For Starters

      Defining social capital

      Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called “civic virtue.” The difference is that “social capital” calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. (Putnam 2000: 19)

      Social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions... Social capital is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together. (The World Bank 1999)

      Social capital consists of the stock of active connections among people: the trust, mutual understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bind the members of human networks and communities and make cooperative action possible. (Cohen and Prusak 2001: 4)

      The basic premise is that interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can, it is argued, bring great benefits to people.

      Trust between individuals thus becomes trust between strangers and trust of a broad fabric of social institutions; ultimately, it becomes a shared set of values, virtues, and expectations within society as a whole. Without this interaction, on the other hand, trust decays; at a certain point, this decay begins to manifest itself in serious social problems… The concept of social capital contends that building or rebuilding community and trust requires face-to-face encounters. (Beem 1999: 20)

      As we will also see, there is considerable evidence that communities with a good 'stock' of social capital are more likely to benefit from lower crime figures, better health, higher educational achievement, and better economic growth. There can also be a significant downside. Groups and organizations with high social capital have the means (and sometimes the motive) to work to exclude and subordinate others. 

      The notion of social capital is a useful way of entering into debates about civil society – and it is central to the arguments of Robert Putnam and others who want to ‘reclaim public life’. It is also now being used by the World Bank with regard to economic and societal development and by management experts as a way of thinking about organizational development. We examine it's nature - and some of the issues surrounding its use.

      The notion of social capital first appeared in Lyda Judson Hannifin’s discussions of rural school community centers (see, for example, Hanifan 1916, 1920). He used the term to describe 'those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people' (1916: 130). Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among those that 'make up a social unit'. However, it has taken some time for the term to come into widespread usage. Most recently, it has been the work of Robert D. Putnam (1993; 2000) that has launched social capital as a focus for research and policy discussion. However, other notable contributions have come from Jane Jacobs (1961) in relation to urban life and neighborliness, Pierre Bourdieu (1983) with regard to social theory, and James S. Coleman (1988) in his discussions of the social context of education. It has also been picked up by the World Bank as a useful organizing idea. It is argued that 'increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable' (The World Bank 1999). We have also begun to see social capital as a focus for organizational maintenance and development (Cohen and Prusak 2001).

        we have select some good and useful infomation in the following,please download.

        点此下载附件

奥尔多中心网站文章,未经许可,请勿转载