"Social Capital"

Lol! Sorry - it is way late here - nearly 4 am - I canna think straight. My words get dumber as I get tireder.

I guess what I was trying to say is that I have been most familiar with the term and analysis used to make the political point that there is mnore in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is measured in your standard economics. And that this stuff is extremely important and has great value, which needs to be counted, too - and the erosion of which needs to be seen as an economic (hence important to the bean-counters who make so many decisions today) cost and not just a wishy washy and uncountable hence unimportant loss - just as its development is important, too.

Was that clearer? Though limited?

Hmmm.. I haven't really considered it in an economic sense yet. I think that's were Thomas had run into it before (from the looks of the link he provided) too. Methinks I need to get my head around the basic concepts first and then work into the economic sense fo it. Thank ya lil bunny.

If I understand your point correctly you are saying that social relations involving non cash reciprocity are of equal if not more value than those that are reduced to an exchange involving only the calculation of equal cash value.(balance reciprocity) In most noncapitalist societies this is how things work. An individual's social network is of more value than relations involving simply equal exchange of value. This is because the social network is also an individuals safety net and exchange will often ignore the cash value of the exchange to preserve the social value of the relationship. From a western economic perspective this looks to be irrational because only the cash value of the exchange is considered significant.

I am somewhat familiar with Putnam and his concept of Social Capital.
His first studies were on Italy. He was trying to discern why, regardless of the ruling party, there were such huge differences in development and growth among different areas of the country.
The answer was historical: some areas developed social capital over the centuries, whilst others were more prone to individualism, croonism, and gierarchy.
I studied in one of the "social capital" regions. Before Putnam, I thought all this was the marvelous sociopolitical work of the Italian Communist Party.
Everybody participated in several communal activities. Sport leagues, movie clubs, PTAs. Everybody's voice was heard and taken into account. On one emergency, -a tremendous snow storm- the citizens organized themselves impressively well.
A typical Modenese was a member of a party, a union, a PTA, a borought self-help community, a music club, a sports club and a cinema club.
Back in Mexico, the difference was depressing. Aside from the family, little social capital is formed. People want everything given to them, and are usually not willing to participate in any communal activity.

Putnam's other big book, "Bowling Alone", is about the rise of individualism in the US, and the terrible consequences it has had in terms of social capital. It actually means less democracy and more inequality.

The late political philosopher, Norberto Bobbio, said that one of the measures of the democratic society is the vote. But not only, or mainly, is you can vote for your elected government officials. The key is, in how many instances of your everyday life de you have a vote?
Do you vote -or at least have a voice that is listened- at school, at work, at home, at your neighborhood, at your social, recreational and cultural activities?

This is true but it only works effectively if the groups are under 500 individuals in size. For example the average Connecticut or Massachusetts colonial town (18th century) which everyone in this country (US) like to point to as pure democracy in action, was about 2000 individuals, but only about 500 or less were active adults.The rest were children or the socially marginal, (slaves, indians etc). Above 500 and the number of potential social relations becomes to large for the individual to keep tract of and cooperation begins to break down into factionalism.

Hmm, this sounds like karma, where you do good deeds with no personal expectation of reward, just for the good of the whole. Or am I missing something?

Not "personal" good deeds. Societal deeds.

If a society is well knit, the bonds will result in improving the overall well being.

Neighbor, coworker, or other community member friendliness is free, but, as in business, there is no such thing as a free ride in relationships.

The thesis is, in a nutshell: collectivism brings social cynicism; individualism brings social apathy, but communalism brings participation and a stronger democracy (at the local, grassroots, everyday life level).

All true. But people also have to keep in mind that this isn't about a political or economic system like the ideas of Socialism, Capitialism or Communism. "Social Capital" is a layer over the top of any or all of those. It's about how we interact with people outside of any formal economic or political spheres.

We studied "social overhead capital" in economics class, but this is the first time I've heard the term "social capital." Just bookmarking for now; sounds like an interesting discussion coming up.

From what I'm hearing, this discussion will probably include cultural anthropology.

It already has.

Acq, I'm a fast reader that misses all the important points. I also have a very short memory.

oops - in my B.A.-thesis (Social Work, The 'Self-conception of Self-help'), I referred a bit to "Social Capital".

But I do suppose that all my references are historic .. now
(Besides that I'm searching for my thesis since years.)

Fbaezer, your points about the social capital at work in Modena, in contrast to some other locations in italy, are interesting to me.

I've surmised myself that what is being described on this topic as social capital has been borne of

the layers of settlement in various parts of Italy over the millennia (from the original peoples and the multiple conquerors who were different, at least sometimes, in various regions);

along with the effects of differing powers (and the effects might change with individual rulers within those powers) on the populations and the populations' behaviors in dealing with those powers, for example, trust in family being foremost;

plus conditions like access to information exchange through ports or even good roads;

and - another matter we've tried to discuss on a2k - the natural elements of cold and heat as they may affect industrialization or its lack, industrialization possibly giving many people more varied contacts, thus with potential new ideas.. all of which may pull people away from mostly family oriented socialization.

So now I need to add Putnam to my list..

Speaking of Italy ...

Capitale Sociale.it , an Italian site [mostly in English] is a good resource for anyone interested in social capital, especially from the development economists' point of view.

Ooh, that one'll keep me busy, Walter.

Add this one, too, 'cause I think it is more along the same line:

http://www.spiritualityhealth.com/newsh/items/bookreview/item_6722.html

D'art suggested it as a result of Ram Bam's Ladder.

Hmmm, Walter is this Social Capital similar to what I have always thought of as industrial democracy as practiced in Germany?

You mean perhaps "Soziale Marktwirtschaft" ("social market economy").

It least, this is related ... somehow ... I think.

Information (mostly statistics) about Social Capital in some European countries can be found at this OECD website