreater educational achievement as an important outcome. They contend that values and attitudes formed throughlearning are likely to have important effects in adult life in terms of civic participation. Civic participation is highlycorrelated with political engagement.

2.2.3. Policy Implications

Cote and Healy (2001) suggest that specific types of social capital (e.g. bridging, bonding, linking) can beimportant for polices aimed at minimising social exclusion, particularly bridging social capital. That said, however,social capital has been considered a convenient justification for a retreat from expensive welfare spending. Thepolicy responses so far have focused on civic regeneration, volunteering and community self help. The aim is tobuild social capital by strengthening local community networks.

It is clear that there is a strong case for applying social capital thinking to a wide range of policy areas. It iscertainly true that not all forms of social capital building will lead to positive outcomes. In particular, a narrow focuson increasing community bonding social capital may have significant negative externalities-such as conflictbetween groups, reinforcing social divisions, and sometimes entrapping individuals in poverty if not balanced withother bridging and linking social capital building. While some policymakers see social capital building, or civilrenewal, as an important goal in itself, most policymakers interest in social capital is as a means to other policy

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

6/7



Fig. 2. Social capital formation and propagation

Source: Halpern, 2005 ends, such as reduced crime and higher educational attainment. This considerationssugggest that governments organized around the classic policy divisions-health, crime, welfare, economicdevelopment and so on- may need to develop explicit social capital strategies with clear leadership at both localand national level (Halpern, 2005).

3. CONCLUSION

At the most basic level, humans appear to have a hard- wired tendency to reciprocate and cooperate though this is not to say that this tendency cannot be overridden by other contradictory aspects of our nature, suchas our proclivity to compete or form dominance hierarchies.

At the individual or micro level, personality differnces map onto variations in the propensity to engage in andstimulate sacial capital along a dimension labelled agreeableness vs. antagonism. The causes of theseindividual variations appear to lie in socialization and environmental factors rather than in our genes; hence theyappear to mark rather than explain micro-variations social capital. Socialization experiences in the family appear tohave a major impact, as does the individuals socail capital inheritance from their parents and relatives. Theseearly influences have domino effects through the childs peer groups and later relationships. Educationalattainment, itself partly determined by family and social class origins, has powerful additional effects. Going to

university appears to have a particularly strong effect on boosting the scale and diversity of and individuals socialnetwork and their propensity to trust others.

At the meso-or community level, engagement with civic associations appears to lead to a modest boost tosocial engegement and trust, but the evidence is that much of this boost occurs in the first year of involvement inthe organization, and perhaps more in the years of young adulthood. High levels of mobility, commuting, andphysical environments that make it difficult for people to regulate their social interactions with others are all stronglyimplicated in causing lower social capital.

At the macro-, regional or national level, history and culture are strongly implicated in explaining the largeand stable observed differnces. Behind this broad backdrop, rigid hierarchical social and institutional structuresappear to inhibit social capital formation by undermining mutual respect and equality, and in some cases byactively oppressing the formtion of a more diverse and egalitarian civil society. More specifically, economicinequality has been found to be a close corelate of low social capital, indicating that a stretching of the socio-economic fabric tends to undermine the common ground on which much social capital is built.

Social capital should be seen as giving policymakers a useful handle on the character and importance of

community and the social fabric, and as a useful source of insight into new policy levers, but it is not a simplemagic bullet for solving. Hopefully future academic and policy development will improve on the ideas presentedhere.

8/3/2019 2011(11-51)

7/7



Social capital matters for our personal well-being, our economies and our society because we are deeplysocial beings. It is in our flesh and blood. Policy an debate that fail to address it are doomed to be shallow and unconvincing. Social capital is surely here to stay, both as a concept and as an everyday reality.

REFERENCES

1. Bourdieu, P. 1983. Forms of capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of

Education. J. C. Richards -Ed .New York: Greenwood Pres, pp:5-249.2. Bubolz, M., Sontag, S. 1993. Human ecology theory.In Sourcebook of Family Theories and

Methods: A contextual approach. P.G. Boss, W.J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, S.K.Steinmetz Eds. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 419-447.

3. Coleman, J.1994. Foundations of Social Theory.Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.4. Cote, S., Healy, T. 2001.The Well-being of Nations. The role of human and social capital,

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.5. Deacon, R., Firebaugh, F. 1988. Family resource management: Principles and applications,

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.6. Durlauf, S., Fatchamps, M. 2004. Social Capital, NBER Working Paper Series No:10485,

Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.7. Field, J. 2003. Social Capital. London: Routledge8. Flap, H. 1991. Social Capital in the Reproduction of Inequality.Comparative Sociology of Family,

Health and Education, Vol:20, pp:6179-6202.

9. Goldsmith, E. 2000. Resource Management for Individuals and families, USA: Wadsworth10. Hanifan, L.1916. The rural school community center.Annals of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Sciences. Vol:67, pp: 130-138.

11. Halpern, D.1999.Social Capital: the new golden goose. Faculty of Social and Political Sciences,Cambridge: Cambridge University.

12. Halpern, D.2005. Social Capital. Cambridge UK: Polity Press.13. Lin, N. 2000. Social Capital: a theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge

University Press.14. Putnam, R.1995. Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of DemocracyVol:6,

No:1,pp:65-78.15. Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York :

Simon and Schuster.16. Woolcock, M. 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes.

Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, Vol: 2, No:1, pp 1-1717. The World Bank (1999), What is Social Capital? Retrieved from 8.12.2007. PovertyNet

Documents

2011(11-51)