Project Topics
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Theory and Concepts
In this part related studies from different fields that are associated to the paper’s idea will be appraised.
Social Capital
“Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain ac-tions of actors whether persons or corporate actors within the structure”. (Coleman 1988, p. s98)
Although the term “social capital” could seem fairly recent, its history dates far back to the beginning of the 20 th century. Hanifan (1916) introduced the term in his article in 1916, claiming that it was needed to invest in intangible assets such as, associations, neighbor-hoods, and rural schools where people’s personal investment was sought to be put into so-ciety. The term is widely argued and disputed, and a large number of models can be found. Figure 2, is divided into 3 different stages, “inequality”, “capitalization” and “effects”.
Inequality
The first section of the model, Lin (2001) highlights inequality as a critical issue. Social cap-ital is dispensed unevenly across networks and populations, where one person or network might be favored compared to another. Therefore, as a starting point, potential resources of capital could differentiate drastically depending on who is favored. The two processes “capital deficit“ and “return deficit” clarify capital inequality. Capital deficit is the difference of investments put into capital, e.g. parents might invest differently in human or social capital between their children. A daughter might have less opportunity to socialize in different networks compared to a son, yet better chances in receiving good grades since she stays home studying. She would have lower investment in social capital than her brother, yet higher in human capital. Return deficit are the effects from the investments in capital deficit, e.g. a person that has invested in social capital has higher chances in collecting returns from his or her social capital (Lin, 2001).
Figure 3 describes how a social network might have an advantage if members with high structural positions give the network extensity and “upper reach ability” (Lin, 2001). The larg-er the social network, the better the chance of upper reach ability, which causes more deci-sion power.
Lin (2001) claims that “trust”, which is a natural effect from bonding is included in collec-tive assets, as well as “norm” which is the standard for e.g. proper behavior of the network. Fukuyama (1995) associated social capital and trust. Knack (2002) measured the social capi-tal with general trust and complex norms in civil cooperation, linking social capital to gov-ernment performance in the USA.
Paxton (1999) theorized social capital to be measured in two ways. One way is measuring helpfulness, trust and fairness between people. Another way is measuring indicators of reli-gion, education and government between persons and societies. Lin (2001) highlights that the outcomes in capital terms are considered “political”, “social” and “economic return”. Political return means advancement in hierarchy in a cooperative. Social return mostly considers reputation and what level of social credit someone is worth. Economic return is measured in factors such as wealth, earnings and assets.
Capitalization
According to Bourdieu (1986) social capitalization, is where social networks create a form of capital by its ability to collect results from the network. The capital consists of intangible assets contained in interpersonal relations and social networks, as obligations, expectations, information channels, and social norms. Obligations and expectations can be conceived of as a “credit slip” that people can hold on to which can be used when necessary. Information channels provide information which is an important basis when creating capital, and social norms provide the criteria for rewarding or sanctioning individual actions.
In the capitalization process, Lin (2001) highlights “Accessibility” and “Mobilization” which represents the location and resources of the network, as well as the exercise of contact as-sets. He claims that generally three elements explain how social capitalization works. First,the stream of information access opportunities and choices easily, which would otherwise not be available. Need and demand can quickly be calculated, affecting production and consumption. E.g. producers know what the consumer want and the consumer gets what he wants. Thereby transition costs are reduced, because services that normally would cost money are for free because of the flow of information within the network.
Second, the influence of social ties have the possible effect to manipulate representatives in positions where important decisions take place, e.g. a recommendation can be of great im-portance in a decision process. A social network with many social ties, is considered to have high decision power, and is valued more than a network with fewer ties. Third, the social credentials of a network can be of great value to an individual. If the network is high-ly credited this could have a positive effect on the credentials for a person part in the net-work, and vice versa. A network could benefit greatly from having highly credited members (Lin, 2001).
Effects
There are two beneficiaries that collect profits from social capital; the “ individual” and the “network” (McKenzie, Weich & Whitley, 2002). An individual can benefit from the network in many ways. E.g. a member’s reputation might mirror the network’s reputation, such as appearing sporty when being a member of a sport club, or seeming generous if being member of a charity organization.
Another benefit an individual gain while being part of a network is the social relation itself to other people. A person could profit greatly by doing a favor for someone, while in the future get the favor returned from that person, and vice versa. An example when social capital is utilized is when a person borrows yard equipment from his neighbor in order to cut bushes and trees in his yard. Thanks to the lend, the person gets his yard trimmed without having to rent equipment. However, his payment will be a favor back to his neigh-bor. There are many variations of personal resources that are included in a social network, and the more diverse the network, the more variety in returns to its members. The re-sources in a network can in theory be borrowed by all members, in order to make a profit.
From the network’s point of view, the profit it makes is the valuable gain from its mem-bers. The research by McKenzie, Weich & Whitley (2002) find that the key quality of social capital is that it is owned by groups and not individuals. However, the biological environ-ments of social capital are assets of individuals built by, e.g. social trust, group effectiveness, contributions to charity, and social partaking. It could be monetary profits that are col-lected into the network itself, or size by the number of members, which might be impor-tant for the network’s influence. Reputation is also a valuable asset for a social network. If the network has lots of members, reputation might improve, enforcing decision power.
Knowledge and Education
According to Lin (2001), effects from social capital are “instrumental” and “expressive”. In-strumental effects create returns, categorized as reputation, power and wealth. Reputation or status attainments are important contribution factors to a person’s or network’s level of results. E.g. a person with high status attainment might be favored compared to someone with low status attainment. Human capital plays a crucial role in reputation and status at-tainment, since knowledge, abilities and skills adds value to a transaction. For instance, it requires more than good contacts to be successful lawyer. Many years of education, skill and experience matter too. The level of human capital, combined with social capital, influence reputation and status attainment, which reflects on power and wealth. E.g. if having the knowhow to be a skillful lawyer, combined with good social capital, recommendations to important cases might be offered, enabling great opportunity and decision power, which could lead to large monetary profits.
However, social capital also plays a crucial role to human capital. Knowledge and education set the foundation for instrumental effects such as reputation, power and wealth (Lin, 2001). Collier (1998) believes that social capital consists of knowledge that is integrated in the network itself, and communicated between members in the network. Communication and circulation of general knowledge increase trust between people, decrease transition costs, but also strengthen the ability for people to act when needed to.
De Clerq and Arenius’ (2003) research found a connection between social capital, and new venture due to general knowledge channels. Their findings suggested that communicating with entrepreneurs in the network (knowledge -based argument), creates role models (social learn-ing argument), that leads to better knowledge of oneself (self-efficiency argument), to become an entrepreneur. “In short, our research suggests that having contacts with knowledgeable others may func-tion as a learning mechanism, and enable individuals’ awareness to make a step towards an entrepreneurial career” (De Clerq & Arenius, 2003, pg. 9)
When combining a person’s social capital with education, in terms of a student’s success in school, Coleman (1988) claims important factors are expectations by parents, duties, and the social network that is present a school, in communities and families. The difference whether children succeed in school or not, could be credited to parents’ beliefs and respon-sibilities to educate their children. The networks are also responsible in terms of relation-ship between families and schools. The climate at school in terms of obedience, control, education, ethical and cultural standards is also important factors.
Coleman and Hoffer’s (1987) research between 1980 and 1987, on the effects from social capital, catholic schools had a much lower failure level than public schools in the same re-gions. According to the authors, the social network within the catholic community had stronger impact on its children to perform better at school, thanks to firmer obedience and control, as well as cultural standard. Coleman (1988) argues that aspects such as education standards and responsibilities from family and society are vital, and a determinant of the achievement in school. Scholars such as Putnam (2001), Bourdieu (1982, 1986) and Cole-man (1990), advice that social capital help to generate human capital.
Lin (2001) claims that since social capital is a supply of favors from other actors, human capital will follow the path of social capital, as shown in Figure 4. Rosling (2006) points out that social change comes before economic change in developing countries, e.g. Vietnam’s shift from communist planning to market economy. Once the country shifted politics, so-cial change occurred, and economic growth increased.
Lin (2001) also highlights that there should be expansion of leaders that will influence oth-ers in future generations; “ human capital is resources in possession of the actor who can make decisions (exercise authority) about their usage and disposition. It is accumulated by actions taken by the actor and members of his or her primordial group. Each action generates a given amount of additional resources. Therefore, there is a tendency to expand the primordial group (e.g. the extended family) so that the genera-tion and accumulation of resources can accelerate” (Lin, 2001, pg. 134).
Tolerance and Creativity
According to Lin (2001), Putnam (2001), Florida (2002), Coleman (1990) bridges between networks are necessary in order to provide good social capital. Cultural acceptance and gender equality are characteristics of tolerance, enforcing peace and prosperity, all effects from good social capital. Putnam (2001) highlights that volunteer social work, strengthens citizenship, and that if programs are customized and design properly, they will create citi-zen knowledge, social responsibility and self respect. The effects will be increased accep-tance and cooperation in between cultures and races, which will decrease racism.
Kilby (2002) claims that literature concerning social capital rarely discusses gender, as Gershman (2000) and Molinas (1998) conclude that ethnic proportions are not recognized enough in literature concerning social capital. Norton (2001) argues that social capital is “gender-blind” and does not pay sufficient attention to differences in households, regarding authority and control. Silvey and Elmhirst (2003) point out that the wider gender differenc-es are spread, the more difficulty it is for women to be included into influential networks, where trust and mutual exchange already exist for men.
Timberlake (2005) highlights that although an increased amount of women that share space with men at work, a man’s chances in career advancement and possibilities are still much favorable than a woman’s. Women lose out on career possibilities due to limited access of social capital compared men, resulting less commodity to sources and networks, where knowledge and resources nurture career progress.
Putnam (2001) claim that social networks have norms and principles, which can be used together for a common cause. A century ago social capital was established in between asso-ciations such as the women organizations, immigrant and ethnic societies. The cooperation succeeded in several campaigns against unjust labor conditions and gender unfairness.
Social capital can both contribute and oppose social engagement. The Social Capital Com-munity Benchmark Study, performed by Putnam (2001) has mapped social involvement developed in educational flourished areas. According to Florida (2002) cities such as Wash-ington, Houston and Los Angeles with large ethnic diversities, it is four to five times more likely that college graduates get involved in politics than other places.
Florida (2002) claim that tolerance motivates creativity and that social networks could have a negative effect on creativity, as networks might not be opened for everyone and outsiders are not let in. According to him “traditional communities with social capital” have high numbers of political engagement, yet low qualities in diversity, innovation and high technological de-velopment. “Organized societies” are older societies, dominated by traditional companies with average social capital and political engagement, and a lower level than average of diversity, innovation and high technological development.
“Nerd cities” which are fast growing cities with technological advancement have higher le-vels of diversity and innovation, yet lower social capital and political involvement.“Creative Centers” which consists of large urban communities, get high points of innovation and di-versity, average in social capital and political engagement.
Health and Life Satisfaction
Putnam (2001) believes that high social capital contributes to higher level of health, similar to Lin (2001) that claims that expressive returns are physical and mental health, as well as life satisfaction. According to Kawachi (2007) and Sampson (1997) studies show that crime, health and death can be linked to social capital, also relying on social trust and per-sonal income. Putnam (2001) argues that social networks increase good health, and accord-ing to an analysis by Cohen (1997) people with many different social ties gets less sick than others. Putnam (2001) claims that people who have had a stroke and were surrounded by strong networks, have better recover possibility, than the ones with weak networks. The analysis also provides results that elderly people which have joined a volunteer organiza-tions is considered healthier, than if the person had not. Putnam argues that the results conclude that elderly people decrease their chances by 50% to die within the next year, when joining an organization.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Background
2.1 International Aid
2.2 Sports Activities
2.3 Good vs. Bad Social Capital
3 Theory and Concepts
3.1 Social Capital
3.2 Knowledge and Education
3.3 Tolerance and Creativity
3.4 Health and Life Satisfaction
4 Hypotheses
5 Empirical Study
5.1 Research and Methods
5.2 Survey Results – Descriptive Analysis
5.3 Basic demographics
5.4 Dependent Variable
5.5 Explanatory Variables
5.6 Correlations
5.7 Regression Analysis
6 Discussion
6.1 Knowledge and Education
6.2 Tolerance and Creativity
6.3 Health and Life Satisfaction
7 Conclusion
References
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
Social Capital & Sport Activities The Care of Post War Belgrade
