Article

Public Policy and Administration

27(1) 49–67
Social Capital and Public ! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
Service Performance: A sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0952076710394399
Review of the Evidence ppa.sagepub.com

Rhys Andrews
Cardiff University, UK

Abstract
The social capital present within local communities is increasingly viewed as an impor-
tant source of co-productive capacity for delivering better public services. However, to
date, research in the field of public administration has paid scant attention to the links
between structural and attitudinal components of social capital, such as community
organizational life, political engagement and levels of interpersonal trust, and the per-
formance of public services. In this article, the relationship between social capital and
public service performance is explored by reviewing the available empirical evidence on
this topic. The existing evidence suggests that the strength and direction of the social
capital performance relationship may vary by the different dimensions of social capital.
Thus, further research in this area would have theoretical and practical benefits.

Keywords
citizen participation, public management, regional and local government, responsive-
ness, service delivery, trust

The concept of social capital is increasingly deployed in a host of important areas

of public policy and administration (see Halpern, 2004). Within any given geo-
graphical area, structural and attitudinal components of social capital, such as
community organizational life, political engagement and levels of interpersonal
trust, constitute a stock of material, cultural and human resources that can poten-
tially be mobilised for public purposes, including the delivery of public services. At
the same time, it is highly conceivable that the quality of public institutions is a key
determinant of levels of social capital within communities (Rothstein and Stolle,
2008). However, to date, public administration researchers in the UK have rarely
examined the links between social capital and the performance of public

Corresponding author:
Rhys Andrews, Centre for Local and Regional Government Research, Cardiff University, Colum Road, CF10
3EU
Email: andrewsr4@cardiff.ac.uk
50 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

organizations (though see John, 2005), despite the central place of both topics
within contemporary policy debates. This article takes stock of the state of knowl-
edge on this issue by reviewing the empirical literature on the relationship between
social capital and public service performance.
To what extent might the achievements of public organizations be attributable
to community organizational life, engagement in public affairs and social trust? Or
does the stock of social capital within any given area depend rather upon the efforts
of public service providers? This is a timely and extremely pertinent subject for
investigation. A commitment to increasing citizen participation in service provision
is at the heart of the UK coalition government’s attempt to build a ‘‘Big Society’’
(Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010). At the same time, in
the wake of the global financial crisis, the social capital found within local com-
munities is increasingly regarded as a panacea for the coming era of budget cut-
backs (Association of County Chief Executives, 2009). Much public service
provision is already characterised by the contribution of citizens to the production
of the goods and services that they consume (Parks et al., 1981). Further attempts
to mix the productive efforts of service providers and service users may be more
likely to succeed where there is a greater stock of social resources that can be
brought to bear on co-production. It is therefore important to identify what con-
stitutes social capital and to explore its potential connection with public service
performance.
In the first part of this article, five key dimensions of the concept of social capital
are introduced: community organizational life, engagement in public affairs, com-
munity volunteerism, informal sociability and social trust. The concept of public
service performance is then examined, before its potential relationship with each
dimension of social capital is explored. In the third section, empirical studies exam-
ining the social capital–performance relationship are reviewed. In the fourth, future
research directions are identified.

What is social capital?

The concept of social capital has been conceptualized and operationalized in
myriad alternative ways (see Portes, 1998). According to Robert Putnam (2000)
it comprises ‘‘connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of
reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’’ (Putnam, 2000: 19). This
implies that social capital is a structural (networks) and attitudinal (norms) phe-
nomenon that is the property of communities rather than individuals. At the heart
of the concept, then, is the notion that the relational resources within a community
can be harnessed by certain actors to achieve desired outcomes – which may or may
not be beneficial for the public good.
Critics have associated social capital theory with neo-liberal economics
(e.g. Navarro, 2002) and critiqued limited conceptualizations that exclude social
network ties (Western et al., 2005). Ben Fine (2010), in particular, argues that an
emphasis on social capital in policy debates distracts attention from other
Andrews 51

important explanatory factors, such as capital and class, which may be responsible
for social outcomes. However, while the concept of social capital is a highly con-
tested and controversial one, it remains a useful heuristic for exploring the salience
of social relationships in the field of public policy because of its facility for bridging
the worlds of academia and practice (Woolcock, 2010).
Generally speaking, social capital is conceptualised in the empirical literature as
a latent construct that cannot be directly observed, but rather is composed of
separate though inter-related dimensions that are susceptible to observation.
Although each of these dimensions may have an independent life of their
own, taken together they constitute a theoretically coherent representation of an
underlying concept. In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam’s (2000) assessment of the
effects of declining social capital in the U.S., he identifies and measures five general
dimensions of social capital: community organizational life, engagement in public
affairs, community volunteerism, informal sociability and social trust. Each of
these dimensions incorporates distinctive bonding (exclusive) and bridging (inclu-
sive) aspects, which may reinforce exclusive identities or encompass myriad diverse
ones in ways that may or may not be conducive to the public good (Portes, 1998).
The contribution of each dimension to the broader level of (positive and negative)
social capital within any given area is outlined next in order to frame the bound-
aries for the review of the evidence on the social capital–performance relationship.
Community organizational life reflects the formal organizational resources
available within local communities, such as sports clubs, arts societies and social
support groups (Putnam, 2000). In theory, these community-based organizations
(CBOs) build social capital amongst citizens by serving as small-scale learning
environments that spur the development of shared values and norms. However,
evidence suggests that local elites sometimes harbour CBOs’ resources at the
expense of the community at large (Platteau, 2004), and that community organi-
zational life can exacerbate tensions between social groups by generating excess
competition for political influence (Berman, 1997).
For Putnam (2000), engagement in public affairs is an important element of
social capital, especially participation in democratic politics through voting in elec-
tions and attendance at public meetings. Such participation may make citizens
more respectful of each other’s rights and reduce levels of social disaffection
(Sullivan and Transue, 1999). However, some studies have also indicated that
community activism may serve to exclude certain marginalised or underrepresented
groups (Kobayashi, 1994), or, in a worst-case scenario, become a repository for
extremist political parties (Goodwin, 2010).
Community volunteerism through voluntary individual acts of assistance and
participation in community projects is another key dimension of social capital.
In theory, active voluntary involvement in ‘‘doing good’’ in society broadens and
deepens the connections between people (see Wilson, 2000). Nonetheless, some
research suggests that volunteers may have strong self-interested reasons for
their acts or become overly sympathetic to, and influenced by, the interests of
local elites (Brooks, 2007).
52 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

Informal sociability reflects the social life people enjoy in settings that are not
formally organized, such as dinner parties, visiting restaurants, playing and watch-
ing sport, and so on (Putnam, 2000). According to Erickson and Nosanchuk
(1990), these activities prompt conversations about social and political matters
and thereby enable people to resolve collective action problems. However, while
the deepening of friendship ties can promote pro-social behaviour, it may also
sustain a ‘‘small-town mentality’’ that upholds the status quo and suppresses dis-
sent and difference (Vidich and Bensman, 1968).
Social trust refers to the underlying generalized reciprocity that guides
exchanges between community members. Trust can foster collective action in the
absence of formal mechanisms for that purpose (Coleman, 1994). In a high-trust
community, members perceive there to be strong support from peers and corre-
sponding obligations on their own part. Unfortunately, though, such solidarity
may restrict the flow of information and social support beyond the group and
can be an indicator of insularity and closed-mindedness (Suttles, 1972).

What is public service performance?

In the private sector, it is relatively straightforward to agree and measure financial
criteria of organizational success and failure. Organizational performance in the
public sector is, however, characterized by a much higher degree of complexity and
is invariably multidimensional. Public organizations are typically required to meet
multiple and potentially conflicting organizational goals. The creation of perfor-
mance information, its interpretation, and its use are all subject to disagreement
amongst interested stakeholders (Moynihan, 2008). Thus, as an inevitable conse-
quence of the publicness of public services, their achievements are judged by a
diverse array of constituencies, such as taxpayers, staff and politicians (Boyne,
2004). Despite these political complexities, there are key tangible elements of per-
formance that all stakeholders are likely to value (if to varying degrees), such as the
speed with which services are delivered, the extent to which they meet the needs of
service users and the capacity within public organizations to do this cost effectively.
Each of these elements of performance can be measured or gauged in a variety of
ways. Typically, this has been done via three methods. First, through the analysis
of administrative data collected and published by public organizations themselves,
such as statutory indicators that are mandated by central governments, scores
issued by regulatory agencies and also the expenditure and output data collected
by individual organizations. Examples of these in the UK included the National
Indicator Set for local authorities, ‘‘star ratings’’ awarded to schools and hospitals,
and the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accounting’s Finance and
General Statistics publications. Second, survey measures can be utilised to
directly assess stakeholders’ perceptions of performance. These are sometimes set
by political superiors (for example, statutory user satisfaction questionnaires), but
also include primary data collected by non-governmental organizations and aca-
demic researchers on the views of managers, politicians and citizens. Finally,
Andrews 53

achievements on each of the key elements of performance identified above can be

judged through the use of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. This approach
offers the prospect of a more nuanced, context-sensitive appreciation of the inter-
play between different performance elements.

Perspectives on social capital and public service performance

Each dimension of social capital is likely to have a distinctive relationship with
public service performance. Critically, though, while many studies have focused on
the impact of social capital on performance (see, for example, Coffe and Geys,
2005; Knack, 2002), it is conceivable that causation runs in the other direction, with
social capital contingent upon the quality of public services (Rothstein and Stolle,
2008). The causal mechanisms that might underpin links between each dimension
of social capital and performance are explored next.
Community organizational life can potentially enhance performance by
enabling citizens to overcome collective action problems associated with influenc-
ing public organizations – which in turn may make policy makers more responsive
(Elkins and Simeon, 1979). CBOs also develop expertise in addressing complex
social problems (Wallis and Dollery, 2006), and can thereby build capacity and
lower costs for public service providers. However, community organizational life
may be dependent upon the strength and stability of political institutions. For
example, CBOs are reliant on local government funding, and often reflect, or are
shaped by, the decisions of politicians and policy makers (Leach and Wilson, 1998).
It is therefore likely that the relationship between community organizational life
and public service performance will be a reciprocal one that is mutually reinforcing
– notwithstanding the potentially negative externalities associated with CBOs (see
above).
Public organizations generally require the support of citizens and service users
(Hirschman, 1970). The relative engagement in public affairs within any given area
may therefore exert an important influence on public service delivery decisions. A
more active citizenry may dictate agenda-setting or constrain the range of alterna-
tives available to policy makers (Elkins and Simeon, 1979). Nevertheless, the
engagement of citizens may also be determined by the quality of the public services
they receive, and could follow a u-shaped pattern, with active citizenship greatest at
low and high levels of performance. Individual-level research indicates that citizens
often become politically active in response to the failings of public service pro-
viders, but may feel more committed to activism when they have confidence that
their demands will be met (Vigoda, 2002). This suggests that the connections
between this dimension of social capital and performance may be particularly
complex.
Public organizations serving areas with high levels of community volunteerism
may benefit from higher levels of public-spiritedness and commitment to the needs
and interests of others (Putnam, 2000). In particular, volunteers may be more likely
54 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

to supplement existing service provision. The potential benefits of such voluntary

contributions can include more buy-in from citizens, less resistance to public ini-
tiatives, and with shared labour, greater efficiency and effectiveness in service deliv-
ery (Wilson, 2000). However, it is quite conceivable that these benefits are
contingent on the opportunities that are made available for people to co-produce
public services (see Boyle and Harris, 2009). Hence, the relationship between vol-
unteering and public service performance may well be a reciprocal one.
Informal sociability can serve as a conduit for the ‘‘flow of helpful information
that facilitates achieving our goals’’ (Putnam, 2000: 288-89), building the potential
for collective action and the leveraging of peer pressure on public officials. At the
same time, areas benefiting from strong informal connections may also be more
self-reliant and well-ordered than those that are socially disengaged (Sampson
et al., 2005). Although causal mechanisms directly linking better public services
to sociability are somewhat difficult to envisage, it seems plausible to expect that
where public institutions treat people fairly and equitably, friendships are more
likely to flourish (Frazer, 2008). Thus, while the strength and the direction of the
connection between sociability and performance may be difficult to trace, it is
conceivable that the two are to some extent mutually supportive.
In theory, social trust contributes to community connectedness, and relieves
public authorities of the ‘burden of enforcing compliance’ with legislation, increas-
ing their capacity to focus on improving services (Boix and Posner, 1998). Trust
may also lower transaction costs within civil society, making it easier to improve
public services through cross-sectoral partnerships (Purdue, 2001). Nevertheless,
levels of trust within civil society may be largely determined by the quality of
political institutions. For example, Brehm and Rahn’s (1997) study of the individ-
ual level determinants of social capital suggests that confidence in government has
a larger effect on social trust than vice versa.

The empirical evidence

Numerous empirical studies have assessed the relationship between social capital
and individual level outcomes, especially for health (e.g. Veenstra, 2000), education
(e.g. Coleman, 1988), and government (e.g. Brehm and Rahn, 1997). However,
rather less is known about its connection with organizational outcomes, despite
the explosion of interest in public service performance during the past decade
(Boyne, 2004). The empirical evidence on social capital and performance surveyed
here was largely drawn from statistical studies of organizational outputs and out-
comes in the public sector. Such evidence is suitable for review because it utilises
multiple cases and enables other important influences on performance, such as
socioeconomic deprivation, to be held constant. Nevertheless, qualitative evidence
on the links between social capital and the delivery of public services is also
reviewed.
The empirical studies were identified by utilising three internet search engines:
web of science; Scopus; and Google Scholar. This ensured that a wide spread of
Andrews 55

academic journals was captured by the search as well as books and working papers.
To identify studies which analyse the relationship between social capital and orga-
nizational performance, it was necessary to adapt additional search terms for rel-
ative levels of social capital (e.g. civic culture, political engagement, volunteering),
in conjunction with adapted terms for public service performance (e.g. effective-
ness, efficiency, responsiveness). The search revealed 48 studies that empirically
evaluate the relationship between social capital and some aspect of organizational
performance in the public sector. The selected studies were nearly all undertaken in
single countries, with most being conducted in the United States (21) and the UK
(5), with Belgium, Canada, Germany (2), India, Italy, Mexico, Nepal, Norway,
Peru, Sweden (2), Switzerland and seven cross-country international studies also
represented. Despite the appropriateness of this work, it is nonetheless limited.
Some researchers aggregate the different dimensions of social capital, but fail to
examine the separate effects of these dimensions (e.g. Coffe and Geys, 2005). Where
the concept of social capital is disaggregated, the available evidence invariably
focuses on only one dimension (especially trust: La Porta et al., 1997; Rothstein
and Stolle, 2008), or a sub-set (e.g. community organizational life and informal
sociability in Sun, 1999). Only a single study examines the relationship between
performance and all five dimensions of social capital identified by Putnam (Knack,
2002). At the same time, many studies have focused on the relationship between
social capital and public service expenditure (e.g. Coffe and Geys, 2005) or man-
agement quality within governments (e.g. Knack, 2002), rather than well-defined
organizational outcomes, such as pupils’ educational attainment (e.g. John, 2005).
Moreover, some of the performance measures do not adequately capture supply-
side organizational factors. Milner and Ersson (2000) use library book lending as
an indicator of local government output, yet such lending may be a product of
demand-side factors, such as citizens’ propensity towards reading, rather than the
efforts of public servants.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the studies reviewed below facilitate a valu-
able preliminary assessment of the relationship between social capital and perfor-
mance. The evidence covers a wide range of public services ranging from single
purpose organizations, such as schools and tenant management organizations, to
multipurpose organizations, such as state and local governments. Several studies
draw on a large sample of organizations, and different aspects of performance are
covered. In addition, most consider the potential effects of relevant contextual
variables. The review of the available evidence begins by examining capital in the
aggregate and performance, before studies investigating each dimension of social
capital are explored and future research directions identified.

Aggregate social capital

Several researchers have sought to create aggregate indices of social capital by
bringing together its separate dimensions under the rubric of a single latent con-
struct (see, for example, Western et al., 2005). The vast majority of studies drawing
56 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

on aggregate indices of social capital find that it has a positive impact on

performance.
Putnam’s (2000) index of social capital is positively related to pupils’ examina-
tion performance, public health, and low crime rates in the U.S. states – and fire
safety (Andrews and Brewer, 2010). Rice and Sumberg (1997) correlate policy
innovation in U.S. state governments with an index measuring political engage-
ment (e.g. newspaper readership), political equality (e.g. women state legislators),
community organizational life (e.g. nonprofit organizations per capita) and social
trust (e.g. lawyers per capita [reversed]). In Europe, Coffe and Geys’ (2005) index
comprising community organizational life, political engagement and social trust is
correlated with a budget surplus in Flemish municipalities, and Milner and
Ersson’s (2000) index of community organizational life, political engagement and
informal sociability is correlated with library book lending in 24 Swedish counties.
At a lower spatial scale, Goddard (2003) links an index measuring political engage-
ment and social trust with maths and writing test scores in the schools in a U.S.
urban school district, while Diaz et al. (2002) connect an index of the five dimen-
sions of social capital with better access to development services in Peruvian moun-
tain communities.
The literature search identified a single qualitative study that sought to capture
the impact of performance on social capital in the aggregate. Lively Neal’s (2009)
longitudinal case comparison of crime rates in 25 U.S. cities over the course of the
1990s offers support for the argument that better services precede stronger social
capital, with decreases in crime tending to spur increases in social capital rather
than the other way around. However, the sparseness of the research effort on
aggregate social capital indicates that the issue of causation requires more system-
atic analysis.

Community organizational life

Despite growing interest in the role that CBOs can play in delivering public services
during the past few decades (Wallis and Dollery, 2006), systematic research has
only recently begun to examine the connections between community organizational
life and the performance of public organizations. Much of this work is focused on
the achievements of state and local governments, especially in the United States.
Since Putnam (1993) linked community organizational life and the performance
of Italian regional governments, studies in state and local governments have fur-
nished rather more mixed results on this relationship. Rice (2001) finds that com-
munity organizational life has little impact on residents’ or experts’ perceptions of
the performance of Iowa community governments. Similarly, Knack (2002)
uncovers no relationship between associational activity and management capacity
in U.S. state governments. Milner and Ersson (2000), though, report positive cor-
relations between study circle participation and library book lending in 24 Swedish
counties, and Pierce et al. (2002) correlate membership of fraternal organizations
Andrews 57

with management capacity in 20 U.S. city governments (though a negative corre-

lation with the number of associations per capita). Tavits (2006) links group mem-
bership to policy innovation in German local governments, but not to their
efficiency.
Qualitative studies of the community organizational life-performance relation-
ship furnish a more clear-cut positive link between the two. Carver et al.’s (2003)
study of anti-smoking policy implementation by non-profit organizations in
Mississippi concludes that the fall in tobacco use in that state was attributable to
the activities of those organizations. Baqui et al. (2008) find that NGO involvement
in the delivery of maternal health programmes improved equity of access in a
district of Uttar Pradesh in India, while Simmons’ (2008) comparison of five UK
social enterprises providing leisure services to local governments highlights their
comparatively high level of output and income generation along with reduced
expenditure. Beyond the context of state and local governments, quantitative
research corroborates the findings of these qualitative studies (perhaps suggesting
that the benefits of community organizational life are experienced at smaller spatial
scales).
Sun (1999) finds that parental participation in community organizational life is
linked to better examination performance in U.S. high schools. Porfeli et al. (2009)
uncover similar relationships for schools within a single urban district in the U.S.,
and Brooks (2008) reports a strong association between neighbourhood organizing
in Los Angeles and crime reductions. In addition, Cote (2001) correlates commu-
nity organizational life and the management of regional development boards in
Quebec. Although this evidence suggests community organizational life enhances
public service outcomes, few empirical studies have examined the potential for
causation to run in the other direction.
Berman’s (1997) historical analysis of the collapse of the Weimar Republic sug-
gests that weak political institutionalization was to blame rather than a fragile civil
society. However, while researchers have examined policies to actively promote
community organizational life (e.g. Leach and Wilson, 1998; Warner, 1999), to
date scant evidence has emerged on the association between better public services
and an expansion of CBO activity – or, indeed, a contraction. It is therefore very
difficult to form a clear picture of the extent to which community organizational
life and public service performance may be mutually reinforcing or whether cau-
sation runs in a single direction only.

Engagement in public affairs

Putnam’s (1993) study of civic culture in Italy identified political engagement as a
critical factor in determining the success of regional governments, and several
subsequent studies have corroborated this finding in state and local governments.
Knack (2002) links political engagement with the management capacity of U.S.
state governments, Borge et al. (2008) with efficiency in Norwegian municipalities,
and Geys et al. (2010) with efficiency in Baden-Wurttemberg municipalities.
58 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

Schaltegger and Torgler (2007) connect engagement with government proposals

and better debt management in the Swiss Cantons – findings that are broadly
replicated in two studies of education performance. Marshall (2006) links parental
involvement in Chicago schools with reading and maths scores, and Webber (2010)
connects electoral turnout and pupil achievement in Missouri school districts.
Although the above studies identify positive links between engagement and
performance, others tell a different story. Ferguson et al. (2005), for example,
find a negative relationship between engagement with public affairs and capital
management in U.S. city governments, and Silva-Ochoa (2009) uncovers a negative
correlation between electoral turnout and utility access in Mexican municipalities
(though see Cleary, 2007, for a different account). These studies suggest that public
organizations operating in politically active areas may find it difficult to improve
services because they must overcome strong collective resistance to unwanted
policy change amongst the citizenry. Sepheri and Pettigrew’s (1996) case compar-
ison of two middle hill villages in Nepal suggests that community control of pri-
mary health care was often hampered by local power relations. Aldrich and Crook
(2008) too find that the siting of new trailer parks by Federal Emergency
Management Agency officials in the wake of Hurricane Katrina was more difficult
in politically active areas.
Qualitative research in tenant management organizations has suggested, though,
that client participation in service decisions bolsters management capacity
(Lowndes and Stoker, 1992; Tunstall, 2001), and may result in better residential
stability (Saegert and Winkel, 1998). Nonetheless, a wide evidence base illustrates
the considerable challenges that public organizations face engaging, educating and
empowering citizens (Andrews et al., 2008).
In terms of the propensity for public service performance to influence engage-
ment with public affairs, several individual level studies point towards a connection
between government failure and active engagement (e.g. Brehm and Rahn, 1997;
Vigoda, 2002). At the local government level, researchers have identified a link
between poor performance and voter choices in England (James and John,
2007), but, to date, no studies examine the impact of organizational performance
on electoral turnout (Van Oorschot and Arts, 2005, assess the impact of alternative
welfare regimes). Nonetheless, the individual-level evidence is suggestive of a com-
plex relationship between engagement and performance through time, with poor
performance prompting activism, which in turn spurs service improvement and
lower engagement until performance again declines. Longitudinal studies tracking
engagement in public affairs and organizational outcomes could illuminate this
critical issue.

Community volunteerism
Although evidence linking volunteerism with organizational performance in
the public sector is currently sparse, it reveals a positive relationship
in most cases. Knack (2002) correlates volunteering with management capacity
Andrews 59

in U.S. state governments, and Ferguson et al. (2005) with capacity in U.S. city gov-
ernments. Tavits (2006) too uncovers a connection between volunteering and policy
innovation in U.S. local governments (though not for efficiency). Whitford and
Yates (2002) find that volunteering enhances social care productivity in the U.S.
states. These positive effects are also observed in some educational settings.
John’s (2005) study of 27 secondary schools in England in 2000 indicates that
student volunteering has a positive relationship with examination performance.
Sheldon and Epstein (2002) observe a similar correlation between volunteering
and pupil discipline in a sample of elementary and secondary schools in 12 U.S.
states. However, Barnes et al. (2004) find that volunteering is negatively related to
parental satisfaction with schools in England. This study points to the possibility
that volunteers only actively co-produce services that they perceive to be deficient.
Although to date no research has sought to directly link the quality of public
services to volunteering, a small number of studies furnish evidence on the effects of
alternative institutional settings on propensity the to volunteer. For example,
Buhlmann and Freitag (2007) find that decentralization is positively related to
volunteering in the Swiss cantons. Given the centrality of volunteering to the con-
cept of social capital, empirical evidence on the service quality effects on volun-
teerism would cast light on an important aspect of the social-capital performance
relationship.

Informal sociability
The evidence on informal sociability and public service performance is far
more mixed than for other dimensions of social capital, perhaps unsurpris-
ingly, as socializing would intuitively seem less likely to prompt collective action
than CBOs or political engagement. Knack (2002) finds no relationship between
sociability and the capacity of U.S. state governments – a finding replicated in
Ferguson et al.’s (2005) study of capacity reveal similar correlations in U.S. city
governments. John (2005), too, uncovers no link between parental socializing and
school examination performance. Sun (1999), though, connects parental socializing
with U.S. high school examination scores; and, a similar relationship is observed
between socializing and policy innovation in Tavits’ (2006) study of U.S. local
governments (though not for efficiency). Thus, although three studies do not iden-
tify a link between sociability and performance, two do, making it difficult to draw
firm conclusions about the basis of these sparse findings.
To date, the impact of the quality of public services on people’s socialising has
not been studied systematically – though a large literature is evolving on the effects
of alternative welfare regimes. For example, Scheepers et al.,’s (2002) analysis of
Eurobarometer data finds that citizens in countries with a strong welfare state have
fewer social contacts with family and friends than do those in the Latin Rim. Van
Ooorschot and Arts (2005) and others furnish further evidence on the complex
effects of welfare provision on social networks. Plainly, though, much more sys-
tematic evidence on the relationship between sociability and public service
60 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

performance is required before any attempt to extract general trends on this inter-
esting issue can be undertaken.

Social trust
The connection between social trust and individual level outcomes is the subject of
numerous studies, especially in relation to crime (e.g. Ross et al., 2001). It is also
the subject of most of the research examining the impact of performance on social
capital. Although some of this is carried out at the individual level (e.g. Espinal
et al., 2006), much is at the organizational-level (e.g. Letki, 2006; Rothstein and
Stolle, 2008).
The available evidence on the impact of trust on performance points towards a
linear positive relationship between trust and performance. At the national level,
La Porta et al. (1997) find that social trust is linked to the efficiency of the judiciary,
bureaucratic quality in government, school performance and lower levels of gov-
ernment corruption in economically advanced nations – findings mirrored in
Bjornskov’s (2010) updated replication study.
At a lower spatial scale, Knack (2002) finds that trust is correlated with man-
agement capacity in U.S. state governments, while Pierce et al. (2002) and
Ferguson et al. (2005) reveal correlations with capacity in two samples of U.S.
city governments. At the local level, Rice (2001) uncovers a link between trust and
the performance of municipal services in Iowa, and Tavits (2006) finds a correlation
with policy innovation in German and U.S. local governments. Cote (2001) finds a
strong correlation between social trust and management of the Quebecois regional
development boards, and Kahne and Bailey’s (1999) qualitative study of gradua-
tion rates in two Chicago high schools illustrates that social trust plays a key role in
building the confidence of disadvantaged students. However, John (2005) finds no
link between trust and performance in his analysis of high school examination
performance in English schools.
Although the bulk of the research examining the impact of social trust on per-
formance reveals a positive connection between the two, a growing evidence base
on the impact of performance on trust highlights that it is not possible to draw firm
conclusions about this issue without considering the direction in which causality
may run. At the nation-state level, Letki’s (2006) analysis of World Values Survey
data reveals a strong link between the perceived quality of government bureaucra-
cies and trust. In their study of the same dataset, Rothstein and Stolle (2008) find
that effective and impartial public institutions are positively related to social trust.
This finding is corroborated in Freitag and Buhlmann’s (2009) multi-level analysis
of the World Values Survey data, while Kumlin and Rothstein (2005) reveal a
connection between the responsiveness of health care, transportation, social assis-
tance and employment agencies and trust in the Vastra Gotaland region of Sweden
(though not for child care). Overall, the findings confirming both variants of the
trust–performance connection point towards a mutually reinforcing association
between the two. Systematic comparison of the strength of each side of this
Andrews 61

reciprocal relationship within the same study at the organizational level would
greatly clarify the causal mechanisms at work here.

Future research directions

The balance of the available evidence tends to suggest that better performance and
high levels of social capital may go hand in hand. However, much more research is
required to underpin firm theoretical and policy conclusions, particularly on the
impact of performance on social capital, and especially for dimensions of social
capital other than trust. At the same time, the methodologies used in existing
studies exhibit important weaknesses. In particular, the cross-sectional research
design adopted in nearly all of the articles reviewed here does little to address
the difficult issue of causality. Although some quantitative studies have controlled
for these causation issues using instrumental variable techniques (e.g. Coffe and
Geys, 2005), so far only one (John, 2005) has tackled this problem head-on using
longitudinal data. Similarly, a single qualitative study has unravelled these causal
processes by carrying out longitudinal case comparisons (Lively Neal, 2009).
Future studies should build on this work and investigate social capital and
public service performance over long time periods.
In addition, to fully understand the social capital–performance relationship it
would be essential for researchers to trace the interactions between the different
dimensions and other relevant environmental influences. For instance, circum-
stances beyond the control of public organizations may harm their performance,
especially socioeconomic deprivation and resource pressures (Boyne, 2004). It is
conceivable that public organizations operating in areas rich in social capital are
better able to overcome such challenging circumstances. For example, in deprived
areas with a tradition of community engagement, managers may find it easier to
implement new service initiatives (Middleton et al., 2005). Likewise, it may be the
case that high-performing public agencies more successfully contribute to the
growth of social capital in areas facing tough contextual challenges. In the current
climate of fiscal austerity, evidence on the extent to which social capital can
enhance the resilience of public service providers to budgetary cuts will cast impor-
tant light on the potential trade-offs between service priorities the cuts will pro-
voke. At the same time, studies examining the extent to which social resilience is
stronger in areas benefiting from better quality public services would provide a
strong illustration of the contribution public organizations can make to the devel-
opment of the ‘‘Big Society’’.
It is also important to note that the reported findings may be a product of where
and when the empirical studies were conducted. Most of the empirical literature on
the effects of social capital on performance is from the United States, while much of
the pioneering work on the impact of performance on social capital has been car-
ried out in a Scandinavian setting. Much more research is required in other coun-
tries to cast light on the comparative generalizability of these studies. For example,
the U.S. is perceived to be an especially voluntaristic society (Lipset and Schneider,
62 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

1983), while Scandinavian countries are often claimed to exhibit particularly high
levels of social trust (Rothstein, 2001). Other countries too (e.g. European post-
communist states and Latin America) exhibit very distinctive civil society–govern-
ment relations (Valkov, 2009). Ultimately, then, systematic cross-country compar-
isons of the social capital–performance relationship in different public agencies are
required to cast light on when it matters most and in which policy fields.

Conclusion
The issue of social capital and public service performance is of increasing interest
and importance. Attempts to mix the productive efforts of service providers and
service users are at the heart of numerous reforms designed to improve the man-
agement and delivery of public services (Bourgon, 2009). Such reforms gathered
momentum in the UK during the tenure of the previous Labour government and
have now been taken up (albeit in a less state-centred form) as part of the coalition
government’s Big Society agenda (Jordan, 2010). This article explored the social
capital–performance relationship by reviewing the empirical evidence on this topic.
The existing empirical studies confirm some of the arguments about the benefits
(and to a lesser degree the costs) of social capital for public service delivery, and the
potential benefits of public services for social capital. Each dimension of social
capital (excepting informal sociability) is found to have a positive relationship
with performance, at least some of the time. This appears to be so across most
aspects of performance (though, interestingly, not for efficiency), and in several
organizational settings, suggesting that areas high in social capital may be more
resilient to economic recession and budgetary cutbacks. Although much of the
evidence is drawn from research in the United States, it does highlight the poten-
tially large role for public policies to play in eliciting the positive associations
between social capital and service improvement. All of which points towards the
need to understand the challenges associated with designing and implementing
effective co-production initiatives, which can successfully bring together citizens
and public service providers. How public organizations meet these challenges
will have profound implications for the theory and practice of public policy and
administration in years to come.

References
Aldrich DP and Crook RD (2008) Strong civil society as a double-edged sword. Political
Research Quarterly 61: 379–389.
Andrews R and Brewer GA (2010) Social capital and fire service performance: evidence
from the U.S. states. Social Science Quarterly 91(2): 576–591.
Andrews R, Cowell RJ, Downe J, Martin S and Turner D (2008) Supporting effective
citizenship in local government: engaging, educating and empowering local citizens.
Local Government Studies 34(4): 489–507.
Association of County Chief Executives (2009) We Can Work it Out. . . Local Government,
Communities and Social Capital. London: Society for Local Authority Chief Executives.
Andrews 63

Baqui AH, Rosecrans AM, Williams EK, Agrawal PK, Ahmed S, et al. (2008) NGO facil-
itation of a government community-based maternal and neo-natal health programme in
rural India: improvements in equity. Health Policy and Planning 23(4): 234–243.
Barnes M, Stoker G and Whiteley P (2004) Delivering civil renewal: some lessons from
research. ESRC Seminar Series: Mapping the Policy Landscape. Swindon: Economic
and Social Research Council.
Berman S (1997) Civil society and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. World Politics 49(3):
401–429.
Bjornskov C (2010) How does social trust lead to better governance? An attempt to separate
electoral and bureaucratic mechanisms. Public Choice 144: 323–346.
Boix C and Posner DN (1998) Social capital: explaining its origins and
effects on government performance. British Journal of Political Science 28(4): 686–693.
Borge L-E, Falch T and Tovno P (2008) Public sector efficiency: the roles of political and bud-
getary institutions, fiscal capacity and democratic participation. Public Choice 136: 475–495.
Bourgon J (2009) New directions in public administration: serving beyond the predictable.
Public Policy and Administration 24(3): 309–330.
Boyle D and Harris M (2009) The Challenge of Co-production: How Equal Partnerships
between Professionals and the Public are Crucial to Improving Public Services. London:
National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
Boyne GA (2004) Explaining public service performance: does management matter? Public
Policy and Administration 19(4): 100–117.
Brehm J and Rahn W (1997) Individual-level evidence for the causes and conse-
quences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science 41(3): 999–1023.
Brooks L (2008) Volunteering to be taxed: business improvement districts and the extra--
governmental provision of public safety. Journal of Public Economics 92: 388–406.
Brooks R (2007) Young people’s extra-curricular activities: critical social engagement
or something for the CV? Journal of Social Policy 36(3): 417–434.
Buhlmann M and Freitag M (2007) Volunteering as social capital. An empirical analysis of
the determinants of the voluntary work in associations. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie
und Sozialpsychologie 59(47): 163–221.
Carver V, Reinert B, Range LM, Campbell C and Boyd N (2003) Nonprofit organizations versus
government agencies to reduce tobacco use. Journal of Public Health Policy 24(2): 181–194.
Cleary MR (2007) Electoral competition, participation, and government responsiveness in
Mexico. American Journal of Political Science 51(2): 283–299.
Coffe H and Geys B (2005) Institutional performance and social capital: an application to the
local government level. Journal of Urban Affairs 27: 485–502.
Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94(Supplement): S95–S120.
Coleman JS (1994) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cote L (2001) La place du capital social comme facteur explicatif des differences de perfor-
mance des conseils regionaux de developpement du Quebec. Canadian Public
Administration 44: 47–66.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) Draft Communities and Local
Government Structural Reform Plan. London: DCLG.
Diaz HL, Drumm RD, Ramirez-Johnson J and Oidjarv H (2002) Social capital, economic
development and food security in Peru’s mountain region. International Social Work
45(4): 481–495.
64 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

Elkins DJ and Simeon EB (1979) A cause in search of its effect, or what does political culture
explain? Comparative Politics 11: 127–145.
Erickson BH and Nosanchuk TA (1990) How an apolitical association politicizes. Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology 27(2): 206–219.
Espinal R, Hartlyn J and Kelly JM (2006) Performance still matters – explaining trust in
government in the Dominican Republic. Comparative Political Studies 39(2): 200–223.
Ferguson MR, Goldfinger J and Vargus B (2005) Social capital and governmental perfor-
mance in large American cities. Paper presented at the Workshop on Political Theory and
Public Policy. Indiana University, 25 November.
Fine B (2010) Theories of Social Capital: Researchers Behaving Badly. London: Routledge.
Frazer E (2008) Mary Wollstonecraft on politics and friendship. Political Studies 56:
237–256.
Freitag M and Buhlmann M (2009) Crafting trust: the role of political institutions in a com-
parative perspective. Comparative Political Studies 42(12): 1537–1566.
Geys B, Heinemann F and Kalb A (2010) Voter involvement, fiscal autonomy and public
sector efficiency: evidence from German municipalities. European Journal of Political
Economy 26: 265–278.
Goddard RD (2003) Relational networks, social trust, and norms: a social capital perspec-
tive on students’ chances of academic success. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
25(1): 59–74.
Goodwin MJ (2010) Activism in contemporary extreme right parties: the case of the British
National Party (BNP). European Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 20(1):
31–54.
Halpern D (2004) Social Capital. Cambridge: Polity.
Hirschman AO (1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations
and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
James O and John P (2007) Public management at the ballot box: performance information
and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 17(4): 567–580.
John P (2005) The contribution of volunteering, trust and networks to educational perfor-
mance. Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 635–656.
Jordan B (2010) Why the Third Way Failed: Economics, Morality and the Origins of the ‘Big
Society’. Bristol: Policy Press.
Kahne J and Bailey K (1999) The role of social capital in youth development: the case of ‘‘I
have a dream’’ programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(3): 321–343.
Knack S (2002) Social capital and the quality of government: evidence from the states.
American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 772–785.
Kobayashi A (1994) Coloring the field – gender, race and the politics of fieldwork.
Professional Geographer 46(1): 73–80.
Kumlin S and Rothstein B (2005) Making and breaking social capital: the impact of welfare-
state institutions. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 339–365.
La Porta R, Lopez-De-Silanes F, Shleifer A and Vishny RW (1997) Trust in large organi-
zations. American Economic Review 87(2): 333–338.
Leach S and Wilson D (1998) Voluntary groups and local authorities: rethinking the rela-
tionship. Local Government Studies 24(2): 1–18.
Letki N (2006) Investigating the roots of civic morality: trust, social capital and institutional
performance. Political Behavior 28(4): 305–325.
Andrews 65

Lipset SM and Schneider W (1983) The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor and Government in
the Public Mind. London: Collier Macmillan.
Lively Neal D (2009) Social Capital and Crime: Which is Cause and Which is Effect? A
Longitudinal Analysis of U.S. Cities. PhD thesis: Washington State University.
Lowndes V and Stoker G (1992) An evaluation of neighbourhood decentralisation part 1:
customer and citizen perspectives. Policy and Politics 20: 47–61.
Marshall M (2006) Parent involvement and educational outcomes for Latino students.
Review of Public Policy Research 23(5): 1053–1076.
Middleton A, Murie A and Groves R (2005) Social capital and neighbourhoods that work.
Urban Studies 42(10): 1711–1738.
Milner H and Ersson S (2000) Social capital, civic engagement and institutional performance
in Sweden: an analysis of the Swedish regions. European Consortium for Political
Research Joint Sessions of Workshops. University of Copenhagen, 14–19, April.
Moynihan DP (2008) The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information
and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Navarro V (2002) A critique of social capital. International Journal of Health Services 32:
423–432.
Parks RB, et al. (1981) Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and
institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal 9: 1001–1011.
Pierce J, Lovrich Jr NP and Moon CD (2002) Social capital and government performance: an
analysis of 20 American cities. Public Performance and Management Review 25(4): 381–397.
Platteau JP (2004) Monitoring elite capture in community driven development. Development
and Change 35(2): 223–246.
Porfeli E, Wang C, Audette R, McColl A and Algozzine B (2009) Influence of social and
community capital on student achievement in a large urban school district. Education and
Urban Society 42: 72–95.
Portes A (1998) Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.
Purdue D (2001) Neighbourhood governance: leadership, trust and social capital. Urban
Studies 38(12): 2211–2224.
Putnam R (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Rice TW (2001) Social capital and government performance in Iowa communities. Journal
of Urban Affairs 23(3-4): 375–389.
Rice TW and Sumberg AF (1997) Civic culture and government performance in the
American states. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 27(1): 99–114.
Ross CE, Pribesh S and Mirowsky J (2001) Powerlessness and the amplification of threat:
neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review 66(4):
568–591.
Rothstein B (2001) Social capital in the social democratic welfare state. Politics and Society
29: 207–241.
Rothstein B and Stolle D (2008) The state and social capital: an institutional theory of
generalized trust. Comparative Politics 40(4): 441–459.
Saegert S and Winkel G (1998) Social capital and the revitalization of New York City’s
distressed inner-city housing. Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 17–60.
66 Public Policy and Administration 27(1)

Sampson RJ, MacIndoe H, McAdam D and Weffer-Elizondon S (2005) Civil society recon-
sidered: the durable nature and community structure of collective civic action. American
Journal of Sociology 111(3): 673–714.
Schaltegger CA and Torgler B (2007) Government accountability and fiscal discipline: a
panel analysis using Swiss data. Journal of Public Economics 91(1): 117–140.
Scheepers P, Te Grotenhuis M and Gelissen J (2002) Welfare states and dimensions of social
capital: cross-national comparisons of social contacts in European countries. European
Societies 4(2): 185–207.
Sepheri A and Pettigrew J (1996) Primary health care, community participation and com-
munity-financing: experiences of two middle hill villages in Nepal. Health Policy and
Planning 11(1): 93–100.
Sheldon SB and Epstein JL (2002) Improving student discipline with family and community
involvement. Education and Urban Society 35(1): 4–26.
Silva-Ochoa E (2009) Institutions and the provision of local services in Mexico. Environment
and Planning C: Government and Policy 27: 141–158.
Simmons R (2008) Harnessing social enterprise for local public services: the case of new
leisure trusts in the UK. Public Policy & Administration 23(3): 278–301.
Sullivan JL and Transue JE (1999) The psychological underpinnings of democracy: a selec-
tive review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital.
Annual Review of Psychology 50: 625–650.
Sun Y (1999) The contextual effects of community social capital on academic performance.
Social Science Research 28(4): 403–426.
Suttles G (1972) The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Tavits M (2006) Making democracy work more? Exploring the linkage between social cap-
ital and government performance. Political Research Quarterly 59(2): 211–225.
Tunstall R (2001) Devolution and user participation in public services: how they work and
what they do. Urban Studies 38: 2495–2514.
Valkov N (2009) Membership in voluntary organizations and democratic performance:
European post-Communist countries in comparative perspective. Communist and Post-
Communist Studies 42: 1–21.
Van Oorschot W and Arts W (2005) The social capital of European welfare states: the
crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy 15(1): 5–26.
Veenstra G (2000) Social capital, SES and health: an individual level analysis. Social Science
& Medicine 50(5): 619–629.
Vidich AJ and Bensman J (1968) Small Town in Mass Society: Class, Power and Religion in a
Rural Community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Vigoda E (2002) Administrative agents of democracy? A structural equation modeling of the
relationship between public-sector performance and citizenship involvement. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory 12(2): 241–272.
Wallis J and Dollery B (2006) Revitalizing the contribution non-profit organizations can
make to the provision of human services. International Journal of Social Economics 33(7):
491–511.
Warner M (1999) Social capital construction and the role of the local state. Rural Sociology
64(3): 373–393.
Webber DJ (2010) School district democracy: school board voting and school performance.
Politics & Policy 38(1): 81–95.
Andrews 67

Western J, Stimson R, Baum S and Van Gellecum Y (2005) Measuring community strength
and social capital. Regional Studies 39(8): 1095–1109.
Whitford AB and Yates J (2002) Volunteering and social capital in policy implementation:
evidence from the long-term care ombudsman program. Journal of Ageing and Social
Policy 14(3): 61–73.
Wilson J (2000) Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology 215–240.
Woolcock M (2010) The rise and routinization of social capital, 1988-2008. Annual Review of
Political Science 13: 469–487.