In his famous bestselling book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000), renowned sociologist-cum-political scientist Robert D. Putnam extensively dwelt on the civic and social life of the American communities during the 20th century and the changing character of its society in terms of the 'social capital' concept. According to this Harvard professor (presently professor of public policy at Kennedy School of Government), the core idea of social capital theory is the high value of social networks, which affect the productivity of individuals and groups similar to physical and human capitals. Just as human capital refers to individual and group properties and physical capital to physical objects, social capital is linked to connections among individuals - the connectedness of social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that emanate from them.
The first known use of the concept of social capital was by the US educationist L J Hanifan. He invoked the concept of 'social capital' in 1916 while urging the importance of community involvement in successful schools. He referred to social capital as, "Those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit ... The individual is helpless socially, if left to himself. .... If he comes into contact with his neighbour, and then with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient for substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community". The community as a whole would benefit by the cooperation of all its parts, while the individual would garner the advantages of help, sympathy, and fellowship of neighbours through those associations.
Social capital may have both individual and collective aspects, in other words, it may have both public and private faces. However, it can also give rise to externalities that affect the larger community, so that not all the costs and benefits of social connections accrue to the person making the contact. For example, a well-connected individual is more productive in a well-connected society compared to when he lives in a poorly connected one. And even a poorly connected individual may derive some spillover benefits by living in a well-connected society. Prevention of crime and corruption can be a good example in this regard. Therefore, social capital can simultaneously be a 'public good' as well as a 'private good'.
Social connections are also important for the rules of conduct that they foster and help sustain. These networks encourage the norms of reciprocity among individuals: "I'll do this for you now, in the expectation that you (or perhaps someone else) will return the favour". Even more valuable is the norm of 'generalised reciprocity': "I'll do this for you without expecting anything specific in return from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something similar for me down the road". A society characterised by generalised reciprocity is bound to be more efficient than a distrustful society, for the same reason as money is more efficient compared to barter. Trustworthiness lubricates social life, and frequent interactions-cum-civic engagement among a diverse set of people in society tends to generate a norm of generalised reciprocity, which entails mutual obligation and responsibility for action. Thus social networks and norms of reciprocity usually engender and facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit. When economic and political dealings are embedded in dense networks of social interactions, incentives for opportunism and malfeasance are also reduced due to enhanced accountability-cum- transparency.
Among the dimensions of social capital, the most important is the distinction between 'bridging' (or inclusive) and 'bonding' (or exclusive) connectedness. Bonding refers to forms of social capital that are, by choice or necessity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groupings. Bonding social capital is good for specific reciprocity as well as for mobilising solidarity. For example, dense networks in ethnic enclaves provide vital social-cum-psychological support for less fortunate members of the community. In contrast, bridging networks are better for linkages to external assets and the diffusion of information. Moreover, it can nurture broader identities and reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital boosts the narrower selves of people. Many groups bond along some social dimensions and concurrently bridge across others.
In his fascinating study on the rise and fall of social capital in the United States during the 20th century, Robert Putnam has shown that social connectedness in the USA gradually rose up to the 1960s and then continuously declined (Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, 2000). The indicators he used were: (a) Average membership rates in 32 national chapter-based voluntary associations; (b) Active organisational involvement; (c) Club meeting attendance; (d) Mutual trust among adults and teenagers; and (e) Philanthropic generosity. He also correlated different indicators with high and low social capital states in the USA and showed that: (a) Schools worked better in high social capital states; (b) Kids were better off in high social capital states; (c) Kids watched less TV in high social capital states; (d) Violent crime was rarer in high social capital states; (e) States high in social capital were less pugnacious; (f) Health was better in high social capital states; (g) Tax evasion was low in states where social capital was high; (h) Social capital and tolerance went together; (i) Social capital and economic equality were positively correlated; and (j) Social capital and civic equality went together.
In his book Bowling Alone, Putnam advocates some highly relevant, interesting as well as innovative measures for reversing this trend of declining social capital or social connectedness in the USA within a span of 10 years (from 2000 to 2010). These are as follows:
1. Finding ways to ensure that by 2010, the level of civic engagement among Americans then coming of age in all parts of the society would match that of their grandparents when they were of the same age. At the same time, bridging social capital should be raised to a substantially greater level than it was during their grandparents' time;
2. Devising ways to ensure that by 2010, America's workplace would be substantially more family-friendly and community-congenial, so that workers are enabled to replenish their stocks of social capital both within and outside their workplace;
3. Finding ways to ensure that Americans would spend less time travelling and more time connecting with their neighbours than they were doing then; they should live in more integrated and pedestrian-friendly areas, and the design of their communities and the availability of public space should encourage more casual socialising with friends and neighbours;
4. A new, pluralistic, socially responsible 'great awakening' should be spurred, so that by 2010, Americans would be more deeply engaged than they were then in one or another spiritual community of meaning, while at the same time becoming more tolerant of the faiths and practices of other Americans;
5. Finding ways to ensure that by 2010, Americans would spend less leisure time sitting passively alone in front of glowing screens and more time in active connections with their fellow citizens; new forms of electronic entertainment and communication should be fostered that reinforce community engagement rather than forestall it;
6. Devising means to ensure that by 2010, significantly higher proportion of Americans would participate in cultural activities - from group dancing to songfests to community theatre to rap festivals; newer ways should be discovered for using the arts as a vehicle for convergence of diverse groups of fellow citizens;
7. Finding ways to ensure the participation of many more Americans in the public life of communities - running for offices, attending public meetings, serving on committees, campaigning in elections, and even voting.
It has not yet been evaluated how much of Putnam's recommendations were actually put into practice in the US society, or how effective his recommendations have been for enhancing social capital in the USA. However, as the principles of social capital are same or similar for all societies, these should also be given due consideration (similar to economic or environmental impact assessment) while formulating policies and programmes in developing countries like Bangladesh.
The writer is a senior civil servant and
former editor of Bangladesh Quarterly.
© 2024 - All Rights with The Financial Express
