Is there such a thing as social capital?
0
Is there such a thing as “social capital”?
Started by Murphy, Sep 05 2005 03:58 PM
5 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Guests
Posted 17 September 2007 - 09:08 PM
Murphy, on Sep 5 2005, 04:58 PM, said:
Is there such a thing as social capital?
Ugh. Callahan states at the beginning of his section on "Social Capital" that it is "confounded by absurdities" He demonstrates that it is impossible to sum the total goods of a society (society's capital) and sell it all at once at market prices to determine the total capital value. This has two major problems. First - who would buy it all? And second, competing plans which detemine the prices paid for higher order goods may not be compatible. Two axe manufacturers with plans to capture 60% of the total market cannot both be satisfied. It doesn't make sense to add the capital of these two firms since - in reality - it will exceed the total value of the market.
But this is "society's capital" - is that different than "social capital"? Wikipedia (in a very long article) defines "social capital" states "the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value." and that Robert Putnam says ""refers to the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other"
To attempt to construct a crude example, if the guy from your church is willing to sell you 55 gallon drums (for your business) at a discount because he sees you every Sunday - is that an example of "social capital"? (or a social capital good) While the concept sounds appealing, it clearly violates our definition that capital must be assessed at market prices. Capital value says nothing about how goods are acquired, only their value if dispensed. The inability to dispense of that good (in this case a relationship) since this friendship cannot be sold and cannot have a capital value. Certainly, it is an advantage to the man who benefits from the firendship. But there are many advantages and and disadvantages which do not have capital value.
Hmmm - I think I'm digging a hole here. I'm trying to show that a friendship cannot be a "good" and hence a "capital good". I'm going to have to come back to this one later...
#3
-
- Guests
Posted 24 September 2007 - 06:51 PM
Doug K, on Sep 17 2007, 10:08 PM, said:
Ugh. Callahan states at the beginning of his section on "Social Capital" that it is "confounded by absurdities" He demonstrates that it is impossible to sum the total goods of a society (society's capital) and sell it all at once at market prices to determine the total capital value. This has two major problems. First - who would buy it all? And second, competing plans which detemine the prices paid for higher order goods may not be compatible. Two axe manufacturers with plans to capture 60% of the total market cannot both be satisfied. It doesn't make sense to add the capital of these two firms since - in reality - it will exceed the total value of the market.
But this is "society's capital" - is that different than "social capital"? Wikipedia (in a very long article) defines "social capital" states "the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value." and that Robert Putnam says ""refers to the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other"
To attempt to construct a crude example, if the guy from your church is willing to sell you 55 gallon drums (for your business) at a discount because he sees you every Sunday - is that an example of "social capital"? (or a social capital good) While the concept sounds appealing, it clearly violates our definition that capital must be assessed at market prices. Capital value says nothing about how goods are acquired, only their value if dispensed. The inability to dispense of that good (in this case a relationship) since this friendship cannot be sold and cannot have a capital value. Certainly, it is an advantage to the man who benefits from the firendship. But there are many advantages and and disadvantages which do not have capital value.
Hmmm - I think I'm digging a hole here. I'm trying to show that a friendship cannot be a "good" and hence a "capital good". I'm going to have to come back to this one later...
But this is "society's capital" - is that different than "social capital"? Wikipedia (in a very long article) defines "social capital" states "the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value." and that Robert Putnam says ""refers to the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other"
To attempt to construct a crude example, if the guy from your church is willing to sell you 55 gallon drums (for your business) at a discount because he sees you every Sunday - is that an example of "social capital"? (or a social capital good) While the concept sounds appealing, it clearly violates our definition that capital must be assessed at market prices. Capital value says nothing about how goods are acquired, only their value if dispensed. The inability to dispense of that good (in this case a relationship) since this friendship cannot be sold and cannot have a capital value. Certainly, it is an advantage to the man who benefits from the firendship. But there are many advantages and and disadvantages which do not have capital value.
Hmmm - I think I'm digging a hole here. I'm trying to show that a friendship cannot be a "good" and hence a "capital good". I'm going to have to come back to this one later...
OK - after ruminating on this one for a couple days - the problem seems to be that by trying to define "social capital" you are simply playing with words to achieve an objective, but by distorting the definitions surrounding it. It is sort of like defining a house as 'your biggest asset' - even though you have a huge mortgage. By attempting to define a social network as "social capital" you are simply using "capital" as a synonym for "advantage". Capital has a narrow meaning and usage. If it can be applied to social networks, it can be applied to just about everything. "Geographic capital" (near the interstate), "vertical capital" (the advantage of being tall), "eyesight capital" (20/10 vision) - and on and on.
#4
-
- Administrators
-
- 1160 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 29 October 2007 - 02:19 PM
Doug K, on Sep 24 2007, 06:51 PM, said:
OK - after ruminating on this one for a couple days - the problem seems to be that by trying to define "social capital" you are simply playing with words to achieve an objective, but by distorting the definitions surrounding it. It is sort of like defining a house as 'your biggest asset' - even though you have a huge mortgage. By attempting to define a social network as "social capital" you are simply using "capital" as a synonym for "advantage". Capital has a narrow meaning and usage. If it can be applied to social networks, it can be applied to just about everything. "Geographic capital" (near the interstate), "vertical capital" (the advantage of being tall), "eyesight capital" (20/10 vision) - and on and on.
Unfortunately those terms are taken from different eras. The question was referring to economists who would contrast "private capital" with "social capital." The point of course was to show that the free market couldn't handle the accumulation of capital, since private owners didn't internalize all the benefits / costs showered on society from these actions. It might also be used to denote something that was particularly beneficial to all of society; so somebody might think of the collection of school buildings as part of the nation's "social capital" as opposed to the collection of oil refineries, but I think that type of distinction would be hard to maintain under severe scrutiny.
In contrast to all of that, what you are seeing on wikipedia is more modern, and is just a straightforward application of the idea of capital to social relations. So just as you could reduce consumption in order to go to school and increase your "human capital" by learning computer science, by the same token if you "invest" in going to important parties, swapping business cards, etc. you are building up your social capital. But that's not the sense in which I meant the term for this question.
Generally speaking, I don't think there is a meaningful distinction between social and private capital in the old sense.
#5
-
- Guests
Posted 15 July 2008 - 07:05 PM
Only if you're running for re-election..... Otherwise no such thing. I like your idea of selling it to Martians, but transportation costs are enormous.
Are we talking about Keynsian externalities????
Are we talking about Keynsian externalities????
#6
-
- Administrators
-
- 1160 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 20 August 2008 - 05:18 PM
Mart Grams, on Jul 15 2008, 07:05 PM, said:
Are we talking about Keynsian externalities????
Oh I think I see what you are saying. Yes, if someone makes an investment that showers benefits on others that he can't charge them for (positive externalities), then he is adding to social capital (in the sense I meant for this question) and a Keynesian would say he under-invests in it.
But the Austrian would say that there is no such thing as "social capital."
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
