While OECD socialcapital studies typically are based on richer data sets than those available for developing countries, these studies often suffer from serious flaws. One problem is that little discipline has been imposed on the empirical proxies used for socialcapital, which makes many of the empirical claims in this literature incredible. For example, authors such as Furstenburg and Hughes (1995), McNeal (1999) and Sandefur, Meier, and Hernandez (1999) treat the number of family moves as a measure of socialcapital for youths. The idea is that the more a family moves, the weaker the social ties between the youth and his community. This is certainly a plausible claim. However, it does not suffice to make family moves a valid socialcapital measure. Since moves are endogenous, the variable in essence provides an indictor for those characteristics that determine the moves. Such characteristics can be associated with different youth outcomes for reasons that have nothing to do with socialcapital. For example, families who make more moves plausibly contain parents who are less interested in their children than those who make fewer, since such parents may be putting less weight on the costs to children of changing neighborhoods. Parents with less interest in their children (which can be formalized by using Loury’s (1981) model of intergenerational mobility and allowing for heterogeneity in the rates at which parents discount offspring utility) will presumably invest less in their children, altering their outcomes in ways similar to the purported effects of lower socialcapital. Our point is not that one explanation or the other is correct, but rather that neither is identified from the data. Put differently, there are good reasons to believe that there are systematic differences in the unexplained components of individual behavior that render standard estimation methods inconsistent; specifically, families asserted to posses high levels of socialcapital, from the perspective of the estimated model, may be expected to be associated with higher levels of parental interest in children, which means the residuals in the associated regressions no longer have conditional expectations of 0. As such, this discussion is an illustration of an exchangeability violation of the type discussed in Section III; Furstenberg and Hughes (1995) are especially susceptible to this criticism due to the lack of attention to control variables.
The term ‘bonding’ holds a negative connotation and generally refers to small circles of homogeneous people that do not cooperate with other outside the boundaries of the group. The literature has often focused on the family as a potential form of bonding socialcapital. In his pioneer study, 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’ (1958, 10). According to the author, any family activity was oriented towards the protection and consolidation of the isolated family unit. ‘Moral’ activity (i.e. any action informed by moral norms of trust and reciprocity) was seen as limited to family insiders, with outsiders only being significant as a potential resource to exploit for the family. Applying Banfield’s claims to the purposes of this paper, we can argue that the bonding socialcapital of the family may act as a tool for job search actions, thereby mitigating labour precariousness, and, at the macro level, as a factor hampering the economic performance and development.
This article has touched on, but not really explored, an argument that cuts two ways: the transactions and capital formations of a given economy serve to remind us of the nature of life in a given language community, and vice versa. On the one hand, there is a disquieting persistence to the unresolved questioned of fungibility: by what medium or standard does the productive worth of language submit to our evaluation? It is a question worthy of more expert and detailed examination than I can offer. On the other hand, the mutual comparability of language and physical capital is an important clue for the validity of the view that language is a form of capital – more precisely, a form of socialcapital. As Watson (2003) argues, we greatly affect the civic foundations of our own governance through our language practices.
Trust and trustworthiness are important components of socialcapital and much attention has been devoted to the problems of their correct evaluation. Attitudinal survey questions as reported in the EVS – European Value Survey are often regarded as inefficient indicators of trust, since they lack of behavioural underpinnings (Putnam, 1995), as one may desire when measuring trust. 1 Furthermore, a number of criticisms to their potential sources of biases have been raised. As noticed in Ciriolo (2007), self reported attitudinal measures of trust can be affected by three different types of behavioural biases. In fact, when answering the question: “Generally speaking would you say that most people can be trusted or can’t be too careful in dealing with people?”, respondents may underestimate the importance of the issue, considering the abstract context as only a hypotetical setup (hypotethical bias); individuals may also wish to represent themselves as more virtuous than they actually are (idealised persona bias); finally the lack of incentives may induce false responses (lack of incentive bias). 2
Consistently with our simple behavioral model, by which EMG signals are direct measures of subjects’ personal concern (call it utility) associated to the given task, our evidence shows that EMG is increasing in the subjects’ own monetary reward. When we split the subject pool into two subsamples (according to various measures of SocialCapital obtained from the questionnaire), we find that monetary incentives explain the level of subjects’ EMG only in the subsample characterized by low SC, while, for subjects with (comparatively) higher SC, effort in the coordination task is much less sensitive to whether it is directly rewarded or not. This result is robust across the different SC index specifications. The present findings seem to support the possibility that an electrophysiological measure, such as EMG, could reveal the most profound attitudes and believes that guide social interaction, and that our relatively inexpensive and ready-to-use technology can back-up socio-economic research in a very effective way.
associated reforms over the past several decades Kazakos (2006) argues that low institutional trust is one core element for which structural impediments such as rent-seeking and public-private clientilistic relationships are observed in the country. Similarly, Paraskevopoulos (2006) also argues that the low level of socialcapital in Greece is linked to dominant role of the rent-seeking behavior of small and strongly-tied interest groups that inhibit the reform process in several public policy areas. More recently, Petrou and Daskalopoulou (2014) use a model of individuals rewards’ satisfaction and find that Greece might be characterized as a rent-seeking society in the sense that it lacks widespread societal responsibility as manifested by the existence of income externalities (i.e. individuals care about their relative income position) and widespread support over the value of unproductive entrepreneurship. Finally, in analyzing the changes in the country’s stock of socialcapital during the outburst of the economic crisis in Greece Daskalopoulou (2016) finds a significant decline. Measuring socialcapital via the measurement of six main constructs namely social trust, social altruism, equality, tolerance, humanitarianism and civic participation, she identifies a statistically significant decline in the country’s socialcapital level with public servants holding higher levels of socialcapital, albeit also declining as for the rest of the co untry’s citizens (Daskalopoulou , 2016).
Policy-makers are looking to research to establish ‘what works’ in terms of social policy interventions, and social, education and health service delivery; how to intervene in communities effectively and how to work with communities through community participation and community capacity building (Reddel 2002). Research has shown that provision by government of facilities and services within a community, such as health services and educational institutions and courses, will not ensure take up, effective utilisation and community benefit. Thus the degree of social impact and community outcomes will vary from community to community. How do we explain this? It has been argued that the quantity and quality of a community’s socialcapital, and the nature of its leadership, have a large impact on that community’s capacity to take up social and economic opportunities and to manage change (Gittell & Vidal 1998; Falk & Kilpatrick 2000; National Statistics 2001). This has practical relevance for adolescents facing the challenges of transition to adulthood at a time of great societal change.
into bids without necessarily winning a contract and without getting any feedback. If a contractor is repeatedly being out bid, Network Rail may offer guidance in areas where they need to improve their costing to become competitive. By maintaining good contractor network relationships, Network Rail influences an informed and consistent contractor bid range which helps it maintain a resourceful pool of contractors, which in turn provides some slack or redundancy (adaptive capacity) in the network should there be a high demand on contractors, for example, following a derailment. By maintaining good network relationships Network Rail has facilitated some network ownership of key performance indicators (KPI) which the contractors work to. For example, at a contractor workshop, to ensure Network Rail has got meaningful data in terms of performance, it requested the contractors (in groups) to consider certain KPI’s. The contractors came up with ‘yardsticks’ for the KPI’s. By giving an element of ownership of the procurement process to the contractor community, Network Rail appears to be creating the conditions that shape the cognitions i.e. shared codes, relational norms and foundations for trust (cognitive and relational socialcapital). Inkpen and Tsang (2005) argue that when members of a network share a common understanding and approach to achievement of network tasks, goals are more likely to become shared. Conversely, when goals and values are incongruent, interactions between parties can be expected to lead to misinterpretation of events and conflict. Contractors still have to bid for work and whilst competition between contractors can limit the extent to which they are willing to cooperate or share information, in the main, once a contract has been won, which most often means firms working collectively, behaviour changes and becomes more collaborative, especially in a crisis or emergency. One explanation for this is the influence of a common identity. Kogut and Zander (1996, p.502-503) contend a shared identity does not only lower the costs of communication, but establishes explicit and tacit rules of coordination. But Network work Rail stress contractor relationships are anything but ‘cosy’. “Any contractor not playing by the rules will be removed from the contractor list.” (Network Rail Manager)
The term socialcapital describes important social processes and relationships – informal social support networks, friendship, neighbourhood generosity, interpersonal trust and volunteering activity – but also aspects of local and community development, public- private-voluntary partnerships and civic spirit. Although the term is relatively new in Ireland, the underlying concepts are not. Socialcapital draws on processes which are crucial in community development and the functioning of a democratic, inclusive and cohesive society. Likewise, community development helps generate higher levels of trust and social participation. Effective democracies rest on two essential foundations: civic attitudes of inclusion, tolerance and regard for the rights of others, and civic behaviour. There are a variety of possible perspectives on socialcapital. At one extreme is a “top- down” approach arising mainly from Government initiative and at the other end is a “bottom-up” approach which draws from the emerging experience and practice of various types of community. Socialcapital is not an alternative to existing policies; it is a potential complement.
Partnership-building that connects private and public actors as well as public actors to other public actors through state arrangements has the intention of strength- ening existing socialcapital and raising new social (and human) capital as strategic concepts for promoting eco- nomic renewal and sustainable welfare . The concepts draw upon the belief that pooling actors in micro and macro networks (clusters according to Michael Porter  and organized “institutional thickness”  in the form of collective action are basic policy strategies when the tar- get of the polity is to achieve and increase competitive development capacity. The strategy goes for organizing existing or new public and private actors for collective actions through contracts and partnership formations, both nationally and locally, as we know recommended by European development programs. Making the labor mar- ket more flexible is part of the strategy. Additionally, partnership institutions fit into the mode of arm’s-length steering, which characterizes the regulatory state [9,10]. The beneficial o utcome is the advantages that come with the building of extensive socialcapital. We may, how- ever, view socialcapital as a diversified notion. Let us closely focus the concept of socialcapital.
Together, these three clubs allowed me to study the development of socialcapital in socio- organisational contexts which differed in formality, size, type of sport and member diversity. The cricket club was very small, with no facilities and was generally characterised by a co- operative way of working – in short, a good example of an informal club. The tennis club was large, with business-like structures and was receptive to external assistance – in short, a good example of a formal club. The football club was somewhere in between, in terms of both size and formality. In addition, the cricket club and football club were team sport clubs, while the tennis club was an individual sport club, allowing exploration of different types of sport. In terms of member diversity, the football club was based in a deprived part of East London, with a large proportion of its members local to the immediate area, young (18-23), black or minority ethnic, either unemployed or casually employed; the tennis club was based in a prosperous part of North London, with a large proportion of its members wealthy, white, well-educated, middle or upper-middle class, middle-aged or retired; and the cricket club was more of a mix, certainly in terms of age (16-60s) and background (some working class, some middle-class). So, the case study research allowed some exploration of member diversity both across and within clubs. Of course, each of these elements of socio-organisational context was much more nuanced than this brief outline suggests. Nevertheless, these initial obvious differences provided a prima facie basis for cross-case comparison.
New growth theory suggests unorthodox variables—beside the well-known capital, labor, and technology—also hold important role in economic growth (Whiteley, 2000). One of the variables is the socialcapital. The seminal literature of Putnam, et al. (1993), said that socialcapital refers to features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks, which can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions. Although it has been recognized in social sciences, Putnam’s definition of socialcapital has not been canonized. Moreover, socialcapital is elusive, and incorporates many aspects. Hence, the working mechanism of socialcapital on economic growth could be explained through many channels, for example: (i) fostering innovation (Akcomak and Bas ter Weel, 2009); (ii) human capital formation (Coleman, 1988), namely: through productive consumption (Dinda, 2008), through education (Bjørnskov, 2009), through higher (mental) health (Kennelly et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2006); (iii) higher voluntary provision of public good (Leonard et al., 2010). Chou (2006) generalized the relationship of socialcapital on growth into three channels—through human capital, financial development, and innovation.
While the value of business advice and emotional support via networks is assumed, less is known about such ties in relation to network size or tie strength, and how this relationship affects outcomes. A few studies have begun to explore links among the different dimensions in this context. For instance, Lerner et al. (1995) found that a greater number of contacts (i.e., larger network size) in advice networks had positive effects on revenues; in Canada, meanwhile, the survival rate of new organisations benefited from larger boards of directors (Singh et al., 1986). In Davidsson and Honig’s (2003) study of Swedish entrepreneurs, the main socialcapital predictor of first sales was entrepreneur’s participation in a business networking group, implying a weak tie, though this was not tested. In a study of US corporate managers, size of strategic information and task advice networks was positively related to promotions, while social support networks tended to be smaller (Podolny and Baron, 1997). Despite these initial findings, few studies explicitly integrate the resource dimension with structural or relational dimensions to illuminate mechanisms of business advice and emotional support functions in networks.
There are several ways to position this dissertation in the literature of socialcapital. First, despite growing research interest in socialcapital of cooperatives, previous research usually focuses on specific facets or components of socialcapital and uses various constructs to measure it. This dissertation is among the first to provide an integrated analysis of socialcapital in cooperatives by covering all its dimensions. Second, since a cooperative is simultaneously a firm and a community, one cannot study it meaningfully as one or the other in isolation. Nonetheless, to our knowledge, theoretical modelling of socialcapital in cooperatives is still missing in the literature. In addition, while socialcapital has been proven to be important for cooperatives, the way it generates value for cooperatives and the factors that determine its level are not well understood. In this dissertation, we develop several formal models to address the different dimensions of socialcapital and their interaction with governance structure. The results provide novel insights into the complex characteristics of cooperatives and have implications for the organisational design of agricultural marketing cooperatives. The second research theme of this dissertation is product diversification of cooperatives. Although the research interest of product diversification can be traced back to more than half a century ago (Penrose, 1959), the studies about product diversification strategies of cooperatives are still sparsely covered by literature (van Oijen and Hendrikse, 2002). Given the differences in governance structure, cooperatives may behave differently than IOFs do in product diversification. 2 In addition, as product diversification is one of the potential strategies of cooperatives to respond to changing market situations, there is a need to forward our understanding of this topic. In this dissertation, we mainly investigate the relationship between governance structure and product diversification strategies. Several characteristics of cooperative governance structure, such as the single origin constraint, double screening in decision making, vertical integration, etc., may influence cooperatives’ product diversification. We attempt to capture the consequences of these features by using agent-based simulations. In addition, as empirical evidence shows that many cooperatives have adopted innovative governance structure models in the past decades (e.g. Chaddad and Cook, 2004; Bijman, Hendrikse and van Oijen, 2013), it is worth
Importantly, we find that the decline in trust and trustworthiness is mostly driven by the less well-off. Thus, we find no evidence for the hypothesis that the behavior of the successful is mainly responsible for the erosion of the social fabric. This is consistent with recent findings of Camera et al. (2017). They report that the worse-off subjects dis- criminate against better-offs by cooperating less with them in a repeated helping game, even when wealth is determined by chance, leading to an overall efficiency loss in the long run. Zheng (2017) similarly reports a higher degree of selfish behavior in a team production setting for low status subjects, where status is endowed in non-monetary terms (public praise). In Table A3 in the appendix, we summarize a larger set of experi- mental studies that relate to the question of the impact of inequality and competition on cooperation and trust. Although these studies greatly differ in terms of design, the overall picture is consistent with negative socialcapital effects being more likely. However, the
Jason Kaufman (2003, as cited in Tilly, 2007) similarly offers criticism of Putnam’s empirical research, claiming he did not ignore important domains of political participation and civic engagement, but rather that he misinterpreted the available data. Kaufman analysed associational life in America during the nineteenth century, and carried over his research into the twentieth. From this he drew five conclusions, the first being that associational life in America already started declining after the First World War (2007, p. 90). In this he differs from Putnam, who sees historical ebbs and flows in the patterns of associational life, and locates the origins of the current state of decline in the period after the 1950s. The second point is that those associations, which saw membership decline, served parochial interests, rather than the general good. In Putnam’s terms this would imply a decline in bonding socialcapital, which is rather exclusionary and can serve to reinforce homogeneity and similar viewpoints at the expense of minority views and different opinions. Third, those associations that declined thrived on combinations of exclusion, sociability and security. They did this by providing mutual aid for immigrants from a similar region, and thus neglecting those outside their conceived communities. This is related to the second point, which shows that very little, if any, bridging between communities took place. The fourth point Kaufman argues is that these associations whose origins lie in the nineteenth century contributed to the segmentation of American political and social life (p. 90). The fifth point is that overall the decline in associations was on balance a good thing. This counters such calls for new volunteerism in the old associations as “it implies that a new proliferation of voluntary association could easily advance parochial interests, instead of serving democracy” (p. 91). In terms of the liberal theorists discussed above, such associations apply a pre- existent conception of the good onto its members, by which their actions are judged, thus viewing dissenting opinions as destructive and counterproductive.
Socialcapital as a concept which is related to social contextand as a new element besides other factors like environmental, Genetic and individual factors has attracted interests of professional and authorities in national and international levels. This approach has attracted attentions in low-income countries which have source limitations for interventions. This paper introduces concepts regarding socialcapital and health relationship, and a review on experimental and theoretical literature as well. A review research conducted by reviewing scientific databases on the net.The study includes English & Persian papers published thought 1990-2009 which studied empirically or theoretically the relationship between socialcapital (and its components) and physical or mental health. Empirical results shows some evidence for the positive relationship between the two, but in some social contexts, factors like poverty, violence and individual differences (like gender) may result in decreasing of intensity of or disappearing the relationship. Thereare three main theoretical mechanisms to explain the relationship: promoting pro-Health behavior, facilitating access to services and the effect of psychological process. Finally critics and limitations in the study of socialcapital and health relation is explained.
Another objection concerns the role Aldrich attributes to the state – or any other governmental body. Aldrich argues that governments often fail to respond to unforeseen events, due to inefficiency, slowness, or counter-productiveness, and argues that communities must fend for themselves. Aldrich views the (local) government with distrust, and rather focusses on the abilities of communities to self-organise post-disaster recovery initiatives. However, dismissing the role of (local) government this way may be too simplistic, not in the least since local governments highly differ in their capabilities to respond to disasters. In the context of socialcapital, one may argue that especially vulnerable people with hardly any socialcapital are highly depending on a government (Duit, 2014). Ineffective and inefficient neighbourhoods are often relying solely on help from the private or public sector and not capable of mobilising themselves (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2009). Even when government intervention is ineffective, slow, and counter-productive, this is better than nothing, and may be the last resort for some during disaster (Duit, 2014). For example, fierce criticism is given by Aldrich to evacuation and re-housing programmes whereby social structures are disrupted. Neglecting socialcapital may make things worse, instead of improving the situation for those in need. However, one scholar argues these examples are taken out of context, and the evacuation and temporary housing programmes were not ideal according to socialcapital theory, but were at the time the only thing the authorities could do under time pressure and with limited financial means. The authorities did not ignore, nor disregard, the needs of locals and their social structures, but instead tried to find solutions that were within their capacities (Gill, 2014). Therefore, the role of (local) government during disaster and post-disaster recovery may be more complicated than Aldrich portrays in his discussions.
Abstract: This is a literature review on socialcapital that hold together the community of settlement where people live in. It will discuss the spatial aspect of architectural behavior to conduct the theory framework. The methods used are qualitative analysis and literature review on the subjects of socialcapital, urban settlement, and kampung. Through a review of literature, the paper explores whether or not the spatial aspects of socialcapital of settlement available. The social capitals applied in many fields are economic, sociology, health, psychology, political science, and architecture. Due to many meanings of socialcapital in various fields, the important element of socialcapital is about social interaction among people to achieve their goals together. Kampung as urban settlement of Indonesia has unique characteristic of community due to their social living. Their relationship among them is very close. The socialcapital of urban settlement is shown in social interaction and social network of the resident at their daily lives. The communication is active, expressed in interaction related to gender and age structure. The socialcapital was developed from the trust and understanding in their relationship. The socialcapital of kampung helps them to live better.