Social Capital ,Civic Society
& Democracy
Making Democracies Work
2
Key issues
I.
What is Putnam’s theory of social
capital?
II. What is the evidence
In Italy?
In the US? Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol
European cases and worldwide patterns?
III. What are the implications for civic
engagement and development in new
democracies?
3
Review: core concept
What does "social capital" mean?
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"].
www.bettertogether.org
4
2.Evidence in United States?
Putnam’s Bowling Alone
Aggregate trends in declining
Social trust
Civic engagement
eg Voting turnout
Associational membership
eg Unions, PTA
Trust in government
Why? So what?
5
6
Declining social trust, US
.60
.50
.40
.30
.20
.10
0.00
1972
1975
1978
1983
1986
1988
1990
1993
1996
Note: Q. “Do you think that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” % agreeing
that ‘Most people can be trusted’
Source: US General Social Survey, 1974-2000
200
7
8
9
10
Putnam concludes:
“By virtually every conceivable
measure, social capital has eroded
steadily and sometimes dramatically
over the past two generations.”
Bowling Alone P.287.
11
Index of US social capital
Measures in each state
% who
Served on committee of local organization
Served as officer for club/organ last year
Civic & social organizations per 1000 pop
Attended club meetings last year
Turnout in presidential elections
Attended town meeting last year
Did volunteer work last year
Worked on community project last year
Spent ‘a lot of time’ visiting friends
Entertained at home last year
Agree ‘most people can be trusted’
Agree ‘Most people are honest’
12
Consequences
Education & children’s welfare
Safe and productive neighborhoods
Economic prosperity
Greater health and happiness
Better governance eg tax evasion
rates
Negative impacts? Tolerance?
Theda Skocpol:
Diminished democracy (2003)
13
Prior to 1960: mass membership associations
Cross-class membership, regular local meetings and national
headquarters (eg fraternal associations)
After 1960s- rise of professionally-managed advocacy
groups
Based on patrons, mass mailing, & specialized expertise for
lobbying, research and media projects
Causes?
Social trends (education, women’s roles, rise of professional
middle classes) and
Changes in the political opportunity structure
Consequences?
Loss of bridging groups, greater social inequality, less
leadership training, ‘doing-for’ not ‘doing with’, targeted
activation, fragmentation of the common good
Critiques of measures and
evidence?
15
Critique?
1. Measures dated and limited?
2. New forms of association
2.
Social movements eg anti-globalization
Internet communication & activism
1.
Race and gender
1.
Healthy, happy, safe societies generate stronger
social linkages?
1.
3. Old organizations exclusionary?
4. Nostalgic normative assumptions?
5. Problems of disentangling causality
6. Misdiagnosis of causes?
Explanation for any erosion?
17
Why decline in US civic engagement?
Decline of long ‘civic’ generation – interwar and postwar
Time pressure
Economic hard times
Residential mobility
Suburbanization
Movement of women into paid workforce
Disruption marriage/family
Changes in US economy
1960s inc. Vietnam/watergate/cultural revolt
Growth of welfare state
Civil rights revolution
Television & technology
18
Role of TV
TV to blame for post-civic generation
Why?
Time- displacement
Heavy TV watching may induce
passivity/malaise/mistrust
Effects on children
19
Critique: Does TV erode social capital?
Norris
Matters what you watch as much as
how much you watch it
Evidence American Citizen Participation
Study 1990
More hours of TV watching = less
participation (with controls)
But more hours of watching TV news and
current affairs = more participation
Chicken & egg problem of causal arrow
20
21
II:Putnam Ed. Democracies in
Flux
The evolution of social capital in
contemporary society
2002
Oxford University Press
Full text chapters available at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/
23
Democracies in Flux
Compares 8 OECD nations
US, Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden,
Australia, Japan
Similar trends (eg TV, work, leisure) in similar
societies?
Concludes:“Our investigation has
found no general and simultaneous
decline in social capital throughout
the industrial/postindustrial world
over the last generation.” p.410
24
Democracies in Flux
Conclusions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Expansion in educated middle class, rising
individualism, spread of mass entertainment common
in many industrialized societies
Yet major differences in civil society due to the role
of the state and corporatist traditions, and the
impact of wars
“Social capital is conditioned by political
developments as much as the reverse.” p.411
Some common trends – falling participation in
elections, parties, unions and churches..
Offset at least in part by general increases in
informal, fluid, personal forms of social
connection.”loose connections” eg sports and leisure
groups
25
Index of Social Capital
Data: World Values Study, mid-1990s
Measures of associational networks +
cultural norms
Associational membership
Voluntary organizations
eg Active, inactive or not a member of a union, party,
sports club, environmental organization etc.
Three alternative measures: Vol-any, vol-org, vol-act
Social trust
“Generally speaking would you say that most people
can be trusted or you can’t be too careful in dealing
with people?”
26
.7
Nor way
.6
Rich Social Capital
II.3 Evidence Worldwide
Sweden
China
.5
F inland
New Zealand
T aiwan
Japan
W Ger many
Austr alia
.4
USA
Switzer land
India
Mont enegro
Ukr aine
.3
S Korea
Spain
Ser bia
Czech
Slovakia
Lat via
Bulgaria Russia
Moldova
GeorEst
gia onia
Azerbaijan
.2
Bosnia Her ceg
Dominic Rep
E Germany
Croat ia
Uruguay
Bangladesh
Hungar y
Mexico
Chile
Romania
Argentina
Slovenia
Niger ia
Ghana
S Afr ica
Venezuela
Colombia
.1
Macedonia
Philippines
T ur key
Puert o Rico
Per u
Brazil
Poor Social Capital
0.0
9
10
11
12
13
Associational Activism
14
15
End
Next class: Global trends and
European cases