This website is constantly being updated and added to. Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions using the Feedback page.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
| |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
| |
||||||||||||||
| Author:
Oliver Harding (Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham HA) and Leroy White (South
Bank University). Status: Draft Last updated on:
02 July
2002 This website is constantly being updated and added to. Please let us know if you have any comments or suggestions using the Feedback page. |
||||||||||||||
Social Capital
The idea of social capital,
and its influences on health status is becoming increasingly important in our
thinking about health.
The following pages describe some of the concepts underlying the idea of social
capital.
The terms capital usually
refers to resources, assets or 'stocks', or less tangible attributes such as
power or potential.
In everyday usage capital usually refers specifically to the economic value
of resources owned by an individual or agency.
It may however be useful to describe other attributes in terms of capital, so
capital could be:
Hubley, taking a largely economic perspective, describes six 'styles' of Capital.
Social
capital
is trust available to all members of a community (e.g. family, customer base)
Financial
capital is liquidated as money for
trade, and owned by legal entities.
Natural
capital is inherent in ecologies and protected by communities
to support life.
Individual
capital is inherent in persons, protected by societies, trades
labor for trust or money
Instructional
capital is knowledge persons and communities and software executes
to predict/create or avoid futures
Infrastructural
capital is non-natural support systems (e.g. clothing, shelter,
roads, PCs) that minimize need for new social trust, instruction, and natural
resources.
Social capital is generally regarded as intangible, relating largely to interpersonal networks. Robert Putnam, a key originator of the concept of social capital describes it in the following way:
|
"The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all "social networks" and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other." The idea is that "a wide variety of quite specific benefits flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks. Social capital creates value for the people who are connected and - at least sometimes - for bystanders as well". |
| Putnam also describes channels by which social capital manifests itself: | |
| a. | Information flows (e.g. learning about jobs, learning about candidates running for office, exchanging ideas at college, etc.) depend on social capital |
| b. | Norms of
reciprocity (mutual aid) are dependent on social networks. · Bonding networks that connect folks who are similar sustain particularized (in-group) reciprocity. · Bridging networks that connect individuals who are diverse sustain generalized reciprocity. |
| c. | Collective action depends upon social networks (e.g., the role that the black church played in the civic rights movement) although collective action also can foster new networks. |
| d. |
Broader identities and solidarity are encouraged by social networks that help translate an "I" mentality into a "we" mentality. |
For further details see: Social Capital: What is it?
The relationship between social capital and health
Any consideration of the possible relationships between social capital and health depends on the definitions of these terms used. If health is considered a complete state of physical, psychological and social well-being, then presumably social capital (with an emphasis on social networks) actually contains some of the elements of 'social well-being' within it. Inter-relationships with the other aspects of health may be more tenuous, and evidence of relevant associations would be useful.
Our health is intimately related to behaviour and lifestyle and our environment both physical and socioeconomic. Strong social networks may enable health-related behaviour, and health-seeking behaviour, for example through local knowledge on what to do with a given health problem.
Measuring social capital is difficult because it is not a well-defined concept. Although single measures such as the density of voluntary organisations have been suggested, there seems to be a consensus that a combination of different indicators is required.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has used forty six largely quantitative indicators for monitoring poverty and social exclusion. These include, for example:
| Gap between low and median income |
| Individuals with below 50% of average income |
| Intensity of low income (number below 40% of average income) |
| Long-term recipients of benefits |
| Pupils gaining no GCSE grade C or above |
| Permanently excluded from school |
| Children whose parents divorce |
| Children in young offenders' institutions |
Within the lists are some indicators relating specific health issues:
| Low birthweight babies (%) |
| Accidental deaths |
| Limiting long-standing illness or disability |
| Anxiety |
| Premature death |
| Limiting long-standing illness or disability |
| Depression |
| Starting drug treatment |
| Suicide |
| Births to girls conceiving under age 16 |
That measures relating fairly directly to health such as premature death and long standing limited illness are used as indicators of poverty and social exclusion shows the extent to which the inter-relationships involved are complex. It also seems plausible that good health is positively correlated with social capital.
Other more qualitative measures
have been suggested, requiring local surveys.
These include:
| Participation in local community |
| Proactivity in a social context |
| Feelings of trust and safety |
| Neighborhood connections |
| Family and friends connections |
| Tolerance of diversity |
| Value of life |
| Work connections |
Overall it seems unlikely that the social capital of a community can be adequately estimated without some original research, and it may be that a combination of qualitative and quantitative information would be best. The World Bank have taken this approach in the development of the Social Capital Assessment Tool (SCAT), which consists of three main components:
The effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving social capital.
Interventions which may influence social capital are likely to be aimed at the wider determinants of health. If such interventions increase social capital, this may have a positive effect on health.
Such interventions may include various combinations of:
The effectiveness of such interventions may be difficult to measure because they are very wide ranging, and may not be aimed at increasing social capital specifically. Also a lack of a rigid definition for and means of measuring social capital means that the effect of interventions is difficult to ascertain in these terms.
The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, which can be seen as aiming to increase social capital (at least in part) uses four key principles:
Within these are 30 Key Ideas derived from examples of best practice. These include for example:
| making adult skills a priority in deprived neighbourhoods |
| improving IT in deprived neighbourhoods |
| helping people from deprived areas into jobs |
| making sure people know work pays |
| keeping money in the neighbourhood |
| tackling anti-social behaviour |
| introducing neighbourhood wardens |
| improving housing lettings policies |
Governance, government and true participatory democracy
The idea of social capital implies an emergence of structures and rules, by which community networks function, maintain themselves and grow. A system of representation, communication and democratic decision-making has emerged, and this could be termed governance. It may be useful to consider how this local governance fits in with more formal systems already in place, namely local and national government.
Reforms in local government,
the development of community governance, and increasing social capital all go
hand in hand. The white paper Modern
Local Government begins to consider how changing structures and
procedures in local government can make it closer to the community.
| Developing social capital through changes in local government. Examples from the White paper | |
| New political structures | ·
New models of political management for councils separating the executive
role from the backbench role · Clear roles for all councillors. |
| Improving local democracy | ·
More frequent local elections · Power to hold local referendums · Guidance on maximising registration and turnout · Ways of making it easier to vote |
| Improving local financial accountability | ·
Local people will control the spending and taxation decisions of their councils · Aggregate grant provision |
| New ethical framework | ·
Code of Conducts for councillors and council employees · Standards Committees · An independent Standards Board |
| Improving local services through best value | ·
Duty to secure best value in the provision of services · New national performance indicators for efficiency, cost and quality · Fundamental performance reviews · Annual performance plans · New audit and inspection arrangements |
| Promoting the well-being of communities | ·
Councils' powers to work in partnership to tackle cross cutting issues and
promote social inclusion will be strengthened. · New legal framework to enable successful councils to do more for their communities and to enable new approaches to public service to be tested through pilots. |
| Capital finance | ·
Extra resources for capital investment in the basic infrastructure of public
services. · A single capital "pot" so that councils can use resources more flexibly and plan for the long term. |
| Business rates | ·
Councils and local businesses will need to build partnerships to involve
business in the council's local tax and spending decisions · Business would not be able to block the setting of a local rate supplement |
Data on many of the indicators of poverty and social exclusion used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation are likely to be available from the GLA (formerly LRC) .
Some information in the form of community profiles may be available from individual Health Authorities or Local Authorities.
Local surveys may have produced some of the other information required for measuring social capital, but it is more likely that original surveys would need to be performed.
back
to top
Datasets
available
LRC data on Joseph Rowntree indicators
Contacts
for further information
Social
Exclusion Unit
Joseph
Rowntree Foundation
Health
Development Agency: Social Action Research Project
About
the LHO Health in London
Experts Organisations
Methods Publications
New
Site
guide Index
Links Search
Feedback