Community and Business: What is social capital?
Posted: Sun Dec 22, 2024 8:10 am
Social capital is a widely debated concept among international experts. For example, phone number in philippines Robert Putnam, Robert Leonard and Raffaella Nanetti define social capital as those aspects of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of a society by facilitating coordinated and collective action.
James Samuel Coleman, on the other hand, says that social capital is inherent to the structure of personal relationships, possessing the character of a public good. Its benefits are projected to the entire social structure. Therefore, there is an associated problem of underinvestment.
According to Elionor Ostrom and Toh Kyeong Ahn, there are two trends: minimalist and expansionist. The first shows social capital as access to an advantageous network of personal connections on which it is possible to maximize financial and human capital. However, the second perspective does not have a strictly individual character, but also a plural one. Attributable to a community that undertakes a joint task with a common objective, it is expansionist.
Collective action is the link between trust, the investment others make in their reputation, and the likelihood that all participants will abide by norms of reciprocity. Still, contingent strategies, such as sanctions, can be useful in ensuring effective cooperation.
Finally, we mention 7 key elements for collective actions over individual ones.
1. Number of participants: The perceptibility of any individual input to the provision of a community good declines. Furthermore, the number of members implies higher transaction costs when trying to generate coordinated strategies.
2. Whether the benefits are subtractive or fully shared: The first case brings greater incentives to cooperate. The second, meanwhile, again opens up the problem of some benefiting without making any effort.
3. The heterogeneity of the participants: Individuals with more similar interests will be more inclined to cooperate and achieve common goals.
4. Face-to-face communication: The effectiveness of this seems to be related to personal interaction between individuals.
5. Information about past actions: Reputation can be built over time and group members can gradually develop a greater level of trust in each other.
6. How individuals relate: When one is in a group of indifference, the probability of contribution declines in the community, the opposite occurs in a network identified in human relations.
7. Voluntary entry and exit: It is essential that, before deciding whether or not to cooperate, the individual has the option to choose when to enter and exit the game. Greater motivation increases the efficiency of participation and the consequence of the community objective.
James Samuel Coleman, on the other hand, says that social capital is inherent to the structure of personal relationships, possessing the character of a public good. Its benefits are projected to the entire social structure. Therefore, there is an associated problem of underinvestment.
According to Elionor Ostrom and Toh Kyeong Ahn, there are two trends: minimalist and expansionist. The first shows social capital as access to an advantageous network of personal connections on which it is possible to maximize financial and human capital. However, the second perspective does not have a strictly individual character, but also a plural one. Attributable to a community that undertakes a joint task with a common objective, it is expansionist.
Collective action is the link between trust, the investment others make in their reputation, and the likelihood that all participants will abide by norms of reciprocity. Still, contingent strategies, such as sanctions, can be useful in ensuring effective cooperation.
Finally, we mention 7 key elements for collective actions over individual ones.
1. Number of participants: The perceptibility of any individual input to the provision of a community good declines. Furthermore, the number of members implies higher transaction costs when trying to generate coordinated strategies.
2. Whether the benefits are subtractive or fully shared: The first case brings greater incentives to cooperate. The second, meanwhile, again opens up the problem of some benefiting without making any effort.
3. The heterogeneity of the participants: Individuals with more similar interests will be more inclined to cooperate and achieve common goals.
4. Face-to-face communication: The effectiveness of this seems to be related to personal interaction between individuals.
5. Information about past actions: Reputation can be built over time and group members can gradually develop a greater level of trust in each other.
6. How individuals relate: When one is in a group of indifference, the probability of contribution declines in the community, the opposite occurs in a network identified in human relations.
7. Voluntary entry and exit: It is essential that, before deciding whether or not to cooperate, the individual has the option to choose when to enter and exit the game. Greater motivation increases the efficiency of participation and the consequence of the community objective.