Social capital

Man kind | 08.04.2004 12:18

Social capital is a well recognised concept in the field of human
development

Social capital is a well recognised concept in the field of human
development - see for example the Department For International
Development's (DFID) framework for analysing livelihoods; social
capital is often found to be a significant assets in the livelihood
options of people living in poverty.

The DFID definition of social capital higlights its importance in
accessing information:

"Social Capital is a category of livelihood assets. It relates to the
formal and informal social relationships (or social resources) from
which various opportunities and benefits can be drawn by people in
their pursuit of livelihoods."

These resources are developed through investment in:

+ interactions (through work or shared interests) that increase
people's ability to work together;
+ membership of more formal groups in which relationships are by
accepted rules and norms;
+ relationshps of trust that facilitate co-operation, reduce
transactions costs and sometimes help in the development of informal
safety nets amongst the poor.

Critial benefits of social capital are access to information, to
influence or power, and to claims or obligation for support from
others.

Man kind
Homepage: http://www.livelihoods.org/

Comments

Hide the following 11 comments

Excellent Post

08.04.2004 12:35

Great stuff and a real breath of fresh air after some of the stuff of late on IM. I urge eveyone to check out the website

Toby

Yeah.

08.04.2004 13:03

Yeah!

Mad Ted
mail e-mail: madted@riseup.net

social capital?

08.04.2004 13:18

the concept of social capital is far more complex than the author of this article has explained. The theory of 'social capital' is, in reality, a means of justifying the class system and justifying the fact that people are poor or people are rich - i refer to it as 'soft racism' or pc racism.

not a social scientist

i agree with the penguin !

08.04.2004 16:55

i think our luxemburg- reading penguin has got it right ! what kind of capital ISNT "social" ? capital is capital, always a human endeavour and therefore always "social". no point in dressing it up with these christmas tree- lights.

rosa

The Forms Of Capital

08.04.2004 17:13

A good critique of social capital ( as well as economic & cultural capital ) is available in 'The Forms Of Capital' in 'Sociology of Education ( Richardson eds. )' by Pierre Bourdieu and also throughout his work partic 'Logic of Practice' and 'Distinction'. Also see Archer, J. probably etc etc. i.e.How social capital is a part of hegenomic social control. Bourdieu was a 'post marxist structuralist' thinker, for want of a better description. His work would be a good critique to the initial post ( and to authoritarian Marxism ).

Theo Cuppier

Social Capital theory

08.04.2004 17:19

A good critique of social capital ( as well as economic & cultural capital ) is available in 'The Forms Of Capital' in 'Sociology of Education ( Richardson eds. )' by Pierre Bourdieu and also throughout his work partic 'Logic of Practice' and 'Distinction'. Also see Archer, J. probably etc etc. i.e. How social capital is a part of hegenomic social control. Bourdieu was a 'post marxist structuralist' (for want of a better description!)thinker and the rethinking of capitalist social relations / power structures is intergral to his work, for want of a better description. His work would be a good critique to the initial post ( and The Department for International Development etc. ).

theo cuppier

capital

08.04.2004 17:25

Financial capital (ie money) isn't social capital and its value isn't dericed from labour but from social agreement/state enforcement. The concept of 'social capital' is an attempt to recognise and protect non-financially denominated 'assets' of society, the ones profit driven capitalism tends to erode: community, solidarity, informal social networks etc... As such it should be welcomed. Just because something is 'capital' doesn't mean we have to be capitalists. Labour is capital(1), but that doesn't mean a communist or anarchist society doesn't have labour.

I haven't seen the concept used to defend the class system, although it can probably be used to do so like pretty much anything else in the hands of those with something to lose.

Notes

(1) Capital = something that is needed for production but is not used up in production.

mr economista

ER>>> SURPLUS VALUE, ANYONE ?

10.04.2004 15:14

a quick glance at these postings suggests a lot of sophist "dancing on pins" and not much reference to SURPLUS VALUE. It is this that karl marx first identified as being the problem with capital (as distinct from money or even simple profit). wehilst there are many different componenets to capital, it does indeed end up as pretty much the same thing, with an elite managing it to its own advantage Marx: "he who has wealth to distribute rarely omits himself"), and a workforce which is exploited.
. it is often overlooked that Marx always stood against social SYSTEMS, whether they carried the tag of "socialist" or not; that much is clear from his critique of Proudhon in POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY.
for a better understanding of marxs concept of SURPLUS VALUE (mehrwert), it preoccupies the volumes of DAS KAPITAL 4 5 and 6. (Ha ha ! and you thought there were ony 3 in total !)

MEHRWERT

furthermore, "mr economista"

10.04.2004 15:27

"mr economistsas" contribution above makes my heart sink. this is precisely the kind of contradictory reasoning that prompted marx to write at such voluminous lengths. mr economista is trying to tell us that capital isnt actually capital ! wonderful. perhaps the medievael theologians spent all day arguing over how many angels could dance on a pin, but at least they didnt try to tell us that a pin wasnt a pin (as far as i know, anyway!).
do TRY to read marxs "theories of surplus value". it might be three volumes but if he had time to write it, you DO have time to read it.....

mehrwert

I've read Marx

10.04.2004 16:41

Capital is simply something which is essential for production but is not used up by production, e.g. Land, labour, money, social capital i.e. labour is toilet trained etc...

Marx's critique of surplus value is entirely dependent on how that capital is used, basically who 'owns' the means of production. An anarchist collective has labour, land, plant (and within a capitalist society, money). Nobody sells their liberty to anyone else, the surplus value generated by each worker belongs to the worker.

The fact capital can be exploited by capitalists does not change the definition of capital.

mr economista

and by the way . . .

10.04.2004 18:35

I am in no way defending DfID. They are evil, exploitative fuckers.

If social capital is bad - what are people's thoughts on the Ithica Hours complimentary currency scheme in the US that created a climate of mutual aid amongst members as people discovered they all had skills they could share and did so WITHOUT currency transactions as well as as part of the scheme? Surely a worthwhile acheivement despite its faults?

mr economista