SCIENCE@home

Social Capital and Household Welfare: A Review of Contemporary Empirical Literature

Chris E Onyemenam

Published 2019 in The International Journal of Humanities & Social Studies

ABSTRACT

Most studies on social capital especially in Africa, have adopted econometric models in explaining its role in the different developmental paths of societies with similar endowments. From a historical perspective, relying on aggregative national survey data on social welfare, ‘wellbeing’, ‘national happiness index’ to an examination using increasingly structured proximate measures of formal community organisational activities, in particular, membership participation and benefits and their impact on the rural household welfare, almost to the exclusion of informal social capital. Although the influence of technology, especially with the increasing penetration, access and massive impact of the social media have stimulated further research interest in social capital, particularly in Europe and America, econometric modeling and analytical techniques still dominates, while most African researchers have been more interested in how formal social capital impact the welfare of the poor rural farming households as a way to develop rural communities. This paper argues, following an extensive review of the literature that the fixation with ‘econometric analysis’ and ‘formal social capital’, presents only a partial view it does not explain the significant role of informal social capital resources that inhere in informal, yet durable social networks and relations that characterise the community social structure and are encapsulated in its social history. The paper further opines that greater attention should be given to the role of informal social capital in rural household welfare enhancement towards creating a structured role for kinship based groups in the development process, stripping them of the ‘negative’, ‘anti-development’ toga and optimise their potential capacity for mobilisation of rural poor households for active participation in the design and implementation of pro-poor policies and schemes. It would also help redirect research efforts and provide the much-needed evidence for realistic policies especially on ‘bottom-up’, community participatory implementation strategy for developing rural communities. Keywords: Social capital research, formal social capital, informal networks and relations, community social structure, social history, community development THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES ISSN 2321 9203 www.theijhss.com 265 Vol 7 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijhss/2019/v7/i8/HS1908-075 August, 2019 The rest of the paper is divided into three parts: a brief overview of the evolution and definitional issues around social capital, the contemporary methodological and conceptual issues and thegaps that researchers have unwittingly created in their skewed attention and quest to theorizeand model some aspects of social capital. The rationale is to justifythe need for a new perspective, against the background of the contemporaneous nature of factors in the development process and the search for a sustainable development strategy evident in the SDGs project targets (UNDP, 2016). 2. Development of the Concept of Social Capital The concept ‘social capital’ can be traced back to the history of socioeconomic thought, especially in the works of Durkheim, Marx and De Tocqueville (Halpern, 2005, Putnam, 2001). As Portes (1998) argued, the concept behind social capital is nothing new in sociological terms, considering Durkheim’s emphasis on being connected in a community as an ‘antidote to anomie and self-destruction’. Hanifan (1916, 1920), used it to describe those ‘tangible assets that count for most in daily lives of people...I make no reference to the usual acceptation of the term capital, except in a figurative sense. I do not refer to real estate, or to personal property or to cold cash, but rather to that in life, which tends to make these tangible substances count for most in the daily lives of a people, namely, goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit, the rural community...’ (Hanifan, 1916: 130). The basic idea of ‘social capital’ is that one’s family, friends, and associates, membership of groups/networks, (by birth or admission) constitute an important asset, that can be called upon in a crisis, enjoyed for its own sake, and/or leveraged for material gain (Woolcock & Narayan, 2002). It is about the norms, obligations, communal values, rules and trust embedded in both formal and informal (but durable) networks and social relations – the totality of a community’s social structure and institutional arrangements – that enable its members to pursue and achieve their individual and or collective goals through which their welfare is enhanced and yet communal and community life is preserved. As noted by the World Bank (2000) ‘social norms and networks are a key form of capital that people can use to move out of poverty’. The nature of their informal and or civic engagements may be determined by their immediate need or situation, personal or collective interest and or circumstances of social history, ethnic antecedents or sentiments, which define how the perceived membership or indigene benefits and privileges built during interactions that occur for several reasons, are appropriated (Durston, 1999, 2004, Levien, 2015, Onyemenam, 2017). Most studies have been influenced by this approach to the conceptualization and characterization of social capital. Efforts of recent researchers have also been influenced by definitions of social capital proffered by scholars from various disciplinary backgrounds and perspectives. For example, while Portes (1998), defined social capital as ‘the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures’, Loury (1976), espoused the view that‘...an individual’s social origin has an obvious and important effect on the amount of resources, which are ultimately invested in his development ...concept of ‘social capital’ to represent the consequences of social position in facilitating individual acquisition ...this idea has the advantage of forcing the analyst to consider the extent to which individual earnings are accounted for by social forces outside the individual’s control... (Loury, 1976: 46).Bourdieu (1986a:249) posited three categories of ‘capital including social which he defined as ‘...the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition or in other words to membership in a group which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital, a credential which entitles them to ‘credit’ in the various senses of the word...’ while Woolcock (1998) defined it as ‘...the social relationships that give rise to the outcomes of trust, reciprocity, and social norms, which facilitate collective action and may be of two types: community social relationships, and institutional/governmental relationships(Woolcock, 1998: 108). Central to the concept of social capital are the connections among individuals in terms of social network, reciprocity and trust that arise from them and the network and relationships represented in societies’ institutions and groups. Researchers seem to accept the view that both webs of networks and social relations (formal and/or informal) provide the context ‘social milieu’ within which social capital, though not tangible, can be built, appropriated and/or experienced in a consequential manner by an individual, or family/household and by extension, the community or State. In this sense, most studies have perceived social capital as capturing the idea of social norms, networks, trust, shared values, spiritual wellbeing, social status, prestige, honour, social identity, belonging andsocial bonding, which are considered to be significant aspects of the community's social structure and social history(Narayan, 1997, Osia, 2012). Earlier studies validated the notion thatall networks and social relations embodying social capital have a certain level of trust, which can be smaller or larger than members of the group, and which determines the extent to which people are willing to invest or divest themselves in social relationships with one another. Increased attention on formal, organizational features have led to a neglect of the unique ‘trust level’ in informal networks and kinship groups. However, the idea that high stocks of trust invariably lead to higher levels of social capital that in turn, promotes the emergence of denser social networks and progressively stronger norms of reciprocity have been validated by researchers ((Fukuyama, 1999, Serageldin & Grootaert, 2000, Serageldin, 1996). In the literature, contemporary definitions of social capital have been influenced by the works of different developers, like Loury (1976, 1981), Bourdieu (1986b), Coleman (1988, 1990) and Putnam (1993b) among others. Coleman (1990) conceived of social capital as a tool for explaining how social organisations affect the actions of individuals under the assumptions of a rational-choice theory, (following from Loury (1981). His construct of the individual-level theory of action is, which is premised on the notion that all social systems (of norms, trust, authority and THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMANITIES & SOCIAL STUDIES ISSN 2321 9203 www.theijhss.com 266 Vol 7 Issue 8 DOI No.: 10.24940/theijhss/2019/v7/i8/HS1908-075 August, 2019 exchange) arise from the interactions between individuals who engage with each other in a purposive manner to obtain those resources they lack which are of interest to them fuelled significant research interest in the analysis of ‘levels of participation in groups and associations. This ‘social context’ or the resultant ‘social milieu’ is seen as important because it impacts the actions of the individual, either in terms of cost-benefit or facilitating t

PUBLICATION RECORD

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CLAIMS

  • No claims are published for this paper.

CONCEPTS

  • No concepts are published for this paper.

REFERENCES

Showing 1-100 of 119 references · Page 1 of 2

12
Next

CITED BY