8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
1/31
Social Capital and Well-being
Michael S. Abrams
24 February 2008MA in Individualized Studies
Goddard College
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
2/31
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
I. What is Social Capital?
a. Measurement
b. Criticisms
II. Social Capital and Well-being
a. Social Capital and Health
b. Social Capital and Mental Health
c. Inequality and Health
III. An Alternative Approach
IV. Conclusion
References
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
3/31
Preface
On the occasion of my first residency at Goddard College, the cab driver who drove me
to the school from the airport proffered his opinion that Burlington, and Vermont ingeneral, were exceptionally great places to live. "Why? I asked. "Quality of life," he
immediately respondedperhaps not realizing that his answer could be considered
tautological, but also entirely unaware that my avowed purpose in pursuing the MA in
Individualized Studies was specifically to investigate the many measures that have been
developed to assess 'quality of life' at the societal level.
If I were ever to doubt whether levels of social capital were associated with a
community's quality of life, I need only study Robert Putnam's 'social capital' map of the
US. (Putnam is the American political scientist who is universally given the credit of
almost single-handedly bringing the academic concept of social capital into the popular
lexicon.) East of the Mississippi--by Putnam's careful quantitative assessment--Vermont
stands alone as the single state that can boast an impressive level of social capital. If one
provisionally were to accept that a high level of social capital was prerequisite to a good
quality of life, my cab driver's intuition about Vermont would dovetail perfectly with
Putnam's painstaking analysis.
Social capital has a plethora of definitions, but all of them have some bearing on the
strength of the social fabric that binds us together. This is reflected in such items as the
degree to which we trust our neighbors, and the number of voluntary organizations to
which we belong. Through his writings, Putnam has endeavored to raise popular
awareness of the degree to which the quality of life that a society can offer is a function
of the level of social capital that it embodies.
In this paper I will attempt to critically examine his hypothesis. I will try to understand
the degree to which well-beingespecially as it manifests both in physical and mental
healthcan be linked to social capital. It would appear that healthboth physical and
mentalprovides the ultimate test of the impact of any particular factor on well-being,
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
4/31
for the following reasons. First: it would be hard to imagine a meaningful definition of
human well-being that did not list health as a critical component. Second: although there
are obviously degrees of health--whether physical or mental--such degrees tend to be
objectively verifiable.
My goal is to understand the relation between social capital and human well-being, but
specifically in terms of its implications for my eventual purpose of evaluating the various
indicators that have been developed to assess quality of life at the societal level. (Such
indicators include the Human Development Index, the Genuine Progress Indicator, and
several others.) To the degree that I am successful, I should be in a better position to
make meaningful judgments about the usefulness of any such indicator.
Michael S. AbramsSao Paulo, Brazil
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
5/31
I. What is Social Capital?
As a starting point for our discussion, we will use what would appear to be a basic
formulation: Social capital is a form of capital that exists within relationships amongindividuals. (Karner, 2001, p. 2637) So, social capital is a form of capital, one of the
fundamental concepts in Economics. Then, just what is capital? Pierre Bourdieu, the
first social scientist to develop a theory of social capital, defined capital as accrued labor
which can be tapped by individuals or groupseither to further their specific interests, or
to amass still more capital. (Karner, 2001, p. 2637)
From the point of view of the individual,
[s]ocial capital constitutes a specific kind of resource that is available to an actor.
Unlike other resources, social capital is based on reciprocity and thus comes withthe expectations that obligations will be repaid as requested by other individuals
in the network. (Karner, 2001, p. 2637)
The French social theorist Bourdieu, together with two Americanssociologist
James Coleman and political scientist David Putnamare generally regarded as having
been the most important influences on the contemporary theory of social capital.
(Hawkins, 2005, p. 2218) Bourdieus particular focus was on the elite in French society.
He was interested in elucidating disguised or invisible forms of social capital that
were deployed by elites to maintain social inequality. He saw the nonmaterialexchanges inherent in social relationships as producing resources that members ofelites drew upon to maintain their positions within the existing social structure.
(Hawkins, 2005, p.2219)
Contrasting with Bourdieus anti-democratic formulation, Coleman sough a far
more benign conceptualization:
His interest in social capital came out of his research on the importance of family
and community in educational results. He found that familial and community
resources, which he defined as social capital, were sufficiently powerful to
compensate for economic disadvantages. For Coleman . . . not only individualsbenefited from social capital, but also society as a whole. (Hawkins, 2005, p.
2219)
For Coleman, social capital was not monolithic, but rather manifested in a variety
of distinguishable forms:
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
6/31
1) Obligations and expectations. A social network may rely on favors. An
individual in the network who has done many favors for other members, but who has not
requested any favors from them, can be said to have accumulated a certain amount of
social capital within the network. Such capital can be utilized when the individual needs
to request a favor from another member of the network.
Obligations and expectations constitute a form of social capital that depends on
trust. One does favors for other members within the social network because one trusts
that these favors will ultimately be reciprocated. Therefore, the strength of such networks
can be inferred from the amount of outstanding obligations, which corresponds to the
degree to which this trust is manifest.
2) Information potential. Knowledge and information can be a critical resource
for the accomplishment of ones objectives. Participation in a network can enable one to
avail oneself of the knowledge that others have accrued.
3) Norms and effective sanctions
Within a social system, norms can support and provide rewards for specificbehaviors. Norms that encourage the subjugation of self-interest to the needs of
the community are an especially powerful form of social capital.
4) Authority relations. For groups that are organized in the service of a
particular issue, the designation of a leader considerably amplifies the social capital of
each of their members.
5) Appropriable social organization When the issue for which a social
organization was constituted is resolved, the organization often continues to exist by
redefining its goals. The organization itself constitutes a form of social capital, one that
can be appropriated for a new purpose.
6) Intentional organization An intentional organization is an organization
formed for the purpose of directly benefiting its members. Examples include joint
business ventures and PTA chapters. This form of social capital advances the interest of
those who invest in it. There are two by-products of intentional organization: a public
good that benefits others who did not invest directly, and a social g organization that can
be appropriated for other purposes. (Karner, 2001, pp. 2638-39)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
7/31
These forms may be quite disparate, but each of them share two common
elements:(1) Social capital appears as an aspect of social structures, and (2) actors are
able to use social capital as a resource to achieve their goals within the social structure.
(Karner, 2001, p. 2638)
In addition to developing a typology of social capital, Coleman also identified
several canonical factors by which social capital could increase or decrease: Networks
could exhibit greater or lesser degrees of closure, or of stability. Their members could be
motivated by a common ideology. They could have access to more resources as the result
of affluence. Finally, they could flourish as the result of the availability of official aid.
(Karner, 2001, p. 2640)
Robert Putnam, the third figure in the social capital triumvirate, found his
inspiration in his efforts to understand why northern Italy manifested far higher levels of
civil integration than southern Italy.
In 1970, Italy created a net of 20 regional governments that collectively spanned
the country. These governments had the same form, but each sprouted within the context
of a unique configuration of social, economic, political and cultural conditions. Any
number of spectrums were represented, including the one from the pre-industrial to the
post-industrial, from the traditionalist Catholic to the radical Communist, from the quasi-
feudal to the thoroughly modern.
Several of the governments that were created floundered in corruption and
inefficiency. But others were amazingly successfulto the extent of generating an
impressive array of innovative social, economic and environmental programs.
Putnam and his colleagues sought the underlying cause for the radically different
resultswhy some of the governments flourished, and others floundered. He found that
the critical factor was not ideology or standard of living, nor was it in the respective
stabilities of the societies alone, nor in their respective degrees of political harmony. The
critical factor was the degree of civic engagement, as reflected in such statistics as voter
turnout, newspaper readership, and the level of membership in clubs and voluntary
associations. (Putnam, 1993, p. 2)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
8/31
Perhaps his graphic conclusions merit quoting at length:
Some regions of Italy, such as Emilia-Romagna and Tuscany have many activecommunity organizations. Citizens in these regions are engaged by public issues,
not by patronage. They trust one another to act fairly and obey the law. Leaders
in these communities are relatively honest and committed to equality. Social andpolitical networks are organized horizontally, not hierarchically. These civic
communities value solidarity, civic participation and integrity. And here
democracy works.
At the other pole are the uncivic regions, like Calabria and Sicily, aptly
characterized by the French term incivisme. The very concept of citizenship isstunted there. Engagement in social and cultural associations is meager. Fromthe point of view of the inhabitants, public affairs is somebody elses businessinotabili, the bosses, the politiciansbut not theirs. Laws, almost everyoneagrees, are made to be broken, but fearing others lawlessness, nearly everyone
demands sterner discipline. Trapped in these interlocking vicious circles, nearlyeveryone feels powerless, exploited, and unhappy. It is hardly surprising that
representative government here is less effective than in more civic communities.(Putnam, 1993, p. 3)
The Italian civic communities have their roots in the communal republics that
were established in early medieval times in such places as Florence, Balogna and Genoa.
It would appear that the tradition of an active citizen dies hard. Putnam believes that he
can discern a virtually continuous path from the guilds, religious fraternities and tower
societies for self-defense of those times to the cooperatives, mutual aid societies,
neighborhood associations, and choral societies of our own. (Putnam, 1993, p.3)
Fully aware that his findings had an enduring relevance, Putnam
went on to apply the concept of social capital to his study of civic culture in the
United States; in an article published in 1995 . . . he brought the concept of social
capital into the world of political debate and the popular media, first in the UnitedStates and then internationally. (Hawkins, 2005, p. 2219)
For Putnam social capital was a powerful latent factor to be tappedwhether the
issue at hand was the encouragement of economic development or the development of
more effective government. (Putnam, 1993, p. 3) He cited three reasons for its potential
to spur progress in both realms. First, it provides a basis for a generalized reciprocity
that makes for a more efficient society. Second, it makes it easier to obtain information
about the trustworthiness of individuals, and therefore helps reduce the possibility of
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
9/31
opportunism and malfeasance. Finally, it embodies and reflects previous successful
efforts at collaboration in such a way as to provide a basis for future efforts. (Putnam,
1993, pp. 3-4)
The key to social capital is the difference it makes in peoples ability to cooperate.
The ability of people in the population to form groups cooperating for joint projects is at
the heart of social capital. Social capital refers to those instances in which individuals
cooperate either out of trust, from personal motives, or as the result of group pressure
but only in the event in which the group is voluntarily chosen and may be left. It
specifically excludes the situation where the cooperation is not voluntary, but rather is
enforced by some party external to the group. (Paldam, 2000, p. 633)
It is entirely possible for a group to be created by an outside agent, but thereafter
common experiences result in the members learning to trust and rely on one another. The
classic example of this, of course, is the Army platoon. In such instances, the social
capital would correspond to the amount by which the trust that develops within the group
exceeds the level at which it is enforced by the third party. (Paldam, 2000, p. 633)
Coleman specifically defines social capital as the degree to which an individual
can voluntarily work with others. Numerous writers have grounded this willingness to
cooperate with others in the ability totrust
. Therefore, social capital might also bedefined as the degree of trust that the individual has in others. (This trust is likely to be
reciprocated, and is termed the individuals goodwill.) Another definition relates to the
degree to which an individual can receive benefits based on her goodwill. Finally, we
can define the social capital of a group as the average social capital of the individuals that
constitute that group. (Paldam, 2000, p. 635)
Trust and cooperation are interdependent. It would appear that trust is primary
to most cooperation. However, by working together people further build trust. To the
degree to which trust and cooperation are interdependent, we can base the concept of
social capital in their simultaneous presence and have some hope that it corresponds to an
empirical aspect of a societys functioning. (Paldam, 2000, p. 636)
An alternative definition to the trust-cooperation definition of social capital is the
network definition: an individuals social capital is the number of networks that he has
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
10/31
built. A third definition is the total amount of benefits that the individual can draw on her
networks, when necessary. (Paldam, 2000, p. 641)
We might question to what degree our definition of social capital as trust-
cooperation is compatible with Putnams, which was based on civic engagement. Results
from the World Values Survey for 32 countries show a high, but not perfect, correlation
between trust and perceived political participation. (Trust is tested by responding to
the question, Generally speaking, do you believe that most people can be trusted, or
cant you be too careful in dealing with people?)
Problematizing the results are four countries that appear to be extreme outliers:
China (with very high trust), Brazil (seemingly with no trust), and Switzerland and the
Netherlands (both with very high levels of political participation). The anomalous results
with China and Brazil might point to the necessity of using a question based on trust-
payoff, such as: How many of your friends will trust you with a loan? (Paldam, 2000,
p.642)
In contemporary discussions of social capital three varieties are generally
recognized: bridging, bonding, and linking. Bonding social capital corresponds to the
strong ties between such groups as families and friends. Putnam cites fraternal
organizations and church reading groups as examples of bonding social capital. Bridging
social capital refers to the weak ties we have with distant friends, and business associates.
Putnam cites civil rights movements and ecumenical religious organizations as examples.
Finally, linking social capital refers to relations between individuals and groups in
different social strata in a hierarchy where power, social status, and wealth are accessed
by different groups. (Social Analysis and Reporting Division, 2001, p. 11)
In fact, social capital is a multidimensional variable that relies on three factors:
relationships, norms and trustboth within and between groups and institutions. The
three dimensions of social capital are:
1) Structural/Cognitive.
Structural social capital describes the relationships, networks, associations and
institutions that link together people and groups. It can be measured by counting the
number of voluntary organizations, or by determining the percentage of people who
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
11/31
participate in them. Some consider an individuals social capital to be the degree of
participation in organizations beyond the workplace.
Cognitive social capital consists of values, norms, reciprocity, altruism and civic
responsibility, sometimes called collective moral resources. An individuals cognitive
social capital can be associated with trust and feelings of belonging. It can be measured
by surveys of how well individuals trust their neighbors, and how strong their civic
identity is.
2) Bonding/Bridging
Bonding social capital can be considered inward-focused and characterized by
homogeneity, strong norms, loyalty and exclusivity. It is intra-group, and relies on strong
ties. Examples of bonding capital include families and small close-knit migrant
groups.
Bridging social capital is outward-looking, linking disparate groups within
society. As the ties it invokes are necessarily weaker, it can be considered more fragile
than the bonding variety. Bridging social capital is manifest in a persons social
networks.
Bonding social capital can either be benign or malign, manifesting both in strong
families as in terrorist cells. However, bridging capital is almost always benignand
binding disparate groups, it can enable positive social action.
3) Horizontal/ Vertical
This distinction pertains to whether the individuals that are linked are of similar or
different strata in society. (McKenzie & Hapham, 2006, pp. 14-15)
Not the least of its values, social capital has the potential of being an important
unifying concept in the social sciences. It offers a common theoretical language that can
allow historians, political scientists, anthropologists, economists, sociologists, and
policymakers to work together in an open and constructive manner. (Karner, 2001, p.
2641) All of the social sciences use the concept, but not necessarily with the same name.
It is generally recognized that a greater degree of cooperation between these fields could
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
12/31
lead to far greater progress. One of the main virtues of social capital is that it is close to
becoming a joint concept for all the social sciences. (Paldam, 2000, p. 631)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
13/31
a. Measurement
There is general agreement on the importance of the concept of social capital, both
academically and in public policy. However, there has yet emerged no clear consensus
on how to measure it. (Hawkins, 2005, p. 2219)
The attempt to determine the amount of social capital in a community is
problematic. First, it is questionable whether it should be determined simply by
aggregating the measures of the social capital of its individuals. But there are even more
fundamental problemsregarding the nature of the entity whose social capital should be
measured.
What is a communityis it geographical or psychological or functional . . . ? If it
is geographical, then what area size should we measure and who should define itthe community or the policy makers? (McKenzie & Hapham, 2006, p. 17)
Further there are numerous examples of situations where neighborhood is less
important than other social ties:
[A] refugee living in a stable neighborhood of a large city may find support in the
city-wide refugee community from the same country far more important than the
neighborhood community. Many faith groups find their faith community moreimportant than their residential community, especially if they are in the minority
in their geographical area. Socially excluded groups such as those suffering from
mental illness may link with each other through support groups whichincreasingly are based on telephone lines and the Internet. (McKenzie &Hapham, 2006, p. 17)
The best regarded measure of social capital is Putnams Instrument, which is the
per capita number of voluntary organizations in a given population. As organizations can
differ vastly in the intensity of the contacts that they can offer to the individual, we can
also consider a version of Putnams Instrument in which the calculation of the number of
organizations is weighted by the intensity of these contacts.
Putnams Instrument can serve as a proxy for social capital as trust-cooperation.
However, it cannot be regarded as a true measure, because the number of organizations
can be greatly influenced both by culture and the populations degree of affluence.
(Paldam, 2000, pp. 636-37)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
14/31
One intriguing theoretical approach to measuring social capital is via the well-
known Prisoners Dilemma:
Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient
evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them
to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and theother remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the
full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only
six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives afive-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the
other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice
the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the
prisoners act? (Wikipedia, n.d.)
Clearly the critical issue in the Prisoners Dilemma is trust. The prisoners
succeed or fail precisely to the degree that they are able and willing to trust one another.
In the context of the Prisoners Dilemma, social capital can therefore be defined as the
propensity to play the cooperative solution. (Note that either player does so despite full
knowledge thatfor any given choice by the other playerhe can always improve his
individual outcome by defecting.) Therefore, we may use the frequency with which the
cooperative solution of the Prisoners Dilemma is played as a measure of social capital.
(Paldam, 2000, p. 638)
Paldam concludes that the most promising measures of social capital are (1)
Putnams Instrument and surveys of generalized trust, and (2) network/trust payoffs.
It would appear that Putnams Instrument yields the same measures of social capital as
the standard polling question regarding generalized trust in mostbut not all
countries. (Paldam, 2000, p. 649)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
15/31
b. Criticisms
In Putnams optimistic view, social capital was the hidden key to progress both in the
political and the economic spheres. But the effects of social capital are not necessarily
benign, as it can itself lead to social problems, whether in the form of organized crime
associations, prostitution and gambling rings, or youth gangs. Such forms are obviously
not the kind that Putnam had in mind when he was considering the impact of voluntary
organizations and newspaper readership. (Hawkins, 2005, p. 2219)
In particular, Putnam saw social capital as something that primarily benefited
society, as opposed to the individual. He argued that there was a direct correlation
between the quality of civic culture and levels of poverty, violence and democracy.
Such an understanding had an inherent appeal, as it seemed to promise a non-economic
therapy that could assuage a variety of social ills. Unfortunately, Putnam had failed to
consider the role of economics adequately in the deterioration of civic culture to begin
with. (Hawkins, 2005, p. 2219)
Another criticism is that social capital can contribute to discrimination,
restriction of individual freedom and creativity, lack of economic opportunity, and
overwhelming obligations. It can encourage divisiveness, with in-groups and out-
groups. It demands conformity, which impinges on personal freedom and expression.Finally, it can result in excessive concentrations of powerwith the Mafia being the
classic example. (Karner, 2001, p. 2640)
A societys social capital tends to manifest in the form of vested interests that can
inhibit necessary social change. Obvious examples of this include guilds, trade
organizations, unions, and regional and tribal organizations. Though such organizations
are generally benign, they also tend to be heavily invested in the status quo. Further, it is
clear that organizations can work against the social interest. Examples of this include
networks that are associated with criminal, racist, and violent purposes. (Paldam, 2000,
pp. 634-35)
Also, participation in a network, by itself, cannot really be considered a sufficient
criterion. Networks only have value to the degree they have sufficient resources of
value to make a difference. (Karner, 2001, pp. 2640-41)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
16/31
There are, perhaps, even more serious issues regarding the use of social capital in
its tendency to conflate the political and economic spheres.
Deliberative and participatory versions of democracy require an atmosphere and
an attitude where people see their political interactions as motivated by the best,
most just solutions to political problems . . . . [P]eople must see themselves andtheir interests as capable of being transformed by the political process, and they
must constantly strive to have their deliberations informed by as many social
perspectives as possible. . . .
Economic transformations, on the other hand, assume and require no such attitude
of magnanimity and familiarity. Economic transactions generally begin with a
fixed interest and work to achieve that interest. Such transactions make little
economic sense if ones interests are fundamentally transformed in the processbecause economic transactions are instrumental not transformative ones. Theterm social capital ignores the emotionally rich world of meaningthat has surrounded the idea of democracy and reduces thatworld of meaning to the very different language of economics.[Italics mine.] (Smith & Kulynych, 2002, pp. 167-68)
Increasingly, the concept of social capitalism is being criticized as a way to
preempt discussions that properly belong to the political sphere. The World Bank, in
particular, is cited as the perpetrator of a conceptualization of social capital that argues
for cutbacks in government services in the name of community self-reliance. In
remaining silent on the role of political parties and unions in the amelioration of the kind
of power relations that help to maintain an underclass, the World Bank incurs a guilt by
omissionputting its considerable weight behind the spurious notion that it is possible
to have a meaningful public sphere without conflict and strife. (McKenzie & Hapham,
2006, p. 21)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
17/31
II. Social Capital and well-being
Having discussed some of the ways in which social capital is defined and measuredand
having noted some of the ways in which the concept has been criticizedwe now turn to
a discussion of its impact on human well-being. Of particular concern here will be social
capitals impact on health (both physical and mental), which is generally accepted as
among the most, if not the most, crucial way in which human well-being can manifest
itself.
Putnams 2000 DDB Needham Life Style Survey demonstrated a link betweensocial involvement and happiness, with monthly club meetings, monthly volunteering,
monthly entertaining, and bi-weekly church attendance each having the happiness of
four extra years of schooling or a doubling of income. However, one cannot directly
infer causality from such a correlation, as both may have their cause in a genetic
predisposition both to gregariousness and well-being. (J.F. Helliwell, 2001, p.54)
However, differences in social capital are well-correlated both to subjective well-
being and to suicide rates. This makes it more reasonable to posit that the causal path
goes from social capital to subjective well-being, rather than the converse. (Helliwell &
Putnam, 2004, p. 1444)
Social capital impacts well-being directly. A study in 1967 confirmed marriage
to be the social connection showing the strongest positive correlation with subjective
well-being. The results of Putnams DDB Needham Life Style Survey confirm
marriage to be the most beneficial form of social interactionequivalent to moving 70
percentiles up the income hierarchy. . . . [Italics mine] (J.F. Helliwell, 2001, p. 53)
The social circumstances that impact well-being include ones economic standard
of living. Indeed, until recently economists have generally equated well-being with
standard of living. However, research has begun to sever this equation: while well-being
tracks income up to a certain economic level, at some critical point the connection
inevitably breaks down. Social factors other than standard of living that influence
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
18/31
subjective well-being include: marital status, race, education, employment and age.
(Helliwell & Putnam, pp. 1435-36)
The results of a meta-analysis of several global and national surveys show the
impact of various social factors on well-being:
1) well-being is highest in the young and the elderly, lowest in the middle-aged.
2) well-being tracks income, but only up to a point.
3) Unemployment significantly negatively impacts well-being, and much more
than would be predicted by the loss of income that it represents.
4) Education improves health and thus indirectly improves subjective well-
being, but net of that effect . . . education appears to have no direct impact on
subjective well-being.
5) Gender appears to have no strong and straightforward effect on subjective
well-being.
6) . . . [B]eing married increases both life satisfaction and happiness,
especially when the alternative is being separated or divorced. . . . Having a
family enhances subjective well-being, and spending more time with ones
family helps even more.
7) Both strong religious beliefs and frequent attendance at a house of worship are
linked to subjective well-being.
8) Frequent interactions with friends and neighbors support well-being.
9) Civic participation supports well-being.
10) Living in high-trust area supports well-being. (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004,
pp. 1440-43
Note that items 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 above directly pertain to the amount of social capital
upon which the individual is able to draw.
Health correlates well with subjective well-being, and it is likely that good health
causes subjective well-being. Further, research seems to be confirming that social factors
play a critical role in physical health. From this we may conclude that health constitutes
one pathway through which social factors influence subjective well-being.
(Helliwell & Putnam, p. 1435)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
19/31
In the following sections, we shall consider the direct impact of social capital on
healthboth physical and mental.
a. Physical Health
The consensus of a spate of studies on the impact of the extent of social ties on health is
that people with more social capital are likely to live longer, and suffer from fewer
health disorders. (Field, 2003, p. 58)
Putnam suggests that there might be several reasons why social capital impacts
health. In his view, social networks 1) can provide the kind of concrete health that can
decrease stress levels, 2) provide support for healthy behaviors, 3) enable one to attain
medical services more easily, and 4) provide the kind of interaction that can boost ones
immunological system. (Field, 2003, p. 58)
According to Putnam,
There is very strong evidence of powerful health effects of social connectedness.This evidence is not only strong in American states, but also in Finland, Japan and
other countries. Controlling for your blood chemistry, age, gender, whether or not
you jog, and for all other risk factors, your chance of dying over the course of thenet year are cut in half by joining one group, and cut to a quarter by joining two
groups. . . . It is not people who are healthy that become joiners; it is clear from
the studies that the arrow runs in the other direction, from joining to health.(Putnam, 2001, p. 12)
Social capitalboth its presence and absencehave been linked to a variety of
health outcomes and behaviors.
Social capital has been empirically linked to both reduced mortality and increased
self-rated health. Social capital has also been linked to various health-relatedbehaviours, such as smoking, leisure time physical activity, and dietary habits and
to the prevalence of various diseases, such as the common cold, coronary heart
disease, HIV, depression, and dementia. (Ferlander, 2007, p. 121)
However, there is a dual aspect to the effect of social capital on health, reflecting
the dual aspect of social capital in general. Strong networks may well provide a buffer
against stress, but the demands that participating in them may entail themselves represent
a source of stress. They may support healthy lifestyles, but they may as easily support
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
20/31
unhealthy ones. For example, the best predictor that an adolescent will smoke is whether
or not her peers smoke. There is a human tendency to follow ones peers. Whether this
is beneficial or harmful to ones health depends on the particular norms that prevail in the
network. (Ferlander, 2007, p. 122)
However, at least some of the results do appear to be unambiguous. A 1979 study
of a random sample of 5000 residents of Alameda County, California assessed the health
effects of four types of social ties: marriage, contacts with close friends, church
memberships, and membership in other types of social organizations. For each type, a
greater number of ties was associated with a lower mortality rate. The impact was
greatest for marriage, followed by the others in the order given above. It was shown that
a weighted index combining the four types predicted not only mortality as a whole, but
each of its component subdivisions: heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular and
circulatory, and other.
For each participant, a variety of data was gathered, including: socio-economic
status, self-reported health status at the time of initial survey, year of death, behaviors that
could impact health, and availability/use of health care services. The connection between
social networks and mortality was shown to be independent of all such control variables.
This made it virtually impossible that differences in health status at the time of the initial
survey were the underlying determining factor both of the size of the social networks and
of the health outcomes. (J.F. Helliwell, 2001, pp. 49-50)
There are ways in which a societys social capital directly impacts the health and
well-being of its members. For example, respect for the rights of others gets a thorough
testing on the highways that we share. Therefore, the incidence of traffic fatalities
provides a good measure of social cohesion. Indeed, more than a third of the cross-
country variance of the late 1990s traffic fatalities is associated with mid 1990s national
differences in average survey answers to the trust question . . . (The trust question is,
In general, do you think that most people can be trusted, or that you cant be too careful
in dealing with people.) (J.F. Helliwell, 2001, p. 50)
A study was performed to show the correlation of poverty, social capital, and
income inequality with each of the four nationally-modifiable sexually-transmitted
diseases in the US: gonorrhea, syphilis, Chlamydia, and AIDS. State-wide rates of all
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
21/31
four diseases correlated well with social capital, as measured by Putnams
Comprehensive Social Capital Index for US states. (It combined "14 variables that span
the domains of community organizational life, involvement in public affairs,
volunteerism, informal sociability, and social trust.") Of the three variables, only social
capital proved to be a useful predictor for gonorrhea and syphilis rates, with correlations
r2 =.45 and .348, respectively. All three variables had significant correlations with
Chlamydia (r2 = .128, .283, and .156, respectively). Finally, only social capital and
income inequality were useful predictors of AIDS (r2 = .248 and .220, respectively).
(Holtgrave & Crosby, 2003, p. 62-64)
Geographical studies appear to confirm these findings:
If you consider social capital to be a continuous variable, then areas with high
social capital may be expected to have a lower rate of illnesses associated withproblems of social cohesion compared with areas of low social capital. Indeed,
there are reports that areas with high levels of social capital have lower suiciderates, lower all-cause mortality and longer life-expectancy. (Holtgrave & Crosby,
2003, p. 63)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
22/31
b. Mental Health
Spatial patterns of social capital are also reflected in the incidence of problems with
mental health.
People in some places have better mental health than people in other places. Thisis not just a reflection of their genetic vulnerability, the physical
environment, or their socioeconomic status. It also reflects the fabric of society
the way in which communities are set up and people live. (McKenzie & Hapham,2006, p. 11)
Concerns with the ways in which society impacted mental health date back at
least to Durkheims mid-century classic Suicide. As early as the 1930s, researchers
showed that variations in the incidence of mental illness in Chicago neighborhoods were
associated with their respective levels of social cohesion. (McKenzie & Hapham, 2006,
p. 11)
Mental illness has a powerful influence on overall health. Examples include the
impact of depression and stress. Depression impacts the functioning of the endocrinal
and immunological systems so as to make one susceptible to a large number of physical
illnesses. Stress is known to be a factor in the onset of the common cold, and has been
shown to delay the healing of wounds. (World Health Organization, 2001, p. 9)
Mental illness is not as different from physical illness as is commonly supposed:
The artificial separation of biological from psychological and social factors has
been a formidable obstacle to a true understanding of mental and behavioural
disorders. In reality these disorders are similar to many physical illnesses in that
they are the result of a complex interaction of all these factors. (World HealthOrganization, 2001, p. 10)
The physiological and behavioral ways by which physical and mental health can
affect each other are distinct but not independent. Health behaviors can affect physiology
for example, smoking and lack of exercise can weaken the immune system.
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
23/31
Conversely, physiological functioning can impact health behaviorfor example, not
getting enough sleep can lead to forgetting medical regimens. What results is a
comprehensive model of mental and physical health, in which the various components
are related and mutually influential over time. (World Health Organization, 2001, p. 8)
In the last two decades, the field of behavioral medicine has accumulated an
impressive amount of evidence that links mental and physical health. Some notable
examples of this include: 1) Women with advanced breast cancer who participate in
supportive group therapy live significantly longer than women who do not participate in
group therapy. 2) Depression is a reliable predictor of heart disease 3) Realistic
acceptance of ones own death is associated with decreased survival time in AIDS.
(World Health Organization, 2001, p. 8)
It might be hoped that building social capital could result in the reduction of
health costs and in illness rates. Interest has focused on mental health in particular
because it ranks among the three biggest drains on life-years by disability, globally. Also,
it is reasonable to conjecture that the primary way in which social capital impacts
physical health is via predominantly psychological factors. (McKenzie & Hapham, 2006,
p. 12)
Research has established that social support can serve as a buffer against illness in
many contexts. It has been shown that the mortality rates for better-connected
individuals are significantly lower than those of their more isolated peers. Lack of social
support has been established as a risk factor for events as widely varied as accidents,
suicide, heart disease, and depression. To the degree such illnesses are the result of
stress, there is a simple explanation, since social support is believed to buffer the
individual against both chronic and acute stress through the provision of emotional,
informational and instrumental support. (McKenzie & Hapham, 2006, p. 13)
But recently, a meta-analysis was performed of 21 studies of the effects of social
capital on mental health14 of the studies were at the individual level, and 7 were at the
ecological level. The studies at the individual level found strong evidence for an inverse
association between cognitive social capital (trust) and common mental disorders.
However, there was less evidence for an inverse association between cognitive social
capital and child mental illness, and combined measures of social capital and common
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
24/31
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
25/31
c. Inequality and Health
There would appear to be a basic connection between social capital, inequality, and
health.
Richard Wilkinson . . . found some evidence that social inequality tends to reduce
social stability and undermines social networks, leading to higher levels ofanxiety, stress and ill-health. Similar comparative research in the USA . . .
confirmed the broad association that he identified between health and social
cohesion. (Field, 2003, p. 57)
Social capital has been shown to have less of an impact on health than
socioeconomic status. It is likely that the kind of social capital that connects individuals
with their better-off and worse-off compatriots has more of an impact on health than the
kind that connects them with their socioeconomic peers. This might explain the finding
that countries with more economic equality have greater life expectancies. (Field, 2003,
p. 59)
Among nations, health correlates with equalitynot with per capita GDP. It
is . . . the most egalitarian rather than the richest developed countries which have the
best health. (Field, 2003, p. 75)
Data for 11 developed countries in 1970 show that life expectancy is negatively
correlated with post-tax income inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient. (The
Gini coefficient measures the degree that a society deviates from a state of perfect
egalitarianism. It varies from 0 to 1--with 0, corresponding to perfect equality, and 1,
corresponding to the theoretical situation where a single individual controls all the wealth
and everyone else has none.) (Mustard, 1998, pp. 7-8)
A study of metropolitan areas in the US showed that higher levels of inequality
predicted higher levels of mortality. Those areas with the highest income inequality
had significantly greater age-adjusted mortality than those of low inequality
and . . . this relationship was independent of absolute levels of mean household
income. These findings were robust across three different measures of the incomedistribution. (Mustard, 1998, pp. 8-9)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
26/31
The findings that link income inequality to physical health (either through life
expectancy or mortality) have been criticized as not being robust with respect to the
particular inequality measure that is chosen. Another criticism regards the
meaningfulness of international comparisons of income inequality. However, neither of
these criticisms have proved to be compelling. (Mustard, 1998, pp. 9-10)
One proposed way by which higher levels of income inequality can adversely
impact the individuals health is that income inequality may be associated with a set of
social processes and economic policies that systematically under-invest in physical and
social infrastructure, and with these under-investments then having consequences for
health. Another explanation is that large disparities in income distribution may have
direct consequences on peoples perceptions of their relative place in the socialenvironment, leading to behavioral and cognitive states which influence health.
(Mustard, 1998, pp. 14-15)
Income inequality also has an impact on mental health. Low income inequality
has been identified as a risk-lowering factor for mental health at the community level.
(K.McKenzie, 2006, p. 30)
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
27/31
III. An Alternative Approach
Both social capital and healthespecially, mental healthare complex concepts.
Intuitively we may feel confident that a causal relation should exist between them
surely, ones connectedness, trust, sense of belonging, civic participation, etc. havepositive ramifications for ones health and well-being. For example, one researcher
discusses several complex graphical models that purport to detail the precise causal
pathways in which low levels of social capital inevitably results in poor mental health at
the community level. (K.McKenzie, 2006, pp. 27-36)
I propose that there is a connection between social capital and well-beingand,
in particular, the kind of well-being that is associated with physical and mental health
but that this connection should not necessarily be understood solely in terms of elaborate
networks of causal relations. My approach starts with the recognition that many, if not
all, of the behaviors associated with the concept of social capital are themselves basic
human needs. When any basic human need is thwarted, there will necessarily be an
adverse effect on well-being. One important aspect of this adverse effect could plausibly
manifest as a worsening of the individuals physical and/or mental health.
In his Hierarchy of Needs, Abraham Maslow , recognized that after the
individuals physiological and safety needs were met, the very next level was the
satisfaction of needs pertaining to love and belonging, which include friendship and
family; this would correspond well to what we have been discussing as bonding social
capital. Recall that the one unambiguous result of a meta-analysis of studies of the
impact of social capital on mental health found that bonding social capital, in particular,
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
28/31
made a significant difference in the mental health of individuals. (De Silva, McKenzie,
Hapham, & Huffy, 2005, p. 626)
More recently, the economist Manfred Max-Neef has proposed a schema that
attempts to significantly improve upon Maslows hierarchical formulation. According to
Max-Neef, there are, in fact, nine basic human needs: Subsistence, Protection, Affection,
Understanding, Participation, Creation, Leisure, Identity and Freedom. In his schema,
the only strict hierarchy is between Subsistencethe precondition of life, itself--and the
remaining categories. Each need interacts with the four basic human modalities of Being,
Having, Doing, and Interacting; the result is his Matrix of Human Needs. While these
needs are purported to be constant throughout all times and cultures, the particular means
that are available for satisfying any of them are entirely dependent on the time and
culture. (Max-Neef, 1992, p. 199)
In contrast to Maslows hierarchy, the Matrix of Human Needs attempts to
understand human needs as a system.
Human needs must be understood as a system; that is, all human needs are
interrelated and interactive. With the sole exception of the need of subsistence .. . no hierarchies exist within the system. On the contrary, simultaneities,
complementaries and trade-offs are characteristic of the process of needs
satisfaction. (Max-Neef, 1992, p. 199)
In Max-Neefs schema, Affection, Participation, and Identity are the needs mostassociated with what we have been calling social capital. Affection, in the context of
Having, can manifest as the need for friendships and family. Participation, in the
context of Doing, can manifest as the need to cooperate, to dissent, and to express
opinions; in the context of Interacting, it manifests as associations, parties, churches
and neighborhoods. Identity, in the context of Being, can manifest as the need for a
sense of belonging.
Poverty is conventionally defined either as an absolute or relative lack of income.
However, with the recognition that there are nine basic needs, we can speak of nine
corresponding forms of poverty. Each of these poverties can be said to have its own
particular pathology. (Max-Neef, 1992, p. 200)
Thus, it should not be unreasonable to infer that a lack of social capitalwhich,
as we have seen, can be associated with deprivation regarding at least three of the nine
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
29/31
basic needs identified by Max-Neef, and in all four of his basic modalitiescould result
in the particular kind of pathologies that we subsume within the categories of physical
and/or mental illness.
IV. Conclusion
As we have noted several times in this report, the concept of social capital has an
inescapably dual character. There are numerous results which confirm the intuitive idea
that higher levels of social capital support well-being in general, and both physical and
mental health in particular. On the other hand, for almost every supposed benefit of
social capital there might seem to correspond some significant drawback.
From our study, however, it appears very likely that individuals flourish according their
ability to draw on their networks for support, or trust their neighbors to be fair in their
dealings with them. Regarding two social milieus that are identical in every other aspect,
the one that supports higher levels of cooperation might reasonably be expected also to
support a higher general level of well-being. On this basis, one may provisionally require
that any meaningful measure of a societys quality of life include some way of accounting
for its social capitalfor example, as measured by a survey that asked the trust
question.
There is however one aspect of social capitalor, more properly, the consequences of
social capitalon which a very strong consensus appears to have emerged regarding its
ability to impact well-being, both in individuals and at the community level.. This
concerns how evenly, or unevenly, the communitys aggregate wealth is distributed
among its members. (Annual income is generally used as a convenient proxy for this
wealth.) Therefore, it seems indisputable that we should require that assessments of
societal quality of life include some provision for taking account the degree of economic
inequality within the societyfor example, through the Gini coefficient.
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
30/31
References
De Silva, M. J., McKenzie, K., Hapham, T., & Huttly, S. R. (2005, August). "Social
capital and mental illness: a systematic review."Journal of Epidemiologyand Community Health, 59(8), 619-27.
Ferlander, S. (2007, June). "The importance of different forms of social capital forhealth." Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 115-28.
Field, J. (2003). Social Capital. New York: Routledge.
Hawkins, S. (2005). "Social capital." In M. C. Horowitz (Ed.), New Dictionary ofthe History of Ideas (pp. 2218-20). Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Helliwell, J. F. (2001). "Social capital, the economy and well-being."The Review ofEconomic Performance and Social Progress, 01(3), 43-60.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004, September 29). "The social context of well-
being." Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 359(1449),1435-46.
Holtgrave, D., & Crosby, R. A. (2003, February). "Social capital, poverty, and incomeinequality as predictors of gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia and AIDS case rate in
the United States." Sexually Transmitted Infections, 79(1), 62-64.Retrieved February 13, 2008, from http://sti.bmj.com/contents-by-date.0.shtml
Karner, T. X. (2001). "Social capital." In E. F. Borgatta (Ed.),.Encyclopedia ofSociology (2nd ed., pp. 2637-41). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Max-Neef, M. (1992). "Development and human needs." In P. Ekins, M. Max-Neef (Ed.),Real-Life Economics: Understanding Wealth Creation (pp. 197-213).Florence, Kentucky: Routledge.
McKenzie, K. (2006). "Social risk, mental health and social capital." In K. McKenzie(Ed.), Social capital and mental health (pp. 24-38). London: JessicaKingsley Publishers.
McKenzie, K., & Hapham, T. (2006). "Meanings and uses of social capital in the mental
health field." In Social Capital and Mental Health (pp. 11-23). London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
8/6/2019 Social Capital and Wellbeing
31/31
Mustard, C. (1998, October 31). "Income inequality and inequality in health:Implications for thinking about well-being." Symposium at CSLSConference on the State of Living Standards and the Quality of Life in Canada,
Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from the October 31 2:15-3:45 PM
Session Web site: http://www.csls.ca/events/october.asp
Paldam, M. (2000, December). "Social capital: one or many? definition and
measurement.Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(5).
Putnam, R. D. (1993, March 21). "The prosperous community: Social capital and public
life."The American Prospect, 4(13). Retrieved February 17, 2008, fromhttp://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/DETOC/assoc/13putn.html
Putnam, R. D. (2001, March 19-20). "Social capital: Measurement andconsequences." Symposium at "The contribution of human and social capitalto sustained economic growth and well-being," Quebec City. Retrieved February19, 2008, from
http://www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3343,en_2649_39263294_2674084_1_1_1_1,00.html
Smith, S. S., & Kulynych, J. (0202, March). "It may be social but why is it capital? The
social construction of social capital and the politics of language." Politics &Society, 30(1), 149-86.
Social Analysis and Reporting Division. (2001, October). "Social capital: A reviewof the literature." Unpublished manuscript at Office of National Statistics,United Kingdom. Retrieved February 19, 2008, fromhttp://www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital/downloads/soccaplitreview.pdf
World Health Organization. (2001).The world health report 2001: Mentalhealth : new understanding, new hope. Geneva, Switzerland: WorldHealth Organization. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from
http://www.who.int/whr/2001/en/whr01_en.pdf
Wikipedia. (n.d.). "Prisoner's dilemma." Retrieved February 18, 2008, from theWikipedia Web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
http://www.csls.ca/events/october.asphttp://www.csls.ca/events/october.asp