Social work theory · Volume C: Ecological & Contextual

Social capital theory

Social capital theory explains how relationships and social networks give people access to resources that they could not obtain alone.

1. What it is

Social capital theory explains how relationships and social networks give people access to resources that they could not obtain alone. The term refers to the resources embedded in social ties, together with the trust, norms and obligations that make cooperation possible (Lin, 2001). Like economic capital, social capital can be accumulated, invested and drawn upon, and it is unequally distributed. The theory helps explain why people with similar personal capacities have different opportunities, and why some communities cope with adversity better than others (Portes, 1998). In this family, social capital is treated as an explanatory account of how social contexts shape wellbeing and life chances. Its use as a tool for community change is discussed in F2.

Pierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as the actual or potential resources linked to membership of a durable network of relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition. He placed it alongside economic capital, cultural capital (knowledge, credentials and dispositions) and symbolic capital (prestige and recognition). For Bourdieu, social capital is a resource held by individuals and groups that helps reproduce class advantage. Well-connected families convert their networks into educational and occupational opportunities for their children, and access to such networks is restricted.

James Coleman. Coleman (1988) defined social capital by its function: aspects of social structure that make certain actions possible. He identified three forms: obligations and expectations based on trust, information channels, and norms backed by effective sanctions. Coleman emphasised closure, the degree to which members of a network are connected to one another, as a condition that allows norms and trust to develop. He showed that social capital in families and communities supports the creation of human capital, for example by reducing school dropout (Coleman, 1988, 1990).

Robert Putnam. Putnam (1993, 2000) treated social capital as a property of communities and societies. He defined it as features of social organisation, such as networks, norms and social trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. His study of Italian regions linked civic engagement to effective government, and Bowling Alone documented declining civic participation in the United States. Putnam’s work brought the concept into public policy, including in Australia, where Cox (1995) used it to argue for a more civil society.

Bonding social capital. Bonding capital consists of ties among people who share similar characteristics, such as family, close friends and members of the same ethnic or religious community (Putnam, 2000). It provides emotional and practical support and helps people “get by”. Strong bonding ties can also exclude outsiders and constrain members.

Bridging social capital. Bridging capital consists of ties across social groups, linking people who differ in background, class or ethnicity (Putnam, 2000). Such ties give access to new information and opportunities and help people “get ahead”. The idea draws on Granovetter’s (1973) finding that weak ties, such as acquaintances, are often more useful than close ties for finding work because they connect people to different networks.

Linking social capital. Linking capital refers to relationships between people and those who hold power in formal institutions, such as officials, employers, professionals and service providers. The idea grew from Woolcock’s (1998) analysis of ties between communities and institutions, and Szreter and Woolcock (2004) defined it as norms of respect and networks of trust across explicit, formal or institutionalised power gradients. It is especially relevant to social work because disadvantaged communities often lack trusted links with the institutions that control resources.

2. Historical development

The concept had scattered early uses (Hanifan, 1916; Jacobs, 1961), but it became a coherent theory through sociology in the 1980s. Bourdieu developed it within a critical theory of class reproduction, while Coleman developed it within rational choice theory to explain how social structure supports individual action (Portes, 1998). These different origins explain why social capital can be read either as a source of inequality or as a community asset.

Putnam’s work turned social capital into an influential policy idea in the 1990s. Governments and international agencies, including the World Bank, adopted it to explain differences in economic development, health and community resilience. Social work engaged with the concept through community development and network-based practice, where it supported long-standing attention to social connection and participation (Ife, 2016). Public health researchers linked it to the social determinants of health (see Social determinants of health) (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).

3. Practical guidance

Social capital theory helps practitioners assess and strengthen the relational resources available to clients and communities.

• Map relational resources. In assessment, identify bonding, bridging and linking ties as well as personal resources. Ask who the person can call on, who connects them to opportunities, and which institutions they trust.
• Recognise loss of social capital. Migration, imprisonment, family violence, homelessness and disability can strip people of networks. Rebuilding ties is a legitimate goal of intervention.
• Build bridging ties. Connect people to groups, education, volunteering and employment programs that extend networks beyond immediate circles (Granovetter, 1973).
• Act as linking capital. Social workers often provide the link between clients and institutions. Introducing a client to a trusted contact in a housing provider, school or Centrelink office can open access that would otherwise be closed (Szreter & Woolcock, 2004).
• Respect bonding networks. Family, kin and cultural communities are major sources of support, particularly for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse clients. Work with these networks and avoid replacing them with services.
• Watch for negative social capital. Close networks can enforce harmful norms, restrict freedom or pull members into crime or substance use (Portes, 1998). Assess the quality as well as the quantity of ties.
• Connect individual and community work. Patterns of isolation across a caseload may indicate a need for community development (see Social capital theory).

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. Social capital theory explains why relationships matter for health, education, employment and safety, and it has a substantial empirical literature. The bonding, bridging and linking distinction offers a practical assessment framework. The concept connects individual, community and institutional levels, which suits social work’s person-in-environment focus. Bourdieu’s version in particular links social connection to class and inequality.

Limitations. The concept is criticised for vagueness, since it can refer to networks, trust, norms or outcomes, and measures vary widely (Portes, 1998). Fine (2001) argued that popular versions depoliticise inequality by implying that communities can solve structural problems through civic participation. Putnam’s community-level account has been criticised for neglecting power, gender and the downside of exclusive groups. Policy use of the concept can shift responsibility for wellbeing from the state to communities.

Overall importance. Social capital theory gives social work a vocabulary for the resources that relationships provide and for the ways those resources are unequally distributed. Read through Bourdieu, it highlights how networks reproduce advantage. Read through Putnam and Woolcock, it supports work that builds connection and links people to institutions. It connects closely with social support (C4), social network theory (B6) and community practice (F2).

5. References

• 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
• Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
• Cox, E. (1995). A truly civil society. ABC Books.
• Fine, B. (2001). Social capital versus social theory: Political economy and social science at the turn of the millennium. Routledge.
• Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
• Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130–138.
• Ife, J. (2016). Community development in an uncertain world: Vision, analysis and practice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.
• Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press.
• 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. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
• Stone, W. (2001). Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life (Research Paper No. 24). Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• 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