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