The notion of social capital has shot to prominence over the last twenty years across the entire spectrum of social science despite its being fundamentally flawed. It has also been extremely prominent in policy debate, having been both heavily promoted by the World Bank and adopted rhetorically by governments and politicians both to the left and right of “centre” (although the application of social capital in policy has been extremely limited). In practice, if not in principle given its earliest modern origins in the work of radical sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, the social capital literature has been: complicit with market imperfections approach to economics; served as a disguised vehicle for promotion of rational choice; neglected the global, power, conflict, class, the state and context; raised self-help from the individual to the collective level; and degraded many traditions of social theory across networks, trust, reciprocity, etc. Thus, whilst purporting to put civil society back on the agenda, it ignores the rich critical traditions that have already addressed civil society, resurrecting the idea that the latter makes up some sort of structural interaction with state and economy.
This account necessarily generalises over what is now a huge literature, one that is also shifting in content and direction, with a tendency currently to seek to bring back in what previous homogenising treatments have omitted, itself undermining the idea that any two applications of social capital have any commonality. Mercifully, there is now a substantial literature highly critical of social capital although the latter’s proponents have rarely engaged with critics other than to incorporate another variable or two in the understanding of social capital. But the weaknesses of social capital are so crippling to those who have any intellectual integrity that the response is often not to engage at all. It is significant and welcome, for example, that there is very little by way of Marxist contributions along the lines that capitalism destroys social capital of the good type and socialism would create it (and vice-versa for bad social capital). This is because social capital is a sort of oxymoron for anyone with any sensitivity to political economy and the corresponding understanding of “capital” as social in the economic arena. But it would be a mistake to allow social capital to go its separate way without continuing to engage critically. In part, this is because it is itself evolving across and within disciplines – Putnam’s latest paper, for example, based on a massive research project has reached the conclusion that ethnic diversity decreases social capital, this with scarcely a mention of racism and its underlying determinants. In addition, social capital continues to influence the diverse directions and content of separate disciplines as they respond to the current intellectual climate of economics imperialism, on the one hand, and the dual retreat from postmodernism and neo-liberalism on the other.
The aim of the working group is to develop a platform for the exchange of ideas and research that offer critical but constructive responses to recent literature on social capital. For the time-being, the present site will serve to host papers that address these issues. We also welcome discussions and suggestions for ways to further expand the activities and participation of the working group.
For the best website on social capital (although generally supportive, it does cover critical literature) see http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org.
To apply to join IIPPE social capital working group, email iippe@soas.ac.uk.