What is social capital, and how do people use it?

Critically illustrate
the concept of social capital using empirical examples.

Student ID: 10181958

Course Code: SOCY30292
Question answered: Question 4
Two topics covered in essay: Week 3 and Week 5

To understand the concept of Social capital, it is first important to have a basic understanding of
Lin’s (1982) theory of Social resources. The theory begins with a macro-social structure. This
structure has a pyramidal shape in terms of accessibility and control of resources - suggesting
advantages for positions nearer to the top (e.g. more accessibility to and control of resources). Lin
(1982) proposes that individuals within these structural constraints take actions for instrumental
purposes. A prime example of an instrumental action is attaining status in the social structure.

Social capital theory is related to Social resources theory because they are both concerned with the
relationship between embedded resources in a social network and status attainment – where status
attainment is a function of both access to and mobilization of social resources for returns in
socioeconomic standings (Lin, 1999). The term ‘Social capital’ has referred to a variety of features in
the social structure. For example, Coleman (1990) uses it to talk of Community norms and Putnam
(2000) uses it talks of participation in civil organisations. However, we can think of social capital
simply as the general resources within a social network. Resources in this context are defined as
normatively valued goods in society, e.g. wealth, status, and power (Weber, 1946).

Social Capital theory focuses on how egos can go about accessing and utilising these resources. The
Accessed Social capital model proposes that an ego’s ability to access the resources in his/her social
network is dependent on several factors, including (but not limited to) an ego’s human capital (e.g.
their level of education), initial position in the social hierarchy (determined by factors such as
parental statuses or prior job statuses) and an ego's social ties (Lin, 1999). The other part of the
Social Capital theory, mobilization, is the process of using the social resources that an ego has
accessed in order for status attainment.

There are three propositions in Social Capital theory. The ‘Social resources proposition’ suggests that
social resources have a direct effect on instrumental actions such as attaining status. The ‘Strength of
position proposition’ argues that social resources are affected by an ego’s initial position. And finally,
the ‘Strength of ties proposition’ implies that social resources are affected by the use of weaker
ties / bridging social capital as opposed to stronger ties / bonding social capital (Lin, 1999; Putnam,
2000). This is because weaker ties are more likely to reach out vertically rather than horizontally in
the social hierarchy, meaning the ego might be able to reach towards contacts higher up in the
hierarchy whose position may be of benefit to the ego’s interest (e.g. a potential job contact).

As mentioned before, social capital activation can depend on several factors. The results from
Granovetter’s (1974) seminal study enforced the idea that reputation is an important factor when it
comes to social capital activation. The paper argues that since contacts go on the assumption that
past behaviour is indicative of how individuals will act in the future, reputation influences job
contacts’ willingness to be a part of exchanges.
Other research has reinforced this idea. For example, in her study, Smith (2005) aims to explore the
factors that help social capital activation occur and addresses the relationship between access and
mobilization by conducting in-depth interviews with 105 low-income African-Americans.

The study found that job contacts determined whether or not to assist job seekers based on job
seekers’ reputations. Three quarters of the sample reported that when in possession of job
information and influence, they largely based their decisions on what they knew of job seekers’ prior
actions and behaviours both on the job and in their personal lives. Contacts believed that such
information signalled the likelihood that job seekers would act appropriately throughout the
employment process and not affect job contacts’ own reputations negatively. The study also found
that although job contacts relied heavily upon the attributes of their job-seeking ties to decide
whether or not to assist, their own attributes and positions also affected the likelihood that they
would be mobilized. Job contacts were far less likely to assist anyone if their own reputations were
in jeopardy.

Social capital activation is also said to be contingent on the status of both job contacts and job
seekers. Whereas reputation signals future behaviour based on prior actions, status can be thought
of as an indication of future behaviour based on the positions an individual has previously held
(Frank, 1988). Surprisingly, Smith’s (2005) results show that job contacts rarely took job seekers’
status into account when deciding whether or not to offer instrumental aid (only 2% of the sample).

Independent of an ego’s status and reputation, trust between the job seeker and the job contact is
another important variable that can determine whether a job contact offers instrumental aid to a job
seeker. Smith’s (2005) results show that roughly one-tenth of respondents determined whether or
not to assist primarily based on the strength of their relationships with job seekers. Contacts had
greater motivation to assist those with whom they had longstanding relationships, such as relatives
and close friends.

As well as attaining status, people can use social capital for other reasons. In their study, Pichler and
Wallace (2009) explore the relationship between social stratification and social capital across 27
European countries. Making use of data from the EB 62.2 (European Commission, 2004) they found
that social capital was socially stratified everywhere in Europe. Their findings support Bourdieu’s
(1992) idea that privileged classes use their social capital to retain and reproduce their social
positions whilst excluding other groups. Pichler and Wallace (2009) found that where social
inequality was more pronounced, there were bigger class differences concerning social capital (e.g.
Portugal and Latvia). However, in countries with more social equality (e.g. Denmark, Sweden, and
Finland) they found the smallest class differences in social capital.

To conclude, the concept of Social capital is about social networks and the resources that are
available within them. People use social capital to be better off. A common example is within the
process of job seeking, however Smith (2005) shows that whereas individuals might have access to
social resources, there are factors that influence whether they will be able to mobilise them. Social
capital is also used to maintain positions within the social network. Pichler and Wallace (2009) show
how the upper-class have managed to use social capital to maintain social stratification across
Europe.
Word Count: 1085

*Note that the Word Count includes the title and the main body of text. It does not include the exam
information provided at the start, or this message. *