[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]
Social Capital as Participation






To: <civic-values@civic.net>
Subject: Social Capital as Participation
From: "Ed Schwartz" <edcivic@libertynet.org>
Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 13:26:44 -0400
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <199804292037.QAA21631@pobox.upenn.edu>
Weekends are a good time to focus on questions such as those raised
here by
Steve Johnson.
It seems to me that the concept of "social capital" relates to the
extent
that people participate in collective activities. One can distinguish
between social activities-Dr. Putnam's famous bowling leagues-and
political
activities-involvement in activist organizations and political parties.
But
each represents a form of active participation in the life of the
community.
De Tocqueville's classic discussion of voluntary associations does this
rather well. He first discusses the "use which the Americans make of
public
associations in civil life," referring specifically to "those
associations
that are formed in civil life without reference to political objects."
He
subsequently devotes a chapter to the "relationship between civil and
political associations," arguing that it is, in fact, democratic
politics
that give rise to *both* political and civil associations. "In
politics," he
observes, "men combine for great undertakings, and the muse they make
of the
principle of association in important affairs practically teaches them
that
it is their interest to help one another in those of less moment."
More recently, two political scientists-Sidney Verba and Norman Niedrew an
interesting disinction between various forms of participation in an
important study of participation that appeared in 1972, "Participation
in
America: Political Democracy and Social Equality," published by Harper
&
Row. . Their categories, as defined between pp. 100-102, were as
follows:
Inactives-45% of this group were people without high school diplomaswho
constituted only 28% of the country.
Voting Specialists-People who voted and did nothing else.
Parochial Participants-These are people who get involved to solve a
particular problem. Once it's solved, they withdraw.
Communalists-These are people who participate primarily in community
and
civic associations, but do not get involved in political parties. At
the
time of the study, this group was represented heavily in the suburbs
and
rural areas, but not cities.
Partisan Activists-These are people who participate primarily in
political
parties and elections, but do not get involved in civic and community
organizations. At the time of the study, this group was represented
heavily
cities where party organization still existed.
Complete Activists-These are people who get involved in just about
everything. At the time, they came mostly from the upper-middle class.
"The
degree of overrepresentation of those at the top of the status
hierarchy is
striking," the authors observe.
The basic conclusions of this study were-surprise, surprise-that high
status
groups were overrpresented, and low status groups were underrepresented
as
participants in the community and politics. But the categories
themselves
were quite useful then, and remain useful now, I think
The indices that I would eliminate from Steve Johnson's list are those
relating to the *satisfaction* that people may or may not feel with
government. I'm not sure how much social capital is generated by a
person
sitting in his or her own home delighted that the sanitation department
picks up the trash on time. In fact, various political scientists over
the
years have tried to attribute low voter turnout on broad satisfaction
with
the system---failing to explain why the lowest participation rates
occur
among groups with least reason to be satisfied. But this perverse use
of
satisfaction highlights its limits as a measure of social capital.
The primary indicators, again, relate to participation, and as Steve
Johnson's list suggests, there are a number of these available.
Ed Schwartz
-----Original Message----From:
civic-values-approval@civic.net
[mailto:civic-values-approval@civic.net] On Behalf Of Ed Schwartz
Sent:
Wednesday, April 29, 1998 3:37 PM
To:
civic-values@civic.net
Subject:
Research on Social Capital (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 10:00:45 -0800
>To: civic-values@civic.net
>From: steverj@teleport.com (Steve Johnson)
>Subject: Measuring Social Capital
>
>Hello,
>
>Writing from Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA, Steve
>Johnson, member of social capital research team:
>
>
>I am conducting research on methods for measuring social capital.
There
>must be others who have or are doing the same. The unit of analysis
scope
>here is to figure out how a municipality/urban area can measure its
present
>stock of social capital, and then how to measures upturns and
downturns as
>it implements programs over time. As with Putnam's work, our focus
here is
>on measuring social capital in the context of civic capacity.
>
>I have so far broken down the methods for measuring social capital
into
>several, distinct, but obviously overlapping, types.
>
>
>1. Bowling Alone model
>
>Using Putnam's way of measuring national trends in social capital,
>connectedness and trust, relying mostly on General Social Survey
questions.
>As a footnote here a PSU institute just recently published a short
atlas
>of maps measuring social capital, using some of Putnam's criteria (see
>below for list of the factors that were mapped)
>
>
>2. Citizen Participation: Relation of Government to Citizens
>
>The premise here is similar to Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Using
>measurements of levels of citizen participation, and two way channels
of
>communication between citizens and government, and ability of citizens
to
>effect government policy. Trust also might be measured, alone lines
of
>Putnam's method.
>
>The investment government makes in citizen-government relations would
also
>be important to measure. For example, in the Portland area the
invesment
>is in the range of $15-$20 million annually, based on budgets for
>participation, outreach, etc.
>
>
>3. Government Performance/Citizen Satisfaction
>
>With obvious similarities to #2, here the model would be variations on
city
>auditor reports, and citizen-led monitoring and assessments of
government
>performance, and satisfaction citizens feel about life in the
community, at
>least as far as it is affected by government programs.
>
>
>4. Community Asset Mapping
>
>The Kretzman/Mcknight model of building upon community assets. Here
the
>focus would be on inventorying what people think works in their
community,
>the strengths rather than deficits. This might not be a comparable
>assessment process, but might be used to map changes over time in
terms of
>what citizens feel works are or assets in their community.
>
>
>5. Program Intervention Evaluation
>
>Mostly these tools are used to asses individual, or sets of programs,
but
>the methods might be applicable to broader municipal social capital
>assessments.
>
>
>6. Civic Indexes
>
Generalized assessments of the health of communities such as
the
>National Civic League conducts. I have not point-by-point examined
these
>municipality competitions to compare and contrast measurable
qualities, but
>would assume the criteria overlaps with several of the aforementioned
>methods.
>
>
>Portland area civic capacity mapping:
>
>IMS Civic/social capital map
>
>Map 1: bowling centers, coffee shops, pubs, bars, barber shops,
beauty
>parlors, grocery and convenience stores, restaurants, tea houses
>
>Map 2: churches and other houses of worship
>
>Map 3: total number of civic places
>
>Map 4: dimensions of social capital, associations, houses of
worship,
>third places, small industries
>
>Map 5: small manufacturing establishments
>
>Map 6: total associations, clubs, organizations
>
>Map 7: index of social capital
>
>
>So, what does anyone think of this general breakdown? Others working
on
>this issue?
>



Prev by Date: civic-values-digest V1 #1374
Next by Date: Fwd: Adult Literacy Action: Calls needed to Senators
Index(es):
o Chronological
o Thread