community’s linking social capital—that is, its ties tothose providers of public and private services that canbe delivered effectively only through face-to-faceinteraction with persons such as teachers, doctors, andagricultural extension officers. Crucially, these peoplealso provide what is often a community’s only link tothe resources of the state and a channel through whichtheir voices can be heard by those in positions ofauthority. At the household and community level, then,a social capital perspective on economic developmentstresses a three-part process in which the power ofbonding social capital is harnessed to extend the scopeof bridging social capital, and finally to improve link-ing social capital.

This is precisely what some of the world’s largestand most successful poverty reduction programs haveaccomplished. In Bangladesh and numerous other low-income countries, for example, banks have been estab-lished that extend credit to the poor without any formalcollateral or written contracts, but rather on the basis ofthe collective reputation of a small group. Villagers usetheir knowledge of, and close proximity to, one anotherto select fellow group members carefully, and toenforce their agreements. In this manner, the bank firstlends money to the group, which then on-lends to itsmembers, who pledge that if one defaults or uses themoney fraudulently, the others will assume responsibil-ity for repayment. Over time, borrowers are able tobuild small businesses, establish some savings, and (insome programs) graduate to become members of regu-lar banks. More than 40 million households around theworld gain access to financial services (which theywould otherwise be denied) using such systems.Through these programs, the social capital of the poorbecomes a basis for enhancing their much-neededfinancial capital.

The concept of social capital has also begun to beincorporated into national poverty surveys. Where pre-viously poverty was conceived and measured primarilyin economic terms, it has become clear that the socialassets of the poor have a major bearing on whether andhow they cope with and respond to their often periloussituations. As such, several Latin American and EasternEuropean countries have recently undertaken majorrevisions of their national household surveys to incor-porate these dimensions. The data from these surveyscan be used to help policymakers better identify where,how, and why poverty is most deeply entrenched, andhow they might best respond to it.

The social capital literature in general has attained a

high profile since the 1990s in large part because it hasbeen able to span the divide between theory and prac-tice. This is especially true in the field of economicdevelopment, where open dialogue and vigorous debatebetween scholars, policymakers, and practitioners hashelped to bring the social dimensions of economicdevelopment back into the prevailing academic and pol-icy discourse, but in much more constructive ways thanthose of times past, with a language of assets and exclu-sion now replacing a language of deficits and deficien-cies (or no language at all).

—Michael Woolcock

Further ReadingGittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building

social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (Eds.). (2002). The role of socialcapital in development: An empirical assessment. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Isham, J., Kelly, T., & Ramaswamy, S. (Eds.). (2002). Social capi-tal and economic development: Well-being in developing coun-tries. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implicationsfor development theory, research, and policy. World BankResearch Observer, 15(2), 225–249.

World Bank. (2000). World development report 2000/01—Attack-ing poverty. New York: Oxford University Press.

� SOCIAL CAPITALAND HUMAN CAPITAL

In economics, capital refers to resources(whether financial or physical) that are used for theproduction of goods; it can also refer to all resourcesthat bring in income. Social capital and human capi-tal are terms used in the social sciences to discussanalogous concepts with regard to social resourcesderived from social interactions (social capital) andindividual development (human capital). In popularconceptions, the link between social and human cap-ital is straightforward. Most would agree that strong,supportive parent-child relations in the family andparent-school relations in the community (social cap-ital) contribute significantly to children’s learningoutcomes (human capital). However, the converse isby no means that simple. Furthermore, human capitaland social capital are contested concepts; argumentsand claims about the relationship between the two arecomplex.

1286——— Social Capital and Human Capital

SOCIAL CAPITAL

Current interest in social capital originates in the work ofthe scholars James Coleman, Francis Fukuyama, RobertPutnam, and Pierre Bourdieu. Although these four differin disciplinary base and emphasis, they share a focus onaspects of social relations, namely, norms, values, andnetworks—or social capital—and the role they play insocial cohesion. Community is central to theories ofsocial capital in that norms, values, and networks pro-duce and reproduce communities, be they geographical,face-to-face neighborhood communities, informationalcommunities and networks, or civic communities ofsocial or political engagement. Social capital is con-cerned with specific types of social bonds that sustain asense of connection among individuals. Popular anxi-eties about a loss of community have entered social sci-entific discourse through the concept of social capital.

While there may be broad agreement about the spe-cific elements of the social that are collectively calledsocial capital, there are very important differencesamong these key theorists. Coleman’s theory developedfrom his research on educational outcomes of students inpublic and private Catholic high schools. The findingthat minority students who attended private Catholicschools had better educational outcomes than their peersin public high schools led Coleman to hypothesize thatthe powerful constellation of mutually reinforcing net-works of parent-child relations, home-school ties, and astrong faith community resulted in a strong communityof shared norms and values that encouraged concern for,and commitment to, educational achievement.

Fukuyama was primarily concerned with economicdevelopment and the nature of the values and cultureunderpinning economically successful societies. Heidentified trust as the key social norm. Cultures charac-terized by high levels of trust between people who arenot kin, Fukuyama argued, are more likely to developwhen strong parent-child bonds are embedded in family-community networks that share similar values.

Putnam’s interest in social capital developed out ofhis longitudinal study of regional government in Italy.He argued that the success of social institutions dependson social capital, which he defined as social norms oftrust and reciprocity, networks, and civic engagement.Thus regions with many social networks, whether sportsclubs or political parties, tended to have more success-ful institutions and better social outcomes. Putnam pur-sued these ideas in Bowling Alone (2000), in which heidentified social networks as the key component of

social capital, arguing that the social malaise caused bycommunity breakdown, lack of trust in politicians andbureaucratic officials, high levels of crime and disorder,and so on, was linked to lower rates of involvement insocial networks. Declining participation in social net-works, he suggested, results in a fragmented, insecuresociety.

Bourdieu’s theory of social capital stems from hisdesire to explain class inequalities. His starting point isunequally distributed economic capital, and, in the con-text of education, how economic inequalities are repro-duced as cultural and educational inequalities. His argu-ment is that different socioeconomic groups possessdifferent forms of cultural capital, and the groups whosecultural capital mirrors that represented in education arethose who are educationally successful. In other words,the educational curriculum is a highly selected form ofknowledge, and its effect is to privilege higher socialgroups, whose cultural and symbolic representations arethe stuff of education. He argues that social capital isdeveloped not in social networks themselves but in anoverall system of networks. Whom we know dependsupon who we are. Thus social networks may be ubiqui-tous, but the social capital resources they generate willbe unequal in their social effects.

What these theories have in common is the stronglink they propose between different forms of commu-nity networks and positive social outcomes in a widerange of social arenas: education (Coleman), the econ-omy (Fukuyama), and governance and social cohesion(Putnam). Bourdieu does not fit in very comfortablybecause he focuses on the reproduction of socialinequalities. Nonetheless, his ideas can be read as anexplanation of how social cohesion is sustained in spiteof continuing social inequalities.

Another way of classifying social capital concepts isto think of them as representing a continuum of ideasabout community. At one end of this continuum are the-ories that are, broadly, communitarian. In those theories,the features identified as social capital are norms andvalues—embedded in the community—that act as aform of social control by constraining individual behav-ior. The other end of this social capital continuum drawson Tocqueville’s ideas of civic republicanism andfocuses on active networks within communities andcivic participation in liberal democracies. Here commu-nity is constructed through participation and democraticengagement.

Bourdieu’s notion of social capital does not fit intothis continuum, which, broadly speaking, comes from a

Social Capital and Human Capital ———1287

consensual, functionalist model of society. Bourdieuoperates within a conflict model of society, and hisemphasis is on how networks recreate unequal socialrelations. The consensual perspective tends to regardsocial networks as equally available to all. In the con-flict perspective, as the sociologist Alejandro Portesargues, all social groups have networks, but not all net-works provide equal access to resources. Sociallybounded and stratified networks reproduce thoseunequal social relationships.

There have been many criticisms of social capitaltheory. Perhaps the most important of these are thatsocial capital theories have an uncritically rosy view ofcommunity, an overoptimistic view of the benefits ofsocial capital for creating a cohesive, “improving”society, and a lack of purchase on the links betweensocial and economic inequalities. Portes, for example,argues that communities can be inclusive or exclusive.He also criticizes the links made between high levels ofsocial capital and positive social outcomes, showingthat the theory is tautological: It states that high levelsof social capital cause positive social outcomes, andthat positive social outcomes cause an increase in levelsof social capital. What is measured as high levels ofsocial capital may, in fact, be a disguised form ofsocioeconomic advantage.

Putnam addressed some of those criticisms in Bowl-ing Alone by dividing social capital into two sorts:bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital tends toexclude outsiders and to be strongly supportive of insid-ers. Bridging social capital, by contrast, consists ofmuch looser networks and boundaries; it supports con-nections between dissimilar people or groups. This dis-tinction between bonding and bridging social capitalresembles the distinction made between strong ties(between members of tightly knit kinship groups andcommunities) and weak ties (between, for example,members of professional or political associations).Researcher and activist Perri 6 [sic] develops a life-course approach to these different forms of social capi-tal, arguing that in phases of dependence, whetherchildhood or infirmity due to age or illness, strong tiesare more important, whereas in the adult phase weakties are much more productive of opportunities.

HUMAN CAPITAL

There are at least four ways of thinking about humancapital. For economists, human capital has a specific,narrow meaning: It refers to the opportunity cost of

individuals’ or states’ investing in education—forgoneearnings plus the cost of education set against expecta-tions of future (higher) earnings and economic produc-tivity, respectively. At the other extreme, the termhuman capital is often as used merely as a popularshorthand for education in general.

The two intermediate perspectives are much morecritical and compare the human capital approach toeducation unfavorably with other approaches. The firstof these critical perspectives focuses on the social roleof education; it criticizes the human capital approachfor adopting the current, historically specific view ofeducation as a private, positional good (whichenhances competitiveness in the market) possessed byindividuals rather than seeing education as a publicgood that benefits society as a whole. Those that saythat education markets polarize society are speakingfrom this perspective. The other critical perspectivefocuses on the ways in which education operates at thelevel of the individual; it criticizes the human capitalapproach for reducing education to the inculcation ofmarketable skills rather than taking a holistic approachand educating the whole person. This perspective isreflected in human rights discourse that argues that thehuman capital paradigm constitutes a denial of theright to education.

How one perceives the relationship between humanand social capital will depend on which definitions ofhuman capital and social capital one uses. Logically,we can explore the relationship in two ways: We canexamine the contribution of social capital to humancapital and the role of human capital in developingsocial capital.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF SOCIALCAPITAL TO HUMAN CAPITAL

The classical statement of the argument that social cap-ital contributes to human capital is found in Coleman’s1988 article “Social Capital in the Creation of HumanCapital.” As discussed in the previous section, Colemanidentified the social capital inherent in parent-child rela-tions and in the strong family-school-community linksamong those who sent their children to parochialschools as conducive to better educational outcomes.

Although infrequently called social capital, familysupport as a strong factor in educational attainment isthe stuff of much sociology of education. Research thatexplains educational failure in terms of deficits typi-cally cites factors such as parental support and parents’

1288——— Social Capital and Human Capital

level of education, availability of books in the home,quality of housing and degree of space, parent-schoollinks, and so on. A lack of these relational and materialforms of support is linked to lower educational attain-ment and other forms of disadvantage. Research thatexplains middle-class students’ educational achieve-ment tends to emphasize the cultural and material ele-ments that maintain and reproduce distinction and hier-archy, in particular the unequal social and culturalcapital of economically unequal families.

This link between family and community support(social capital) and students’ educational outcomesapplies irrespective of which theory of human capital isbeing employed. The key theoretical issue is whetherthese links are constructed as benign, contributing tooverall individual or collective socioeconomic well-being(or both), or as a factor in exacerbating social divisions.

THE CONTRIBUTION OFHUMAN CAPITAL TO SOCIAL CAPITAL

This area of research is controversial. What is actuallybeing measured is highly contested: Is it social capital asa ubiquitous outcome of education, or social capital as asign of social or educational advantage? Turning to thefirst proposition, research from the United Kingdom andthe United States indicates that the traditionally measuredelements of social capital (namely trust, networks, andcivic engagement) tend to be positively correlated withhigher levels of education. This leads to the conclusionthat education contributes to social capital. Additionally,recent research in the United Kingdom that focuses onthe effects of lifelong learning has suggested that socialcapital development is an identifiable outcome of adulteducation. Adults who return to education develop

Social Capital and Human Capital ———1289

Predictors of Academic Success According to the College Board, the following factors may be predictors of academic success in college.

Source: Office of Research and Development, The College Board. Adapted from Willingham, W. W. (1985). Success in College. New York: CollegeEntrance Examination Board.

Traditional Academic PredictorsHigh school (HS) grades

RankTotal GPAGPA core courses

Admission TestsSAT®, I: Reasoning TestACTSAT II: Subject TestsOther

Supplemental Achievement PredictorsHS honorsCommunity achievementAthletic achievementLeadershipCreative achievementFollow-throughWork experiencePersonal statement (writing, content)Other achievement test in HSAdmission Ratings:

Interview ratingSpecial talent (art, science)Special attribute (overcame hardship,

rich experiences)

Goals and PlansImportant goalCareerIntellectualCreativePhysicalLeadershipSocialUncertain career plansEducational aspirations

BackgroundGenderEthnicity/raceResidenceSocioeconomic status (SES)Alumni tiesSchool sizeSchool typeSchool qualityCollege-going rate achievementAidEarly decisionClose-tie schoolCame for interviewCollege courses in HS

�

greater self-confidence and are more likely to participate,whether informally in the community or more formallyby joining established civic or political groups.

By contrast, data from both the United States and theUnited Kingdom indicate that there are significant posi-tive correlations between the socioeconomic position ofthe family, school achievement, rate of participation inhigher education, and the likelihood of attending a higher-status universities. Here, human capital development issocially embedded in, and contributes to the reproductionof, social stratification. If education is a private, positionalgood linked to gaining a competitive edge in the labormarket, then social capital could be a measure of a simi-larly positional, unequal experience of, and orientation to,the social. It is not surprising that the educationally andoccupationally successful are more likely to trust and par-ticipate in civic networks and vice versa. In this context,higher levels of social capital can be regarded as a proxyfor social advantage, and vice versa, where socioeco-nomic inequalities are the independent factor that linkshigh or low human capital with high or low social capital(or the independent variable that causes the covariance ofsocial capital and human capital).

Research exploring the relationship between educa-tion and social cohesion across countries supports thiscritical perspective. Key findings seem to indicate thatcountries with high rates of both educational andincome inequalities are more likely to have lower levelsof social trust. Thus the relative equality or inequality inthe distribution of educational outcomes appears tohave a stronger effect on social capital than do risingaggregate levels of education.

A related problem concerns the fact that anxietiesabout the loss of social capital and community in highlydeveloped societies such as the United States and theUnited Kingdom are occurring in a period of massiveeducational expansion on both the individual and thesocietal level. This paradoxical phenomenon of lowerlevels of social capital and higher levels of education isa salutary warning against any form of simplistic link-ing of human capital and social capital. The questionseems to be what type of society is being created andwhat role education is accorded within current social,economic, and political structures—that of individualpositional good or collective public benefit.

—Eva GamarnikowFurther ReadingBall, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The

middle classes and social advantage. London: Routledge/Falmer.Baron, S., Field, J., & Schuller, T. (Eds.). (2000). Social capital:

Critical perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Bauman, Z. (2001). Community. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Becker, G. S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical

analysis with special reference to education (3d ed.). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction.In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in edu-cation (pp. 487–511). Oxford, UK, and New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.),Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education(pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1977). Reproduction in education,culture and society. London: Sage.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human cap-ital. American Journal of Sociology, 94 Supplement, S95–S120.

Coleman, J. S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private highschools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.

Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High schoolachievement. New York: Basic Books.

Edwards, T., Power, S., Whitty, G., & Wigfall, V. (in press). Educationand the middle class. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Etzioni, A. (1995). The spirit of community. London: Fontana.Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1997). Editors’ introduction: Escape

from politics? Social theory and the social capital debate. Amer-ican Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 550–561.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation ofprosperity. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Gamarnikow, E., & Green, A. (1999a). Developing social capital:Dilemmas, possibilities and limitations in education. In A.Hayton (Ed.), Tackling disaffection and social exclusion: Educa-tion perspectives and policies (pp. 46–64). London: Kogan Page.

Gamarnikow, E., & Green, A. (1999b). The Third Way and socialcapital: Education Action Zones and a new agenda for educa-tion, parents and community. International Studies in Sociologyof Education, 9(1), 3–22.

Gamarnikow, E., & Green, A. (2000). Citizenship, education andsocial capital. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns, & R. Gardner (Eds.),Education for citizenship (pp. 93–113). London: Continuum.

Gewirtz, S. (2001). The managerial school: Post-welfarism andsocial justice in education. London: Routledge/Falmer.

Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The renewal of social democ-racy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Giddens, A. (Ed.). (2001). The global Third Way debate. Cam-bridge, UK: Polity Press.

Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policyreform and school inequality. Buckingham, UK: Open Univer-sity Press.

Glendinning, C., Powell, M., & Rummery, K. (Eds.). (2002). Part-nerships, New Labour and the governance of welfare. Bristol,UK: Policy Press.

Granovetter, M. S. (1978). The strength of weak ties. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Hall, P. A. (1999). Social capital in Britain. British Journal of Poli-tics, 29(3), 417–461.

Hills, J., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (Eds.). (2002). Understand-ing social exclusion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy. AmericanBehavioral Scientist, 40(5), 575–586.

1290——— Social Capital and Human Capital

Office of National Statistics. (2001). Social capital: A review of theliterature. Retrieved December 18, 2002, from http://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital/downloads/soccaplitreview.pdf

Perri 6. (1997). Escaping poverty: From safety nets to networks ofopportunity. London: Demos.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications inmodern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.

Power, S., Warren, S., Gillborn, D., Clark, A., Thomas, S., & Coate,K. (2002). Education in deprived areas: Outcomes, inputs andprocesses: Vol. 13. Perspectives in policy. London: Institute ofEducation.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival ofAmerican community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. D., with Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Makingdemocracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Schuller, T., Brassett-Grundy, A., Green, A., Hammond, C., & Pre-ston, J. (2002). Learning, continuity and change in adult life.London: Institute of Education, Centre for Research on theWider Benefits of Learning.

Tocqueville, A. de (1969). Democracy in America. New York:Harper. (Original work published 1835)

Tomasevski, K. (2000). Progress report of the Special Rapporteuron the right to education. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations,Economic and Social Council.

Whitty, G., Power, S., & Halpin, D. (1998). Devolution and choicein education: The school, the state and the market. Buckingham,UK: Open University Press.

Wolf, A. (2002). Does education matter? Myths about educationand economic growth. London: Penguin.

World Bank. (2002). Social capital for development. RetrievedDecember 18, 2002, from http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital/

� SOCIAL CAPITAL AND MEDIA

In recent years, academics, community activists,foundations, and politicians have popularized the termsocial capital to describe how basic features of commu-nity life such as trust in others and connections withfriends provide the means for citizens to cooperate onproblems requiring collective effort. Defined as theresources of information, shared norms, and social rela-tions embedded in communities that enable people tobecome informed and coordinate action, social capital iscreated by the complex interplay of institutional rela-tions, interpersonal networks, and individual character-istics. Thus, research on social capital concerns contex-tual, relational, and individual factors that are notovertly political yet have implications for the health ofcivil society. In particular, recent research has paid con-siderable attention to the role of the mass media in theproduction and destruction of social capital in demo-cratic societies.

Research on social capital suggests that individualswho are connected to others and confident about thereturn of their social investments feel a greater sense ofbelonging to their communities and take a more activerole in public efforts and political activities. Using thisgeneral framework, scholars such as Robert Putnamhave examined the roots of the decline in Americans’community engagement and the implications for demo-cratic functioning. Available evidence indicates thatwhile contributions to charitable groups are at all-timehighs, face-to-face encounters with other communitymembers and involvement in political activities havedropped dramatically. At first, levels of volunteeringappear to buck this trend; however, analyses within gen-erational groups suggest that older Americans bear adisproportionate amount of the service burden. Andalthough attendance at public events has remainedhigh—even increased—it cannot match the sharp rise inprivatized entertainment, particularly television.

Some researchers, most notably Everett Ladd, havepointed to similar survey data to question the extent ofa decline in social capital; nonetheless, most evidencesupports the view that there has been a substantial lossof core indicators of social capital in the United Statesduring the second half of the twentieth century. Thesedownward trends appear to be based on generationaldifferences and individual changes; that is, members ofgeneration X are not only less participatory and trustingthan their baby boomer parents, they are less connected,engaged, and involved than boomers were when theywere young adults. Likewise, boomers have typicallybeen less connected and involved than members of thepreceding generation. It seems, then, that between 1960and 2000, Americans have drifted from being a nationof connectors to a nation of observers, with the youngestAmericans the most detached from public life.

Scholars have looked to the media for clues regard-ing the production and destruction of social capital.Changes in patterns of media use over time (e.g., risingrates of television usage and declines in newspaperreadership) have been identified as some of the maincauses of the decline of civic culture. Research by JackMcLeod and his colleagues has found that newspapers,with their informative content and focus on news andcommunity events, produce pro-civic consequences;newspaper readers, especially those who pay closeattention to local news content, are more politicallyknowledgeable and participatory than nonreaders.

Conversely, television has been blamed for civicdisengagement because time spent with this medium

Social Capital and Media ———1291