Upload PDF. Follow this author. New articles by this author. New citations to this author.
New articles related to this author's research. Email address for updates. My profile My library Metrics Alerts. Sign in. Get my own profile Cited by View all All Since Citations h-index 56 45 iindex Verified email at soc. Articles Cited by Co-authors. International Political Science Review 26 3 , , Comparative Political Studies 42 2 , , British Journal of Political Science 35 1 , , In an analysis of the World Values Survey, the author finds that trust is a deep-rooted attitude, formed early in life, which can be altered only slightly by later experiences.
Most importantly, Uslaner offers evidence that countries that implemented policies to reduce income inequality have higher levels of generalized trust. Creating social capital does not seem to be primarily a responsibility of the voluntary sector but rather the effect of sustained democracy and income equality. This insight is taken up by Bo Rothstein and Dietlind Stolle, and they go further to ask about the causal mechanism between general- ized trust and the institutions that implement public policy.
Their main argument is that impartial and fair procedures practiced by gov- ernment institutions have a positive effect on trust in a society. In par- ticular, the authors explore the relationship between the character of the welfare state institutions and trust in society, as some welfare state institutions exhibit a more divisive and others a more encompassing and inclusive character. The authors support their argument with survey data from Sweden, demonstrating that confidence in welfare institutions and in law-enforcing institutions seems more relevant for explaining generalized trust levels than the confidence expressed in political institutions, such as the parliament, which are very distant from the day-to-day life of ordinary citizens.
The authors conclude that if we want political institutions to have a positive effect on social capi- tal levels, the character of bureaucracies and welfare state institutions would have to be our primary areas of interest. Michel Huysseune, too, highlights the role of government policy by looking at the recent history of North and South Italy. According to this analysis, efforts to trace the differences in civic culture between northern and southern Italy to their different political histories during the Middle Ages fail to acknowledge the fact that at least for the nine- teenth century, we observe no systematic differences between the eco- nomic and political development of the two parts of the country.
Cultural path dependency therefore cannot be considered a satisfactory explanation for the observed contemporary differences. It is argued that the policy of the central government in Rome, and the power of the Christian Democratic party, helped to maintain a system of patron- age in southern Italy. The influence of powerful political actors, like the Communist Party, also should be taken into consideration. Huysseune uses historical data and literature to support this thesis.
At a theoretical level, a comparison is made between the situation in southern Italy and the challenge of contemporary developing countries to build social cap- ital. In our conclusion, we integrate the various insights of the authors in these chapters and emphasize the fact that the limited potential of voluntary associations to generate civic values suggests two avenues for future research. On the one hand, along with the institution- centered approach that we present in this volume, we need more stud- ies that disentangle the causal effects of institutions on civicness.
The chapters in the second part of this volume clearly show that institutional characteristics cannot be left out of the social capital equation. On the other hand, in sync with the society-centered approach, the study of the effects of diverse networks, overlapping networks and more informal social interactions is also underexplored. References Banfield, E. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society.
New York: The Free Press. Brewer, M. Brewer and B. Collins eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Coleman, J. Foundations of Social Theory. Hoffer Public and Private High Schools. The Impact of Communities. New York: Basic Books.
A tale of two cities: Local patterns of social capital
Dalton, R. Citizen Politics. Dasgupta, P. Sergaldin eds. Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective. Washington, D. De Graaf, N. De Graaf, and G. Kraaykamp Foley, M. Edwards Fukuyama, F. London: Hamish Hamilton. Granovetter, M. Hall, P. Jacobs, J. Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Keefer A Cross-Country Investigation. Kohut, A. Washington: Pew Center for the People and the Press. Ladd, E. The Ladd Report. New York: Free Press. Newton, K. Norris ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Norris, P. Democratic Phoenix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Onyx, J. Bullen Dekker and E. Uslaner eds. London: Routledge. Ostrom, E. Putnam, R. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rose, R. A Survey Study of Russians.
Skocpol, Th. In Th. Skocpol and M. Fiorina eds. Stolle, D.
Hooghe Micheletti, A. Stolle eds.
- Account Options.
- Account Options.
- Generating Social Capital: Civil Society and Institutions in Comparative Perspective.
- John Schreiners Okanagan Wine Tour Guide (5th Edition).
New Jersey: Transaction Press. Tarrow, S. Uslaner, E. New York: Cambridge University Press. Verba, S. Nie New York: Harper and Row. Nie and J. Kim Participation and Political Equality. Schlozman and H. Brady Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilson, W. The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Yamagishi, T. Yamagishi If so, what are the sources of this unfortunate development and what are the consequences?
Why can citizens in some regions or villages join together and solve their collective action problems while others cannot? These questions have been prompted in large part by the growing conviction that the answers are crucial both to political stability and to economic development. In the s, scholarly studies and polemical essays attempted to answer these difficult questions, drawing attention to resources that derive from the society itself, namely social capital.
While many dimensions of the concept of social capital are far from new, major sociological and political science contributions in the late s and early s Coleman , ; Putnam , have pro- voked new research and much debate over the last decade. Scholars have been increasingly concerned with this key social resource that seems to oil the wheels of the market economy and democratic poli- tics. The existence and maintenance of social trust and networks in communities seems to lower the amount of drug use, criminal activ- ity, teenage pregnancies and delinquency; to increase the success of schools and their pupils; to enhance economic development; and to make government more effective Fukuyama ; Granovetter ; Hagan, Merkens and Boehnke ; Jencks and Peterson ; Kawachi et al.
In short, social capital is conceptualized as a societal resource that links citizens to each other and enables them to pursue their common objectives more effectively. As such, it has proved influential as a means of countering the strong emphasis on the atomized indi- vidual that was so characteristic of politics and economics during the s in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Robert D. Putnam struck a sensitive nerve when he applied his argument to the United States and argued in Bowling Alone a, that social capital has been in steady decline over the last four decades. His description of falling membership in voluntary associa- tions, declining volunteerism, political apathy and rising political and social distrust seemed to confirm the civic disarray that people had experienced in recent decades in the West. These formal and informal social interac- tions contribute to the emergence of societal norms and generalized values, even though not all types of interactions are equally produc- tive of these traits.
The role of political institutions has only recently been introduced into the discussion about the sources of generalized values such as trust and reciprocity. The remainder of this chapter assesses the current state of research on the sources of attitudinal aspects of social capital, more than half a decade after the revival of the social capital debate.
This is the most under-researched area in social capital studies, supporting only a few hypotheses, all of which need more development and empirical testing. The question is, of course, which contemporary factors influence social capital forma- tion. There is some disagreement between those who view the source of social capital as residing mainly in the realm of civil society, cen- tered chiefly on groups of voluntary associations and largely discon- nected from the state and political institutions, and those who argue that for social capital to flourish it needs to be embedded in and linked to formal political institutions Berman ; Foley and Edwards ; Levi ; Skocpol ; Tarrow According to the latter group of scholars, social capital does not exist independ- ently in the realm of civil society: Governments, public policies, soci- etal cleavages, economic conditions and political institutions channel and influence social capital such that it becomes either a beneficial or detrimental resource for democracy.
In this account, the capacity of citizens to develop cooperative ties is also determined by the effects of state policy. This point of view would imply that institutional engineering might indeed be used to foster social capital. In an attempt to bridge these camps, Putnam has recently argued that in the U. The debate about whether and how social capital can be intentionally developed is crucial for low social capital areas attempting to restore or facilitate this resource Petro Special attention has been devoted to the potential of the state to erode and destroy social capital.
Although this debate has been going for some years, it is mostly based on normative and ideological assumptions, and several ques- tions remain unresolved due to a lack of thorough empirical research. Are all associations alike in their democratizing effects, and what aspects of group life are particularly beneficial for generating norms of reciprocity and trust?
At the same time, following the institution-centered approach, we do not really know which aspects of government and which characteristics of polit- ical institutions might be particularly beneficial in fostering trust, related cooperative values and social participation. In the remainder of this chapter, we investigate these current debates in detail.
Putnam, for example, traces social capital to medieval Italy, explaining how, in the south, Norman mercenaries built a powerful feudal monarchy with hierarchical struc- tures, whereas in the north communal republics based on horizontal relationships fostered mutual assistance and economic cooperation.
Civil Society and Local Development
In addition, he points out that the civic regions were not wealthier in the first place. The implications of this view have left many social scientists and pol- icy makers dissatisfied: If the amount of social capital in a society is so strongly path dependent, then there would seem to be few policy options available to stimulate the development of social capital. It is more likely that governments, and particularly oppressive regimes, can damage and destroy social capital, as the examples of the Norman kingdom in southern Italy and of several authoritarian and totalitar- ian regimes in southern and eastern Europe show.
The most pes- simistic view would be that societies that are low on social capital are simply stuck in a quagmire of distrust, and there seems to be little that can be done about it. However, in his later work Putnam makes clear that we need to make a distinction between short-term and long-term institutional influences on social capital. It might be true that gener- alized trust as well as forms and density of social interactions are shaped through historical forces, but present-day social and political institutions and local, regional and national governments are also able to make an impact.
We will review two main debates and resulting research on societal factors, mostly voluntary associations, and on other institutional factors, mainly governmental, below. The Role of Voluntary Associations Most accounts of social capital rely predominantly on the importance of social interactions and voluntary associations in the manner originally suggested by Tocqueville. The most important mechanism for the generation of norms of reciprocity and trust is identified as regular social interaction Putnam , a.
Similarly horizontal voluntary associations are thought to have influ- enced the cooperative spirit of Northern Italians. The claim is that in areas with stronger, dense, horizontal, and more cross-cutting networks, there is a spillover from membership in organizations to the cooperative values and norms that citizens develop. In areas where networks with such characteristics do not develop, there are fewer opportunities to learn civic virtues and dem- ocratic attitudes, resulting in a lack of trust.
In this account, social capital is seen as important because it benefits the functioning of democratic institutions. So far the social capital school has mainly used membership in voluntary associations or other types of networks as the indicator of social capital, assuming that such groups and associations function as a school of democracy, in which cooperative values and trust are easily socialized. In other words, we do not truly know whether voluntary associations act in this way, or, if so, how.
In addition, we also do not know much about other aspects of social interactions that are sufficient and necessary for the institution- alization of cooperative values and generalized trust. The problem is that there is no microtheory of social capital that explicitly states which aspects of social interactions matter for the creation of gener- alized trust and norms of reciprocity.
So, while the microrelationship between membership in voluntary associations, on the one hand, and trust and attitudes of cooperation, on the other, underlies contempo- rary theories of social capital, the efficacy of voluntary associations in creating trust and reciprocity has so far only been assumed in the literature and has not been empirically tested or explored. The reason for this lacuna in social capital research so far has been that very few data sets actually combine these indicators of social capital, trust and cooperation with measures of the structure of indi- vidual associations or interactions, the content of their work and the degree of social contact that exists.
Some exceptions are the Belgian national survey Hooghe and the time budget study in the Netherlands Dekker and De Hart However, even the use of national-level survey data with more detailed associational indicators does not give much insight into the associational life of specific groups; hence, group-level characteristics as causes of social capital production cannot be directly identified.
As a result, we do not know whether trust and cooperative attitudes increase linearly with the length of time spent in any type of associa- tion or other social interaction, or whether they are a function of a particular type of involvement or a special type of group. Most empirical studies on the effect of voluntary associations showed that members of organizations and associations exhibit more democratic and civic attitudes as well as more active forms of political participa- tion than nonmembers. Others have noticed that the number and type of associations to which peo- ple belong, and the extent of their activity within the organization, are related to political activity and involvement Rogers, Bultena and Barb In later research, Verba and his colleagues found that members of voluntary associations learn self-respect, group identity and public skills Verba, Schlozman and Brady ; Dekker, Koopmans and van den Broek ; Moyser and Parry To these findings, the social capital school adds the insight that membership in associations should also facilitate the learning of coop- erative attitudes and behavior, including reciprocity.
In particular, membership in voluntary associations should increase face-to-face interactions between people and create a setting for the development of trust. This in-group trust can be utilized to achieve group purposes more efficiently and more easily. In this way, the operation of volun- tary groups and associations contributes to the building of a society in which cooperation between all people for all sorts of purposes— not just within the groups themselves—is facilitated for empirical evidence regarding this relationship, see Almond and Verba ; Brehm and Rahn ; Hooghe and Derks ; Hooghe ; Seligson ; Stolle and Rochon , This is a classic problem of endogeneity.
People who trust more might be more easily drawn to membership in associations, whereas people who trust less might not join in the first place. Ideally one would track association members over time in order to filter out the separate influence of group membership on trust, con- trolling for self-selection effects. However, such longitudinal data are rarely available and are time-consuming and costly to collect. Another strategy is to compare those who are more active with those who are less engaged in associational life.
In order to gain better insights into the relationship between self-selection and membership effects, Stolle collected a data set sampling nonmembers and members in var- ious associations in three countries—Germany, Sweden and the United States—and carried out two comparisons, namely between nonmembers and members, and between those who had just joined and those who participated for longer periods.
The finding is that membership does indeed influence trust toward the other group members and personal engagement within the group, but with regard to generalized trust, the self-selection effects were more pronounced than the membership effects Stolle a,b. This essentially means that people with higher levels of trust indeed self-select into associa- tions. In other words, the strong emphasis placed by society-based accounts of social capital on traditional voluntary associations as the producers of generalized trust might not be warranted.
Some associations might have special characteristics that give rise to generalized trust. The reason this question arises is again that we do not have a microtheory that explains which aspects of associational life or other social interactions are important for learning generalized attitudes. We need to go one step further and look at the causal mechanisms behind this relationship and examine how the membership in associations or other types of social interaction might be able to influence generalized trust, if at all.
Several important hypotheses have been developed in social capital theory about specific group characteristics that might be responsible for the development of generalized values in voluntary associations. Second, the group experiences might be even more pronounced in their impact when the members of the group are diverse and from different backgrounds. Third, mem- berships in hierarchical associations, such as the Catholic Church in southern Italy, which do not create mutuality and equality of participation, do not have the same effect as memberships in social capital—rich groups Putnam a.
The reason is that relationships within vertical networks, because of their asymmetry, are not able to create experiences of mutuality and reciprocity to the same extent as relationships in horizontal networks. So far, none of these hypotheses has been successfully confirmed by empirical research at the microlevel. However, some of the chapters that follow will specifically take these hypotheses up e.
The view that associations might be good schools of democracy because they bring together people from various social backgrounds has generally been contested. If diversity matters for the socialization of cooperative values, then voluntary associations might not be the place to look, as such groups have been found to be relatively homogeneous in character Mutz and Mondak ; Popielarz There is some evidence that suggests that bridging interactions in the neighborhood context might have beneficial effects on the formation of generalized trust.
Political discussions with partners who hold opposing viewpoints also have been found to influence political tolerance Mutz Interestingly, at the collective or macrolevel, we find several theo- retical models but only mixed empirical evidence supporting the idea of the importance of associations and social interactions for fostering civic values and attitudes and most importantly for overcoming collec- tive action dilemmas. Here, the most developed literature examines social movements. Furthermore, van der Meer finds that in regions with higher associational density, citizens who are not even involved in associations have developed more trust in others and in political institutions this volume.
However, the relationship between regional membership density and generalized trust is not confirmed across settings Stolle forthcoming. Finally, the doubts regarding the obsessive focus on formal mem- berships and organizations have been echoed by scholars who work on gender relations, who argue that the research on formal and infor- mal socializing is misguided because it looks in the wrong places.
The argument is made that true networks and forms of social engagement can be found in caring arrangements such as babysitting and other child-care circles Lowndes A typical example would be that young mothers in the suburbs jointly bring their children to and pick them up from school.
These kinds of arrangements are mostly informal and ad hoc, and therefore they usually are not registered in survey research on participation. Nevertheless, they are likely to contribute significantly to the maintenance of social cohesion and the advancement of qual- ity of life within these suburbs.
Katzenstein , for instance, develops the thesis that feminist activity does not necessarily translate into the formation of autonomous political organizations but can also express itself in feminist networks within larger institutions, like the military or the church. Political consumerism is another form of political engage- ment that can be cast in that light.
This means that they consider the market as an arena for politics and market actors as responsible for political and social development. Here it is particularly obvious that groups of the population that previously had not per- formed well on various scales of traditional participation, namely women and particularly housewives, are predominantly involved in this activity Micheletti, In short, the actual potential of various social interactions for trust and cooperation development remain insufficiently tested by both the social capital school and its critics.
The role of voluntary associa- tions as creators of social capital, particularly of generalized trust, is not yet established by empirical evidence. The fundamental problem is that we do not have an established microtheory of social capital to support a causal link and to guide further analysis on this issue.
Furthermore, there is considerable doubt that membership in volun- tary associations captures the whole range of civic activities that con- stitute social capital. The Role of the Family The family is another potential source for generalized attitudes, such as trust and norms of reciprocity. It is important to note that thus far the family has been largely left out of the discussion about social capital. It is doubtful that the family can be considered part of civil society, yet the extent to which child-raising practices can be considered sources of civic engagement and society-regarding atti- tudes in the form of generalized trust and reciprocity is an important issue.
The much-lamented decline in social capital has been discussed in direct relation to time budgets and the fact that women in partic- ular have less time available for organizing and associating whether this is a result of employment issues or unpaid work , yet there is also the possibility of the indirect effect that limited time budgets could have on child-raising practices.
Aspects of family life not only have potential explanatory power for the decline of social capital, but they are also useful in distinguishing differences among individuals in one country at one point in time and among individuals of various countries Hooghe For example, in-depth interviews revealed that family background is the most influ- ential determinant of the degree of trust developed by an individual Stolle ; Wuthnow In addition, the extent to which parents told the respondents in their childhood to be careful with strangers emerges as one of the strongest predictors for generalized trust Stolle b.
According to older research and more recent stud- ies, we may expect parents to influence the attitudes and norms of their children in three major ways. Second, parents teach their children how to judge others, and with whom to cooperate. Third, families function as actual arenas of learn- ing where children experience first-hand episodes of cooperation or defection Katz and Rotter It is probable that some of the national differences in trust levels can be traced to these differences in child-raising practices.
The importance of the family life for social capital raises the issue of who within the family is most responsible for the creation of the valuable resource. Watching out for children in the neighborhood has traditionally been associated with women, just as have the vast major- ity of child-raising concerns and the nature of values associated with raising children. The fact that the accumulation of social capital in voluntary associations and in families has depended disproportionately on women has gone mostly unnoticed in the social capital literature.
This last discussion leads to our next theme, namely the role of the state and institutions as sources of social capital. The Role of the State and Political Institutions The discussion about the role of the state and political institutions revolves around two main issues. First, there is a debate about the extent to which the state and state institutions exercise an independent influence on social capital, as opposed to the claim that social capital is purely a product of civil society.
Theda Skocpol, Ganz and Munson also argue that historically the development of voluntary asso- ciations as large umbrella organizations depended on state support. We will explore these issues in turn and consider whether incorporat- ing a gender perspective might recast them. To what extent do states have an independent effect on social capital? One state-related variable has been clearly identified as being related to social capital, namely democracy Almond and Verba ; Inglehart Even stronger is the relationship between social cap- ital as measured by generalized trust and the extent of political rights and civil liberties in a given country Sides Repressive governments disturb civic developments in two other major ways: First, they discourage spontaneous group activity, and second, they discourage trust Booth and Bayer Richard , Even though totalitarian governments, such as communist regimes, mobilize civil society through party and other governmental organizations, association is always state-controlled and often not voluntary.
Generally, authoritarian and totalitarian governments seem partially to build their strength on the foundation of distrust among their citizens. Sztompka elaborates some impor- tant aspects of the political system in Eastern Europe that might contribute to the strong development and persistence of mistrust in those societies, some of which will also point us to those aspects of institutions that are important for trust creation in democracies. The Central American and Eastern European experiences stand for examples of negative influences of governments, which can lead to the erosion of social capital.
Some social capital theorists generalize this notion to encompass the strength of government in general and fear that any form of government intervention is anathema to the healthy development of voluntary association and trust. However, the examples of over- powering regimes, such as communist regimes or the Norman king- dom in southern Italy, that caused a depletion of social capital also provide insights into how governments might be able to enhance and facilitate the development of generalized trust and civic activities in the course of transition to democracy, namely by highlighting the quality of monitoring institutions, the role of the political elite and the nature of the expectations that might be raised.
When singling out democracies, the fact is that even though they usually score higher on measures of generalized trust, there are still significant differences among them in their ability to generate civic capacity. This variance needs to be explained. In fact, in response to those who are doubtful about governmental capacities to influence social capital, we will see below and in later chapters that social capital is most developed in strong welfare states.
So, what are the aspects of democratic government that matter for social capital? One influence on generalized trust has to do with inequalities that prevail within the society Boix and Posner Differences in income distribution have been linked to the variance in welfare regimes, namely the differences between universalism and the means-testing in welfare states Korpi and Palme ; Rothstein and the tax and social security policies associated with them. For example, in Scandinavian countries, where we find rather low levels of income and gender inequality, trust levels are significantly higher than in France and the United States.
Also, temporal variations in trust levels strongly correlate with temporal variations in income equality in the United States Uslaner this volume. Voluntary organizations have grown in number in most countries during the s, a period of welfare state restructuring. However, in many countries, especially the United Kingdom, but also in Germany, it is those organizations that provide a service, usually under contract to a government department, that have increased in number the most.
Accordingly, it seems that state intervention enables those voluntary organizations to flourish that can be characterized more properly as part of civil society than as alternatives to govern- ment social welfare providers. Contrary to the doubts about the role of governments in social capital facilitation, Scandinavian welfare states exhibit the highest levels of social capital in the Western world.
As far as we know, gener- alized trust levels are the highest in Scandinavia and have been main- tained there even up to the present day, as opposed to the United States, where they strongly declined over the last decade Putnam This is also true for membership in voluntary associations of various kinds Rothstein Income equality, gender equality and the guarantee of relatively high material and personal security as well as high levels of socioeconomic resources are specific aspects of insti- tutionalized welfare states as opposed to residual welfare states.
Research has shown that at the individual level, the existence of these resources is positively related to social capital, particularly social participation and trust Verba, Nie and Kim Again, the Scandinavian countries have taken the lead in legislation that recognizes unpaid care work by making both cash in the form of parental leaves and child-care services available. States, for example, enable the estab- lishment of contracts in that they provide information and monitor legislation, and enforce rights and rules that sanction lawbreakers, pro- tect minorities and actively support the integration and participation of citizens Levi , 85ff.
From a gender perspective, the empha- sis is placed on the extensiveness of public policies in Scandinavia that are explicitly directed at women and the resulting trust women develop for such state institutions and policies Svallfors Thus political and institutional trust enables women also to trust other citi- zens more extensively. These differences in government and state capacity to monitor free-riding, to punish defection and to direct a relatively impartial and fair bureaucracy have not been examined thoroughly in an empirical and comparative way; however, they provide a plausible explanation for national differences in social capital levels, and also for differences among various types of democracies.
Again, those aspects of social provision that determine the quality and inclusiveness of service delivery and the fairness of political institutions can cause differences in institutional trust and attitudes toward politicians, which in turn influence generalized trust. The reason for this, as Stolle argues in a study of three Swedish regions, is that citizens who are disappointed with their politicians and bureaucrats and who have experienced the effects of their dishonesty, institutional unfairness and unrespon- siveness transfer these experiences and views to people in general although not to people they know personally.
Similarly, good expe- riences with government and fair political and social institutions can be generalized to other people who are not personally known Stolle, forthcoming. However, the question remains as to precisely how these experiences are generalized to the public at large, and how insti- tutional experiences are transmitted and socialized.
Possibly parents play a role in transmitting their institutional experiences to their chil- dren. Parents report to their children their experiences of fairness with the police, the judicial system or the political system in general, which in turn influences how children think about political institutions and about other people.
In social science, the concept of social capital is currently receiving considerable academic attention, and rightly so, because it has been shown to play a consid- erable role in our political and social lives. Furthermore, the concept of social capital allows us to focus on specific aspects of political culture and to use political culture as an explanatory variable in cross-national settings.
We have shown here that the importance of voluntary associations as the center and main measure of social capital has been called into question. Second and moreover, we have also suggested that the assumption of most social capital theorists as to the efficacy of volun- tary associations in producing generalized norms and values such as trust should be taken with caution at best. There is no strong empiri- cal evidence to confirm the microrelationship between membership and trust. However, the chapters below will give us additional insights.
It might be necessary to examine other types of social interactions in their potential to facilitate civic attitudes and behaviors. However, the broadening of the social capital concept to include various types of social interaction might constitute a conceptual problem as it becomes fuzzier and its relationship to democracy less obvious. The social and political consequences of various types of social interaction are not very well researched yet and remain on the agenda for future work. Third, most accounts of social capital theory focus on stability and path dependency in the realm of civil society, though this essay showed that it is the institutional analysis of social capital that enables us to see the importance of contemporary factors.
In a cross-national perspective, the overpowering difference is not between joiners and nonjoiners or long-term joiners and short-term joiners, but among members of different nations and regions. There are features of political and social institutions in some countries and regions that make a more positive contribution to the development of civic values and attitudes.
It is clear that the spread of generalized trust, and norms of reciprocity and social participation are complex phenomena and cannot be explained by one factor alone. Countries with highly developed institutionalized welfare states are also those with the highest levels of social capital in a cross-national comparison.
We suggest here that the link between welfare states and social capital should be specified more fully. The second part of this volume takes up these themes in fuller discussions. Fourth, the role of the family in social capital creation has been mostly left untouched even though preliminary evidence suggests that the family plays an important role in influencing generalized and cooperative attitudes and possibly even societal engagement. These differences in child- rearing practices possibly vary by country and region and certainly warrant further research.
Finally, whereas the concept of social capital has traditionally been located in the realm of civil society, our analysis here has shown that it is rather deeply embedded in the triangular relationship among the state, the family and civil society. The important aspects of civil society that have been highlighted by the rise of the social capital concept, such as generalized trust, social interactions, civic engagement, cooperation, tolerance, are all closely related and not separated from state institutions and family life. Only in connection with civil society, the nature of the state and the family is it possible to identify the various sources of social capital.
The task is to examine more systematically which aspects of civic, familial, as well as social and political institutions create and possibly maintain low or high regional and national levels of social capital and to understand the gendered variations within this complex matrix. Notes 1. Generally, his work, even though highly praised, has been criticized for being too negative and too focused on society as opposed to state and political institutions and circular see critiques in Berman ; Foley and Edwards ; Jackman and Miller ; Ladd ; Levi ; Portes ; Skocpol ; Tarrow Lecture 3 Who is Included?
Blomkvist, H. Part II: Decline or Not? Lecture 4 Is there a Decline in Social Capital? Putnam, Robert "Conclusion" in Putnam, Robert ed. Dalton , Russel J. Hall, P. Lecture 5 Critiques on Several Grounds? Readings : Ladd, C. Recommended reading: Stolle, D. Putnam, R. Hooghe, M. Rothstein, Bo. Inglehart, R. Y: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. Hart, de J. Harris, Frederick C.