Definitions and forms
El capital social tiene múltiples definiciones, interpretaciones y usos. David Halpern sostiene que la popularidad del capital social para los responsables políticos") está vinculada a la dualidad del concepto, que se debe a que "tiene un toque económico duro al tiempo que reafirma la importancia de lo social". Para los investigadores, el término es popular en parte debido a la amplia gama de resultados que puede explicar;[25] la multiplicidad de usos del capital social ha llevado a una multiplicidad de definiciones.
El capital social se ha utilizado en varias ocasiones para explicar el rendimiento superior de los directivos,[26] el crecimiento de las empresas emprendedoras,[27] la mejora del rendimiento de los grupos funcionalmente diversos,[28] el valor derivado de las alianzas estratégicas,[29] y la mejora de las relaciones en la cadena de suministro.[30] "Un recurso que los actores obtienen de estructuras sociales específicas y que luego utilizan para perseguir sus intereses; se crea mediante cambios en la relación entre los actores" (Baker 1990, p. 619).
Los primeros intentos de definir el capital social se centraron en el grado en que el capital social sirve como recurso, ya sea para el bien público o el beneficio privado. Robert D. Putnam") (1993) sugirió que el capital social facilitaría la cooperación y las relaciones de apoyo mutuo en las comunidades y las naciones y, por tanto, sería un medio valioso para combatir muchos de los desórdenes sociales inherentes a las sociedades modernas, por ejemplo, la delincuencia. En cambio, otros se centran en los beneficios privados derivados de la red de relaciones sociales en la que se encuentran los actores individuales.[31] Esto se refleja en el concepto de capital social de Nan Lin") como "Inversión en relaciones sociales con rendimientos esperados en el mercado". Esto puede subsumir los conceptos de algunos otros como Bourdieu, Flap y Eriksson.[32] Newton (1997)[33] trata el capital social como un fenómeno subjetivo formado por valores y actitudes que influyen en las interacciones. Nahapiet y Ghoshal (1998), en su examen del papel del capital social en la creación de capital intelectual, sugieren que el capital social debe considerarse en términos de tres grupos: estructural, relacional y cognitivo.[34].
Definition issues
Several scholars have expressed concern about the imprecision of the definition of social capital. Portes (2000), for example, notes that the term has become so widespread, even in the mainstream media, that "the point is approaching at which social capital comes to be applied to so many events and in so many different contexts as to lose any distinctive meaning." since it is argued that social capital has similar (although less measurable) benefits. However, the analogy can be misleading in that, unlike forms of financial capital, social capital is not depleted by use;[37] instead, it is depleted by non-use (use it or lose it).
Robison, Schmid, and Siles (2002) review various definitions of social capital and conclude that many do not satisfy the formal requirements of a definition.[38] They state that definitions should be of the form A=B, while many accounts of social capital describe what it can be used for, where it resides, how it can be created, or what it can transform. Furthermore, they argue that many of the proposed definitions of social capital do not satisfy the requirements of capital. They propose that social capital be defined as sympathy: the object of another's sympathy has social capital; those who have sympathy for others provide social capital.[38] This proposal seems to follow Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments' to some extent, but Smith's conceptualization of sympathy (particularly in the first two chapters of this work) seems more concerned with the functions of acceptance or congruence - in ethics or virtue - in evaluating the "property of action" of an individual.
social capital is different from the economic theory of social capitalism"), which questions the idea that socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
The forms of capital (Bourdieu)
In The forms of capital, Pierre Bourdieu distinguishes three forms of capital: economic capital "Capital (economy)"), cultural capital and social capital.[39] He defines social capital as "the set of real or potential resources that are linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relations of mutual knowledge and recognition"[40] His treatment of the concept is instrumental, focusing on the advantages for the holders of social capital and on the *"deliberate construction of sociability in order to create this resource.
Norms of trust and reciprocity (Sander, Putnam, Coleman)
Thomas Sander[42] defines it as "the collective value of all social networks (that people know), and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for others (norms&action=edit&redlink=1 "Norm (social) (not yet written)") of reciprocity&action=edit&redlink=1 "Reciprocity (social psychology) (not yet written)"). "[43] Social capital, from this point of view, makes emphasis on the "specific benefits of the Goodness and Courage Theory") that derive from trust&action=edit&redlink=1 "Trust (social sciences) (not yet written)"), reciprocity&action=edit&redlink=1 "Reciprocity (social psychology) (not yet written)"), information and cooperation associated with social networks." "It creates value for the people who are connected, and also for bystanders")"[43].
Meanwhile, negative norms of reciprocity serve to discourage harmful and violent behaviors.[44][45].
James Coleman defined social capital functionally as "a variety of entities with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of the social structure, and facilitate certain actions of actors...within the structure"[46]—that is, social capital is anything that facilitates individual or collective action, generated by networks of relationships, reciprocity, trust, and social norms.[41] In Coleman's conception, social capital is a neutral resource that facilitates any type of action, but whether society is better off as a result depends entirely on the individual uses to which it is put.[47].
According to Robert D. Putnam"), social capital refers to "the connections between individuals: social networks and the norms of reciprocity&action=edit&redlink=1 "Reciprocity (social psychology) (not yet written)") and trust&action=edit&redlink=1 "Trust (social science) (not yet written)") that arise from them.""[48] In the view of Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintain democracy. Putnam claims that social capital is declining in the United States. This is seen in lower levels of trust in government and lower levels of civic participation. He also says that television and urban sprawl have played a role in making America much less "connected." Putnam believes that social capital can be measured by the amount of trust and "reciprocity" in a community or between individuals. Putnam also suggests that one of the causes of the decline in social capital is the entry of women into the labor force"), which could be correlated with time constraints that inhibit participation in civic organizations such as PTAs").[49] The technological transformation of leisure (e.g., television) is another cause of the decline in social capital, as Putnam states. This provided a benchmark from which several studies evaluated measures of social capital by the way in which the media strategically engages in building social capital.[50].
Civic Association (Fukuyama)
In "Social Capital, Civil Society and Development", political economist Francis Fukuyama defines social capital as generally understood rules that allow people to cooperate, such as the norm of reciprocity&action=edit&redlink=1 "Reciprocity (social psychology) (not yet drafted)") or religious doctrine") such as Christianity. Social capital is formed through repeated interactions over time and, according to him, is fundamental for development and difficult to generate through public policies. The importance of social capital for economic development lies in the fact that these behavioral norms reduce the transaction costs of exchange, such as legal contracts and government regulations. Fukuyama suggests that, although social capital is beneficial for development, it also imposes a cost on non-members of the group, with unintended consequences for general well-being.
Referencing Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America, and what he described as the art of association of the American propensity for civil association, Fukuyama argues that social capital is what produces a civil society. Although civic engagement is an important part of democracy and development, Fukuyama asserts that "one person's civic engagement is another person's rent-seeking." Therefore, although social capital can facilitate economic development by reducing transaction costs and increasing productivity, social capital can also distort democracy if civic association allows special interests to obtain special favors. However, Fukuyama argues that, despite the risk of society having too much social capital, it is worse to have too little and be unable to organize to obtain public goods and welfare-enhancing activities.
Social ties
Carlos García Timón describes that the structural dimensions of social capital are related to the ability of an individual to establish weak and strong ties with others within a system. This dimension focuses on the advantages derived from the configuration of an actor's network, whether individual or collective. The differences between weak and strong ties are explained by Granovetter (1973).[51] The relational dimension focuses on the nature of the connection between individuals. The best way to characterize it is through trust in others and their cooperation and the identification that an individual has within a network. Hazleton and Kennan (2000)[52] added a third angle, that of communication. Communication is necessary to access and use social capital through the exchange of information, the identification of problems and solutions, and the management of conflicts.
According to Boisot") (1995),[53] and Boland and Tenkasi (1995),[54] meaningful communication requires at least a shared context between the parties of said exchange. The cognitive dimension focuses on the shared meaning, representations and interpretations that individuals or groups have with each other.[34].