| What's New |  |
About AIFS | |
Search |
| Media | |
Research | |
Information | |
Databases | |
Publications | |
Lists | |
Conferences | |
Seminars | |
Courses | |
Links |
This paper is also available in
PDF format - you will need an Acrobat Reader which is
free from http://www.adobe.com/prodindex/acrobat/readstep.html
Contents
In Australia, as in other nations, ‘social capital’ is being looked to as a means of stemming the tide of perceived community decline and widespread distrust associated with it. The increasingly central role that social capital plays in Australian public policy has fuelled demand for empirical understandings of it. Yet, demand for empirical measures of social capital exceeds supply.Within this context the Australian Institute of Family Studies is undertaking the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project. To inform the Institute project, this paper contributes to the development of clear links between theorised and empirical understandings of social capital by: establishing a theoretically informed measurement framework for empirical investigation of social capital, and; reviewing existing measures of social capital in light of this framework. The paper concludes with a statement of guiding principles for the measurement and empirical investigation of social capital in family and community life.
Where social capital has been measured to date, it has often been done so using ‘questionable measures’, often designed for other purposes, and without sufficient regard to the theoretical underpinnings of the concept to ensure validity or reliability. This paper will be useful for critiquing and building on the work that has already been done.
In Australia, as in other nations, social capital is being looked to as a means of stemming the tide of perceived community decline and widespread distrust associated with it. It promises hope for the regeneration of benefits – both social and economic – said to come from those interactions among neighbours, citizens and governments which are characterised by strong norms of trust and mutuality. New roles for government and markets, a focus upon the rights and responsibilities of citizens and the formulation of state-market-community partnerships position social capital centrally in current public policy.1
The Australian Institute of Family Studies is undertaking the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project to investigate the role of families in the development and sustainability of strong communities, and to identify family circumstances associated with active economic, community and political life. Social capital lies at the core of this project, as it provides a framework for conceptualising and measuring the social resources families can invest in and draw upon in order to actively engage in the communities around them, and address common problems.
Despite its historical roots (for discussion see Putnam 1998; Winter 2000a) and considerable contemporary use, debate has seen the conceptualisation of social capital race ahead of the development of tools for measuring it empirically. The present demand for empirical measures of social capital exceeds supply (Rose 1998: 5). In turn, better understanding of the empirical nature of social capital will promote further conceptual refinement. Public policy, too, cannot aim to facilitate the growth of communities rich in social capital with accuracy until we know, and are able to measure and describe, what such communities look like and what role social capital plays within them.
That there is a gulf between theoretical understandings of social capital and the ways social capital has been measured in much empirical work to date is a criticism which is developed throughout this paper. It is this gulf which leads to empirical confusion about the meaning, measurement, outcomes and relevance of social capital. Paxton (1999: 90) identifies the same problem, noting that previous studies provide little rationale for how measures of social capital connect to theoretical definition. She believes that this has resulted in the use of ‘questionable indicators of social capital’, including single item measures of it, and in inconsistent results. There are many reasons for this gulf, some of which are described below and it is hoped this paper will make a contribution to building a bridge between the understanding of social capital and its measurement.
The aim of this paper is to contribute to the development of clear links between theorised and empirical understandings of social capital. The specific aims of the paper are to establish a conceptually sound and theoretically informed measurement framework for empirical investigation of social capital (both in the Institute’s own study, and in other research); and, to review existing measures of social capital in light of this framework, by drawing upon examples of both secondary and primary social capital research conducted to date. By doing so, the paper aims to identify guidelines for the measurement of social capital relevant for the study of families and society.
A note on the measurement rush
Although not all social capital research has been based on clear definition and theory, much social capital research to date provides a useful starting point to the development of conceptually sound measures.
First are those studies based on secondary analyses. Much social capital research to date falls within this category, yet – not surprisingly – is inherently limited as data gathered originally for purposes other than the study of social capital are unlikely to provide conceptually thorough measures of it. The ad hoc mixture of measures, indicators and outcomes drawn upon in secondary analyses have no doubt contributed to the confusion which exists between social capital theory and measurement, despite providing some early indications of the usefulness of social capital as a concept.
Second are the earliest attempts at primary data collection for the study of social capital. These are fewer in number yet extend what may be learned via secondary analysis as they add sophistication and precision to data collection.
One of the first to pursue the benefits of social capital as a research and development resource was the World Bank. The World Bank’s Social Capital Initiative (SCI), designed to define, monitor and measure social capital, was established specifically to ‘improve our understanding of [social capital] and suggest ways through which the donor community can invest in social capital and create an enabling environment in which social capital can be strengthened’ (World Bank 1998: 3). The SCI and related works inform upon the relationship between social capital and economic prosperity and community development at local and national levels.2
Health researchers and community health professionals have also been quick to embrace the potential benefits of social capital, in line with the long-standing recognition of the importance of social support for public health and community wellbeing. In particular, Marshall Kreuter et al (1997, 1999) have developed and refined a series of measurement tools for understanding the effectiveness of community-based health promotion programs in the US, and which inform upon how social capital is manifest in different communities.
Closer to home, following Eva Cox’s (1995) promotion of the concept, a number of Australian researchers have embarked on its empirical investigation. Notably, Onyx and Bullen in their quantitative study of Five Communities in NSW and related work (1997, 2000) have undertaken what appears to be the first primary data collection of social capital in Australia. Following their lead, a number of projects have also now been conducted, including an Adelaide community health study undertaken by Baum et al (1998, 2000) and a qualitative study of the way 12 Australian households lead their lives, conducted by the Centre for Independent Studies (Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998). Other key Australian contributions have investigated aspects of social capital in relation to belief systems (Hughes, Bellamy and Black 1998, 2000) and volunteering (Lyons 2000).
These international and Australian contributions to the measurement of social capital are referred to at relevant points throughout this paper.
It is important to note that the review of social capital measurement presented in this paper refers to measures of a concept which are not long established, and even await empirical testing in some instances. Thus, this review focuses upon how well the measurement of social capital to date informs the conceptual framework developed here. Unlike measurement critiques of more well established concepts, this review is unable to compare standard items or approaches, or to present data in support of one measure over another.3
The survey as a vehicle for social capital research
As stated above, one of the aims of this paper is to inform the measurement of social capital in family and community life for the Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project. The Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project is designed to examine levels of social capital associated with varying family circumstances and to assess the importance of social capital in shaping patterns of family engagement with the economy, polity and community nation wide. In order to ‘map’ social capital in this way, the project relies upon a survey instrument to determine the nature and extent of social capital across Australian families and communities.
One of the implications of using the survey as a vehicle for social capital research relates to ‘social scale’. By definition, social capital is not restricted to particular social networks of one size or another. The literature identifies social capital in local and other community networks (Putnam 1993; Kreuter 1999), at the level of nation states (Knack and Keefer 1997), and, albeit less commonly, within families (Coleman 1988; Amato 1998; Furstenberg and Hughes 1995; Furstenberg 1996).4
The use of the survey as a vehicle for measuring social capital in family and community life means that the data collected is at the level of an individual. Although individuals might be asked questions about the community, region, or nation they are part of, the social capital of communities (or regions or areas) is then measured by collating information gathered from individuals within those communities, rather than by examining a particular community more directly. This approach provides an indication of the level and distribution of social capital within an area, as well as a detailed picture of social capital in the lives of individuals and families.
In contrast, it is important to note that there are alternate approaches to the measurement of social capital, particularly within specified organisations or communities. These include qualitative research and the study of specific localities, via participant observation, surveys of individuals about the local area, and the collection of local documents and histories.5 While making valuable contribution to understandings of social capital, these studies are not reviewed in detail in this paper.
Structure of the paper
Section 2 of this paper presents a conceptual framework for the measurement of social capital, which sets out its separate dimensions and their characteristics.
Section 3 then reviews the ways in which dimensions of social capital and their characteristics identified in Section 2 have been measured to date.
The paper concludes with a summary of guidelines for the theoretically informed measure of social capital in studies of families and society.
Section 2 – A theoretically informed measurement framework
In order to achieve theoretical rigour in social capital measurement, a clear understanding of the concept, upon which to base an empirical framework, is essential.
Social capital consists of networks of social relations which are characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity. Combined, it is these elements which are argued to sustain civil society and which enable people to act for mutual benefit (Lochner et al 1998; Winter 2000a); it is ‘the quality of social relationships between individuals that affect their capacity to address and resolve problems they face in common’ (Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998: 2).
Thus, social capital can be understood as a resource to collective action, which may lead to a broad range of outcomes. In his analysis of social capital and family life, Winter (2000a: 2-6) argues that despite some conceptual confusion in the social capital literature, three of the most notable social capital writers each conceptualise social capital in this way, albeit it in relation to differing outcomes, of varying social scale. Bourdieu (1993), Putnam (1993) and Coleman (1988) each understand social capital as a resource to collective action, the outcomes of which concern economic wellbeing, democracy at the nation state level, and the acquisition of human capital in the form of education, respectively.6
In measurement terms, understanding social capital as a resource to action leads immediately to the need for empirical clarity about measures of social capital, and measures of its outcomes. It is necessary to recognise empirically that understanding whether or not a social process is at work is different from understanding the consequences of such a process. As Newton (1997: 578) states, social capital ‘may indeed generate valuable goods and services … but we should not assume that it does, and we should not include such goods and benefits as part of the definition’. Similarly, Paxton (1999) draws a distinction between measures of social capital and its outcomes, consistent with the approach taken throughout this paper. This is in distinct contrast, however, to the way social capital has been operationalised in much research to date.
Before defining its key components, the distinction between measures, outcomes and indicators of social capital warrants some attention.
Measures, outcomes and indicators
Social capital measurement is considerably complicated by the fact that social capital research has frequently relied upon measures of the outcomes of social capital as indicators of social capital itself. A measure of a norm of trust (for example the extent to which a culture within a family group is trusting), is different from a behavioural outcomes of that norm (for example the extent to which family members trust one another to care for one another’s children).
Indicators used in social capital research can be classified into ‘proximal’ and ‘distal’ groupings. ‘Proximal’ indicators of social capital are in fact outcomes of social capital related to its core components of networks, trust and reciprocity. Examples of proximal outcomes (or ‘indicators’) include the use of civic engagement as an indicator of social networks. This approach was made famous in Putnam’s (1995) analysis of civic decline in America, which was based upon membership of formal associations and groups. Actions associated with a display of confidence in others, an outcome of a norm of trust (see for example Onyx and Bullen 2000), as well as reciprocal acts or exchanges, an outcome of a norm of reciprocity (see for example Rose 1999), are also used as proximal indicators of social capital.
‘Distal’ indicators are outcomes of social capital which are not directly related to its key components. Examples of distal indicators, drawn from a study of social capital and health, include: life expectancy; health status; suicide rates; teenage pregnancy; crime rates; participation rates in tertiary education; employment and unemployment rates; family income; marital relationship formations and dissolutions; business confidence; job growth; growth in GDP; and balance of trade (Spellerberg 1997: 43-44). Such indicators are often relied upon with little or no empirical regard to their relationship with measures of social capital, nor even to more proximal social capital outcomes.
Proximal and distal indicators are relied upon frequently in social capital research, particularly in studies reliant upon secondary analyses, where existing data is limited. While useful in some ways, the mixture, use and misuse of indicators in social capital research to date, and lack of theoretical precision used in the selection of indicators, has led to considerable confusion about what social capital is, as distinct from its outcomes, and what the relationship between social capital and its outcomes may be.
Empirical investigations which rely upon indicators of social capital are rarely supported by direct empirical investigation of the relationship between indicators (proximal or distal outcomes) and the core components of social capital. Hence both proximal and distal outcomes may or may not be valid indicators of social capital for this reason.7 This raises the further tautological problem that research reliant upon an outcome of social capital as an indicator of it, will necessarily find social capital to be related to that outcome, without empirical means to explain why, or indeed whether, this is so. Social capital becomes tautologically present whenever an outcome is observed (Portes 1998; Durlauf 1999).
Slippage between measures of social capital, social relations characterised by high levels of trust and reciprocity, and its outcomes (be they proximal or distal) has not only resulted in empirical mayhem in some instances, but has also muddied the way social capital is understood at the conceptual level. In particular, a focus upon outcomes of social capital has fuelled debate over whether collective action resulting in group rather than public good is social capital at all.8 When social capital is understood as a resource to action, such debates are rendered useful only for understanding the consequences of social capital, rather than existence of it per se.
Separating the measure of social capital from its outcomes enables social capital to be positioned unambiguously within any research design, and be understood clearly in relation to its predictors and/or outcomes. A number of studies present social capital as an independent variable, and ask questions about how social capital influences other variables (such as child wellbeing; community development). Other studies aim to determine what it is that leads to the decline or growth of social capital as a dependent variable. Still others adopt measurement designs which see social capital as both dependent and independent in their models (asking, for example, what makes social capital and what is the impact of it on any given outcome?). These are interesting design questions and highlight the diverse interest in social capital, yet have potential to confuse its measurement unless asked within a clear conceptual framework.
A theoretically informed approach to the measurement of social capital is essential to overcoming empirical confusion and enabling proper investigation of social capital as it relates to a range of outcomes. By linking social capital measurement directly to theoretical understandings of the concept, we are able to: first, recognise that social capital is a multidimensional concept comprising social networks, norms of trust, and norms of reciprocity; second, understand social capital properly as a resource to action; and third, empirically distinguish between social capital and its outcomes.
Operationalising social capital
Once social capital is distinguished from its outcomes, the concept can be operationalised. Starting from an understanding of social capital as networks characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity, the need to identify the structure of social relations between actors, as well as a means of measuring their quality, becomes immediately apparent.
Conceptualising social relations as networks enables us to identify the structure of social relations (for example whether people know one another, and what the nature of their relationship is) as well as their content (for example, flows of goods and services between people, as well as norms governing such exchanges) (Nadel 1957). Network analysis is appropriate for the study of relational data and social network methodologies focus upon the contacts, ties, connections, group attachments and meetings which relate one actor to another and which are therefore not able to be reduced to the properties, or attributes, of individual agents (Scott 1991: 3).9 Classical social network analysis in sociology and anthropology is in many ways concerned with those aspects of networks which are necessary to understand social capital, and forms a rich reference for the study of networks in social capital research. Networks may be understood as the ‘structural’ elements of social capital.
The ‘content’ of these networks in social capital terms refers to norms of trust and reciprocity which operate within these structures. Means of measuring norms of trust and reciprocity are less well developed than are measures of the structural characteristics of networks. Measuring norms involves the study of cultures within particular networks, rather than the properties of individuals within those networks, as is described in more detail in Section 3 of this paper.
Table 1 presents the measurable components of social capital. It identifies networks, trust and reciprocity as the key dimensions. The table also presents a range of network characteristics which previous studies indicate may influence the nature and extent of social capital within a given network. Networks, trust and reciprocity presented at Table 1 form the measurable components of social capital and are discussed in more detail throughout the review of their measurement in Section 3, below.
Table 1. Core dimensions of social capital and their characteristics.
|
Structure of social relations: networks |
Quality of social relations: norms |
|
Type: Informal ÷ formal Size/capacity: Limited ÷ extensive Spatial: Household ÷ global Structural: Open ÷ closed Dense ÷ sparse Homogenous ÷ heterogenous Relational: Vertical ÷ horizontal |
Norm of trust
Norm of reciprocity
|
Recognising social capital as a multi-dimensional concept
Identifying the key components of social capital, as presented in Table 1, demonstrates that social capital is a multidimensional concept. Newton (1997: 575) suggests that to fail to conceptualise social capital’s dimensions in separate terms is ultimately likely to ‘muddle empirical questions’. Unless the separate dimensions are identified, we are unable to ask questions about how these dimensions operate empirically. Inability to pose empirical questions about the nature of the interaction between the separate dimensions of social capital severely limits our understanding of the concept as a whole.
Despite this, numerous social capital studies rely upon unidimensional measures of the concept, often with scant empirical or conceptual regard to the relationship between that dimension and other key elements, nor to the ‘representativeness’ of a given dimension of social capital of the concept as a whole. Most notable among these are studies which use a single item measure of trust, most often drawn from the World Values Survey, as indicative of social capital as a whole (see for example Knack and Keefer 1997). While trust lies at the core of social capital, it is also important to know how that trust inheres within networks, and its relationship to the norm of reciprocity.
Section 3 – A review of social capital measurement
This section of the paper is structured around the key components of social capital presented in Table 1, above, describes their characteristics in more detail, and provides examples of the way these have been measured in social capital research to date.10
Structure of social relations: networks
Network types
Before specific characteristics of social networks can be explored, or their quality investigated, the network type being studied in any given social capital research must be identified.
Putnam (1998) distinguishes between informal and formal networks, or what he terms formality of civic engagement (Putnam 1998: vi). Informal ties, according to Putnam, include those held between family, kin, friends and neighbours, whereas formal ties include ties to voluntary associations and the like.
Among informal networks, distinction is first made between families within and beyond the household, as it is anticipated that family units within one household cooperate and function in different ways to extended networks of kin beyond the household (Finch 1989; Finch and Mason 1993).11 Informal ‘communities of interest’ beyond family and kin include friendships and other intimate relationships as well as bonds among neighbours. Formal networks of social relations concern those aspects of life most often described as civic (Baum et al 2000) or institutional. These include associations with formally constituted groups, as well as non-group based activities.
|
Informal networks |
Formal networks of social relations |
|
- individual community or political action
- child care - education - sport/leisure - music/arts - church - charity - voluntary - self help
- associations
|
Source: Families, Social Capital and Citizenship project, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2000.
(i) Family within the household
The family household, as a place in which social relations characterised by trust and reciprocity operate, has received relatively little attention in social capital research.13 Those studies which do focus on social capital within a family household typically investigate the impact of social capital on a given family outcome – often child development or wellbeing. The work of Coleman (1988), Furstenberg and Hughes (1995) and Amato (1998) are the most notable studies of this type.
Coleman (1988) was instrumental in determining that social capital may exist within the family unit as in other social networks. In his analysis of the role of social capital in the creation of human capital, Coleman focuses upon parent-child relations and uses measures of the physical presence of adults in a household and attention given by adults to children as empirical indicators of such relations. Ultimately, the ‘strength’ of family relations is measured by Coleman using a ratio of parents to children. Coleman’s approach is useful as it deliberately measures the place and make-up of the family network. However, using the ratio of parents to children in a household as a measure of social capital is questionable in this work, as no account is made of relationship quality, such as through measures of norms of trust or reciprocity. As well, Coleman takes no account of non-resident parents, and quantitatively treats the presence of siblings as deleterious to the quality of any parent-child relation, rather than as having social capital potential, by extending networks of relations in a household.
Despite its limitations, Coleman’s conceptualisation of family social capital as relations between parents and children has been adopted in other studies. Runyan et al (1998: 12), for example, use a measure of social capital which includes: two parents or parent-figures in the home; social support of the maternal caregiver; and no more than two children in the family. Marjoribanks and Kwok (1998) also focus upon exchanges within the parent-child relationship in their ‘family social capital’ scale:
Source: Marjoribanks and Kwok, 1998, p. 101.
Amato (1998) broadens Coleman’s (1988) definition of family social capital to include parent-parent relationships as well as parent-child relationships, and uses a ‘marital discord’ variable to measure parent-parent relations. Parent-child relationships are measured using retrospective data about: receiving help with homework; receiving help with personal problems; having talks; showing affection; and feeling close (Amato 1998: 263).
Despite the breadth Amato adds to the study of networks of family relations, and his attention to the quality rather than quantity of relationships in comparison to Coleman (1988), the analysis remains limited. Apart from not recognising all family relationships (for example child-child or others), Amato’s analysis of parent-parent relations tell us about relationship conflict but arguably, like Coleman, little about family social capital. The fact of marital discord does not necessarily impact upon the ability of partners to cooperate or trust one another.
More recently, Furstenberg (1995) has raised questions about the social capital role of non-resident parents, thus potentially expanding the family network beyond the limitation of household walls, to include other significant family members. Furstenberg (1996) suggests that in order to understand the real contribution of parents to family social capital, it is the culture that parents construct, into which their children are inculcated, which requires research attention. This culture includes values, habits, practices, rituals and norms (Furstenberg and Hughes 1995).
Overall, the measurement of family based households remains limited and is often narrowly defined in social capital research. The ways in which networks of social relations within families ought best be understood empirically, likewise, remains under explored. Adopting an inclusive rather than limited approach to the measurement of social relations within households, for example to include sibling relationships and non-resident parents where relevant, appears necessary to understanding the quality of such relations. A measure of family household networks must also be used in conjunction with measures of the quality and culture of social relations if it is to inform us about family based social capital at all.
(ii) Family beyond the household
Networks of family members or kin who reside beyond the household have received less attention in studies of social capital than families within the household (although intergenerational social support is itself the focus of considerable study, see for example Finch 1989; Finch and Mason 1993; Millward 1999; Short 1996).
Hofferth et al (1995) have published one of the very few investigations which focuses specifically upon social capital between different kinship households, indicated in transfers of time and money. Kinship networks are identified and measured indirectly by asking about a family’s ‘stock of’ and ‘investment in’ social capital in the following way:
Source: Hofferth et al 1995, p. 14.
While these items demonstrate how family relations beyond the household may be explored, more detailed information about the ‘relatives’ involved in the exchange may be needed in some cases. The above questions inform us as to whether a person has family beyond the household they exchange favours with, yet leaves the quantum and identity of family members unknown. As well, depending on the aims of any given research, it may be useful to use a more open or inclusive list of exchanges (where these are used as indicators of social capital). This is particularly so in the case of family and kinship exchange, in which many and varied types of exchange take place.
Measuring the characteristics of networks of family beyond the household, such as network size, proximity and density (all discussed below), provides the most precise means of identifying the family beyond the household networks. Again, any measure of network type must be used in conjunction with information about network characteristics and norms.
(iv) Friends and neighbours
Putnam’s (1995) study of American life drew a distinction between the different types of social networks likely to support social capital. Putnam identified neighbourhood networks – something he described simply as ‘good neighbourliness’ – as promoting social capital. In contrast, the leisure activity of bowling alone, or ‘solo’, rather than in an organised club activity, is presented by Putnam as evidence of ‘social disengagement’.
Since Putnam’s (1995) analysis, a number of studies have measured networks of friends, neighbours and acquaintances somewhat more precisely. Baum et al (2000), who ask about a wide range of networks a person or household is engaged in, use the following items, for example, to measure networks of friends and neighbours. Networks are identified via questions about ‘informal’, ‘public space’ and ‘group’ activities:
If the respondent had done any of the following activities monthly or more often in the past twelve months:
If the respondent had done any of the following activities monthly or more often in the past twelve months:
If the respondent had done any of the following activities monthly or more often in the past twelve months:
Source: Baum et al 2000, p. 255.
These items provide more precise information than that used by Putnam, including – importantly – information about the number of types of networks respondents had been involved with in the last year, and the variation of activities they have engaged in. However, what these particular items do not tell us is whether some of these ‘networks’ involve social relations at all. In particular, items included in this set of questions which ask about ‘activities in public spaces’ such as going to a café, cinema or theatre, or ‘group activities’ such as going to an exercise class or involvement in a hobby tell us more about the ways in which people spend their leisure time than providing specific information about the social networks they are part of.
As well, these items identify networks by relying upon measures of participation and exchange as indicators of social capital. Whether norms of trust and reciprocity operate within these networks must also be determined.
More precise measurement of social capital within friendship or neighbourhood networks may be made by first identifying the existence of such networks, and linking this information to information about network culture and characteristics. The following questions, for example, map out quite simply the existence of social relations in friendship and neighbourhood spheres:
Source: UK ‘National Survey of Voluntary Activity 1991’
(v) Non-group based civic relations
As well as identifiable networks of friends, family and neighbours, a number of social capital studies have also included measures of non-group based social relations. Again using Baum et al (2000) as an example, that study asked the following:
If the respondent had done any of the following activities at all in the past twelve months:
While these items relate to political proactivity, measures of non-group based relations need not be political to inform our understanding of social capital, and may be tailored to the aims of specific studies. For example, the following items, drawn from a study of voluntary activity, tell us about non-group relations in the community (it ought also be noted that these questions may elicit information about relations with friends, neighbours and acquaintances):
Source: UK ‘National Survey of Voluntary Activity 1991’
While asking a question about a series of actions or deeds may identify the networks a person is engaged in as well as something about the nature of network participation, these items may nonetheless tell us little about social capital unless they are used in conjunction with measures of trust and reciprocity.
(vi) Association/group based relations
Information about association-based networks is typically collected via questions about a person’s membership or engagement in a formally constituted group, of one kind or another. Putnam made famous this approach in his 1995 ‘Bowling Alone’ study of American civic life. Using secondary analysis, Putnam used membership rates in a range of types of organisations as indicators of levels of social capital. These associations included: parent-teacher organisations; women’s groups; scouts; Red Cross, Lions clubs; service on a committee of a local organisation; work for a political party; and membership of a support group. Putnam also reported the growth of another form of network – associational membership, often involving little or no face-to-face contact, which he concluded was indicative of depleting stocks of social capital.
Putnam’s analysis has been widely criticised, however, for failing to take account of changing patterns of civic engagement, and for perceiving new ways of engagement (for example the growth of associational memberships) through a nostalgic lens, and attaching negative judgements to them (see for example Pollitt 1999; Skocpol 1999).14
Despite these criticisms, measuring the extent to which people are attached to formally constituted social groups of one kind or another is a method frequently employed for the measure of group based relations in social capital research. Krishna and Shrader (1999), for example, ask respondents whether they belong to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that the questionnaire also asks about the motivations, reciprocity and degree of cooperation involved with such memberships (along with information about other types of networks), these questions are both useful and comprehensive for the analysis of social capital in networks based upon formal membership or association.
Similarly, Baum et al (2000) use the following items to measure association/group based relations. Although this list is less extensive than that presented by Krishna and Shrader, it also provides information about the frequency of engagement in such networks. Questions of this type should be linked to questions about the quality of network relations to inform us about social capital:
If the respondent had been involved in any of the following groups at all
in the past twelve months:
(vii) Work based associations
Apart from studies concerned with the role of social capital within the workplace,15 the work environment has also sometimes been singled out in social capital studies as a place in which friendship and other types of relations may form. These studies recognise the significance of the work environment in modern life, and attempt to measure friendship, group and non-group based associations which flow from the work environment but which are not specifically labour-job oriented.
In their study of five communities, Onyx and Bullen (2000), for example, suggest that the following items provide reliable information about the workplace as an arena in which networks rich in social capital may be found:
Source: Onyx and Bullen 2000, pp. 113.
Other studies which have focused upon employment and social capital, ask about the role of social capital in help with job seeking. Rose (1998), for example, in his study of ‘getting things done’ in modern Russia, asks the following multiple response question:
Source: Rose 1998, p. 13.
Items such as these are useful indicators of the outcomes of social capital, but must be understood in relation to norms of trust and reciprocity to be meaningful in social capital terms.
(viii) Institutions
The extent of engagement individuals or families have with institutions, such as arms of government, the police and so on, are typically asked about in relation to trust (discussed below). However, the following items demonstrate how ‘institutional networks’ are mapped using items about citizen interaction with a range of institutions:
Source: Papadakis 1988, Questionnaire p. 26.
Again, in order to properly inform us about social capital, these items which ask about participation with formal institutions must also take account of the cultural norms which govern such interaction, with particular emphasis upon trust and reciprocity.
Network size and capacity
Having identified network types, the literature suggests certain network characteristics have direct implications for the promotion and nature of social capital. Recent research has distinguished between ‘bonding’, ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ social capital (for discussion see Putnam 1998; Narayan 1999; Woolcock 2000). Bonding social capital involves trust and reciprocity in closed networks, and helps the process of ‘getting by’ in life on a daily basis. ‘Getting ahead’ in contrast, is facilitated through bridging social capital involving multiplex networks which may make accessible the resources and opportunities which exist in one network to a member of another. Linking social capital involves social relations with those in authority, which might be used to garner resources or power.
Thus different types of social capital relate to the range of network characteristics described at Table 1. The first of these is the size and capacity of a given network. Networks can be anything from limited to extensive in size and capacity, and may involve relations within the household, at the neighbourhood or local community scale, to global and virtual relations which operate at vast distance. The size and capacity of social networks may affect overall stocks of social capital. Individuals and families with large numbers of social ties may have access to a large stock of social capital, depending on the nature of those ties. Those with few social ties may thus have little access or opportunity to invest in social capital.
In the network analysis tradition, Mitchell (1969) recognised that it is always necessary to limit the volume of data collected by selecting ‘partial networks’, which could be selected in one of two ways. First, a selected network around an individual, so as to generate ‘ego-centred’ networks of social relations of many kinds. Second, an abstraction of the ‘global’ features of networks in relation to a particular aspect of social life, for example kinship obligations, work relations, or political ties. Scott (1991: 31) observes that network analyses in the social sciences typically draw upon both of these methods, and are concerned with partial, ego-centred networks focused around particular types of social relations. This is also true of social capital research, in which measures typically either map networks of significant others around an individual or family, or are concerned with particular types of exchanges.
The following items drawn from Onyx and Bullen’s (1997, 2000) community studies are an example of the first approach. These items measure the extent of a person’s network of ‘significant others’ via questions about social integration:
Similarly, questions which ask about the physical proximity of family and friends also measure the degree to which a person is socially integrated, or availability of social support networks. The following are examples of these types of questions:
Source: Baum et al 1998.
The strength of this first approach is the information gathered about proximity to friends and family. However, it is important to recognise that this information, on its own, tells us little about which of these social relations, if any, are characterised by norms of trust and reciprocity.
The second approach to measuring the size of a social network focuses upon the substance of social relations. Rather than asking whether interaction takes place with a series of named individuals, the following items from a qualitative social capital study ask about stocks of social capital, which may be called upon to meet needs.
Now I’d like to look at some of the practicalities of how you go about your life.
While leaving a network list open-ended in this way is likely to avoid problems of leaving significant persons out of social network analysis, these questions are imprecise in other ways. For example, they tell little about the regularity or intensity of relationships, nor about the motivations for seeking help from particular sources, and whether such behaviour forms part of an ongoing, trusting relationship of reciprocal exchange.
Combining the first and second approaches to the study of network size, is another approach which attempts to map expressly a person’s network and then add into this map relations which involve reciprocal exchange. This combined approach appears useful where a comprehensive understanding of all close relations in a network is required. For example, in the next set of questions relating specifically to children, respondents are asked a series of questions about exchanges, once they have identified people significant to them and provided information about the type of network those people belong to:
Matrix for network:
For each name respondent provides, the following information is filled:
Source: Cochran 1990, p. 315.
Again, while the information this matrix provides is precise, the same types of questions would ideally be linked to other measures of social capital rather than (or as well as) indicators of it. Where boundaries of networks are to be mapped, networks may best be defined in terms which are social capital relevant. A question asking, for example, about family networks beyond the household may ask about those relatives and kin with whom a person has an ongoing relationship, as well as the extent to which a culture of trust or reciprocity exists as a norm within any such relationship.
Local and global networks
In addition to network type, size and capacity, the ability to discriminate between social relations at household, neighbourhood, local community and other geographic scales may form an important part of a social capital study. As described above, a number of studies have investigated household based social capital, but most social capital research focuses upon local neighbourhoods and communities (see for example Kreuter et al 1997, 1999; Onyx and Bullen 1997, 2000), with little attention to relations beyond these communities.
Studies of social capital at the local community level typically: measure neighbourhood and local community participation; compare participation in one region with other regions; or investigate community connectedness as an indicator of localised social capital.
Onyx and Bullen (2000) provide a good example of the first of these approaches, and have identified the following items as useful ways of mapping local community and neighbourhood networks (which they call ‘arenas’) in which social capital may operate:
The same study also asks about social relations beyond the local community. Items similar to the following could be developed to understand the geographic location of many network types:
Source: Onyx and Bullen 2000, p. 113.
Another way of finding out about the potential for social capital in a local community is to ask directly about how a particular community compares with another, in social capital terms. Krishna and Shrader (1999), for example, ask the following:
Source: Krishna and Shrader 1999, Annex D. pp. 15-16.
While the information these questions provide may not give a precise, quantifiable description of the stock of social capital in either community, what the questions do provide is a perception of the overall culture of cooperation in a local area.
The third approach aims to determine the degree to which a person is connected to a local community – as an indicator of social capital of that local community. The CIS (1998), for example, in their social capital interviews, asked explicitly about community connectedness, and sought to investigate the importance of ‘a sense of connection to a physical place, location or to a ‘place’ that might be defined in terms of a network, an association etc in terms of promoting a sense of belonging’, using the following items:
Source: Stewart-Weeks and Richardson, 1998, pp. 130-134.
These questions inform our understanding of community connectedness. However, the relationship between belonging to a community or locality and social capital is one which requires further empirical exploration. This will determine whether a measure of local connectedness informs our understanding of social capital in any geographic area, at all.
The following items, used to investigate the mediating effect of social capital upon neighbourhood violence, include measures of networks, trust and reciprocity and are thus more likely to inform our understanding of social capital at a neighbourhood level:
Source: Sampson et al 1997, p. 920.
Open and closed networks
According to the social capital literature, the degree to which networks are open or closed has implications for the quality of the relationships they embody, and their productive output (Coleman 1988). Coleman (1988; 1990) defines the structure of relations which shape social capital. First, he distinguishes between open and closed networks of social relations and describes the consequence of the degree to which a network is open or closed. A closed network is one in which social relations exist between and among all parties. As Coleman explains:
Closure of social structure is important not only for the existence of effective norms but also for another form of social capital: the trustworthiness of social structures that allows the proliferation of obligations and expectations … closure creates trustworthiness in a social structure. (Coleman 1988: 107-108)
Yet, despite the theorised effect of network closure upon norms of trust and reciprocity within a network, network closure remains an under investigated characteristic of networks in social capital research.
Clearly, in discussing family networks within a household, an assumption is able to be made that all members of a network know all other members, and that a family network of this type is closed and therefore potentially effective in providing a culture of shared norms and sanctions. However, it is less possible to assume that a closed network exists if we consider a larger family network, possibly one which is spread over vast distance.
Making assumptions about the degree to which non-family based networks are open or closed is more problematic. Even in the case of a local community group or an association small in membership, it cannot be assumed that all network members will know all other members. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume that the larger a network is in number, and the less geographically local it is, the more open it is likely to be in structure.
Coleman (1988) himself provides one of the few empirical investigations of network closure. In his analysis of the effect of both family and community social capital upon children’s educational outcomes, Coleman investigates what he calls ‘intergenerational closure’, as well as multiplex relations (discussed below). Coleman investigated the educational wellbeing of students in religion-based high schools, surrounded by communities based upon religious organisation. In this context, Coleman concludes that what ever the relations of one parent to the next, the adults are members of the same religious body and parents of children in the same school.
However, little empirical work has been done which investigates the relative effect of network closure upon social capital in different types of network, over and above the effects of network density, discussed next.
Dense and sparse networks
The degree to which networks are ‘dense’ – the extent to which network memberships overlap – affects the ability of persons in one context to call on assistance to solve a problem in another. Coleman (1988) draws on the distinction made by Gluckman (1967) between simplex (or ‘sparse’) and multiplex (‘dense’) relations. Where relations are multiplex, persons are linked in more than one context. Work mates, for example, may be members of the same social club. Coleman (1988: 109) describes that the ‘central property of a multiplex relation is that it allows the resources of one relationship to be appropriated for use in others’. The power of multiplex relations was demonstrated by Granovetter (1973) in his classic analysis of job seeking and the strength of weak ties. Despite this, network density remains relatively under-explored in social capital studies.
Stewart-Weeks and Richardson’s 1998 qualitative study of social capital provides an example of how the density of networks might be measured. That study investigated numerous aspects of the structure of networks in which respondents were engaged, including network density. After detailing groups and associations they participated in, respondents were asked to describe the characteristics of the networks in which this participation took place, through the following series of questions:
Source: Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998, pp. 130-131.
Using a quantitative survey, Black and Hughes (2000) explore the extent to which networks are dense in a local community by asking ‘whether people met their peers in the local area in which they lived’, and distinguishing between networks according to whether:
Source: Black and Hughes 2000, pp. 2-3.
Similarly, although in less detail, Krishna and Shrader (1999) ask directly about the density of networks respondents belong to, using the following item:
Source: Krishna and Shrader 1999, Annex D, p. 8.
Without mapping an entire community, or set of interconnected communities, it is no doubt impossible to measure precisely the degree to which networks are dense or sparse. What each of these approaches does inform about is the network connections between groups which a person may know of. The questions asked in the CIS qualitative study in particular, provide detailed information about the interconnectedness of networks for any given respondent – that is, the degree to which that respondent is potentially able to draw on any given network, and the perceived importance of those multiplex relations for that respondent.
Homogenous and heterogenous networks
Heterogeneity of group or network membership is also said to influence the levels of trust within networks, the extent to which trust of familiars translates into generalised trust of strangers, and the extent to which norms within networks are shared.16 However, the effect of heterogeneity upon social capital remains open empirically, given recent empirical findings which are contradictory. Recent research has included proponents for the notion that heterogeneity increases social capital and other outcomes (Grootaert 1998) as well as those who have found that homogenous networks are most conducive to social capital (Portney and Berry 1997; Sampson et al 1997). Further, Stolle (1998) suggests that the effect of network heterogeneity will vary according to the homogeneity of the community context being investigated.
The following are examples of the ways network heterogeneity has been investigated empirically, and of questions which measure perceived heterogeneity and trust within communities.
Krishna and Shrader (1999) ask directly about the homogeneity of networks respondents belong to, using the following items:
Source: Krishna and Shrader 1999, Annex D, p. 8.
In addition to questions such as these which provide specific information about the make-up of networks a person belongs to, an indication of the effect of homo- or heterogeneity within a network would also be useful, in order to understand how membership diversity in a network affects the quality of social relations within it.
Of note, the same questionnaire uses a different method to ask about the impact of differences upon the likelihood of people forming cooperative networks:
There are often differences that exist between people living in the same village/neighbourhood. To what extent do differences such as the following tend to divide people in your village or neighbourhood:
Differences…
| in education | in religious beliefs |
| in wealth/material possessions | in ethnic background |
| in landholdings | other differences |
| between men and women | in political party affiliations |
| between younger and older generations | between old inhabitants and new settlers |
While this question is hypothetical and not focused upon a particular network within a community, it does provide us with a sense of the perceived homogeneity and trust within the social relations of that location.
In the Australian context, Onyx and Bullen (2000) have used a different approach to understanding network homogeneity by asking about the inclusivity of the local neighbourhood. They ask:
Source: Onyx and Bullen 2000, p. 114.
While this method, again, does not provide precise information about the homogeneity or heterogeneity of a particular network, it does attempt to directly determine the extent of ‘trust of the unfamiliar’ likely to exist within neighbourhood connections, said to come from network heterogeneity. Questions using similar logic could also be asked about other types of networks, again using hypothetical situations to understand, for example, whether personal differences are embraced within family, voluntary or friendship networks.
Vertical and horizontal network relations
Putnam et al (1993) and more recently Latham (1998; 2000) suggest that the power structure of a society – or network – will affect the nature of trust and reciprocity which inhere within that network.
Latham (2000) suggests that vertical (hierarchical) relations such as those between citizens and people in authority (for example the police), are the types of social relations relevant for understanding trust in authority. On the other hand, horizontal (equal, democratic) relations such as those between citizens, are relevant for understanding trust in civil society. He describes these as vertical and horizontal types of social capital.
Recent empirical work (Knack and Keefer 1997) which challenges the significance of vertical and horizontal relations for social capital, reinforces the need to understand empirically the impact of network hierarchies upon social capital.
While the questions of whether social networks are characterised by vertical or horizontal relations – specifically how democratic a network is – and whether this matters for social capital remain a major theme in the social capital literature, this aspect of network relations also remains under-investigated. Those studies which have investigated this characteristic of networks typically ask about decision-making processes within networks or about the nature of rule enforcement as indicators of vertical and horizontal relations.17
Putnam (1993) for example, in his extensive longitudinal study of regional democracy in modern Italy, included in his analysis responses to the following items, asked of regional councillors:
Source: Putnam 1993, Appendix A, p. 187.
Krishna and Shrader (1999) have designed the following questions to provide insight into the nature of the power relations within a given network. In relation to decision-making processes, their questionnaire asks:
Source: Krishna and Shrader 1999, Annex D, p. 8.
While these examples focus upon formal organisations, similar types of questions may be developed for all network types, including families, and may be tailored to specific research questions. Again, asking directly about the link between such relations and the quality of social relations would add substantially to our understanding of the effect of network structure upon norms of trust and reciprocity governing social relations.
Summary
The characteristics of social networks are important to understand empirically as they are said to influence the extent and nature of social capital. However, studies of social capital rarely investigate social network characteristics explicitly. Rather, data about networks are typically gleaned from information about outcomes of social capital, such as participation in networks or exchanges between network members.
Despite this, the above review of network measurement indicates that measures of network characteristics are relatively well developed, and that social capital research has much to gain from classical social network analysis. Measures of network type, size, location, structure and relations – which may be modified according to the type of network in question in any empirical study of social capital – are readily available, though are seldom used comprehensively.
It is important to note that however networks and their characteristics are measured, the existence of a social network cannot act as a measure of social capital per se, but must be linked to investigation of the norms governing social relations within a given network, and ideally to the characteristics of the network in question. Hence where the characteristics of networks are investigated in social capital research, it is important that this is done so in conjunction with the measure of norms of trust and reciprocity, discussed next.
Quality of social relations: norms
As defined above, social capital comprises both structural and relational components. Coleman (1988: S102) is helpful in explaining the link between the ‘structural’ and ‘relational’ aspects of social capital. He describes the norms governing social relations within networks thus:
If A does something for B and trusts B to reciprocate in the future, this establishes an expectation on the part of A and an obligation on the part of B. This obligation can be conceived as a credit slip held by A for performance by B.
Coleman’s explanation also shows that norms of trust and reciprocity are themselves closely related conceptually and thus empirically. Trust, according to Fukuyama (1995: 26) is ‘the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of that community’. Misztal (1996: 177) expands upon the relationship between norms of reciprocity and the generation and maintenance of trust, thus:
Norms of generalised reciprocity and networks of civic engagement encourage social trust and co-operation because they reduce incentives to defect, reduce uncertainty and provide models for future co-operation.
As social capital comprises norms of trust and reciprocity across a range of networks, it is important to recognise in empirical research that norms of trust and reciprocity, or at least the ways in which these norms and associated behaviours are manifest (and measurable), are likely to vary across different network types.
Despite receiving considerable attention in the social capital literature, norms governing social relations have received little rigorous empirical exploration in social capital research to date. A browse through existing studies reveals many ‘gaps’ when we consider the model of social capital presented above at Table 1 which includes a focus upon the nature of social relations as well as their structure.
Where norms of trust and reciprocity have been investigated in social capital research, this has often been done by measuring the behavioural outcomes of these norms, rather than the norms themselves (or individuals’ perceptions of these norms). The ways norms of trust and reciprocity, respectively, have been investigated in social capital research to date are described below.
Norms of trust
The norm of trust is a key component of social capital. Social capital theory stresses the importance of trust for the well functioning of civil society, and for the facilitation of a range of outcomes including civic engagement and democracy (Putnam 1993, 1995; Uslaner 1999a). Broadly speaking, the literature identifies three main types of trust (though these are frequently referred to under different names). The first is trust of familiars, sometimes called particularised trust (Uslaner 1999b), personalised trust (Hughes et al 2000), or social trust of familiars (Cox and Caldwell 2000). This type of trust exists within established relationships and social networks. The second type of trust is mostly referred to as generalised trust (Putnam 1998; Dasgupta 1988; Uslaner 1999b), though is also referred to as a form of social trust (Cox and Caldwell 2000). This type of trust is a trust extended to strangers, often on the basis of expectations of behaviour or a sense of shared norms. Third is civic or institutional trust (Uslaner 1999b; Cox and Caldwell 2000), which refers to basic trust in the formal institutions of governance including fairness of rules, official procedures, dispute resolution and resource allocation (Cox 1997). Institutional trust differs from civic trust in that it relates to trust in expert systems (where, for example, a system is transparent, subject to regulation, and can be relied upon) (Giddens 1990; Black and Hughes 2000), whereas civic trust relates to familiarity (for example as social relationships occur as people relate to each other as citizens, clients, customers or users of a system).18
The conceptual distinction between different types of trust means that different types of questions are necessary to investigate different types of trust in empirical research. However, differences in the way the respective types of trust have been investigated to date appear ad hoc rather than systematic or conceptually based. Trust of familiars such as family beyond the household, friendship groups and neighbours, for example, has mostly been measured through hypothetical questions about behaviours (‘who would you trust to do X for you?’), though trust of familiars, particularly within families, remains under-explored. Greater attention has been paid to the study of generalised trust of strangers, and to civic or institutional trust – both of which are typically measured through attitudinal items.
Thus the ways in which norms of trust have been investigated include a mixture of measures of norms and attitudes, as well as measures of behaviour which might be the outcome of that norm.
(i) Particularised trust among familiars
Trust of familiars arguably applies to any of the social networks a person participates in. Where a norm of trust among familiars has been investigated, questions are sometimes based upon a hypothetical scenario which describes a situation in which a person may choose to place trust in others. The following items used by Onyx and Bullen to explore social trust in neighbourhood networks is an example of this type of question:
Paldam and Svendsen (1999) suggest that from an economist’s point of view, the most direct measure of trust will involve a loan question. Rather than asking about actual exchanges which have occurred, they also suggest using hypothetical scenarios such as the following:
Hogan and Owen (2000) also investigate trust of familiars by including the following two attitudinal items in a longer question which asks mostly about civic trust (presented below):
Cox (1997) also suggests that cooperative behaviours are indicators of trust of familiars. She suggests that among family members, for example, the following types of behaviours may be used to gauge levels of social trust:
(ii) Generalised trust of strangers
The measure of generalised social trust, as distinct from social trust of familiars, gained prominence through the work of Putnam (1995), who drew upon World Values Survey (WVS) data to conclude that the level of trust in American society had declined between 1960 and 1993. This analysis was based on the following single item:
Despite the obvious limitations of using a single, unidimensional indicator for analysis of a concept as complex as social capital, the WVS item used by Putnam is commonly included in studies of social capital, often as the only indicator of the overall concept. Knack and Keefer (1997), for example, use the same item in an analysis of 29 market economies to conclude, in contrast with Putnam, that trust is not related to membership in formal groups (nor, more the focus of their work, that it is related to improved economic performance).
It is interesting to note one of the limitations of the WVS item identified by Knack and Keefer (1997) in their study. As they describe, it is difficult to know which ‘people’ respondents to this item have in mind. As a result, responses are likely to include a mix of familiars and others, thereby conflating familiar and generalised social trust.
Based on the WVS item ‘The Australian Community Survey 1997-1998’ (Hughes et al 1998, 2000) includes the following four items, which are somewhat more precise:
However, while these Australian items add context and discriminate spatially between different relationships, they remain limited in their ability to inform our understanding of familiar and generalised social trust, as we don’t know which people respondents have in mind (as described by Knack and Keefer 1997, above) . Also, as stated by Cox and Caldwell (2000: 60), questions of the type used in the WVS and their derivatives are ‘useful broad indicators, but it is only when they are linked up with a range of different measures that they make sense as social capital markers’. To understand social trust in social capital terms, these ‘different measures’ must explore the other dimensions of social capital.
Stewart-Weeks and Richardson (1998) demonstrate how single item measures such as the WVS item, may be made more relevant and meaningful for our understanding of how social trust develops, and how it may relate to social capital. The CIS qualitative interviews asked:
Source: Stewart-Weeks and Richardson 1998, p. 132.
In order to contextualise social, generalised trust a number of studies ask about trust in specific communities. The following items developed by Krishna and Shrader (1999) are examples of how trust in a particular location may be investigated, using references to specific qualities, such as honesty and caution of others, as well as by asking about comparisons of trust between one locality or network and another:
Please tell me whether in general you agree or disagree with the following statements:
Even more situation specific are the following items used in the same questionnaire, which use hypothetical scenarios to determine the degree to which a person perceives people in the same locality to be trustworthy in dealing with lost possessions:
In Australia, Onyx and Bullen have used a similar, contextualised approach. The following items about feelings of trust and safety (as opposed to honesty) represent one of the social capital ‘capacity building blocks’ identified by these authors in their study of NSW communities:
The same study included the following ‘tolerance of diversity’ items (said to promote generalised trust) as a means of investigating generalised trust, again in the local community:
However, in order to inform our understanding of social capital, indicators such as these must ideally be understood in the context of more direct measures of trust, in addition to other dimensions of social capital.
(iii) Civic/institutional trust
In addition to generalised trust, civic – or institutional – trust is that aspect of trust which has received most investigation in the empirical social capital literature to date. Civic trust has also been investigated using a variety of question types, including the use of vignettes, attitudinal items and hypothetical questions.
One of the most commonly used question types involves simply listing a series of institutions and asking directly the extent to which a person trusts them. The WVS, for example, includes this type of question in addition to the item about social trust discussed above. The Australian version of the WVS (1984), for example, asked how much confidence respondents had in each of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hogan and Owen (2000) also use this approach in their study of social capital, active citizenship and political equity, which includes responses to the following items about ‘your best interests’:
How often can you trust each of the following to act in your best interests? (Always, Mostly, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, or Not Applicable)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Questions based on hypothetical scenarios have also been used to inform our understanding of civic trust. Onyx and Bullen (1997, 2000), for example, use the following items in their analysis of trust within specific communities, to investigate the level of trust residents have in one another and in local bodies of governance and administration:
Again, however, while these items do provide an indication of the level of confidence or trust people may feel in social institutions, without investigation of how civic trust relates to social trust, or to norms within other networks, the items tell us little about social capital.
(iv) Summary
Overall, measures of some types of trust are more well developed than others. The study of social trust of familiars, critical for understanding family social capital and community engagement, remains very limited. Where trust of familiars has been measured, it has typically been done so via attitudinal items, or through asking about behaviours thought to require trust (such as help seeking behaviour) – which can be understood as outcomes of a norm of trust. These studies provide a guide as to how measures of social trust may be further developed.
Social trust of a generalised kind, on the other hand, has been better researched to date, and does not necessarily need to relate to a specific network or community. Although, as the above items demonstrate, it is possible to minimise problems of ambiguity in measures of generalised trust by defining the parameters in which trust is being investigated (for example in the neighbourhood, town, most Australians).
Ultimately, understanding how one type of trust relates to another is a critical question in the literature, yet one which remains unmeasurable where each type of trust is not investigated, as has often been the case.
Norms of reciprocity
Reciprocity is the process of exchange within a social relationship whereby ‘goods and services’ (meaning exchange of any kind) given by one party are repaid to that party by the party who received the original ‘goods and services’. Reciprocal relations are governed by norms, such that parties to the exchange understand the social contract they have entered into.
We can expect that norms of reciprocity will vary according to network type. Finch and Mason (1993), for example, show that reciprocity among family and kin is an ongoing process which may take many years to realise, and that the norm of reciprocity within family and kinship groupings enables uneven levels of exchange, delayed exchange and indirect exchanges (favours for others) to occur. Studies of the intergenerational transfer of ‘goods’ (broadly defined) which consistently show imbalance in the flow of goods in favour of assistance from one generation down to the next, support the notion that family based reciprocity is flexible and is based on a sturdy foundation of familial obligation (see for example Short 1996; Millward 1999; de Vaus and Qu 1999).
We might reasonably expect that among networks involving less regular and long-term exchanges as those which may occur within families, reciprocity will be less flexible and less robust. Hence, that norms of reciprocity among family and non-family networks will differ empirically.
Where social capital research to date has asked about reciprocity, it has tended to do so in one of three ways. The first of these approaches investigates cultures of reciprocity within a given network or locality. The second and third approaches investigate reciprocal behaviour and benefits of network participation, respectively. These second and third approaches can be understood as investigating behavioural outcomes of the norm of reciprocity, rather than the norm itself.
The first approach, then, informs upon the norm of reciprocity and associated cultural norms and values. Krishna and Shrader’s (1999) household questionnaire asks, for example, about ‘reciprocity and cooperation’, where the norm is one to be found in a local community rather than a value held by an individual or family within that community:
These questions were followed by items including the following:
Please tell me whether in general you agree or disagree with the following
statements:
People are always interested only in their own welfare
If I have a problem there is always someone to help [me]
I do not pay attention to the opinions of others in the village/neighbourhood
Most people in this village/neighbourhood are willing to help if you need
it
While the above examples relate mostly to the study of local community, this type of question may be useful for investigating the cultural norm of any family or society network, in addition to understanding the values held by individual respondents about the norm of reciprocity. Questions about norms such as ‘willingness to help each other out’, for example, could readily be tailored to suit a range of network types, including family, friendship, neighbourhood, and civic group based networks.
A variation of this first approach, is to ask about the values held by an individual rather than a culture within a network. This variation is thus a less direct measure of a norm of reciprocity, though may still prove to be a useful indicator of an overall norm. The following item, for example, provides a sense of the general values held by an individual in relation to the norm of reciprocity:
The following are examples of the second measurement approach, which focuses upon the behavioural outcome of a norm of reciprocity, and ask specifically about reciprocal exchange among neighbours (as opposed to those studies which ask only about one-way flows, which may or may not be reciprocal):
More specifically matched in terms of exchanges of similar goods and services are the following items drawn from a study of intergenerational relations within families:
A similar style of question was used by Baum et al (1998) in their Australian study of social capital, to understand reciprocity within neighbourhood and friendship networks. The following items attempt to match exchanges of ‘goods and services’, place them within a time period, and take account of the need for reciprocity:
Listened to their problems
Helped them with odd jobs
Lent them household equipment
Looked after the house while they were away
Assisted them with shopping
Cared for a member of their family (children or adults)
Lent them money
Other (please specify)
OR, No assistance was needed
[same list as previous question]
While the above examples focus upon family and local neighbourhood networks, questions of this kind, which ask about reciprocal behaviour, provide a means of understanding reciprocity in any network type.
As well as asking about reciprocal exchanges which take place within networks, Mangen and Westbrook (1988) suggest that as reciprocity may not always be immediate, the study of reciprocity should include questions about the expectation of future exchange as well as current or actual exchange. This type of approach will no doubt be most useful where social relations are likely to be long lasting, such as those among family and kin.
The CIS qualitative study of social capital provides a good example of the third type of measurement technique described above, which asks about the benefits of participation or exchange in a given network. Following a series of questions about the structure of networks respondents participate in, the following questions about motivations for participation, and the benefits of that network participation were asked:
Always wanted to give it a try/learn how to do it
Because I enjoy it
Felt I wanted to give something back to the group/community
Feeling lonely and decided to do something about it
Just a series of coincidences and unexpected connect