Social Capital, Downside of

Disputed Definitions and Trends

The lack of a standard definition of social capital is a problematic issue because if individuals interested in [Page 1267]mobilizing social capital for community development lack a consensus about its scope, they are likely to argue over how best to augment it. In their article titled “Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?” scholars Michael Foley and Bob Edwards discuss the extent to which this downside affects the development of academic thought. According to Foley and Edwards, the rift in the social capital debate divides academics into two camps. In one camp are political scientists and economists, who argue for a broad definition of social capital. From this perspective, social capital is based on universally shared values in society and a tradition of civic engagement. In the other camp are sociologists and applied social scientists, who argue for a more particularistic definition of social capital. From this perspective, social capital is based on a foundation of parochial values shared within distinct communities.

The rift between scholars over the scope and definition of social capital complicates the efforts of practitioners who want to mobilize social capital for community development purposes. In some instances, public policy is informed by the broad definition of social capital used by political scientists and economists. In others, it is informed by the parochial definition forwarded by sociologists and applied social scientists. Still other policy proposals are organized around a vague notion of social capital that lacks clear articulation in either direction. The lack of clarity and consensus about what social capital is produces inconsistencies in policy implementation and evaluation.

...