The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all "social networks" [who people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other ["norms of reciprocity"].[i]
A key concern of the literature and discourse on social capital over the past 15 years has been to explore exactly what social capital is. Discussion commonly proceeds from three key sources: The works of Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam.
As Coleman and Putnam explain, the term ‘social capital’ refers to elements like trust, civic spirit, solidarity, and readiness to associate and to build and maintain communities (Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993, 1995). According to Putnam, these elements represent the historical products of an overall well functioning society, both on the local and national levels, and a degree of positive and ‘civilized’ interplay of economic, social and political institutions in a defined territorial and local context.
Most recent definition of Social Capital is that of Robert Putnam. Putnam’s definition is the most popular definition and has been used almost extensively (Carpiano, 2007; Carpiano, 2008). Putnam defines social capital as “..features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1995, p. 66).
Importantly, the features of Social Capital have been further refined into two forms, bonding social capital and bridging social capital. Bonding social capital is considered “inward looking and tend[s] to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups” (Putnam, 2000, p. 22).
a. An example of bonding social capital is participation in networks with individuals of the same ethnicity, religion, or political views.
b. Bridging social capital is considered “outward looking and encompasses people across diverse social cleavages” such as participation in “civil rights movement, many youth service groups, and ecumenical religious organizations” (Putnam, 2000, p. 22).
Recently, Szreter & Woolcock describe that the definition for bridging social capital has been amended to consist of networks of people “who know they are not alike in some socio-demographic (or social identity) sense (differing by age, ethnic group, class, etc.)” but are “equal in terms of their status and power” (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004, p. 655).
While differing elements persist within social capital discourse, according to relevant studies of European Community concerning Social Capital EU research on social sciences and humanities, ‘’The contribution of Social Capital in the SocialEconomy to local economic development in western Europe’’, also to the recent publication of Social Enterprise (European Communities, 2007)[ii] & Social Capital Theory (Mehrdad & Samimi, 2015) [iii] that is identified to be most appropriate to the research being undertaken. The author has identified and chosen six elements of social capital based on the purpose of covering the element of human security studies, namely:
1. Trust is generally agreed to be an essential aspect of social capital, may be the most essential without which the other elements of social capital cannot be developed. It is also the main element of reputation of an organization.
2. Reciprocal and mutuality,
3. Shared norms of behaviour
4. Sense of belonging and shared Commitment,
5. Effective information channel, which may be used productively by individuals and groups to facilitate actions to benefit individuals, groups and community more generally.
The author assumes tentatively according to the relevant studies that Social Enterprise promotes Social Capital and potentially contributes significantly to human security practices and development at community levels in the region and areas of social enterprises. If this is correct, the degrees of the people perceived need to be examined.
Evers and Schulze-Boeing (Everz & Schulze, 2001)[iv] assert that social enterprises are effective builders of social capital because they:
- create and make use of the commitment and trust of volunteers and partners;
- build up services which depend on close relationships in a local cultural context;
- are locally credible in the role of re-integrating a clientele (trainees, customers or employees);
- are effective at meeting combined goals (e.g. local development and labour market integration).
1. [i] The Saguardo Seminar http://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/saguaro/about-social-capital
2. [ii] EU research on social sciences and humanities, ‘’The contribution of Social Capital in the Social Economy to local economic development in western europe’’. European commission. Directorate general for research. Brussels. http://cordis.europa.eu/documents/documentlibrary/82608021EN6.pdf retrieved in 4/30/2015 at 5.00 am
3. [iii] Mehrdad Madhooshi and Mohammad Hossein Jafari Samimi, 2015: Social Entrepreneurship & Social Capital: A Theoretical Analysis, American Journal of Economics, Finance, and Management, American Institute of Science
4. [iv] Evers, A., & Schulze-Boeing, M. (2001). Germany: Social enterprises and transitional employment. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise pp 120-135, London, Routledge