Social Capital

Few concepts in contemporary social sciences have been subject to such a high degree of scholarly and public attention as social capital. The term social capital has been given a plethora of meanings, often ambiguous or tautological in nature. Nevertheless, the richness of its definitions has made social capital an attractive, all-encompassing concept that resonates with various community social problems. Its appeal is largely credited to social capital's analytical flexibility and a multitude of available empirical applications. In particular, a number of studies in the past decade have analyzed the correlation between communities' levels of social capital and crime. This entry outlines the definition and characteristics of the social capital concept as it has been developed in recent research literature. This is followed by a discussion of the concept's relevance to the study of crime and its potential to affect and shape crime in minority communities.

Social capital is a property of social context. Existing definitions of social capital revolve around three dimensions: interconnected networks of relationships between individuals and groups (social ties or social participation), levels of trust that characterize these ties, and resources or benefits that are both gained and transferred by virtue of social ties and social participation. Many scholars have criticized definitions that equate social capital solely with acquired resources. Rather, social capital is the potential of individuals to secure benefits and invent solutions to problems through membership in social networks. These networks increase the flow of information and facilitate coordinated action for mutual benefit.

A high degree of trust among network participants fosters a sense of mutual obligation and permits them to be more effective in pursuing shared objectives. Social participation may take place in political, civil, or religious arenas or even in the workplace. Additionally, scholars assign great significance to building social capital through informal social ties such as interactions with family, friends, and neighbors. Social capital is also enhanced through network closure—when individuals know each other in several capacities, for example, as neighbors, business partners, parents of same-age children, and so on.

Recent research has pointed out that social capital can also be associated with some negative characteristics. Though some forms of social capital have positive outcomes for certain social groups, the same forms can adversely affect other groups. Although tightly knit networks make [Page 757]possible the achievement of certain ends for their members, this inner cohesion may restrict entry and deny benefits to nonmembers. A good example of this phenomenon is the monopoly of certain ethnic groups over particular professions (e.g., dominance of Jewish merchants over the diamond trade in New York City). Strong bonding may also produce excessive social pressure for conformity, thus undermining personal freedoms. Members forming the majority have an opportunity to fulfill their own agenda, whereas individuals who fail to obey the rules can find themselves in a position of outsiders.