The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (250 page)

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Social capital refers to the social networks, systems of reciprocal relations, sets of norms, or levels of trust that individuals or groups may have, or to the resources arising from them. Its recent popularity can be traced to three authors - Pierre Bourdieu , James Coleman and Robert Putnam — each of whom has a distinctive conception of social capital.
Bourdieu, who began writing in the late 1960s, discusses a range of different kinds of capital (economic, cultural, social) which inter-relate and may substitute for one another. In his later work, social capital is identified as the actual or potential resources which arise from being part of a network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.Bourdieu was chiefly concerned with the way in which powerful élites retained their privilege.
Coleman's conception of social capital arose out of his empirical work in the 1980s examining the links between social disadvantage, community and schooling. His claim is that children who are part of a group with high social capital (for example, a Catholic school), have better educational outcomes, even in the context of social disadvantage. More generally, he defined social capital as the set of resources which are inherent in a group (for example, a family or a community organization), and which facilitate certain actions of members of the group (for example, social and cognitive development of a child).
For Putnam, social capital refers to three features of social life - networks, norms and trust - which enable participants to function more effectively in pursuing a common goal. In his much-quoted study Bowling Alone (2000), he documents the decline in civic engagement in the United States and points the finger of blame at the rise in television viewing. He also seeks to show that high levels of social capital are associated with a range of desirable societal outcomes, such as economic prosperity and low crime rates.
The relationship between social capital and human capital is unclear. Human capital is a concept used by economists and often measured by duration of schooling and labour market experience, or by educational qualifications. One interpretation holds that human capital is a private good (i.e. the benefits accrue largely to the individual), while social capital is a public or collective good (i.e. it is an attribute of a group). Another interpretation, not inconsistent with the first, is that the two forms of capital are complementary: high levels of human capital generate social capital, and social capital promotes acquisition of human capital.
Opinion is divided as to whether social capital is always positive. From the perspective of wider society, some forms of social capital are clearly damaging (for example, the mafia), while others are a barrier to equal opportunities (for example, old boys' networks). Even these forms of social capital may, however, be beneficial for those who possess them.
Empirical evidence on the role of social capital in society is thin, although attempts to operationalize the concept are becoming more widespread. Meanwhile, the rich theoretical apparatus of writing on social capital seems to generate more controversies than it resolves. This may be because it is a ‘broad church’, able to accommodate diverse political perspectives. Neo-liberals in the World Bank can champion social capital as the missing link between free markets and economic growth, communitarians can point to the necessity of social capital for the maintenance of the social fabric, while radical egalitarians can argue that the destruction of social capital is yet another manifestation of the alienation inherent in capitalist society.
TB 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

An agreement (December 1989) among all
European Union
members except Britain on minimum standards of social security provision and other health, safety, and labour mobility issues. Following the passage of the
Single European Act
, which incorporated the Single Market Programme (SMP), there was concern amongst EU trade unionists and the Commission that the emphasis of the SMP on competition amongst enterprises might undermine social security provision and corporatist labour market arrangements in the then European Community. Furthermore, some governments feared ‘social dumping’ by those member states with low wages and social security standards: these would attempt to attract investment away from states with comprehensive social security benefits.
The measures were secured despite opposition from EU employers, much watered down from the original Commission proposal. It was seen as an important step towards the creation of a ‘people's Europe’ to balance the benefits of the SMP to the business community. Its legal status was somewhat obscure, due largely to the United Kingdom's refusal to participate. The eleven signatory states agreed to implement it in a Social Action Programme, but it was outside the normal purview of EC law and not therefore binding. An unsuccessful attempt was made to incorporate the charter in the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, but British objections meant that the ‘Social Chapter’ of Maastricht remained an extra-EU agreement amongst the remaining eleven. At stake is what kind of economic and social space the EU is to become in the face of global competition and internal economic adjustment: a
laissez-faire
economy with low labour standards where firms adjust to competition largely through falling wage rates (like Britain and the United States); or something more along the traditional postwar European social democratic or corporatist ‘high-wage’ model of investment in innovation and training.
GU 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The study of the aggregation of individual preferences into a group choice, or group ordering. It had false dawns in medieval Europe, and again from 1785 to 1803, and from 1873 to 1876. In 1299 Ramon Lull proposed that the winner in a multicandidate election should be chosen by comparing the candidates with one another, two at a time. In 1435 Nicholas
Cusanus
proposed what has come to be known as the
Borda
or rank-order count for electing a Holy Roman Emperor. In 1785
Condorcet
first discovered that majority rule could ‘
cycle
’ so that there might be majorities for
a
over
b
, for
b
over
c
, for
c
over
a
, all at the same time. When there is such a majority-rule cycle, the concept ‘will of the people’ is meaningless because every possibility loses by a popular majority to at least one other. Condorcet's ideas were extensively discussed in French academic circles until 1803, but then lost, to be independently rediscovered by C. L.
Dodgson
(Lewis Carroll ) in the 1870s and rediscovered by Duncan
Black
in the 1950s. Social choice as now understood was founded jointly by Black and by Kenneth Arrow , whose general
impossibility theorem
of 1951 uses majority-rule cycles on its way to the startling proof that any choice procedure which satisfies some apparently minimal conditions of fairness and rationality is potentially dictatorial.
Since 1951, social choice theory has grown explosively. Most work has been so mathematically uncompromising that neither politicians nor political scientists have understood it, nor have social choice theorists bothered to explain themselves. But its chief results matter for both political theory and political practice. They include: that the weak
Pareto
rule (‘if everybody prefers
a
to
b
, society should choose
a
’) is inconsistent with libertarianism; that no fair and non-random voting procedure is proof against
manipulation
; and that, when opinion is multidimensional, there is probably a global majority-rule cycle embracing all outcomes, even those which lose unanimously to some others. Social choice is just starting to penetrate the practical discussion of
proportional representation
.