Content uploaded by Matías Membiela-Pollán
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matías Membiela-Pollán on Feb 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), December 2017, 146-170.
European Journal of Government and Economics
journal homepage: www.ejge.org
ISSN: 2254-7088
Clarifying the concept of social capital through its three perspectives:
individualistic, communitarian and macro-social
Matias Membiela-Pollán a, *, José-Atilano Pena-López a
a Universidade da Coruña, Faculty of Economics and Business, campus de Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain
* Corresponding author at: Department of Business, Univeridade da Coruña, campus Elviña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain.
matias.membiela@udc.es
Article history. Received 9 May 2017; first revision required 2 November 2017; accepted 20 November 2017.
Abstract. The concept of social capital has received increasing attention in recent years. The complexity and
multidimensionality that accompany the variable of social capital have caused confusion and ambiguity. This article
presents a synthesis of social capital in three perspectives. From the individualistic or micro-social perspective, social
capital is an "individual resource" that consists of the networks of relations of the focal subject that bring it a set of
instrumental and expressive resources. For the communitarian or meso-social perspective, social capital is a
"community resource" or set of attributes and properties present in the social structure (shared norms and values,
private trust, closure ...) that facilitate its functioning and collective action. Finally, for the macrosocial perspective, social
capital is a "macro-social and macro-institutional resource" resting on aspects such as civic-mindedness, general trust
and social cohesion, which favors the functioning of the economy and society in general.
Keywords. Social capital; individual social capital; communitarian perspective of social capital; general trust
JEL classification. A14; Z13
1. Introduction
Since the 1990s there has been an exponential growth in the research of social capital. The
concept has come to inform a large number of subjects and theories, such as economics,
sociology, politics, education, family, health, crime, organizational theory and even technological
innovation (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 446; Adler and Kwon, 2002, p. 17; Castiglione et al.,
2008a, p. 1; Woolcock and Radin, 2008; Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales, 2011, p. 418).
However, as Ahn and Ostrom (2008, p. 92) express, criticism is part of the take-off of all
theory and paradigm, especially when it is played in the field of new and abstract concepts
(Castiglione, 2008). In this sense, the main reproach that falls on social capital alludes to its
ambiguity as a variable. It is argued that social capital is an umbrella concept because it brings
together aspects as diverse as norms and values, rules, social networks and trust (Sobel, 2002,
p. 145; Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López, 2005, p. 142).
147
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Despite the seductive appearance of the idea, this evidence results in the construct being
ambiguous and difficult to outline (Dasgupta, 2005), which is one of the reasons why it is
strongly criticized by those who do not recognize its own personality. It is called "a wonderfully
elastic term" (Adler and Kwon, 2002, p. 18), "a notion that means many things to many people",
a term without demarcation (Dasgupta and Serageldin, 2000, pp. XI), a "vague and imprecise
concept" (Roche, 2004, p. 107) and an "ambiguous if not incoherent concept and valid for
everything" (Fine, 1999).
The term "umbrella concept" is justified; however, it has a lot to do with the
"multidimensional" nature of this construct. It is evident that "social" is a broad and complex
entity. However, this peculiarity does not negate the relevance it has in economic fact and
productivity in general. This theory should go deeper into the analysis of how cultural aspects
(norms, values, trust) are linked to structural aspects (social networks); and how the micro and
macro dimensions of the concept are linked (Portes, 2000). It must also rely on the validity of
the indicators used for its empirical measurement, even though the nature of the construct
makes it difficult to have a single quantification system or a system of consolidated indicators.
This article aims to concretize the perspectives that coexist within the theory of social capital.
This point is central because it helps to specify what it is and what the use of this variable-
paradigm is. In what follows the concept of social capital will be introduced and we shall show
some attempts of conceptual classification carried out by some investigators. Next, we shall
present three great perspectives that coexist within the theory and that encompass in their
totality what social capital is and what it is used for. Each of these three approaches places
social capital within a social level (micro-, meso-, or macro-), which in turn is a resource for such
a network.
A) From the individualistic or micro-social perspective, social capital is an "individual
resource" that consists of the networks of relations of the focal subject that bring him a set of
instrumental and expressive resources (Bordieu, 1986; Lin, 1999a, 2001).
B) For the communitarian or meso-social perspective, social capital is a "community
resource"; A set of attributes and properties present in the social structure (shared norms and
values, particular trust, closure) that facilitate its functioning and collective action (Coleman,
1988; Bowles and Gintis, 2002).
C) Finally, for the macrosocial perspective, social capital is a "macrosocial and
macroinstitutional resource" resting on aspects such as civic-mindedness, general trust and
social cohesion that favors the performance of the economy and society in general (Putnam,
1993; Knack and Keefer, 1997).
As we have pointed out, the lack of consensus and the ambiguity about the precise meaning
of social capital naturally affects the agreement about its measurement system (Bjørnskov and
Svendsen, 2003; Pérez García et al., 2005; Castiglione et al., 2008, p. 6; Van Deth, 2008, pp.
151-153). In this research we review the empirical methodology that accompanies each of the
three perspectives.
148
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
2. The concept of social capital
The concept of capital in the economy refers to the installed productive capacity involved in the
execution of productive processes, which is strictly speaking called "physical capital" (Pena-
López and Sánchez-Santos, 2011, p. 125). Another conventional form of capital, commonly
cited, is "natural capital", which refers to the natural resources of the environment. However,
none of the above reflects the uniqueness of the human being, his capacities and relationships.
For this reason, the concepts of "human capital", referring to capacities and knowledge, and
"social capital", referring to relational structures and other social attributes, have come to
complete the analysis of endowments that presents the economic fact (Sánchez-Santos and
Pena-López, 2005, pp. 138-139).
Social capital is an ambitious concept that serves to agglutinate the problem of
embeddedness, that is to say, the question of the overlap between social and economic (Pena-
López and Sánchez-Santos, 2013). More concisely, it is very useful when studying the
contribution of the "social dimension" to the economic fact (Membiela, 2013, 2016); with a
special focus on "the active value of social networks" (Conill, 2004). The reasons for its success
lie in its capacity for synthesis and in that it allows, from the supporters who defend social
institutions to those of third parties, participatory ways to politically unite, including those who
are against regulatory interventions and who favor free social organization as those who are
uncomfortable with the free play of market forces (Sobel, 2002).
It is a new and disputed concept, with a potential that has not yet been fully covered
(Paldam, 2000). Depending on the individual or social approach that is adopted, we focus on
seemingly unconnected facts (Portes, 2000).
As a whole, social capital research offers a complex and controversial conceptual framework
that allows the integration of different lines of research from sociology, political science and
economics (Adler and Kwon, 2002).
History of the concept
The systematic study of "social capital" is recent but several authors point out that the concept
has a diversity of roots traceable to the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Adam and
Roncevic, 2003). We could say that social capital is a general concept that links with the work of
thinkers such as Tocqueville (associative activity), John Stuart Mill (civic engagement), Tönnies
(community value), Durkheim (forms of solidarity), Weber (hierarchy and power), Locke (civil
society), Rousseau (network of relations), Simmel (group identity) and Marx (social class)
(Bankston and Zhou, 2002; Brewer, 2003; Lazega and Pattison 2001; Portes and
Sensenbrenner 1993; Putnam, 1995; Knack, 2002), and finds antecedents in the work of other
authors like Aristotle and Machiavelli, who studied "civic virtue", and Adam Smith that
approached the grounds of relationality, moral feelings and trust (Brewer, 2003); see Figure 1.
149
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Figure 1. Historical evolution of the concept of social capital.
Castiglione, Van Deth and Wolleb (2008, p. 2) indicate that in the economic literature of the
nineteenth century it is possible to find this term, although without consistency in its use and
with a different meaning. Robert Putnam writes that the first person to refer to social capital as
we now understand it, was Lyda J. Hanifan (1920). This rural educator of the early twentieth
century understood that "the community as a whole will benefit from the cooperation of all its
parts, while the individual will find in his associations the advantages of the help, sympathy, and
Social Capital Background
Aristotle, Machiavelli
Tocqueville, Tönnies, A. Smith
Treatment of similar concepts: civic
virtue, civic participation, ring of trust...
First real approximation
Lyda J. Hanifan
Reference to social capital as we know
it today: Community and cooperation.
The concept is focused
Jane Jacobs, Glen Loury
They explain its personality and
peculiarities: Social network resources
Founders of the theory of Social
Capital
Pierre Bordieu, James Coleman,
Robert Putnam
In-depth study of the mechanisms that
operate in social capital. "Micro"
(networks) and "Macro" (cultural
attributes) approaches.
Two major orientations:
"Individualist" and "culturalist"
Burt, Portes, Fukuyama, Dasgupta, Lin,
Knack, Ostrom, Glaeser, Woolcock ...
150
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
fellowship of his neighbors" (Putnam, 2000, p. 19).
Recently, Jane Jacobs (1961) and the economist Glen Loury (1977) have appeared as the
first to explicit social capital with a personality and peculiarities accepted by the common
researchers, even though the concept seems to require a more systematic
elaboration/development. These authors expressed the importance of community ties because
they contain the social resources that are useful for the development of individuals and that
contribute to give vitality to cities and society (Woolcock 1998; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998; Glaeser
et al., 2002, p. 440; Durlauf, 2008, p. 602).
However, it was the two sociologists, Pierre Bordieu (1986) and James Coleman (1988,
1990), who made the two most relevant contributions with their methodical and detailed study of
social capital in the 1980s. We shall return to the work developed by these authors when we
deal in depth with the three perspectives of social capital.
Bordieu, in his classic article "The Forms of Capital" (1986), understands social capital as the
resources available to a subject that are a function of belonging to a group. From a Marxist
perspective he tries to outline a general theory of social reproduction and develops an
instrumental vision in which the network of relationships is the product of "investment strategies,
individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social
relationships that are directly usable in the short or long term" (Bordieu, 1986, p. 52).
For James Coleman, social capital corresponds to a variety of aspects of social structures,
information channels, obligations and expectations, sets of rules and systems of sanction that
facilitate or inhibit the actions of actors (Coleman, 1988, p. 98). From the methodological
individualism, this American sociologist used the field of education to study the implications of
social capital and in his popular article "Social capital in the creation of human capital" (1988) he
analyzed the relation and the degree of influence with the human capital.
In spite of the fact that the roots of the concept go back to the authors mentioned above, it is
the writings of Robert Putnam, Making democracy work (1993) and Bowling Alone (2000), which
introduce social capital with clarity in public debate (Castiglione et al., 2008, p. 3). These works
spurred the interest of scholars and a number of publications on the subject.1 Contrary to
previous individualistic or class reproduction perspectives, this author develops a more
culturalist view of social capital.
In the first of the cited works Putnam establishes the importance of social capital for the
development of democratic institutions. In particular, Putnam (1993) understands this concept
as "features of social organization, such as trust, norms, and networks that can improve the
efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions" and points out that the different degree
of civic engagement between regions of northern and southern Italy had played a relevant role
in the greater economic success and superior institutional performance of the north facing
south. This author claims a rich associative activity, since, he points out, associations "instill in
1 In these years diverse authors begin to publish articles and essays following the wake of Bordieu,
Coleman and Putnam, becoming independent or no longer acknowledging them and acquiring wide
relevance; we can use the example of Francis Fukuyama with his well-known work Trust: The social
virtues and the creation of prosperity (1995).
151
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
their members habits of cooperation, solidarity and public spirit" (Putnam, 1993). Putnam's other
major work, Bowling Alone (2000), talks about the causes that have led to the loss of social
capital, and focuses on the case of the United States. The author pays attention to the
generation of prosocial behaviors and the characteristics of social organizations that facilitate
cooperation for mutual benefit (Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López, 2005, p. 139).
Among other names that illustrate articles, books and studies considered "key" in the broad
theory of social capital, we must mention the works of Mark Granovetter, Ronald Burt,
Alexander Portes, Francis Fukuyama, Patha Dasgupta, Nan Lin, S. Keefer, Norman Uphoff,
Elinor Ostrom, Glaeser and Michael Woolcock. These researchers fall into the two main
orientations of social capital mentioned above: the individualist and the culturalist, and, in a
more systematic way and following the classification that we propose below, they fall into one of
these three approaches: individualistic, communitarian and macrosocial.
3. The three perspectives of social capital
As we pointed out earlier, social capital is an ambiguous and disputed concept. The term
"umbrella concept" is justified by the coexistence of multiple definitions and measurement
systems (Dasgupta and Serageldin, 2000).
Robinson et al. (2002) indicate that definitions of social capital are grouped and depend on
whether they focus on substance, sources (causes) or effects (consequences). Adler and Kwon
(2002, pp. 19-20) classify the families of definitions based on the relationship that an actor
maintains with other agents (bridging views) or based on the structure recreated by actors within
the community (bonding views). Herreros and De Francisco (2001) differentiate "structural
definitions" —where social capital is conceived as a set of available resources derived from the
participation of the individual in social networks)— and "cultural definitions" —in which social
capital carries more than relations because it is a subjective phenomenon that is composed of
attitudes and values—. Paldam (2000) talks about three families of concepts within the theory of
social capital; the one that has "trust"as its axis, which is based on the "ease of cooperation"
and the one that identifies it with the "social network". Finally, Millán and Gordon (2004) link the
different streams of social capital with the thought of the following authors: James Coleman,
Robert Putnam and Nan Lin.
We propose that classifications can be systematized as follows: the first understands social
capital as an "individual resource" that consists of the networks of relations of the focal subject
that bring him a set of instrumental and expressive resources. The second sees social capital as
a "community resource", i.e. as a set of attributes and properties present in a social structure
that facilitate its operation and collective action. And the third, conceives social capital as a
"macrosocial and macroinstitutional resource" that rests on aspects such as civic-mindedness,
social cohesion and general trust that favors the functioning of the economy and society in
general (see figure 2).
152
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Individualist or micro-social perspective
Social capital is an "individual resource" that consists in the networks of relations of
the focal subject that bring him a set of instrumental and expressive resources.
Authors: Bordieu (1986), Portes (1998), Lin (2001).
Communitarian or meso-social perspective
Social capital is a "community resource", i.e. a set of attributes and properties present
in the social structure that facilitate the cooperation and collective action.
Authors: Coleman (1988), Uphoff (1999), Bowles and Gintis (2002).
Macro-social and macro-institutional perspective
Social capital is a "macrosocial and macroinstitutional resource" resting on aspects
such as civic-mindedness and social trust that favors the functioning of the economy
and society in general
Authors: Putnam (1993), Knack and Keefer (1997), Inglehart (1997).
Figure 2. The three perspectives of social capital.
This division into three approaches corresponds to the triple cataloging of social capital as
"individual good", as "collective good" and as "public good" (Putnam, 1993, 2000; Adler and
Kwon, 2002, p. 22; Dasgupta, 2005; Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López, 2005). That is, social
capital generates returns for the individual, for the group and for the whole of society.
Figure 3. Micro, meso and macro measurements of social capital.
Social trust
Civic-mindedness
Civic engagement
Individual social network
Macro measurements of
social capital
Micro measurements of
social capital
Meso measurements of
social capital
Community attributes
Three perspectives
of social capital
153
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
In what follows we shall analyze each one of the perspectives presented and we shall
present the empirical methodology that accompanies them (Figure 3). The latter diverges on the
basis of four attributes: (1) The level of analysis of social capital: micro, meso or macro. (2) The
main study variable: structural (focusing on social networks) or cultural (focusing on norms,
values, trust). (3) The method of measurement used: surveys, polls and statistical indicators,
community studies and observations, projects and experiments. (4) The type of study:
quantitative, qualitative or comparative (Membiela, 2016).
3.1 Individualistic or micro-social perspective.
The "micro" perspective, also known as "networks approach", is very widespread and focuses
on the analysis of social capital as an individual resource, where the actor uses his network of
relationships2 in the achievement of personal goals, both instrumental (income, status, power...)
and expressive (welfare, health, recognition, mutual aid...).
The most outstanding reference within this expository line is Nan Lin. However, one of the
initiators of the theory of social capital, Pierre Bordieu, in his pioneering article The forms of
capital (1986) already defined social capital as the "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 and recognition". From Lin's point of view, it could be
interpreted as an instrumental action from the perspective of class position defense, in which
"the network of relationships is the product of investment strategies, individual or collective,
consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships that are
directly usable in the short or long term" (Bordieu, 1986, p. 52).
In Bordieu, useful relationships serve to obtain material and symbolic resources; and thus,
the social capital possessed by the agent depends on the network of connections he can
mobilize and on the volume of capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) that networks have.
"Social capital as an individual resource" is reflected in numerous definitions, as shown in
Table 1. These definitions are grouped within the same approach because they rest on two
identifiable elements: the individual as the focal subject of the benefit and the social network as
the entity from which the benefit is extracted. However, in their reading matter it can be
observed that the authors differ when specifying what social capital is, since some identify it with
the amount of networks of relations previously constructed by the person that facilitates the
access to a pool of resources (Burt, 1992; Boxman, De Graaf and Flap 1991; Belliveau, O'Reilly
and Wade 1996; Pena-López and Sánchez-Santos, 2013), while for others social capital
consists of "resources" that the individual obtains from such networks (Bordieu, 1986; Lin, 2008;
Baker, 1990; Nahapiet and Goshal, 1998). Therefore, we can talk about the prominence of
networks or resources.
2 These networks are made up of very different bonds (family, community, work, associations...; what is
called bonding social capital or bridging social capital depending on the strength of the ties) and have a
different origin because they could have been inherited or created by the main actor.
154
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Table 1. Definitions of social capital in the individualistic perspective.
Authors
Individualistic perspective
Pierre Bordieu (1986)
"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."
Nan Lin (2001, cap. 2;
2008, p. 51)
"Resources embedded in one's social networks, resources that can be
accessed or mobilized through ties in the networks."
Baker (1990, p. 619)
"A resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use
to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among
actors."
Burt (1992, p. 9)
"Friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive
opportunities to use your financial and human capital."
Nahapiet and Goshal
(1998, p. 243)
"The sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available
through, and Ghoshal derived from the network of relationships possessed
by an individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the
network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network."
Portes (1998, p. 6)
"The ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social
networks or other social structures."
Knoke (1999, p. 18)
"The process by which social actors create and mobilize their network
connections within and between organizations to gain access to other social
actors' resources."
Boxman, De Graaf and
Flap (1991, p. 52)
"The number of people who can be expected to provide support and the
resources those people have at their disposal."
Belliveau, O´Reilly and
Wade (1996, p. 1572)
"An individual's personal network and elite institutional affiliations."
From our perspective, the first option is more appropriate because the networks, with their
attributes, constitute the "social fact" from which the resources available to the principal actor
emerge a posteriori. In this sense, it can be said that networks are instrumental and polymorphic
and allow a multitude of resources to be obtained.
Lin's perspective (1999b, 2008) integrates both proposals. For him, social capital is the set of
"resources embedded in one’s social networks, resources that can be accessed or mobilized
through ties in the networks." That is, it integrates both material and immaterial resources and
networks. Now, for this author "social capital" and "social networks" are not equivalent or
interchangeable terms; the networks provide the necessary condition to access and use the
resources rooted in them but to equate both notions is incorrect (Lin, 2008, pp. 58-59).
Lin (1999b) understands that actors find in their network (of strong and weak ties) a place of
exchange where interests (or preferences) are able to coordinate naturally and generate
equilibria, just as the market can regulate prices (Millán and Gordon, 2004). Individuals invest in
social relationships with the expectation of obtaining benefits and therefore interact with other
subjects, assuming that the responses are the consequence of the expectation of a reward or
return. This investment in relationships facilitates the flow of information and opportunities and
access to differentiated resources, both instrumental and expressive.
In Lin's model, "network" is understood as the structure that organizes material and
immaterial resources and the strategic positions of individuals. For Lin, "social interaction" is a
means of access to these resources and of approach between positions; and "action" is
conceived as the orientation of the behavior destined to obtain returns (Millán and Gordon,
155
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
2004, p. 741).
As Millán and Gordon (2004, p. 743) point out, in this perspective "the network is the element
that organizes resources, and the action aimed at capitalizing them is what makes us talk about
social capital."
Measurement in the individualistic or micro-social perspective.
As we have just seen, in the individualistic perspective social capital is perceived as a set of
resources which an individual has access to (actively or potentially) as a result of his
membership of a social network.
To measure social capital in this micro and structural approach, we analyze the extension of
the individual network and the resources that it implies. To do this, a survey is usually used to
provide information about his access to nodes and the capacity to mobilize them when some
resurce is needed. As an example: someone who knows an official in the local administration
has access to a number of resources (information, procedures ...); whoever belongs to an
extended family has access to greater family support; and whoever knows one or several
subjects in the banking sector has better financial advice.
Nan Lin (2008, pp. 54-56) points to two methods: the "name generator" and the "position
generator".3 In the name generator, a list of contacts proposed by the focal subject is created for
each of the proposed resources (Pena-López and Sánchez-Santos, 2013). In the "position
generator" a list of socially useful positions for the purposes of the focal subject is presented to
a respondent and then asked about the first individual who could give access to that resource,
additionally considering the level of relationship between them (family, friend, acquaintance)
(Erickson, 1996; Pena-López and Sánchez-Santos, 2017).
Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. Lin points out that the "name-generator"
method is appropriate for testing the depth of close nodes; but is limited in the universe of
contacts that the individual (usually three to five)4 proposes (and/or remembers). The "position
generator" facilitates the study of the individual's access to the different levels of the social
hierarchy (e.g. different occupations and strata in society)5 and shows high degrees of validity
and reliability. However, this relational structure-based methodology is less developed and
provide less precise information about strong links (Lin, 2008, pp. 56-57; see also Van der Gagg
and Snijders, 2004, 2005).
Among the studies that have followed each methodology, Campbell et al. (1986) examined
the association of individual network resources and socioeconomic status, based on information
from the Detroit area for the years 1965-1966. Following the "name-generator" method, they
found that the composition of network resources had a significant association with the status
3 Also, Van der Gaag and Snijders (2005) propose a third methodology called Resource Generator.
4 In this sense, the resources tend to be homogeneous and the relations related to the subject,
"homophilic".
5 It is therefore a more favorable methodology when evaluating "heterophilic" relationships and weak
ties of the focal subject.
156
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
reached, as measured by occupational prestige and family income (Lin, 1999, p. 477). Volker
and Flap (1996), in their study of East Germany, used the "position generator" methodology to
ask the respondents to identify, among 33 occupations, if they knew someone in each of them,
and, if so, to specify what kind of relationship they maintained (family, friends, acquaintances).
For the occupational scenario of 1989, the effect of the highest status reached was positive and
significant (Volker and Flap, 1996, p. 478).
3.2 Communitarian or mesosocial perspective
“Gal Oya was said by engineers and officials to be the most deteriorated and disorganized
irrigation system in the country. Yet it became one of the most efficient and cooperatively
managed systems, even fairly quickly, once approached with an effective plan for engaging
farmers in joint system management. The efficiency of water use was doubled within two years,
even before the planned physical rehabilitation was completed, through the introduction of
‘social infrastructure’." (Uphoff, 2000, p. 232).6
The social capital approach as a "community resource" highlights the benefit that it
generates in the community, compared to the previous one that conceives it as a mere
individual good. Its axis of study is the "social organization", which contains a set of resources
that in addition to serving the individual subject favors cooperation and global functioning. In this
approach, however, the term "resource" is not equivalent to its use in the individualistic
perspective of social capital. A rule or a sanction constitutes in this approach a resource for the
subject and for the collective; while in the previous approach the word resources refers to
material goods, influence, or promotion, for example.
The definition of social capital provided by James Coleman (1988, p. 98; 1990, p. 302) fits
this way of understanding social capital, although the author's epistemological approach is
based on the idea of individual who behaves with criteria of rationality. Coleman (1988) points
out that "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 facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure". The
resource-entities referred to by this author, which mediate interactions between individuals and
favor individual and community productivity, are: obligations and expectations, potential
information, norms and effective sanctions, relations of authority, closure and appropriate social
organization (Coleman, 1998, p. 98),7 all integrable into the concepts of networks and
community.
6 The author refers to his experience in a development project in Sri Lanka that began in 1980.
7 Closure means the existence of sufficient ties between a certain number of people to guarantee the
observance of norms (Portes, 1998). Coleman (1988) points out that the emergence of norms and their
fulfillment depends not only on the negative external effects of "punishable" actions, but on how closed
or open the structure is. While the appropriability of the organization (appropriability) expresses that
social ties of one kind (e.g., friendship) often can be used for different purposes (e.g., moral and material
support, work and non-work advice) (Adler and Kwon, 2002, p. 18).
157
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Table 2. Definitions of social capital in the communitarian perspective.
Authors
Communitarian perspective
M. Schiff (1992)
"The set of elements of the social structure that affects relations among people and are
inputs or arguments of the production and/or utility function."
Fukuyama (1995)
"The ability of people to work together for common purposes in groups and
organizations."
Brehm and Rahn (1997)
"The web of cooperative relationships between citizens that facilitate resolution of
collective action problems."
Fukuyama (1997)
"Social capital can be defined simply as the existence of a certain set of informal values
or norms shared among members of a group that permits cooperation among them."
Woolcock (1998)
"The information, trust, and norms of reciprocity inherent in one's social networks."
Nahapiet and Goshal
(1998)
"The sum of the current and potential resources embedded within, available through, and
derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit. Social
capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through
that network."
Bowles and Gintis
(2002)
"Social capital generally refers to trust, concern for one´s associates, a willingness to live
by the norms of one´s community and to punish those who do not."
These entities are valued as resources by the actors, employed to achieve certain interests
or meet certain needs (Millán and Gordon, 2004). The norms of reciprocity or closure are
appropriable by the subjects and constitute a resource for them but in turn they are an input to
the overall functioning of the structure.
Other authors have proposed some definitions that also bring us closer to the idea of social
capital as a "community resource", collecting certain cognitive and structural assets (Uphoff,
2000) that favor collective action (see Table 2). Francis Fukuyama (1997) identifies social
capital as shared norms and values (within the organization) that favor cooperation; Woolcock
(1998) and Bowles and Gintis (2002) point out that it consists of information, trust and norms of
reciprocity inherent to the social network (which also favor cooperation); and Brehm and Rahn
(1997) talk about the "network of cooperative relations" (see Table 2).
Let us look at three examples or models that provide insight into the way in which social
capital is conceived as a "community resource".
I) The presence of a high intra-group social capital in a company that manifests itself in
shared goals and values, an adequate work environment and high trust and interpersonal
interaction, favors "group human capital" (Gui, 2001, p. 158), the global productivity, and
therefore the final result that the business seeks.
II) The relations of trust and reciprocity established between the neighbors of a residential
estate help them to act more effectively in the face of problems that require collective action,
such as prowling thieves or a fire; benefiting even those members who barely interact with other
residents (Putnam, 2000).
III) The New York diamond market, notes Coleman (1988, pp. 98-99), is mainly played by
the hyper-laced Jewish ethnicity. Ties (their closure) provide informal insurance in facilitating
transactions in the market, making the merchants belonging to this group feel "compelled" and
indebted to the norm avoiding any disaffection influencing the collective good. For example, if
one of the individuals of this ethnicity affronts another leading to a significant deception
(opportunistic behavior), he must expect a sanction that ranges from warning to expulsion.
158
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
However, it should be emphasized that these forms of social capital do not have to be
positive. The same elements (obligations and expectations, norms and effective sanctions,
potential information, relations of authority, closure, appropriability and trust) that are rooted in
the organization and which are constitutive of social capital, understood as a community
resource, can be used for negative results. In these cases, they may favor intra-group
objectives, but they are adverse in their contribution to the aggregate social capital due to the
(negative) sign of their externality (Portes, 1998; Paldam, 2000, p. 635; Adler and Kwon 2002;
Durlauf, 2008). This is the case of "bad social capital" often exemplified by organizations such
as the Mafia and the Ku Klux Klan.
Measurement in the communitarian or meso-social perspective.
In this perspective, social capital is considered as a collective property that emerges from the
same community, benefiting the totality as an aggregate and each one of its members. As we
have seen, Coleman (1990, p. 302) points out that "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 social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals
who are within the structure". Consequently, Coleman (1988) uses as indicators of social
capital: (a) "aspects of the social structure" that (b) "facilitate actions of individuals within that
structure".
Regarding the family and the community he focuses on the strength and frequency of
interaction and more concretely on whether it is made up of a father and a mother or it is single-
parent; on parents’ expectations regarding what the future holds for their children; on residential
mobility; on whether or not the mother works; in the relationship between parents and children;
on the type of school attended by the student: state school, private or private confessional —
that is a question that involves differences in collegial community ties—; and on the existence of
links between the students’ parents.
In order to explain their impact on academic achievement and school drop-outs, Coleman
uses the structural/cultural indicators cited because he considers them determinants in the
construction of the entire system of obligations and expectations, reliability, channels of
information, norms and effective sanctions, closure and "appropriability" of social organization.
These are elements that together make up social capital and give it a greater guarantee when
they seek the stated objectives; in this case, to favor the creation of human capital. As this
researcher points out, a greater number of links between the students’ parents (more
community) impels closure in the social network and therefore the capacity of mutual monitoring
on the children (and their studies), by facilitating the flow of information and the imposition of
sanctions; and by promoting expectations of mutual behavior.
Other researchers develop case studies examining attributes such as norms and values,
cohesion, roles and rules, trust and interpersonal interaction; all of those cognitive, structural,
159
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
and relational assets of social capital that favor collective action and the achievement of the
group's objectives. As an example, Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) used data collected from a
multiplicity of respondents belonging to the clusters- complex business units of a multinational
electronics company. The purpose of their work was to examine the relationships that are
established between the structural, relational and cognitive dimension of social capital and
between these dimensions and the different patterns of resource exchange and product
innovations in the company. They observed in this process the positive and significant effect of
social interaction (structural dimension), trust (relational dimension) and shared vision (cognitive
dimension); concluding that investment in informal social capital and formal social arrangements
drive the exchange and combination of productive resources, and promote innovation.
On the other hand, Portes (1995) and Light and Karageorgis (1994) analyzed the economic
welfare of different communities of immigrants in the United States. They demonstrated that
certain groups (Koreans in Los Angeles and Chinese in San Francisco) thrive better than others
(Mexicans in San Diego and Dominicans in New York) because of the social structure in which
new immigrants are integrated. Successful communities are able to offer assistance to
newcomers through informal sources of credit, insurance, migrant family support, language
training, and job referrals. Less successful communities sometimes show only a short-term
commitment to the host country and are almost unable to stabilize their newly arrived members.
3.3 Macro-social perspective
Previous visions of social capital do not enter into the analysis of its effects beyond the
individual and/or the group. The third "classical" social capital approach, culturally oriented,
sees it as a resource that benefits the broad socio-economic aggregate. Without abandoning
the benefits that it generates at the individual and group levels (micro- and meso-), it also
conceives it as a "macrosocial" and "macroinstitutional" asset (Fukuyama, 1999; Sobel, 2002;
Woolcock, 2001, p. 70; Castiglione et al., 2008, p. 7; Warren, 2008, p. 123; Van Deth, 2008, pp.
200-202). In this sense, this proposal argues that social capital is important for the functioning of
democracy, for institutional performance in general, for market articulation and economic
development, and for social cohesion and the progress of civil society.
The work of Robert Putnam Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy (1993)
is an exponent of this approach. In it, the author offers one of the most generalized definitions of
social capital, identifying it with those "features of social organization, such as trust, norms and
networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions" (Putnam,
1993, p. 167).
Putnam expresses himself in "macro" terms when referring to "improve the efficiency of
society"; a posture which other authors have manifested with posterity. As Table 3 shows,
Knack and Keefer (1997) and Knack (2002) equate social capital with the degree of civic-
mindedness of a society. Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López (2005, p. 137) point to the
importance of trust and cooperative and prosocial behavior for the proper functioning of the
160
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
economy and society, and Serageldin (1996) and the World Bank8 note the analogy of social
capital with "social cohesion". In general and in this line, social capital is identified with different
cultural and attitudinal aspects such as civic commitment, social trust, generalized reciprocity,
cooperative norms and civic-mindedness, which facilitate social, economic and institutional
functioning.
Within this approach, the researchers differ in the relevance attributed to the aspects that
weave the social capital and in the process that links them. The most common divergence is
between Putnam's position, which understands networks of association as a prior step to the
extension of civic-mindedness and social trust, and that of a number of critics who find no
significant correlation between trust and associationism.
For Putnam, social capital is an asset that increases the efficiency of society and favors
institutional and economic performance. Specifically, and in his definition, it consists of the
following three features of social organization: trust, norms and networks. These three
elements, which appear in other definitions, tend to establish circular and mutually reinforcing
relationships (Putnam, 1993, p 177).
Putnam, like other scholars (e.g. Fukuyama, 1995; La Porta et al., 2000; Dasgupta, 2005;
Paldam, 2000, pp. 629-630), attaches great importance to "trust" as a "core component of the
social capital" that acts as lubricant in the functioning of society and also mediates in any
relationship or exchange, with its economic reflection on the reduction of transaction costs
(Wolleb, 2008, p. 378).
Table 3. Definitions of social capital in the macrosocial perspective.
Authors
Macrosocial perspective
Putnam (1993, p. 167)
"Features of social organisation, such as trust, norms and networks, which can
improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions."
Serageldin (1996)
"The glue that holds societies together."
Ingleheart (1997, p. 188)
"A culture of trust and tolerance, in which extensive networks of voluntary
associations emerge."
Thomas (1996, p. 11)
"Those voluntary means and processes developed within civil society which
promote development for the collective whole."
Turner (1999, p. 53)
"Those forces that increase the potential economic development of a society
by creating and maintaining relationships and patterns of social organization."
Grootaert and Thierry van Bastelaer
(2002)
"The social capital of a society includes the institutions, the relationships, the
attitudes and values that govern interactions among people and contribute to
economic and social development."
Pena and Santos (2005, p. 137)
"Social capital represents the idea that trust and the internalization of rules
conducive to cooperative and prosocial behavior are the basis for the better
functioning of the economy and of society in general."
The World Bank
"Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships and norms that make up
the quality and quantity of the social interactions of a society. Numerous
studies show that social cohesion is a critical factor for societies to thrive
economically and for development to be sustainable. Social capital is not only
the sum of the institutions that make up a society, but also the stuff that holds
them together."
8 http://web.worldbank.org, under the title "What social capital is".
161
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
At the same time, trust is closely linked to "generalized reciprocity" (Putnam, 1993, p 172;
Putnam, 2000; Szreter, 2002; Millan and Gordon, 2004, p. 726; Uslaner, 2008, p. 116). The
frequency in interaction, typical of dense social networks, favors the birth and diffusion of norms
of reciprocity, fosters trust and contributes to cooperation. Putnam refers to civic engagement
networks (neighborhood societies, purchasing associations, cooperatives, football clubs)
characterized by a horizontal type of interaction9 in which there is a certain public and not
merely a private interest that tends to favor generalized reciprocity and to extend the
cooperative arrangement beyond the group. For this researcher, associations have a "didactic"
effect on the culture of the population (Millán and Gordon, 2004, p. 734) and are a source of
social commitment by fostering internal habits such as cooperation, solidarity, public spirit
(Putnam, 1993, pp. 89-90), which are then projected to other associations and generalized trust.
Putnam's perspective is in the line with Alexis de Tocqueville10 and assumes that institutional
and democratic performance is linked to the characteristics of civic life in their common
purposes. In his 1993 work, he compares northern and southern Italy, finding that the greater
civic commitment and participation of civil society and the highest level of trust in the northern
regions correlates with increased government quality and institutional performance, and with
more satisfactory economic development. This author goes so far as to say that good
governance in Italy is a byproduct of choral societies and football clubs (Putnam, 1993, p. 176).
Despite being the most widespread approach, it has been very much challenged. It has been
argued that it does not take into account aspects such as the size of the network, the sociability
within it, the intensity of the contact between its components or the weight of its benignity (since
there are violent, racist, criminal organizations, rent seekers...) (Paldam 2000; Glaeser et al.,
2002, p. 444). In addition, researchers debate the role of associations in building trust,
generalized reciprocity and cooperation. Paxton (2007) expresses that civic participation
generates social trust when the associations are interconnected and do not remain isolated.
Stolle and Lewis (2001) point out that there is no empirical evidence to show that associations
work as schools of democracy, and Levi (1996) doubts that belonging to one type of association
leads to overcoming problems of free riding in another; this same researcher warns us
furthermore, that Putnam does not take into account the structure and philosophy of the Italian
political system when it comes to establishing the differences between the north and the south.
In this way, a new approach emerges within the perspective that considers social capital as
a "macrosocial" and "macroinstitutional" resource. Social capital is equated with trust and civic
9 A vertical network, however dense and important it may be for its participants, cannot maintain trust
and cooperation, since "vertical flows of information are often less reliable than horizontal" (Putnam,
1993, p. 174).
10 In Tocqueville (1987 [1835-1840]) there is a virtuous link between civic associations, common good,
and democracy. In this sense, the author writes: "If men are not linked in a solid and permanent way, it
is difficult they act in common" (1987, p. 477). "Political parties can be considered as great free schools,
where all citizens come to learn the general theory of associations" (1987, p. 481 [1835, 1840]). "In all
the countries where political associations are prohibited, civil associations are rare [...]" (Tocqueville,
1987; taken from Millán and Gordon, 2004, pp. 731-732).
162
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
cooperation, but such aspects do not correlate with associationism-civic engagement in the way
Putnam puts it.
This is the line followed by Knack and Keefer (1997) and Knack (2002) when they criticize
the American sociologist on the basis of Olson's (1982) idea that the nature of associations is
an element that must be taken into account since because of this the effect of associationism on
trust and economic growth can be neutral. Knack (2002, p. 778) sets the example of those
interest groups whose objectives undermine efficiency and the general interest.
This criticism goes back to the "Olson-Putnam controversy." Because not all types of
associations generate trust, the positive effect per se of greater social connectivity cannot be
affirmed (Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López, 2005, pp. 138, 146). Olson (1982) noted that
horizontal associations could damage growth by acting as lobbies pursuing their own interests
in a preferential policy that imposes a cost on society (Knack and Keefer, 1997, p. 1271).
For these authors, trust and civic cooperation (social capital) are actually the two faces of the
same mirror (Knack and Keefer, 1997, p. 1258) because of the logical and intense relationship
between them. An atmosphere of high trust acts by reducing the costs associated with
economic activity (in general all transaction costs), it encourages innovation and investment,
and creates less dependence of society towards formal institutions. While civic cooperation
impacts on the economic outcome by restricting through its (civic) norms the behavior based on
the self-interest of the subjects, thus reducing opportunism and leading individuals to favor the
public and private good.11 Likewise, it promotes the improvement of the political channel, as well
as the reduction of bureaucracy and corruption (Knack and Keefer, 1997, pp. 1252-1254).
Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López (2005) express themselves in a similar line since they
understand the social capital as "moral capital"; while Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales (2011)
conceive it as "civic capital". The concept of "moral capital" focuses on the behaviors that
underlie the formal and informal relationships that are established within civil society and the
ethical attitudes that predispose to general reciprocity and cooperation. While the notion of "civic
capital" focuses on the values and beliefs that internalize the common good, fostering
cooperative behavior and economic development. Social capital ("moral capital" and "civic
capital" in their case) benefits the "macro" functioning of the economy and society. However,
unlike Putnam, they also point out that "although the tautological relationship between trust and
social capital is evident, it is not the relationship raised by the sociological perspective, that is,
the relation between associationism and social trust" (Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López, 2005,
pp. 148-149).
Measurement in the macrosocial perspective.
In presenting the third perspective of social capital, we have already indicated that there are two
approaches. The most significant exponent of the first one is Robert Putnam who understands
11 By promoting such rules, it facilitates cooperative solutions to numerous problems of collective action.
In this sense, civic norms solve the "prisoner's dilemmas" without imposing external costs while
increasing allocative efficiency.
163
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
that associative activity and civic engagement favor institutional performance and economic
development by promoting civic-mindedness and social trust. The second approach, which
includes authors such as Knack and Keefer (1997), Sánchez-Santos and Pena-López (2005),
Uslaner (2008) or Guiso, Sapienza and Zingales (2011), equates social capital with civic-
mindedness and social trust and agrees on the high relevance of these attributes for economic
performance; rejecting, however, its necessary correlation with the degree of associative
activity.
From this perspective —macro and cultural— two measurement options fit. Putnam employs
the density of voluntary organizations as a tool (Paldam, 2000) by measuring civic commitment
to the per capita number of groups and associations (church groups, labor unions, sports
groups, academic or professional societies, political, and fraternal organizations) which the
residents of each region or state belong to (Kawachi et al., 1997, p. 1493). Nevertheless,
several authors criticize the vision of Putnam and with this, the instrument used to evaluate the
social capital. For Martin Paldam (2000) there are three main problems: the definition of
voluntary organization, the intensity of contacts and the problem of the weight of benignity (for
example, criminal and racist associations); while Glaeser et al. (2002, p. 445) criticize the fact
that the size of the network within the organization and the sociability of the organization are not
taken into account.
In the second approach, the measurement of social capital is carried out using trust as the
base indicator. In this type of research and in these trials the questions of the World Values
Survey (WVS) are posed: "Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they
got a chance, or would they try to be fair?" (item for the study of the perception of probability of
opportunism) and " Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that
you can't be too careful in dealing with people?" (item for the study of social trust-distrust). The
indicator (trust) is the percentage of respondents who states that "most people can be trusted"
(Paldam, 2000; Kawachi et al., 1997, p. 1492; Knack and Keefer, 1997, p. 1256).
To measure trust in a general sense, the so-called "wallet test" has also been used (Paldam,
2000). An experiment is performed in which N wallets are lost in public spaces, and the test
analyzes how many of them are returned. Knack and Keefer (1997, p. 1257) point out that, in
their study, the measure of lost wallets is correlated by 0.67 with the level of social trust.
We have indicated that social trust and civic-mindedness bear a strong correlation. However,
there are systems that are primarily aimed at measuring civic capital. This is the case of Guiso,
Sapienza and Zingales (2011, p. 430) who propose to focus on those values and beliefs that
foster cooperative behavior. Respondents are asked about their opinion on issues such as
paying taxes, abuse of public goods, and always negative actions of: unfairly changing their
position in a queue, littering the streets, and other similar behaviors; scores range from 1 =
never justifiable to 10 = always justifiable. It is suggested that these items with their peers can
be good indicators of the prevalence of moral actions and the desire of people to internalize the
common good.
In a similar sense, Knack and Keefer (1997, p. 1256), who equate social capital with "civic-
164
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
mindedness", point out that the strength of norms and civic cooperation is assessed on the
basis of justification (justified, never justified or something justified) attributed to the following
reasons: a) claiming government benefits to which one is not entitled, b) avoid paying the ticket
on public transport, c) lying when paying taxes, d) saving money which has been found at
random, and e) covering up the damage done to a parked vehicle.
However, these authors point out that those measures are not exempt from contradictions
and it is more than likely that respondents will be reluctant to admit their judgments. In this case,
it is often used parallel questions (trap questions) that indicate the truthfulness with which the
individual responds to the survey.
4. Conclusions
We started this article with an introduction to the concept and history of social capital, an issue
that is subject to increasing attention in the fields of economics, society and politics. As we
indicated, the term of "umbrella concept" (social capital is many things for many people) makes
it difficult to recognize its utility as a variable that favors socioeconomic and institutional
functioning.
In this sense, our article has sought to clarify, based on the status questions of the theory,
the three great perspectives of the concept, also reviewing the empirical methodology used in
each of them. Social capital consists of the set of social networks that gives the individual
material and immaterial resources (individualistic or micro-social perspective). Social capital
also lies in the attributes and properties of the social structure that facilitate its operation and
collective action (community or meso-social perspective). Equally, social capital resides in
general cultural aspects such as civic-mindedness and social trust that favor the global
functioning of the economy and society (macro-social perspective).
Social capital is therefore a multidimensional concept with great potential in its application.
For this purpose, it is necessary to clarify what it is and what it is for, an issue aided by this
presentation of the three great approaches within the theory.
After presenting this conceptual clarification, future lines of research will focus on different
functions developed by social capital in each of the proposed approaches, as well as the
concrete measures that policymakers can take to enhance this factor of development.
References
Adam, F., & Roncevic, B. (2003). Social Capital: Recent Debates and Research Trends. Social
Science Information 42(2), 155-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018403042002001
Adler, P. A., & Kwon, S. W., (2002). Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept. The Academy
of Management Review 27(1), 17-40. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.5922314
Ahn, T. K., & Ostrom, E. (2008). The Meaning of Social Capital and Collective Action. In D.
165
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G. Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 17-
35). New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker, W. E. (1990). Market Networks and Corporate Behavior. American Journal of Sociology
96(3), 589-625. https://doi.org/10.1086/229573
Bankston, Carl L., & Zhou, M. (2002). Social Capital as Process: The Meanings and Problems
of a Theoretical Metaphor? Sociological Inquiry 72(2), 285-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-
682x.00017
Belliveau, M. A., O'Reilly, C.-A., & Wade, J.-B. (1996). Social Capital at the Top: Effects of
Social Similarity and Status on CEO Compensation. Academy of Management Journal 39(6),
1568-1593. https://doi.org/10.2307/257069
Bjørnskov, Ch., & Svendsen, G. T. (2003). Measuring Social Capital – Is There a Single
Underlying Explanation? Working Paper, n.º 5, Department of Economics. University of
Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business.
Bordieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (2002). Social Capital and Community Governance. The Economic
Journal 112 (483), 419-436. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781002841.00006
Boxman, E. A. W., De Graaf, P. M., & Flap, H. D. (1991). The Impact of Social and Human
Capital on the Income Attainment of Dutch Managers. Social Networks 13(1), 51-73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(91)90013-j
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of
Social Capital. American Journal of Political Science 41(3), 999-1023.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2111684
Brewer, G. A. (2003). Building Social Capital: Civic Attitudes and Behavior of Public Servants.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(1), 5-26.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mug011
Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holds: The Social Structure if Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J.-S. (1986). Social Resources and Socioeconomic
Status. Social Networks, 8(1), 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(86)80017-x
Castiglione, D., Van Deth, J. W., & Wolleb, G (eds.) (2008a). The Handbook of Social Capital.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Castiglione, D., Van Deth, J. W. , & Wolleb, G (eds.), (2008b). Social Capital's Fortune: An
Introduction. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G. Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of
Social Capital (pp. 1-12). New York: Oxford University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. The American Journal
of Sociology 94, 95-120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Conill Sancho, J. (2004). Horizontes de economía ética. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos.
Dasgupta, P. (2005). The Economics of Social Capital. The Economic Record 81(S1), S58-S70.
166
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2005.00245.x
Dasgupta, P., & Serageldin. I (eds.) (2000). Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective.
Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
Durlauf, S. N. (2008). Membership and Inequality. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G.
Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 594-623). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Erickson, B. (1996). Culture, Class and Connections. American Journal of Sociology 102(1),
217-51. https://doi.org/10.1086/230912
Fine, B. (1999). The Developmental State is Dead - Long Life Social Capital? Development and
Change 30(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00105
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free
Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1997). Social Capital and the Modern Capitalist Economy: Creating a High Trust
Workplace. Stern Business Magazine 4(1), 4-17.
Fukuyama, F. (1999). Social Capital and Civil Society. Virginia: The Institute of Public Policy,
George Mason University.
Glaeser, E., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An Economic Approach to Social Capital. The
Economic Journal 112(483), 437-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00078
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78(6),
1360-1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Grootaert, Ch., Narayan, D., Nyhan, V., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring Social Capital: An
Integrated Questionnaire. World Bank Working Paper 18. https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-
5661-5
Grootaert, Ch., & Van Banstelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and Measuring Social Capital.
Analysis 1(320). https://doi.org/10.1596/0-8213-5068-4
Gui, B. (2001). Organizaciones productivas con fines ideales y realización de la persona:
Relaciones interpersonales y horizontes de sentido. In L. Bruni, Economía de Comunión (pp.
149-168). Madrid: Editorial Ciudad Nueva.
Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & L. Zingales (2011). Civic Capital as the Missing Link. In J. Benhabib,
M. O. Jackson and A. Bisin, Handbook of Social Economics (vol. 1A., pp. 417-480). San
Diego: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53187-2.00010-3
Hanifan, Lyda J. (1920). The Community Center. Boston: Silver, Burdett and Company.
Herreros, F., & De Francisco, A (2001). Introducción al capital social como programa de
investigación. Zona Abierta 94/95, 1-46.
Hirsch, P. M. and Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella Advocates versus Validity Police: A Life-Cycle
Model. Organization Science 10(2), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.2.199
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and
World.
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Post-Modernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political
Change in 43 Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
167
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social Capital, Income
Inequality, and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health 87(9), 1491-1497.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.87.9.1491
Knack, S. (2002). Social Capital and the Quality of Government: Evidence from the States.
American Journal of Political Science 46(4), 772-785. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088433
Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? The Quaterly
Journal of Economics 112(4), 1252-1288. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300555475
Knoke, D. (1999). Organizational Networks and Corporate Social Capital. In R. Leenders and S.
M. Gabbay (eds.),, Corporate Social Capital and Liability (pp. 17-42). Boston: Kluwer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-5027-3_2
La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (2000). Trust in Large
Organizations. In P. Dasgupta, P., and I. Serageldin (eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted
Perspective (pp. 310-324). Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
Lazega, E., & Pattison, P. E. (2001). Social Capital as Social Mechanisms and Collective
Assets: The Example of Status Auctions Among Colleagues. In N. Lin, K. C. Cook and R. S.
Burt (eds.),. Social Capital: Theory and Research (pp. 185-208). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.
Levi, M. (1996). Social and Unsocial Capital: A Review Essay of Robert Putnam’s Making
Democracy Work. Politics and Society 24(1), 45-55.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329296024001005
Light, I., & Karageorgis, S. (1994). The Ethnic Economy. In N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg
(eds.),, The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 650–677). Princeton and Nueva York:
Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400835584.650
Lin, N. (1999a). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. Connections 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (1999b). Social Networks and Status Attainment. American Review of Sociology 25(1),
467-487. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.467
Lin, N., K. S Cook and R. S. Burt (2001). Social Capital: Theory and Research. New Jersey:
Transaction Publishers.
Lin, N. (2008). A Network Theory of Social Capital. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G.
Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 50-69). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Loury, G, (1977). Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination. In P. A. Wallace and A.
Le Mund (eds.),. A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences, Lexington.: Lexington
Books.
Membiela Pollán, M. (2013). Capital social: Glosario. El valor económico de la dimensión social.
A Coruña: Editorial Camiño do Faro.
Membiela Pollán, M. (2016). La teoría del capital social. A Coruña: Editorial Camiño do Faro.
Millán, R., & Gordon, S. (2004). Capital social: una lectura de tres perspectivas clásicas.
Revista Mexicana de Sociología 66(4), 711-747. https://doi.org/10.2307/3541414
168
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital and the Organizational
Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(2), 242-266.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
Olson, M. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Paldam, M. (2000). Social Capital, One or Many? Definition and Measurement. Journal of
Economic Surveys 14(5), 629-653. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00127
Paxton, Pamela (2007). Association Memberships and Generalized Trust: A Multilevel Model
Across 31 Countries. Social Forces 86(1), 47-76. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2007.0107
Pena López, J. A., & Sánchez Santos, J. M. (2011). El capital social como recurso de la
empresa familiar: La familiness. A Coruña: Netbiblo.
Pena López, J. A., & Sánchez Santos, J. M. (2013). El capital social individual: lo micro y lo
macro en las relaciones sociales. In J. L. Veira Veira, Desigualdad y capital social en
España (pp. 11-31). Oleiros: Netbiblo.
Pena López, J. A., & Sánchez Santos, J. M. (2017). Individual Social Capital: Accessibility and
Mobilization of Resources Embedded in Social Networks. Social Networks 49, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2016.11.003
Pérez García, F. (dir.), V. Montesinos, L. Serrano, & Fernández de Guevara, J. (2005). La
medición del capital social: una aproximación económica. Madrid: BBVA.
Portes, A. (1995). The Economic Sociology and Sociology of Inmigration: a Conceptual Review.
In A. Portes (Ed.), Essays on Networks, Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. Nueva York: Rusell
Sage.
Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology 24(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
Portes, A. (2000): The Two Meanings of Social Capital. Sociological Forum 15(1), 1-12.
Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993). Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social
Determinants of Economic Action. American Journal of Sociology 98(6), 1320-1350.
https://doi.org/10.1086/230191
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy
6(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1995.0002
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in
Modern Italy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Robison, L., Schmid, L. J., & Siles, M. E. (2002). Is Social Capital Really Capital? Review of
Social Economy 60(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.280892
Roche, M. (2004). Social policy and social capital: a clear case of putting merit before method?
Social Policy and Society 3(2), 97-111.
Sánchez Santos, J. M., & Pena López, J. A. (2005). Actividad asociativa, confianza y
generación de capital social: evidencia empírica. Ekonomiaz: Revista Vasca de Economía
59, 136-159.
169
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Schiff, M. (1992). Social Capital, Labor Mobility, and Welfare: The Impact of Uniting States.
Rationality and Society 4(2), 157-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463192004002003
Serageldin, I. (1996). Sustainability as Opportunity and the Problem of Social Capital. Brown
Journal of World Affairs 3(2), 187-203.
Sison, A. (2003). The Moral Capital of Leaders: Why Virtue Matters. Cheltenham/Northampton:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Sobel, Joel (2002). Can We Trust in Social Capital? Journal of Economic Literature 40(1), 139-
154. https://doi.org/10.1257/0022051027001
Stolle, D., & Lewis, J. (2001). Social Capital – An Emerging Concept. In B. Hobson, J. Lewis
and B. Siim (eds.),, Key Concepts in Gender and European Social Politics, Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar Press. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781950340.00012
Szreter, S. (2002). The State of Social Capital: Bringing Back in Power, Politics and History.
Theory and Society 31(5), 573-621. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021300217590
Thomas, C. Y. (1996). Capital Markets, Financial Markets and Social Capital. Social and
Economic Studies 45(23), 1-23.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm
Networks. The Academy of Management Journal 41(4), 464-476.
https://doi.org/10.2307/257085
Tocqueville, A. (1987). La democracia en América. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Turner, J. H. (2000). The Formation of Social Capital. In P. Dasgupta and I. Serageldin (eds.),.
Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective (pp. 94–146). Washington, DC: The World Bank
Uphoff, N. (2000). Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience on
Participation. In P. Dasgupta, and I. Serageldin (eds.), Social Capital: A Multifaceted
Perspective (pp. 215-252). Washington, D. C.: World Bank.
Uslaner, E. M. (2008). Trust as a Moral Value. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G.
Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 101-121). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Van Der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. (2004). Proposals for the Measurement of Individual social
capital. In H. D. Flap and B. Völker (eds.),. Creation and Returns of Social Capital, (pp. 199-
218). London: Routledge.
Van Der Gaag, M., & Snijders, T. (2005). The Resource Generator: Measurement of Individual
Social Capital with Concrete Items. Social Networks 27(1), 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.10.001
Van Deth, J. W. (2008). Measuring Social Capital. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G.
Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 150-176). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Volker B., & Flap, H. (1996). Getting Ahead in the GDR: Human Capital and Social Capital in
the Status Attainment Process Under Communism. Acta Sociologica 42(1), 17-34.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00016999950079925
Warren, M. E. (2008). The Nature and Logic of Bad Social Capital. In In D. Castiglione, J. W.
170
M. Membiela-Pollán and A. Pena-López / European Journal of Government and Economics 6(2), 146-170
Van Deth, and G. Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 122-149). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Winter, I. (2001). Toward a Theorized Understanding of Family Life and Social Capital. Working
Paper 21. Melbourne University.
Wolleb, G. (2008). Introduction: Social Capital and Economic Development. In In D. Castiglione,
J. W. Van Deth, and G. Wolleb (eds.), The Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 373-385). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical
Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society 27(2), 151-208.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006884930135
Woolcock, M. (2001). The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic
Outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1), 1492-1525.
Woolcock, M., & E. Radin (2008). A Relational Approach to the Theory and Practices of
Economic Development. In In D. Castiglione, J. W. Van Deth, and G. Wolleb (eds.), The
Handbook of Social Capital (pp. 411-437). New York: Oxford University Press.
World Bank. (21/03/2017). Overview: Social Capital. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/webarchives/archive/