Review of the Social Capital Literature - University of Queensland

cooperation. Social trust, as opposed to personal trust, arises from two relatedsources; norms of reciprocity and networks of civic engagement.Norms of reciprocity can be of two sorts. Balanced reciprocity involvessimultaneous exchanges and leaves no outstanding debt. Generalised reciprocityrefers to a continuing exchange relationship that at any point in time will beunbalanced, and consequently the relationship involves mutual expectations forfuture repayment. Putnam argues that it is the norm of generalised reciprocitythat is the highly productive component of social capital, and that it is most likelyto be associated with dense networks of social exchange.Networks of civic engagement are an essential form of social capital, and thedenser the networks, the greater the likelihood of cooperation for mutual benefit.Putnam notes the importance of kinship bonds but believes networks of civicengagement to be more so, as they instigate wider cooperation. One factor thathas been disputed is Putnam’s belief that networks built around horizontal linksform the key to social capital formation, and that ‘a vertical network, no matterhow dense and no matter how important to its participants, cannot sustain socialtrust and cooperation’ (Putnam 1993:174). This narrow definition of social capitalhas been contested by some subsequent theorists, who argue that vertical tiesalso form an important source of social capital (Woolcock 2000). Putnam’sdefinition is also distinct in that he regards it as developing over a long period oftime, hundreds of years in the case of Italy. This raises questions about theattempts to build social capital that have surfaced recently.2.4 Towards a Definition for GoodnaThe above definitions of social capital converge in several ways, and commoncomponents can be identified. Winter has argued that there are many overlapsbetween the definitions of Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam and that all ‘effectivelyrefer to the same processes’ (Winter 2000). Despite this, subsequent debate hasresulted in the development of countless alternative definitions, among whichconfusion is rife. There is a danger that some authors have failed to distinguishbetween what social capital is and what it does, the sources from theconsequences (Woolcock 1998), and as a result discussions of social capitaloften fail to refer to the same thing.Among these definitions however it has been argued that consensus is emerging,summarised as follows: ‘social capital refers to the norms and networks thatfacilitate collective action’ (Woolcock 2001). Other points of general agreementcan be found. Social capital is widely regarded as a resource that is productive(hence the applicability of ‘capital’). In addition to it’s role in facilitatingcooperation and action, social capital can act as a form of social control, forexample in the form of sanctions (Wall, Ferrazzi et al. 1998). The public goodaspect of social capital is also widely acknowledged, recognising that socialFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 6

capital belongs to no one individual but is an inherent feature of the socialstructure.Away from these few points of agreement however are major points ofcontention, reflected in the differing definitions and applications of the concept.These include:1. The appropriate level of analysisThis particular aspect is cause for division among current research onsocial capital. While Bourdieu and Coleman include analysis at the level ofthe individual Putnam broadens this to a regional level, a schism reflectedin subsequent thinking. Some talk of individual social capital while othersstrongly argue that social capital is a feature of the collective, which shouldtherefore be measured at the community level (Kawachi 1999), (Cox1997).For the purposes of Goodna, the idea of social capital as a communitylevel variable could be regarded as it’s distinctive feature, the valueadded.Rather than the idea of individual social capital, referring toindividual stocks of social capital, perhaps this can best be thought of interms of differential access that individuals have to the reserve ofcommunity social capital.2. Various forms of social capitalNumerous different forms of social capital have been identified, several ofwhich recur throughout the literature. These different forms can be thoughtof as being either cognitive or structural (Krishna and Shrader 2000).Cognitive forms include norms, values, attitudes and beliefs, whilestructural forms relate to networks, roles, rules and precedents (Krishnaand Shrader 2000). Both of these dimensions are important, and need tobe taken into account in any assessment of social capital in a community.There is variation in terms of what are regarded to be forms of socialcapital. There is also confusion as what may be called forms by one maybe referred to as components by another, despite the difference betweenthem.3. The differing dimensions of social capitalWhile widely accepted that networks are an integral form of social capital,debate exists over which type to include. Putnam strongly asserts that onlyhorizontal networks should be considered, yet subsequent theorisingincludes both horizontal and vertical, leading to the identification ofdifferent dimensions of social capital:February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 7

? Bridging social capital – consisting of strong ties within a horizontalnetwork, including family, close friends, neighbours, colleagues etc? Bonding social capital – weaker ties also, with individuals sharingsimilar economic and political position, but who differ in terms oflocation, occupation, or ethnic group.? Linking social capital – vertical ties with formal institutions andorganizations (Woolcock 2000).4. The role of trustTrust is regarded as central in most explanations of social capital, butopinion on its precise role differs. Some see trust as a form of socialcapital, others regard it as the ‘currency of social capital’ (Cox 1997), whileyet others see it as a component of social capital (Glaeser, Laibson et al.2000). This both reflects and adds to the confusion; any definition forGoodna must be clear in terms of the role of trust.While not wishing to become engulfed in the numerous debates, a cleardefinition is required for the Goodna project as measurement will be problematicwithout one. Some of the more common aspects coming out of the literaturecould be drawn upon to form a working definition. This should be debated as torelevance and importance, and the above points of contention considered, toensure an appropriate definition is developed for the Goodna context.3 Measuring social capitalAs social capital cannot be assessed directly, it has to be operationalised intoindicators. Indicators used to measure social capital depend on two things; thedefinition of social capital and the context within which measurement occurs.Once indicators have been identified they can be measured either by utilisingexisting, usually statistical data or by tools designed to generate primary data.The lack of a single clear definition has resulted in the development of a numberof indicators which ‘tap slightly different – but also substantially overlapping –characteristics of social relations at the community level’ (Lochner, Kawachi et al.1999). As a result, ‘measurement consists of unsystematic bits and pieces ofevidence from many sources using different definitions, and from studies usingdifferent macro-proxies’ (Paldam and Svendsen 1999).Generally speaking, the literature on measuring social capital falls into threecategories:1. Theoretical discussions concerning measurement, including attempts todevise measurement tools;February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 8

2. Empirical testing of measurement tools;3. Research into associations between social capital and other variables, inwhich measurement occurs as an integral part of the research but is notthe primary objective.This review focuses upon the variety of ways in which social capital has beenmeasured, regardless of the definition used. In particular, it looks at the empiricalattempts to measure social capital identified in categories 2 and 3 above. Someof the more common indicators are highlighted first, together with issues andcriticisms that have been raised in their regard, before looking at tools developedspecifically to measure social capital. 33.1 Indicators of Social CapitalIndicators identified by Coleman and Putnam have been widely drawn upon,Coleman’s initial interest was the role of social capital in the formation of humancapital, and his research focused upon the effect of lack of social capital onchildren dropping out of school. Social capital in this context was operationalisedusing the following indicators:? the parents’ presence in the home (two parents or a single parent)? the number of additional children present? the different combinations of parents and siblings? the mother’s expectation for a child’s education? the mobility of the family? church attendanceColeman’s use of the above indicators reflects his specific interest in the role offamily social capital. These micro-level indicators would need to be combinedwith other indicators, or the results aggregated to be of benefit at the communitylevel. This is perhaps one of the reasons that it is Putnam’s macro-levelmeasures that have been adopted in many cases. Putnam indicators included:? participation in voluntary associations (including amateur soccer clubs,choral societies, hiking clubs, bird-watching groups and literary circles)? newspaper readership? voting patterns – electoral turnout and preference voting (Putnam,Leonardi et al. 1993)Putnam’s measure of voluntary association has been used many timessubsequently, although criticisms have been levelled at it (see below).Subsequent alternative indicators have also been developed, as will be3The main indicators and measures of social capital are summarised in Appendix 1.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 9

highlighted in section 4, but many of these show an obvious debt to the work ofColeman or Putnam.3.1.1 Problems with Indicators and Their MeasurementMuch social capital research has relied upon existing statistical data sets, whichcan lead to a number of problems;? Data may not exist for certain indicators, leading to their omittance oronly partial measurement. One example of this is trust, widely regardedto be a central component of social capital. Trust has been measuredusing just one or two items from the General Social Survey, conductedin the US (see 3.2.3 below for details).? Existing data sets that have not been specifically designed to measuresocial capital indicators, and may not capture particular aspects.Coleman noted in his research that his results would have been moresatisfactory ‘if the research had been explicitly designed to examineeffects of social capital within the family’ (Coleman 1988), rather thanrelying on the ‘High School and Beyond’ dataset. However he believedthe results were still sufficient to indicate the importance of socialcapital, a belief that appears to have been adopted by subsequenttheorists who have also used existing datasets.Aside from measurement difficulties, the use of indicators has been criticisedin other ways;? Indicators focus upon quantitative measurement which means that thequality of relationships, key to building trust and obligations, tends tobe overlooked (Wall, Ferrazzi et al. 1998). This has led to thedevelopment of a number of alternative measurement tools, whichcombine quantitative and qualitative methods to capture alldimensions.? The final confusion that arises in connection with measuring socialcapital relates to the level at which it is measured. A widely regardeddistinctive feature of social capital is that it should be measured at thelevel of the community, the ecologic level.Additionally, a number of criticisms have been levelled at Putnam’s use ofmembership in voluntary associations, a measure has been frequently used inthe assessment of social capital (see for example Paldam and Svendsen 1999).Fukuyama (Fukuyama 1997) argues that this indicator, measured bymembership data, is flawed in that it only picks up membership in organisationsformal enough to maintain membership data. Many social groups and networksare informal and consequently their existence, and individuals’ participation inFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 10

them would not be acknowledged using Putnam’s method. Fukuyama alsohighlights other measurement problems associated with this indicator- The positive and negative externalities of group membership. Theformer refers to the fact that some groups build social capital withmembers outside their group, while others share this with only groupmembers, and sometimes not even with them. Members of largeorganisations are no more likely to cooperate with each other simplybecause they pay membership fees to the same body. Negativeexternalities refer to those groups that actively promote hatred andintolerance, and therefore share norms at odds with the rest of society.- Social capital has an important qualitative dimension that cannot bereflected in membership data, and it is necessary to know just howcohesive the group is, not just that it exists.In light of the above, there is much to be taken into account when identifyingindicators and data sources. Reliance upon statistical data may only provide aguide to the existence of social capital, without determining more qualitativeaspects. This has proved sufficient for a number of authors (see for exampleTeachman, Paasch et al. 1996, Sun 1999, Lichter, Gretchen et al. 1993, as itavoids primary research. However the validity of findings is likely to be less thanthose of an approach that attempts to measure both dimensions of social capital.These are outlined below.3.2 Social Capital Measurement ToolsAttempts to empirically measure social capital using specially-designed toolshave appeared recently. These tools, which usually take the format of aninterview or questionnaire, generate quantitative and/or qualitative dataspecifically designed at measuring social capital, and as a result may providemore reliable results.3.2.1 Measurement of Social Capital in New South WalesOnyx and Bullen (Onyx and Bullen 2000), (Onyx and Bullen 1997), (Bullen andOnyx 1998) identified potential items to measure what they consider to be thecore elements of social capital: participation in networks, reciprocity, trust, socialnorms, the commons (shared community resources) and social agency. Aquestionnaire designed to tap into each of the dimensions of social capital wasdeveloped, containing 68 potential social capital items. The final version includedseveral elements to tap each of the dimensions of attitudes (value of self);trust/perceived safety; participation in the local community; reciprocity; personalempowerment; diversity/openness; relations within the workplace; attitudes togovernment and demographic information.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 11

The questionnaire was administered to a sample of 1211 citizens living in urbanand rural NSW. While this was not representative in the strict sense of the term, itdid apparently represent a broad cross-section of adults living and working inNSW in 1997. Results showed that social capital is an empirical concept, which ispossible to measure in local communities. Analysis of data revealed a genericsocial capital factor that can be measured, as well as eight distinct elements thattogether appear to define social capital. These eight factors are communityparticipation, agency, trust, workplace, neighbours, tolerance, friends and valueof life, the first three of which are very strong. Further analysis suggests thatthere is some relationship between the separate factors, though this is strongerfor some factors rather than others.Their analysis also showed strong differences in the level and pattern ofresponses to social capital across different communities. In general, it appearsthat social capital is higher in rural compared with urban areas in relation tocertain factors, namely community, trust and connections; however, metropolitanareas scored higher in terms of agency and tolerance of diversity. Onyx believesthis pattern suggests that rural communities generate considerable bondingsocial capital, largely limited to insiders, while urban areas may show greatertolerance and individual initiative, suggesting weaker ties, or bridging socialcapital (Onyx and Bullen 2000). This difference between rural and urbancommunities has also been examined in relation to education, as outlined insection 4.1 below.3.2.2 Social Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT)Remarking upon the diversity of existing measurement tools, Krishna andShrader develop a methodological tool for the operationalisation of social capital,as a first step towards the development of a uniform measure of micro-levelsocial capital (Krishna and Shrader 2000). They make a useful distinctionbetween cognitive elements of social capital (values, norms, trust and beliefs)and structural elements (networks, rules, roles and precedents), both of whichcan facilitate voluntary cooperation. As this is the case, it is necessary to takeboth dimensions into account when designing a measurement tool. It is alsoimportant to have knowledge of the context under examination, to ensure a clearunderstanding of the separate norms and networks that exist.The SCAT is designed to measure micro -level social capital at the level ofcommunities and households. Favouring a combination of both quantitative andqualitative methods, the tool has three components, which can be appliedseparately, sequentially or simultaneously:1. The community profile – aims to identify features associated with socialcapital in the particular cultural and institutional setting, and integratesparticipatory qualitative methods with a community survey instrument. Itserves three main objectives:February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 12

? Familiarises researchers with the community? Open discussion with community members allows them to learn aboutthe activities of the research team? Generate preliminary sources of information on institutions andrelations within the community2. The household survey – contains 39 close-ended items relating to thestructural dimensions of social capital, and 21 close-ended items relatingto the cognitive dimensions. It’s primary objectives are? To generate quantified indicators of social capital, measuringhousehold stocks of and access to social capital? To aggregate these figures appropriately to generate community levelmeasures of social capital3. Organizational profile - aims to delineate the relationships and networksthat exist among formal and informal institutions, and integrates semistructuredinterview data with a scoring system for assessingorganizational capacity and sustainability.The SCAT was tested in Panama and India, and overall was found to be valuablefor? Assessing and scaling social capital? Identifying some local organizational capacitiesThe versatility of SCAT methods allows its adaptation to a wide variety ofresearch and development contexts. It is a comprehensive tool that, by utilising anumber of different methods, has the potential for effectiveness at the communitylevel. It’s comprehensiveness however, is likely to make any application of theSCAT a large-scale, and hence costly research exercise.3.2.3 Measurement of Social Capital Components - TrustWhile trust has been measured in a number of ways within the psychologicalliterature, more specific measures have also been developed to measure trust asa component of social capital. Trust has been defined in multiple ways, althoughwithin the social capital literature trust is more frequently used to refer to ageneralised trust among individuals or trust people have in institutions. A numberof general trust scales have been developed. These include the Trust Inventory(Couch, Adams et al. 1996), a 40-item questionnaire developed by drawing upona number of previous trust scales, which is designed to measure generalised,network and relational (or partner) trust. Another is the Interpersonal Mistrust-Trust Measure (IMTM) (Omodei and McLennan 2000), which measuresinterpersonal trust as a negative orientation against others, a tendency to viewFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 13

others as mean, selfish or unreliable. This measure consists of items describingperceptions of specific hypothetical interpersonal situations, rather than askingrespondents to describe their own general behaviour.Among the more specific social capital measures of trust a common approachhas been to utilise GSS survey data. Various studies have used data relating tothe questions in this survey relating to trust, in attempts to obtain a generalisedview of the general climate of trust in a community. The two items mostfrequently used are‘Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or that youcan’t be too careful in dealing with people?’‘Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got achance, or would they try to be fair?’Examples of research using this measure of trust include Kawachi, Kennedy etal. (1997) and Kennedy, Kawachi et al. (1998) (see section 4 below).Another specific attempt to measure trust as a component of social capital hasbeen to use an experimental method. Glaeser et al attempt to do this byconducting experiments with monetary awards in order to measure trust andtrustworthiness (Glaeser, Laibson et al. 2000).Survey questions were asked of a sample of Harvard undergraduates, coveringdemographic and behavioural questions, as well as attitudinal and self-reportedbehavioural measures of subjects’ trustfulness and trustworthiness. This wasfollowed by participation in two ‘trust’ games. The first experimental trust gameinvolves subjects working in pairs. The first subject is given the opportunity tosend their partner an amount of money between 0 and 15 dollars. This chosenamount is doubled by the experimenter, and given to the second player. Thesecond player may then return money back to the first player. Glaeser et albelieve that the amount sent by the sender is a na tural measure of trust, as thesender trusts the recipient to return a fair share of the amount sent. They alsobelieve that, controlling for the amount sent, the amount returned is a measure oftrustworthiness.In the second experimental game, subjects report valuations for a series of‘envelope drops’. Envelopes, containing $10 and addressed to the subjects, willbe dropped by the experimenters in different public places and under differentconditions. For each place and condition the subject reports a valuation. If a highvalue is placed on the dropped envelopes, the researchers inferred that thesubject was more likely to trust strangers to return the envelopes.The results showed that standard attitudinal survey questions about trust predicttrustworthy behaviour in the experiments much better than they predicted trustingFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 14

ehaviour. Trusting behaviour in the experiments is predicted by past trustingbehaviour outside of the experiments. Social connection strongly predictstrustworthiness and weakly predicts trust. It was also determined that high statusindividuals are able to elicit more trustworthiness in others. Glaeser suggests theexistence of ‘individual social capital’, a subcomponent of human capital thatreflects an ability to earn returns from social situations.3.2.4 Measurement of Social Capital Components – Well-beingAnother potential tool for the measurement of social capital, community socialauditing, is currently being developed by Eva Cox and colleagues (Cox 1998). Amanual will act as a guide for implementing social capital audits based oncommunity, and will involve looking at various components including trust,obligation, organisational norms and values and the effects of inequality onperceptions and attitudes. The identified items will be a mix of existing data,people's expressed attitudes, fears and anxieties, their actions and activities, withany other relevant observations or other ways of representing views. Includedwould be aspects of family and households as well as workplace, and publicspace activities and observations. The data collections would be framed withinthe traditions and rituals of the community. While further details are not yetavailable, it seems likely that this method could provide a feasible framework forassessing the state of social capital in Goodna.3.2.5 Implications for the Goodna ProjectThis section has highlighted some of the indicators and tools that have beenempirically tested in the measurement of social capital. The major differencerelates to the sources of data used. Indicators relying upon existing statisticaldata can yield results, but the validity and reliability of such results may bequestionable. Measurement tools designed to generate primary data can perhapsprovide a more holistic approach to social capital measurement, but theircomprehensive nature means that their undertaking is likely to be a large-scaleand costly enterprise. The review will now consider empirical attempts to assessthe associations between social capital and other variables relevant to theGoodna project.4. Social Capital and the Goodna outcomesThe above gives an indication of ways devised and indicators used to measuresocial capital, while many more have been devised during the course of empiricalresearch into the correlations between social capital and other variables. Ofrelevance here are those between social capital and education, health, housingpolicy, crime, community, family and work. It should be noted that much of thisempirical work has been conducted in North America, which may haveimplications for research in other contexts.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 15

4.1 Social Capital and EducationColeman regarded the effect of social capital on the creation of human capital inthe next generation as being especially important. Both family social capital andsocial capital in the community contribute to this process in different ways. Familysocial capital depends on the physical presence of parents in the family, and onthe attention they give to the child. Also important is the strength of relationsbetween the parent and the child. If strong relations are lacking, then socialcapital is missing. ‘If the human capital possessed by parents is notcomplemented by social capital embodied in family relations, it is irrelevant to thechild’s educational growth that the parent has a great deal, or a small amount ofhuman capital’ (Coleman 1988). Focusing on the effect a lack of social capitalwithin the family has upon dropping out of high school, Coleman uses a numberof indicators to measure family social capital (outlined in section 3 above).Results show that the lower the amount of family social capital, the higher thedropout rate from school, demonstrating that family social capital is a resource forchildren’s education.Social capital outside the family is also of value when looking at dropping out ofschool. This consists of ‘the social relationships that exist among parents, in theclosure exhibited by this structure of relations, and in the parents’ relations withthe institutions of the community’ (Coleman 1988: S113). Using the High Schooland Beyond dataset, Coleman argues that another indicator of social capital isthe distinction between public high schools, religiously based private high schoolsand non-religiously based private high schools. The religiously based private highschools are surrounded by a community based on religious organisation, and byfamilies that have ‘intergenerational closure based on a multiplex relation’. Usingfrequency of attendance at religious services as a measure of social capital,Coleman’s analysis demonstrated an extremely low dropout rate in Catholicprivate schools. This could not be attributed to the religion of students, or degreeof religious observance, as Catholic students in public schools are only slightlyless likely to drop out than non-Catholics (Coleman 1988: S114). The resultsprovide evidence of the importance of social capital outside the family, in theadult community of the school, for the lower dropout rates observed. Heconcludes that ‘both social capital in the family and social capital outside it, in theadult community surrounding the school, showed evidence of considerable valuein reducing the probability of dropping out of high school’ (Coleman 1988: S118-S119).After ColemanColeman’s work has been both criticised and developed, inspiring a range ofresearch looking at different variables. Much of this later research draws uponthe National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS), a nationally representativesurvey of 8 th graders initially conducted in 1988, with follow up surveys in 1990and 1992. Generally speaking results suggest that social capital is of potentialFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 16

importance, with findings suggesting correlations between higher levels of socialcapital and low levels of school drop-out, lower truancy rates and higher levels ofacademic achievement.4.1.1 Dropping Out of SchoolSeveral studies have added to the evidence on the correlation between highlevels of social capital and low drop-out rates. Teachman et al (1996), focusingupon family social capital, look at its effect on students who drop out between the8 th and 10 th grade. They use a number of detailed measures of social capital, andcriticise Coleman for reliance upon what they perceive to be relatively simplemeasures (Teachman, Paasch et al. 1996: 775). These include a range ofmeasures of family structure (series of questions concerning livingarrangements), attendance at a Catholic school, whether parents know theparents of children’s closest school friends, the number of times a child haschanged schools, parent-child interaction and parent-school interaction. Theresults showed that changing school was particularly detrimental in terms ofdropping out of school. Interpreting these results within a social capitalframework, Teachman et al assume that ‘changing schools reduces the ability ofparents and children to make wise decisions about schooling’ (Teachman,Paasch et al. 1996: 782). Teachers may be less committed to children who havemoved, and children may feel separated from the education process.In a later study, the same authors examine whether social capital interacts withthe human and financial capital possessed by parents to produce human capitalin children (Teachman, Paasch et al. 1997). Expanding on the measures usedpreviously, three indirect general measures of social capital are included; familystructure (for family social capital), attendance at a Catholic high school (tomeasure social capital resulting from ties with the large community, assumed tobe greater within a Catholic community), and the number of times the child haschanged schools (as this represents disruption in relations between parents,children and parents). Also included are more specific social capital measuresused previously, tapping schooling-related patterns of social relationships. Theseinclude a measure of whether parents know the parents of their child’s closestschool friends, and the intensity of schooling-related interaction between parentsand children and between parents and schools. Responses provided by studentsand parents provided data for these measures, from which five summary indexesfor parent-child interaction and parent-school interaction were produced. Thefindings indicate that both the general and more specific measures of socialcapital are related to dropping out of high school, and also that social capitalinteracts with the financial and human capital of parents to determine schoolcontinuation.A social capital framework has also been used to assess differences in drop outrates between urban and rural areas. Working directly with Coleman’sconceptualisation of family social capital, Lichter looks at whether differences inFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 17

ural/urban high school drop out rates can be explained by differences in familysocial capital (Lichter, Gretchen et al. 1993). Using data from the 1990 CurrentPopulation Survey, Lichter uses family structure as a component of social capital,and measures this using the indicators of current living arrangements, parentalstatus and household size. The findings suggest that poverty contributes more tothe higher dropout rates among rural youth than does residential location, andwhile family structure was also found to have an effect, it was less in rural areas,possible due to some 'compensating forms of social capital found in ruralcommunities.' Lack of parental human capital was also suggested to be a likelydownward pressure on rural children's school experiences.4.1.2 Academic AchievementIn addition to drop out rates, there has been interest in the effect of social capitalon academic achievement. Meier (Meier 1999) examines this influence on schoolachievement and the decision to remain in school or drop out. A specific focus iswhether social capital may cushion the negative effects of growing up with onlyone parent. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of AdolescentHealth, Meier distinguishes between forms of social capital and benefits fromsocial capital. The former is measured using family structure and residentialmobility, while the latter uses intergenerational closure, parent-child interaction,parent-school interaction, student-teacher relationship, and extracurricular activityparticipation. An alternative conceptualisation of social capital as parentalinvolvement is made by McNeal, in assessing the influence of social capital uponcognitive (achievement) and behavioural (truancy and dropping out) outcomes(McNeal 1999). Using NELS data, the research uses the following measures ofparental involvement: parent-child discussion (degree to which parents andchildren converse about education); parent involvement in the parent-teacherorganization (PTO); monitoring of behaviour; and educational support strategies(parental involvement with the educational process). Research findings indicatethat parental involvement is generally a salient factor in explaining behavioral butnot cognitive outcomes, with greatest support for parent-child discussion andinvolvement in parent-teacher organizations. Findings also indicate that thepositive influences of social capital often persisted only for members oftraditionally advantaged sectors of the population, namely more affluent andwhite students.Sun (1999) takes a community level approach in examining the contextual effectsof social capital on the academic performance of all students living in thecommunity. Drawing on the NELS data, Sun conceptualises community-basedsocial capital as being comprised of both a structural and a process component.Structural family social capital is measured using Coleman’s measures of numberof siblings, non-traditional family structure and the number of school changessince 1 st grade. Process social capital is measured by an aggregate of fourindividual-level measures of parent/student participation in community activitiesto the school level. These included the number of other parents known to the 8 thFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 18

grader’s parent; parents belonging to organizations with children’s’ friends’parents; students’ participation in nonschool-related sport and religious activitiesand parents’ report on whether parents in the school worked together to supportschool policies. Results of the analyses demonstrate that most measures ofcommunity social capital are consistently associated with performance, evenafter controlling for measures of family social capital & demographic factors.Further, the socioeconomic characteristics of a community & the processcomponent of community social capital explain a large portion of the associationsbetween community structure & academic performance. In summary, the studyhighlights the importance of community-based social capital in studying academicperformance.4.1.3 College AttendanceWorking with the hypothesis that access to greater amounts of social capital willmake a child more likely to attend college, family and community social capitalare analysed using data from the High School & Beyond Longitudinal Study(Smith, Beaulieu et al. 1995). Family social capital is measured in terms of familystructure and interaction, while community social capital is evaluated in terms ofinvolvement in community organisations such as churches and how many timesa family has moved. Results support the hypothesis, and measures of both familyand community social capital are significant predictors of the likelihood that achild would attend college.4.2 Social Capital and HealthWhile associations between social capital and education have been fairly wellresearched, other variables have received less attention. One such variable ishealth, where the concept of social capital has only recently been applied.Consequently the body of work in this area is small. In spite of the paucity ofempirical evidence, Kawachi argues that sound theoretical reasons exist thatsuggest social capital could enhance the health achievement of individuals andcommunities and identifies three ways in which this could occur (Kawachi 1999).At the neighbourhood level there are at least three ways in which social capitalcould affect individual health.1. By influencing health related behaviours of neighbourhood residents, andmaybe exerting social control over deviant health-related behaviour;2. Access to services and amenities, as appropriable social organizationscould be used to ensure access to health services;3. Psychological processes provide affective support and act as a source ofself-esteem and mutual respect (Kawachi and Berkman 2000).February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 19

At the state level greater social capital may lead to increasing politicalparticipation, and hence affect government policy and action (Kawachi 1999).Although there does appear to be sound theoretical evidence of the associationsbetween social capital and health, there has been little empirical researchundertaken to substantiate this theory. Kawachi et al have conducted what theybelieve to be the ‘first empirical demonstration of an association between socialcapital and mortality’ (Kawachi, Kennedy et al. 1997). Building upon otherresearch into the relations between income inequality and mortality rates, theyhypothesise that income inequality is related to reduction in social cohesion andthat disinvestment in social capital is in turn associated with increased mortality.Working with data from the US General Social Survey they aim to conduct astate-level comparison of variations in social capital, income inequality andmortality rates. Social capital is measured using weighted responses to two itemsfrom the survey. Level of civic engagement is measured by per capita number ofgroups and associations to which residents in each state belong (1997: 1492).Trust in others, the second component of social capital, was assessed byresponses to the two GSS survey items on trust and taking advantage (seesection 3.2.3 above). They found income inequality to be strongly correlated withboth per capita group membership and lack of social trust, while both social trustand group membership were associated with total mortality. A major finding ofthe study is that the size of the gap between the rich and the poor is powerfullyand negatively related to level of investment in social capital. They conclude thatthe data support the hypothesis that income inequality leads to increasedmortality via disinvestment in social capital.More recently Siahpus h and Singh (Siahpush and Singh 1999) have alsoconducted an empirical analysis into the relationship between social integrationand mortality. Conceptualising social integration as a component of social capital(Siahpush and Singh 1999: 571), they work upon the general hypothesis thatsocial integration leads to lower levels of mortality in Australia. Social integrationis measured by indicators such as; percentage of people living alone, divorcerate, unemployment rate, proportion of people who are discouraged job seekers,and unionisation rate. Drawing upon data from the Australian Bureau of Statisticsdatasets from 1990-1996 results show that higher levels of social integration, asmeasured by all indicators except unionisation, were associated with lowermortality rates. With unionisation, higher levels were associated with increasedmortality rates (Siahpush and Singh 1999: 571). The authors note that theirfindings relating to unionisation appear to contradict those of Kawachi (Kawachi,Kennedy et al. 1997), and suggest this is due to the fact that Kawachi included avariety of groups in their measurement of group membership. Siahpush andSingh suggest that in the light of their results, it may be unwise to put all groupstogether and assume group membership will always have a positive effect onhealth (Siahpush and Singh 1999: 575). 44 A potential problem in this study is the authors’ interchangeable use of social integration andsocial capitalFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 20

4.3 Social Capital and Housing Policy/Community DevelopmentLittle work has measured the impact of social capital on housing, and what littleexists tends to be placed within the community development literature. There ishowever increasing interest in this area, reflected in the 1988 publication of aspecial edition of Housing Policy Debate dedicated to social capital and housingpolicy. The quality of housing gains consideration by Saegert and Winkel, in theirassertion that social capital can be an effective component of locally sponsoredlow-income housing programs (Saegert and Winkel 1998). Social capital ismeasured at the level of the building, where it is seen to have greatest potentialfor effectiveness in improving housing quality and security. Their social capitalmeasure was based upon 14 items, eight of which inquired about residentinvolvement in the social and organizational functioning of the buildings, while theother six looked at residents’ assessments of the extensiveness of participation inbuilding activities by other residents. These were then hypothesised to describefour within-building social capital factors: basic tenant association participation,informal building organisation, leadership activity and perceived prosocial norms.Results showed that social capital was higher in tenant-owned co-ops andmediated the effect of ownership on building conditions. It was a more potentmediator in ownership forms that both nurtured and depended on social capital,these mainly being tenant ownership and to a lesser extent, community groupownership. Overall, the study showed that alternative forms of ownership thancontinuing city ownership resulted in better building quality and safety (although itwas noted that substantial public investment would still be required).Moving from housing quality to neighbourhood, Temkin and Rohe (Temkin andRohe 1998) consider the affect of social capital on neighbourhood stability. Usingdata taken largely from the Pittsburgh Neighbourhood Study (1990), they presenta model of neighbourhood change using two constitutive elements of socialcapital as explanatory variables, sociocultural milieu and institutionalinfrastructure. 5 Social milieu subsumes the concepts of social fabric and socialstructural characteristics of neighbourhoods. The construct included variablesdesigned to measure the following; the extent to which residents felt theirneighbourhood was spatially distinct, interaction with each other, whetherresidents work and socialise in the neighbourhood, and whether they useneighbourhood facilities. Institutional infrastructure measures the level and qualityof formal organisations in the neighbourhood, and these variables measure thelevel of voting activity, and the visibility and perceived effectiveness ofneighbourhood organisations. Following initial analysis the statistically significantcompone nts, measuring political activity, neighbourhood loyalty and attachment,and whether the neighbourhood is a good place to live were summed to form themeasure of social capital. The results showed that the two constitutive elementsof social capital had positive and significant effects upon the measure ofneighbourhood stability, suggesting that neighbourhoods with higher levels ofsocial capital (as measured by greater degrees of a sociocultural milieu and5Analagous to Putnam’s notions of civic engagement and trust (Putnam, 1998: 62)February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 21

institutional infrastructure) are more likely to remain stable over time. Threecomponents of social capital in particular were identified as playing a role inneighbourhood stabilisation; loyalty, attachment to neighbourhood andneighbourhoods where a higher proportion of residents believe they live in agood place (Temkin and Rohe 1998: 84).Another project regarding social capital as a dependent variable is Briggs’s studyof a scattered site public housing program in Yonkers, New York (Briggs 1998). Acourt order had provided for the construction of public housing in the mostly whiteneighbourhoods of east Yonkers, and consequently the focus of this study was toexamine how moves to more affluent areas effects social capital. Two maindimensions of social capital are identified; social support, which assistsindividuals in coping with everyday life, and social leverage, which is key tomobility. The study involved a group of program participants (referred to as“movers”) as well as with a control group of “stayers” (who remained in theoriginal housing projects). In addition to general questions about theneighbourhood and family, respondents were asked about various types ofnetworks (close friends, kin, neighbours), the closest of which were named andthe relationship described in terms of frequency of contact and contents of ties.The findings show that those individuals who had moved did not appear to bemore cut off from social support than the control group of stayers. However, theyare no more likely to gain access to good leverage – information about jobopportunities or advice concerning schooling. The study also showed that thepresence of one employed individual in an adolescent’s circle of key relationshipshas great affect on perceived access to leverage.4.4 Social Capital and CrimeMore work has been conducted into the relationships between social capital andcrime than on housing or health. Some of this predates the recent emergence ofsocial capital research, but essentially adopts a similar position in focusing uponaspects of social relationships and the social structure. Robert Sampson isfrequently quoted in this area, having undertaken a range of work through the1980s and 1990s. One such example is his work with W. Groves on communitysocial disorganisation (Sampson and Groves 1989) which tests the generalhypothesis that low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential mobility,and family disruption lead to community social disorganisation, and that this inturn increases crime and delinquency rates. The parallels between this and laterwork on social capital is reflected in the measures used to assess the communitylevel of social organisation. Three indicators are used; local friendship networks,the control of street-corner teenage peer groups, and prevalence oforganisational participation. Results show that ‘between-community variations insocial disorganisation transmit much of the effect of community structuralcharacteristics on rates of both criminal victimisation and criminal offending’(Sampson and Groves 1989). Other early work showing similarities to later socialcapital research includes Taylor et al’s examination of differing crime rates andFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 22

fear levels (Taylor, Gottfredson et al. 1984). Using social ties as one variable,measured by the proportion of respondents belonging to an organisation to whichco residents also belong, they found local social ties directly dampened crimeand fear.More recent work by Sampson (Sampson, Raudenbus h et al. 1997) focusesupon the idea of collective efficacy, which has been identified by subsequenttheorists as a construct that ‘taps into slightly different, though overlapping,aspects of social capital’ (Lochner, Kawachi et al. 1999). Collective efficacy isdefined as social cohesion among neighbours combined with their willingness tointervene on behalf of the common good. Taking the premise that neighbourhoodcharacteristics can account for crime rates not explained by aggregatedindividual demographic characteristics, it was hypothesised that collectiveefficacy is linked to reduced violence. Drawing upon data from the Project onHuman Development in Chicago Neighbourhoods, measures were devised forinformal social control, social cohesion and trust. Informal social control wasrepresented measured by asking residents if they thought it likely or otherwisethat their neighbours could be counted on to intervene in various ways, forexample if children were misbehaving, or if they saw a fire nearby. Socialcohesion and trust were also represented by five conceptually related items,where respondents were asked how strongly they agreed that people in theneighbourhood could work together, could be trusted and shared values. Theresults found that associations of concentrated disadvantage and residentialinstability with violence are largely mediated by collective efficacy.More recently specific social capital theories of crime have been developed, inwhich lower rates of social capital have been found to be positively associatedwith higher crime rates. Research has suggested that the social environmentalfactors used to predict geographic variations in crime rates might be relevant forexplaining community variations in health. Developing this idea Kawachi et al(Kawachi, Kennedy et al. 1999) utilise a framework to investigate the influence ofthe social context on community health, using crime as an indicator of collectivewell-being. They argue that levels of crime are influenced by two sets of societalcharacteristics; the degree of relative deprivation and the degree of cohesivenessin social relations. Cohesiveness can be measured by indicators of social capitaland collective efficacy, and consequently data from the General Social Surveyswere used estimate state variations in the levels of interpersonal trust amongcommunity members. The GSS survey item on trust was used, while in addition ameasure of family social capital was included, based upon the percentage ofsingle mother households (taken from the 1990 US Census). Results showedthat relative deprivation was strongly associated with crime, while indicators ofdeprivation, both absolute and relative, were correlated with reduced levels ofsocial capital. The strongest correlates of violent crime were the two indicators ofsocial capital, level of interpersonal trust and proportion of female-headedhouseholds. Among property crimes, burglary was also associated withdeprivation and low social capital.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 23

Kennedy et al also hypothesised that decreased social capital is associated withincreased firearm homicide and violent crime (Kennedy, Kawachi et al. 1998).Taking levels of trust among community members and civic engagement as twocore construc ts of social capital, the authors utilised the General Social Surveyitems to measure these. Level of civic engagement was measured by per capitanumber of groups and associations, while the components of social trust wereassessed by responses to the GSS survey items. In addition, another item fromthe GSS was used as a marker of social capital, ‘Would you say that most of thetime people try to be helpful, or are they only looking out for themselves?’ (1998:8). Results showed that all of the social capital measures were highly correlatedwith each other and with the violent crime measures. Higher levels of socialmistrust were associated with higher rates of firearm violent crime, while higherlevels of per capita group membership were associated with lower levels offirearm violent crime. Social trust was more strongly associated with firearmviolent crime than per capita group membership (1998: 11-12). Income inequalityis also powerfully associated to the incidence of violent crime, and the authorsargue that this occurs through the depletion of social capital (1998: 15).4.5 Social Capital and Successful Child/Youth DevelopmentThe well being and successful development of children and youth are essential toachieving some of the desired Goodna outcomes. Social capital has beenincreasingly used in explanations of varying outcomes among children andadolescents. A number of studies have looked at the effects of social capital onthese outcomes, particularly among disadvantaged individuals and communities,and significant relationships have been found to exist. Doebler’s longitudinalstudy of disadvantaged adolescent girls from a community in the PennsylvanianAppalachian Mountains focused on the relationship between family-based andcommunity-based social capital in adolescence and positive outcomes in youngadulthood (Doebler 1999). Indicators of family-based social capital includedfamily structure, mother working outside the home, number of siblings, and familyrelations. Community-based social capital measures included family mobility,church attendance, and participation in extra-curricular school activities,vocational activities, and volunteer activities. Results showed that indicators offamily-based and community-based social capital were significantly related topost-secondary educational participation, high school graduation, and workforceparticipation. In other words, those who possessed higher degrees of socialcapital in adolescence were more likely to further their educations in postsecondarysettings, graduate high school, and participate in the workforce asyoung adults. Participation in extra-curricular school activities, a measure ofcommunity-based social capital, had the strongest effect in each of thestatistically significant models.Fursternberg et al also examine the affects of family and community social capitalon the life chances of children, and a key finding of their study may havesignificant implications for future research in this area (Furstenberg and HughesFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 24

1995). Using data from a 20-year longitudinal study of mothers and their childrencollected in Baltimore, the analysis examines whether and to what degree socialcapital resources identified in earlier interviews explain the diversity in outcomesobserved in the same youths three years later. Measures of social capital bothwithin and external to the family were used. Results suggest that social capitalplays a role in helping youth negotiate their way out of disadvantage. The authorsnote however that its low association with teen parenthood or criminality maysuggest that different forms of social capital have different affects. As a resultthey conclude that social capital, as a general theory, subsumes a number ofimportant social dimensions that may affect different measures of socialoutcomes, and therefore the concept needs to be both clarified anddesegregated.Moving from adolescent to child development, Runyan et al look at theassociations between social capital and positive developmental and behavioraloutcomes in high-risk preschool children (Runyan, Hunter et al. 1998). Socialcapital, defined as benefits that accrue from social relationships withincommunities and families, was measured using a social capital index created byassigning one point to each of the following indicators: I) two parents or parentfiguresin the home; 2) social support of the maternal caregiver 3) no more thantwo children in the family; 4) neighborhood support; and 5) regular churchattendance. Their results show that the social capital index was stronglyassociated with child well being. This suggests that social capital may have animpact on children's well being as early as the preschool years, and that it maybe most crucial for families who have fewer financial and educational resources.4.6 Social Capital and Employment OutcomesWhile the area of work and organisation has been less widely covered in thesocial capital literature, some attempts have been made to consider therelationships between social capital and various employment outcomes. Theseinclude labour mobility (Schiff 1992), income attainment (Boxman, De Graaf et al.1991) and occupational status (Flap and De Graaf 1986). The general findingappears to be that higher levels of social capital promote positive outcomes foremployment, including higher income and occupational status.Flap and De Graaf, building upon the work of Bourdieu, consider the idea that themore social capital an individual has, the higher his or her attained occupationalprestige will be (Flap and De Graaf 1986). Defining social capital as ‘anindividual’s personal social network, and all the resources he or she is in aposition to mobilize through this network’ (Flap and De Graaf 1986:145) theyinterpret social networks as social capital. Their research addresses the specificpredicted affects of having social capital: that more social capital will allowindividuals to get a better job which they will be able to get sooner and will keepfor longer. Using data from a previous study looking at occupational prestige inthe Netherlands, social capital (as social networks) is examined by a variableFebruary 2001 DRAFT ONLY 25

focused upon the different ways of obtaining work. A range of categories wasemployed, including formal (labour exchange, agency) and informal (friends andacquaintances) means. The findings show that the use of personal contacts toobtain employment is lower in the Netherlands (30%) than in the United States(almost 60%) or Germany (more than 40%). Indeed the results supported thehypothesis demonstrating that ‘regardless of the effects of a person’s educationor occupation, the occupational prestige of his or her friends and of the contactperson does have an affect on the attained occupational status’ (Flap and DeGraaf 1986). However, it is noted that while it can help it cannot make up for theindividual’s lack of education.Building upon this early work, later research focuses upon income attainment,social and human capital (Boxman, De Graaf et al. 1991). Considering the way inwhich high-level managers obtain their positions, the research draws upon datafrom an earlier research project designed to investigate labour markets andlabour market behaviour. Social capital is measured via two indicators, a scale ofwork contacts and the number of memberships of elite clubs and professionalassociations. 6 It was found that social capital has an independent influence onincome, regardless of both human capital and position level. There is interactionbetween human and social capital in the process of income attainment, but it isdifferent to that expected. Social capital has a positive effect whatever the level ofhuman capital, but human capital fails to make a difference where high levels ofsocial capital exist.5. Next Steps for GoodnaWhile acknowledging that this is not an exhaustive account of the social capitalliterature, the above does provide some empirical evidence of the role of socialcapital and its potential relevance for Goodna. Much of the research providesconfirmation of relationships that exist between social capital and the variablesoutlined above, all of which link in with the desired outcomes for the Goodnaproject. While the existence of a correlation does not necessarily mean causality,there is enough evidence to support the potential utility of social capital for thepurposes of this project. However a number of issues will need to be addressedbefore proceeding further.Why use social capital?There needs to be clear understanding of why social capital should be used. Is itto assess the existing levels of social capital within the Goodna community? Tomeasure social capital among service providers? For what reasons? The use towhich social capital will be put and why this is so must be stated.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 26

What is the desired effect?What is it hoped can be gained from its use? Is there a view to building socialcapital, should it be found lacking or existing at a low level?What will be used?A clear definition in the Goodna context must be determined before any attemptat measurement can be undertaken.How will it be used?Once the above are clear, the question of how to measure it must be addressed.Indicators related to the specific definition used need to be identified. Key will bethe decision as to whether to utilise existing data, which although problematic willreduce time and costs, or whether to either use or develop a specific socialcapital measurement tool for the collection of primary data in Goodna. While thepotential to yield rich data in Goodna exists, it is necessary to question whetherthis is a primary objective of the Goodna-SIP project, as well as to hypothesisethe importance of social capital to integrating human services provision.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 27

6. BibliographyBourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Researchfor the Sociology of Education. J. G. Richardson. Westport, CT,Greenwood Press: 241-258.Boxman, E. A. W., P. M. De Graaf, et al. (1991). “The Impact of Social andHuman Capital on the Income Attainment of Dutch Managers.” SocialNetworks 13: 51-73.Briggs, d. S. X. (1998). “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and theMany Faces of Social Capital.” Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 177-221.Bullen, P. and J. Onyx (1998). Measuring social capital in five communities inNSW: a practitioner's guide. Coogee, NSW, Management Alternatives.Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.”Amercian Journal of Sociology 94(Supplement: Organizations andInstitutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis ofSocial Structure): S95-S120.Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Mass. ;London, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Couch, L. L., J. M. Adams, et al. (1996). “The Assessment of Trust Orientation.”Journal of Personality Assessment 67(2): 305-323.Cox, E. (1997). “Building Social Capital.” Health Promotion Matters 4.Cox, E. (1998). Measuring social capital as part of progress and well-being.Measuring progress: is life getting better? R. Eckersley. Collingwood, Vic,CSIRO Publishing: 157-167.Doebler, M. K. (1999). Successful outcomes for rural young women: Alongitudinal investigation of social capital and adolescent development.Flap, H. D. and N. D. De Graaf (1986). “Social Capital and Attained OccupationalStatus.” The Netherlands Journal of Sociology 22(2): 145-161.Fukuyama, F. (1997). “Social Capital: The Problem of Measurement.”.Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. and M. E. Hughes (1995). “Social capital and successfuldevelopment among at-risk youth.” Journal of Marriage and the Family57(3): 580-592.Glaeser, E., D. Laibson, et al. (2000). “Measuring trust.” Quarterly Journal ofEconomics CXV(3): 811-846.Kawachi, I. (1999). Social capital and community effects on population andindividual health. Socioeconomic status and health in industrial nations:Social, psychological, and biological pathways. Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences, Vol. 896. N. E. Adler and M. Marmot. New York,NY, US, New York Academy of Sciences: 120-130.Kawachi, -. I. and L. Berkman (2000). Social Cohesion, Social Capital andHealth. Social Epidemiology. L. Berkman and -. I. Kawachi. Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press: 180-184.Kawachi, I., B.-P. Kennedy, et al. (1997). “Long Live Community: Social Capitalas Public Health.” American Prospect 35(Nov-Dec): 56-59.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 28

Kawachi, I., B. P. Kennedy, et al. (1997). “Social capital, income inequality andmortality.” American Journal of Public Health 87(9): 1491-1498.Kawachi, I., B.-P. Kennedy, et al. (1999). “Crime: Social Disorganization andRelative Deprivation.” Social Science and Medicine 48(6): 719-731.Kennedy, B. P., I. Kawachi, et al. (1998). “Social Capital, Income Inequality, andFirearm Violent Crime.” Social Science and Medicine 47(1): 7-17.Krishna, A. and E. Shrader (2000). Cross-cultural measures of social capital: Atool and results from India and Panama. Washington, DC, World Bank: 39.Labonte, R. (1999). “Social Capital and Community Development: PractitonerEmptor.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 23(4): 430-433.Lichter, D., T. Gretchen, et al. (1993). “Harvesting Human Capital: FamilyStructure and Education Among Rural Youth.” Rural Sociology 58(1): 53-75.Lochner, K., -. I. Kawachi, et al. (1999). “Social Capital: A Guide to itsMeasurement.” Health and Place 5: 259-270.McNeal, R. B., Jr. (1999). “Parental involvement as social capital: Differentialeffectiveness on science achievement, truancy, and dropping out.” SocialForces 78(1): 117-144.Meier, A. (1999). Social Capital and School Achievement: Mediating the Effectsof Family Structure? American Sociological Assocation 1999.Omodei, M. M. and J. McLenna n (2000). “Conceptualizing and measuring globalinterpersonal mistrust-trust.” Journal of Social Psychology 140(3): 279-294.Onyx, J. and P. Bullen (1997). Measuring social capital in five communities inNSW: an analysis. Lindfield, NSW, Centre for Australian CommunityOrganisations and Management, University of Technology, Sydney: 59.Onyx, J. and P. Bullen (2000). “Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities.”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1): 23-42.Paldam, M. and G. T. Svendsen (1999). Is Social Capital an Effective SmokeCondenser? An Essay on a Concept Linking the Social Sciences.Washington DC, World Bank: 37.Putnam, R. (1994). “What Makes Democracy Work?” IPA Review 47(1): 31.Putnam, R. (1995). “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital.” Journalof Democracy 6(1): 65-78.Putnam, R., R. Leonardi, et al. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditionsin Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.Runyan, D. K., W. M. Hunter, et al. (1998). “Children who prosper in unfavorableenvironments: The relationship to social capital.” Pediatrics 101(1): 12-18.Saegert, S. and G. Winkel (1998). “Social Capital and the Revitalization of NewYork City's Distressed Inner -City Housing.” Housing Policy Debate 9(1):17-60.Sampson, R. J. and W. B. Groves (1989). “Community Structure and Crime:Testing Social-Disorganization Theory.” Amercian Journal of Sociology 94:774-802.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 29

Sampson, R. J., S. W. Raudenbush, et al. (1997). “Neighborhoods and ViolentCrime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277: 918-924.Schiff, M. (1992). “Social Capital, Labor Mobility and Welfare: The Impact ofUniting States.” Rationality and Society 4: 157-175.Siahpush, M. and G. P. Singh (1999). “Social integration and mortality inAustralia.” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 23(6):571-577.Smith, M.-H., L.-J. Beaulieu, et al. (1995). “Social Capital, Place of Residence,and College Attendance.” Rural Sociology 60(3): 363-380.Sun, Y. (1999). “The Contextual Effects of Community Social Capital onAcademic Performance.” Social Science Research 28(4): 403-426.Taylor, R., S. Gottfredson, et al. (1984). “Block Crime and Fear: DefensibleSpace, Local Social Ties and Territorial Functioning.” Journal of Researchin Crime and Delinquincy 21: 303-331.Teachman, J. D., K. Paasch, et al. (1996). “Social capital and dropping out ofschool early.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 58(3): 773-783.Teachman, J. D., K. Paasch, et al. (1997). “Social capital and the generation ofhuman capital.” Social Forces 75(4): 1343-1359.Temkin, K. and W. M. Rohe (1998). “Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability:An Empirical Investigation.” Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 61-88.Wall, E., G. Ferrazzi, et al. (1998). “Getting the Goods on Social Capital.” RuralSociology 63(2): 300-322.Winter, I. (2000). Towards a Theorised Understanding of Family Life and SocialCapital, Australian Institute of Family Studies.Woolcock, M. (2000). “Friends in High Places? An Overview of Social Capital.”Development Research Insights 34.Woolcock, M. (2001). “The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social andEconomic Outcomes.” Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1).Woolcock, M. and D. Narayan (2000). “Social Capital: Implications forDevelopment Theory, Research a nd Policy.” The World Bank ResearchObserver 15(2): 225-49.February 2001 DRAFT ONLY 30