Social Capital

Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

As many studies have shown that face-to-face interaction within voluntary organizations have little effect on social capital formation, scholars have concluded that the role ascribed to such organizations is exaggerated. However, weak socialization effects do not preclude strong institutional effects. Using European Social Survey (ESS) data, we find no individual effects of active participation, but very strong effects at the aggregate level. Regions with high social capital are characterized by broad participation patterns and visible, politically active organizations. Based on these findings, we put forward an alternative account of how organizations create and sustain social capital. Strong and visible voluntary organizations demonstrate the utility and rationality of collective action and provide individuals with a democratic infrastructure. We support this by showing that a positive perception of the democratic value of organizations is strongly related to trust, while personal, time-intensive involvement has no explanatory power.

Keywords

Social Capital Collective Action Social Trust Active Member Voluntary Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Berman, S. (1997). Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics, 49(3), 401–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth, J. A., and Richard, P. B. (2001). Civil society and political context in Central America. In B. Edwards, M. W. Foley, and M. Diani (eds) Beyond Tocqueville: Civil Society and the Social Capital Debate in Comparative Perspective (pp. 43–55), Hanover, NH, University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  3. Claibourn, M., and Martin, P. (2000). Trusting and joining? An empirical test of the reciprocal nature of social capital. Political Behavior, 22(4), 269–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dekker, P., and van den Broek, A. (1998). Civil society in comparative perspective: Involvement in voluntary associations in North America and Western Europe. Voluntas, 9(1), 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eliasoph, N. (2003). Cultivating apathy in voluntary associations. In P. Dekker and L. Halman (eds) The Values of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 199–212), New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Foley, M. W., and Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Freitag, M. (2003). Social capital in (dis)similar democracies: The development of generalised trust in Japan and Switzerland. Comparative Political Studies, 36(8), 936–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Galbraith, J., and Garcilazo, E. (2005). Pay inequality in Europe 1995–2000: Convergence between countries and stabilities inside. UTIP Working paper 30, http://utip.gov.utexas.edu/papers/utip_30.pdf
  9. Haddad, M. A. (2004). Community determinates of volunteer participation and the promotion of civic health: The case of Japan. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(S3), 8–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hooghe, M. (2003). Voluntary associations and democratic attitudes: Value congruence as a causal mechanism. In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds) Generating Social Capital (pp. 89–112), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hyggen, C. (2006). Risk and resources: Social capital among social assistance recipients in Norway. Social Policy & Administration, 40(5), 493–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jowell, J. (2003). European Social Survey 2002–2003: Technical Report, Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University, London.Google Scholar
  13. Juknevičius, S., and Savicka, A. (2003). From restitution to innovation: Volunteering in postcommunist countries. In P. Dekker and L. Halman (eds) The Values of Volunteering: Cross-Cultural Perspectives (pp. 127–142), New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Knack, S., and Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12(4), 1251–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lijphart, A. (1984). Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Macpherson, C. B. (1977). The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Mayer, N. (2003). Democracy in France: Do associations matter? In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds) Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective (pp. 43–76), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Mutz, D. C. (2002). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NSD. (2003). ESS Documentation Report 2002/2003, 5th edn, Bergen, Norwegian Social Sciences Data Services.Google Scholar
  20. Ødegård, G. (2006). Ungdom og demokratiskolering, Vedlegg 2 i NOU 2006:13, Oslo, Barne og familiedepartementet.Google Scholar
  21. Offe, C., and Fuchs, S. (2002). A decline in social capital? The German case. In R. D. Putnam and K. Goss (eds) Democracies in Flux (pp. 189–244), New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olson, M. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Putnam, R. D. (2000a). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York, Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Putnam, R. D. (2000b). Introduction: What’s troubling the trilateral democracies? In S. Pharr and R. D. Putnam (eds) Disaffected Democracies (pp. 3–30), Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Putnam, R. D. (2002). Conclusion. In R. D. Putnam and K. Goss (eds) Democracies in Flux (pp. 393–416), New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quigley, K. F. F. (1996). Human bonds and social capital. Orbis, 40(2), 333–343.Google Scholar
  29. Rokkan, S. (1967). Geography, religion and social class: Crosscutting cleavages in Norwegian politics. In S. M. Lipset and S. Rokkan (eds) Party Systems and Voter Alignments (pp. 367–444), New York, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rothstein, B. (2002). Social capital in the social democratic state. In R. D. Putnam (ed.) Democracies in Flux (pp. 289–332), New York, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothstein, B. (2004). Social capital and institutional legitimacy: The Corleone connection. In S. Prakash and P. Selle (eds) Investigating Social Capital: Comparative Perspectives on Civil Society, Participation and Governance (pp. 113–136), New Delhi, Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Rothstein, B., and Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state: An institutional approach. In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds) Generating Social Capital (pp. 191–210), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Rueschemeyer, D., Rueschemeyer, M., and Wittrock, B. (eds) (1998). Participation and Democracy East and West: Comparisons and Interpretations, Armonk, NY, M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  34. Skocpol, T. (1996). Unraveling from above. The American Prospect, 25, March–April, 20–25.Google Scholar
  35. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished Democracy, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  36. Stolle, D. (2001). Clubs and congregations: The benefits of joining an association. In K. Cook (ed.) Trust in Society (pp. 202–244), New York, Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  37. Stolle, D. (2003). The sources of social capital. In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds) Generating Social Capital (pp. 19–42), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Strømsnes, K. (2003). Folkets Makt, Oslo, Gyldendal Akademisk.Google Scholar
  39. Tocqueville, A. de (1968). Democracy in America, ed. J. P. Mayer and M. Lerner (a new translation by G. Lawrence), London, Collins.Google Scholar
  40. Uslaner, E. M. (2003). Trust, democracy and governance: Can government policies influence generalised trust? In M. Hooghe and D. Stolle (eds) Generating Social Capital (pp. 171–190), New York, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  41. von Erlach, E. (2005). Politisierung in Vereinen. Eine empirische Studie zum Zusammenhang zwischen der Vereinsmitgliedschaft und der Teilnahme an politischen Diskussionen. Swiss Political Science Review, 11(3), 27–59.Google Scholar
  42. Wollebæk, D., and Selle, P. (2002a). Det nye organisasjonssamfunnet: demokrati i omforming, (The New Organization Society: Democracy in Transition), Fagbokforl, Bergen.Google Scholar
  43. Wollebæk, D., and Selle, P. (2002b). Does participation in voluntary associations contribute to social capital? The impact of intensity, scope, and type. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30(1), 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wollebæk, D., and Selle, P. (2007). The origins of social capital: Socialisation and institutionalisation approaches compared. Journal of Civil Society, 3(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wollebæk, D., and Strømsnes, K. (2008). Voluntary associations, trust and civic engagement: A multi-level approach. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations