REALYN PAGILAGAN COOPERATIVES AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

BSENT 4-2





In my perception to social capital an economic idea that refers to the connections between
individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people
who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between
individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something
needs to be done. Along with economic capital, social capital is a valuable mechanism in
economic growth.
For example, if you know someone at a company where you are applying for a job and this
connection helps you get the job at the company, you have used social capital. Social capital
can also have negative effects. For example, if a social network is used for manipulative or
destructive purposes that will affect the economy negatively, such as when a group colludes to
fix market prices.
In my collective conclusion and perception for the defining social capital are defined networks
together with Shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or
among groups. In this definition, we can think of networks as Real-world links between groups
or individuals. Think of networks of Friends, family networks, networks of former colleagues, and
so on. Our Shared norms, values and understandings are less concrete than our Social
networks. Sociologists sometimes speak of norms as societys Unspoken and largely
unquestioned rules. Norms and understandings May not become apparent until theyre broken.
If adults attack a child, For example, they breach the norms that protect children from harm.
Values may be more open to question; indeed societies often debate whether their values are
changing. And yet values such as respect for Peoples safety and security are an essential
linchpin in every social Group. Put together, these networks and understandings engender trust
and so enable people to work together

How does social capital work? According to my research the term social capital emphasizes not
just warm and cuddly feelings, but a wide variety of quite specific benefits that 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.


My Conclusion in some issues with the notion of social capital to conclude it is worth highlighting
four key issues with regard to the notion of social capital. The way in which the notion of social
capital is used by the central writers Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam while offering some
important insights, and a focus for data collection and analysis, is not as yet rich theoretically.
This may simply mean that more work needs to be done, or imply that the concept itself is
problematic.
First, while the notion of social capital clearly has some utility we need to be aware of the
dangers of capitalization. As Cohen and Prusak (2001: 9) have commented, not everything of
value should be called capital. There is a deep danger of skewing our consideration of social
phenomenon and goods towards the economic. The notion of capital brings with it a whole set
of discourses and inevitably links it, in the current context, to capitalism.
Second, there has been a tendency not to locate exploration properly within a historical
framework. Coleman and Putnam do analyze data and material over time but fail to fully
contextualize it. Putnam l (2003), by placing her work within historical analysis, has been able to
show just how some of the important assumptions made by Putnam, for example, need to be
questioned.
Third, much of the main work undertaken around social capital has failed to properly address
the gender dimension of social capital. As we saw in the work of Putnam (2003), Bookman
(2004) and others, the way in which women engage and create local networks, and have to
manage caring often falls beneath the radar of social capital researchers and theorists. To give
him his due, Putnam does address gender in terms of changing patterns of local involvement
but does not theorize it substantially, nor does he really connect with the sorts of concerns that
Bookman has been subsequently voicing around the way in which we think about networks of
caring, for example.
Fourth, much of the discussion of social capital has treated it as a good thing. Bourdieu, at
least, was interested in the notion as a way of explaining how some were able to access
resources and power, while others were not. However, the scale of local surveillance that can
be involved, the possible impacts around what is deemed acceptable behavior, and the ways in
which horizons may be narrowed rather than expanded are not unambiguously good things.

In terms of developing social analysis it might well be that those theorists who have explored
individualization and globalization within society (and most particularly Beck 1992, 1999) have
something more to offer than social capital theorists. That said, though, some of the empirical
work that has been done linking involvement in associational life and participation in social
networks to the enhancement of educational achievement, the promotion of health and the
reduction of crime is of great significance. Social capital researchers and Robert Putnam in
particular, has done us a great service. While aspects of his argument and research will
continue to be disputed over the coming years, his central message is surely true. Interaction
enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social
fabric.

Are human and social capital linked? For me human and social capital doesnt exist in isolation
from each other. The two are linked in complex ways and, to some extent, feed into each other.
In other words, social capital promotes the development
For me social capital appears to be positively related to organizational effectiveness and to play
a central role in reducing organizational transaction costs it also facilitates coordinated action to
achieve desired goals justifies organizational commitment, and results in a significant positive
impact on product innovation). Yet none of these benefits that result from social capital can exist
without a reasonable level of trust among employees and between employees and their
managers. Without some foundation of trust, social capital cannot develop the essential
connections will not form. So trust is a precondition of healthy social capital.
On the other hand, the trust-based connections that characterize social capital lead to the
development of increased trust as people work with one another over time. Consequently, there
will be less voluntary turnover stronger organizational commitment and more organizational
transparency Within an organizational context, it doesnt matter much whether trust is a pre-
condition of social capital or a product of social capital because what the organizational
effectiveness literature suggests is that trust and social capital are mutually reinforcing social
capital generates trusting relationships that in turn produce social capital The positive returns
from trust and social capital within an organizational context is partly attributed to the
incorporation of the role of personal relations in Establishing trust between parties. Personal
trust makes information exchange easier
For me the importance of though there is no universal definition of social capital, there appears
to be general agreement on the importance of networks, trust, reciprocity and other social
norms to social capital. Much attention has been paid to the formal networks in the community
and formal forms of social engagement, such as that occurring through civic associations,
religious and spiritual groups, political parties, sports clubs, unions and the like. However, the
informal social networks that operate in a community such as social interaction between
neighbors, groups of friends and informal interest groups are also important components of
social capital. Different amounts of emphasis are given to the formal and informal interaction by
different researchers. Bush and Baum (2001) observed that Cox acknowledged the significance
of informal local networks in peoples lives in her Boyer Lecture on A Truly Civil Society, while
Putnam's work has more often stressed the significance of formal group membership. Shared
social norms such as reciprocity together with trust enable those in a community to more easily
communicate, cooperate and to make sense of common experiences. Trust has an important
role in reducing social and business "transaction" costs. Tolerance of different beliefs and
cultures also stem from shared norms that imply tolerance, acceptance and respect. Reciprocity
encourages the individual to balance their own self-interest with the good of the community. A
statistical framework for social capital should contain elements pertaining to networks and social
norms and provide scope for their measurement.