Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Social Capital a Good Concept?

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper explores whether the concept of social capital as popularized by Robert Putnam is a good social science concept. Taking Gerring’s work on concept evaluation as the starting point, the paper first presents a set of criteria for conceptual ‘goodness’ and discusses how social capital performs on these criteria. It is argued that social capital eventually may be a good concept if it can be shown empirically to be a unidimensional concept. An empirical section therefore explores the validity of the unidimensionality assumption and rejects it in four separate tests at both the individual and aggregate level. We conclude that even if social capital has been a remarkably productive idea, it is not a good concept as most popular conceptualizations define social capital as several distinct phenomena or as phenomena that already have been conceptualized under other labels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We must stress that we primarily think of the dimensionality question in an empirical/statistical sense. Hence, even though a concept may be multidimensional in terms of consequences or attributes, it need not be multidimensional in a statistical sense if these attributes are sufficiently related. The strong test of multidimensionality that we have in mind is that of approximate, empirical orthogonality, i.e. attributes or phenomena are almost entirely unassociated with each other.

  2. The fact that sample sizes are the same—48 states and countries—is purely coincidental.

  3. As is standard, Alaska is excluded from the survey due to its extremely sparse population, and Hawaii is excluded since it arguably does not belong to American culture, having approximately 60% indigenous inhabitants.

  4. At first sight, more variables included in this data set may be relevant in a composite social capital index. However, while those included in the analysis here are all measured in frequency within the last 12 months, the remaining variables are either measured in frequency compared to the previous year or only asked in certain years. As such, one set measures frequency while another measures year-to-year changes. In Putnam (2000), it is not always ideally clear which type is used.

References

  • Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 529–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Guiliano, P. (2011). Family ties and political participation. Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 817–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1972). Gifts and exchanges. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1, 343–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (2000). Observations on social capital. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 3–5). Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Elinder, M. (2008). Trust and growth: A shaky relation. Empirical Economics, 35, 251–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., de Groot, H. L. F., & van Schaik, A. B. T. M. (2004). Trust and economic growth: A robustness analysis. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 118–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The happy few. Cross-country evidence on social capital and life satisfaction. Kyklos, 56, 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2006). The multiple facets of social capital. European Journal of Political Economy, 22, 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social capital and happiness in the United States. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. 2002. Social capital and community governance. The Economic Journal, 112(483), F419–F436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf, S. N. (2002a). Bowling alone: A review essay. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 47, 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf, S. N. (2002b). On the empirics of social capital. The Economic Journal, 112, 459–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlauf, S.N., & Fafchamps, M. (2004). Social capital. NBER Working Papers 10485. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Fehr, E., & Schneider, F. (2010). Eyes are on us, but nobody cares: are eye cues relevant for strong reciprocity? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1686), 1315–1323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fine, B. (2001). Social capital versus social theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, C. S. (2005). Bowling alone: What’s the score? Social Networks, 27(2), 155–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. (1997). Social capital. Tanner lecture on human values. Oxford: Brasenose College.

  • Gerring, J. (1999). What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding concept formation in the social sciences. Polity, 31(3), 357–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2001). Social science methodology: A criterial framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring, J. (2012). Social science methodology: A criterial framework (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafton, R. Q., & Knowles, S. (2004). Social capital and national environmental performance: A cross-sectional analysis. Journal of Environment & Development, 13(4), 336–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groot, W., van den Brink, H. M., & van Praag, B. (2006). The compensating income variation of social capital. IZA Working Paper 2529, IZA: Bonn.

  • Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital: A multi-disciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, D.C: The World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guinnane, T. (2005). Trust: A concept too many. Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1, 77–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Economic Modelling, 20, 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. (1995). Economic growth and social capital in Italy. Eastern Economic Journal, 221, 295–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., Basañez, M., Díez-Medrano, J., Halman, L., & Luijkx, R. (2004). Human beliefs and values. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2004). What insights can multi-country surveys provide about people and societies? Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section in Comparative Politics, 15(2), 14–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S. (2002). Social capital and the quality of government: Evidence from the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 772–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic pay-off? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1251–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, S. (2006). Is social capital part of the institutions continuum and is it a deep determinant of development? Research Paper 25, World Institute for Development Economics Research.

  • Kramarz, F., & Thesmar, D. (2006). Social networks in the boardroom. IZA Discussion Paper 1940.

  • Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1977). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical Papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2001). Social capital. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Manski, C. (2000). Economic analysis of social interactions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14, 115–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, J. M., Stephens, P. A., Dall, S. R. X., & Houston, A. I. (2009). Evolution of trust and trustworthiness: social awareness favours personality differences. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1657), 605–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, D. & Pritchett, L. (1999). Cents and Sociability: Household income and social capital in rural Tanzania. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 47(4), 871–897.

  • Ostrom, E. (2000). Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 172–214). Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paldam, M. (2000). Social capital: One or many? Definition and measurement. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 629–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pargal, S., Gilligan, D. O., & Huq, M. (2002). Does social capital increase participation in voluntary solid waste management? Evidence from Dhaka, Bangladesh. In C. Grootaert & T. van Bastelaer (Eds.), The role of social capital in development (pp. 188–209). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, P. (1999). Is social capital declining in the United States? A multiple indicator assessment. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 88–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. (2000). The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15(3), 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. American Political Science Review, 64, 1033–1053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. (1994). The fallacy of the ecological fallacy: The potential misuse of a concept and consequences. American Journal of Public Health, 84(5), 819–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seligson, M. A. (2002). The renaissance of political culture or the renaissance of the ecological fallacy? Comparative Politics, 34(3), 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. S., & Kulynych, J. (2002). It may be social, but why is it capital? The social construction of social capital and the politics of language. Politics & Society, 30(1), 149–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, J. (2002). Can we trust social capital? Journal of Economic Literature, 40(1), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (2000). Notes on social capital and economic performance. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 6–10). Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, K. M. (2009). The environment. In G. T. Svendsen & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics (pp. 252–271). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolle, D. (2001). Getting to trust. An analysis of the importance of institutions, families, personal experiences and group membership. In P. Dekker & E. M. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, P. (2000). Economic growth and social capital. Political Studies, 48, 443–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M. (2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2(1), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2005). Social capital home page. Available at http://wwwl.worldbank.org/prem/poverty/scapital/index.htm. Accessed May 2010.

  • Zak, P. J., & Knack, S. (2001). Trust and growth. The Economic Journal, 111, 295–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for comments on previous versions from anonymous referees, Niclas Berggren, Jørgen Møller, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Richard Traunmüller, Eric Uslaner, and participants at a CINEFOGO conference in Aalborg, Denmark, June 2009. All remaining errors are of course ours.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business, Aarhus University, Fuglsangs Allé 4, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark

    Christian Bjørnskov

  2. Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Kim Mannemar Sønderskov

Authors
  1. Christian Bjørnskov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim Mannemar Sønderskov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim Mannemar Sønderskov.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bjørnskov, C., Sønderskov, K.M. Is Social Capital a Good Concept?. Soc Indic Res 114, 1225–1242 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0199-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0199-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation