Social work theory · Volume F: Community, Collective & Social Change

Social capital theory

Social capital refers to the networks, norms of reciprocity and trust that enable people to act together and gain access to resources.

1. What it is

Social capital refers to the networks, norms of reciprocity and trust that enable people to act together and gain access to resources (Putnam, 2000). Entry C3 examines social capital as an explanatory theory: how differences in networks and trust account for inequalities in health, education and economic outcomes. This entry treats social capital as a tool for community change. Its concern is practical: the ways workers and communities can deliberately build, connect and use social relationships to improve collective wellbeing and shift the distribution of power and resources (Gilchrist, 2019).

In community practice, social capital is valued because relationships are themselves a resource that disadvantaged communities can create. Community organising, neighbourhood renewal and disaster recovery programs all rely on the idea that strengthening ties within and between groups increases a community’s capacity to solve problems (Gittell & Vidal, 1998). The theory’s main contribution to practice is the distinction between three forms of social capital, each of which calls for different work.

Bonding social capital. Bonding social capital consists of ties among people who are similar in identity, background or circumstance, such as family, close friends, ethnic or faith communities and peer groups. It provides emotional support, mutual aid and solidarity, and helps people “get by” (Putnam, 2000). Gittell and Vidal (1998) treated bonding ties as the starting point for community organising, since trust among neighbours is needed before collective action can begin. Strong bonding without wider connections can, however, become inward-looking and exclusionary (Portes, 1998).

Bridging social capital. Bridging social capital consists of ties across social divides: between people of different ethnicities, ages, classes or neighbourhoods. These weaker but wider ties give access to new information, opportunities and allies, helping people “get ahead” (Putnam, 2000). In community building, bridging work brings together groups that have been separated or in conflict, for example through shared projects, multicultural events or coalitions. Gittell and Vidal (1998) argued that organisers must build both bonding and bridging ties if community development is to produce lasting gains.

Linking social capital. Linking social capital refers to relationships between people and those who hold power or authority in formal institutions, such as government departments, banks, universities and service agencies. Szreter and Woolcock (2004) defined it as norms of respect and networks of trusting relationships among people interacting across explicit gradients of power. Linking ties are what allow communities to influence decisions and obtain resources from outside. They are especially important for marginalised communities, whose bonding ties may be strong but whose access to decision-makers is weak (Woolcock, 1998).

Social capital as a community-building strategy. Applied to practice, the three forms suggest a sequence. Workers first support relationships within a community, then connect it to other communities, and finally help it build accountable relationships with institutions. Gilchrist (2019) describes this as “networking” practice: the deliberate, skilled work of creating and maintaining connections that make a community “well-connected”. Social capital is also understood as a component of community resilience. After disasters, communities with dense and wide networks tend to recover faster and more fairly (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015).

2. Historical development

The idea of social capital first appeared in community education. Hanifan (1916) used it to explain how community centres in rural West Virginia built the goodwill, sympathy and social intercourse needed for local improvement. The concept then lay largely dormant until Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) developed it in sociology, Bourdieu as a source of class advantage and Coleman as a resource that facilitates action. Putnam’s work in the 1990s (Putnam et al., 1993; Putnam, 2000) turned it into a widely used policy concept by linking civic networks to democratic and economic performance.

Social capital entered community practice through development studies and urban policy. Woolcock (1998) and the World Bank promoted it as a missing ingredient in development, while Gittell and Vidal (1998) evaluated its use in American community development corporations. In Australia, Onyx and Bullen (2000) developed measures of social capital in five New South Wales communities, which informed community development and local government planning. Social work adopted the concept because it gave a measurable language for the relationship-building that community workers had long practised (Gilchrist, 2019).

3. Practical guidance

Social capital theory suggests these approaches to community-building work.

• Map existing networks. Before intervening, identify who is connected to whom, which groups are isolated, and which people act as connectors. Network mapping and conversations with local leaders show where bonding, bridging and linking ties are strong or weak (Gilchrist, 2019).
• Create spaces for regular contact. Community gardens, playgroups, neighbourhood houses and shared meals build bonding ties through repeated, low-pressure interaction. Trust develops from reliable, shared activity.
• Design projects that bridge divides. Bring together groups that rarely meet, such as long-term residents and newly arrived migrants, around a common task. Shared goals reduce suspicion more effectively than discussion of differences alone (Putnam, 2000).
• Broker linking relationships. Use the worker’s institutional position to introduce community members to councillors, agency managers and funders, and prepare both sides for respectful exchange (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).
• Strengthen networks before crises occur. In emergency management and recovery work, invest in local networks in advance, since these networks shape who receives help and how quickly communities recover (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015).
• Watch for exclusion. Monitor whether network-building reinforces existing hierarchies or excludes some groups. Strong bonding can produce closed groups that restrict newcomers (Portes, 1998).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social capital gives practitioners a clear and accessible framework for describing the value of relationships, and it links community building to outcomes in health, safety and economic participation. The bonding, bridging and linking distinction is directly useful in planning, because each type implies a different kind of work. The concept has been measured in Australian communities (Onyx & Bullen, 2000), and evidence on disaster recovery shows its practical relevance (Aldrich, 2012).

Limitations. Critics argue that social capital can depoliticise disadvantage. DeFilippis (2001) contended that community development based on social capital ignores the power relations and economic forces that produce poverty, and that networks alone cannot redistribute capital. Portes (1998) identified negative social capital: exclusion of outsiders, excessive claims on group members and downward levelling norms. Some policy uses of the concept have placed responsibility for wellbeing on communities while public investment declined. The concept is also defined and measured inconsistently, which makes evidence difficult to compare.

Overall importance. As a community-change tool, social capital theory directs attention to the relationships that make collective action possible. Its greatest value lies in the concept of linking social capital, which connects community building to questions of power and institutional accountability. Used with a structural analysis, as Ife (2016) recommends for community work generally, it helps practitioners build networks that strengthen communities and increase their influence.

5. References

• Aldrich, D. P. (2012). Building resilience: Social capital in post-disaster recovery. University of Chicago Press.
• Aldrich, D. P., & Meyer, M. A. (2015). Social capital and community resilience. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(2), 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214550299
• Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
• Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), S95–S120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
• DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429
• Gilchrist, A. (2019). The well-connected community: A networking approach to community development (3rd ed.). Policy Press.
• Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a development strategy. Sage.
• Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271621606700118
• Ife, J. (2016). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886300361002
• Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.1
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
• Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
• Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650–667. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh013
• Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006884930135