The concept of social capital has its roots in the work of French diplomat, historian, and writer Alexis de Tocqueville. In the early 1800’s, de Tocqueville wrote of what he saw as the unique character of American society with its emphasis on social gathering and grassroots democracy (de Tocqueville, 1835; 1840). The term social capital was not used and defined in academic literature until the 20th century. Putnam (2000) notes that “[t]he term social capital itself turns out to have been independently invented at least six times in the twentieth century” (p. 19). One early definition of social capital suggested by Hanifan (1916) is that social capital is not real estate, personal property, or monetary capital but:
that in life which tends to make these tangible substances count for most in the daily lives of people, namely, goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse among a group of individuals and families who make up a social unit (p. 130).
While the phrase was used intermittently throughout the twentieth century, the term did not become entrenched in any literature until the work of Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988; 1990) gave the term staying power in the literature. The work of Harvard based researcher Robert Putnam (1995, 1996; Pharr & Putnam, 2000; Putnam, Feldstein & Cohen, 2004) – was imperative to further establishing the term as relevant in sociology and related disciplines. The ongoing work of Harvard Kennedy School’s Saguaro Seminar is one noteworthy contemporary project that continues to further develop the body of research on social capital (Harvard, 2016).
Of particular importance in the development of social media as a concept was Putnam’s 2000 book Bowling Alone. Putnam says of social capital: “the core idea of social capital…is that networks have value…social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). In Bowling Alone Putnam diagnoses a growing social capital crisis in America. As his central illustration, Putnam notes the decline of bowling leagues in America as a sort of ‘canary in the coal mine’ while presenting extensive research about the decline of civic, cultural, and religious gatherings and affiliations – all of which would function as a dual expression of, and method of accumulating, social capital. The death of bowling leagues – among a plethora of other examples of social capital decline – is the work of a range of technological, economic, and social changes. Putnam suggests that this decline will carry with it considerable social and economic challenges for the nation. Building from Putnam’s sociological focus, the academy has found broad applications for this term. Currently, social capital is used in academic discourses ranging from sociology (Walters, 2002) to psychology (Wood & Giles-Corti, 2008) to media studies (Fieseler & Fleck, 2013) to Anthropology (Schrauwers, 2011) to development (Uphoff & Wijayarantna, 2000).
So while social capital has been broadly applied in a variety of literatures, there has been little research on the question of social capital in cooperatives generally and credit unions specifically. In an industry where remaining ‘well capitalized’ is an ongoing priority, it seems possible that credit unions are unexpectedly uniquely well [social] capitalized. Exploring social capital in Canadian credit unions, particularly with an emphasis on the notion that there is an inherent – though non-quantitative – value to the social capital that undergirds many credit unions, is the aim of this project.
DEFINING SOCIAL CAPITAL
While the term has found a plurality of contexts and applications (Grootaert, et. al., 2004), one major difficulty in social capital discourses is a lack of consensus on its conceptualization (Rupasingha, et. al., 2006). As Guillen, et. al. (2011) say, “[n]o single definition is widely accepted in the literature.” (p. 331). That is not to suggest that the term is meaningless or entirely chaotic; rather, there are certain fault lines where the definition is still emerging and resolving. These fault lines include the role of trust (Halpern, 2005), the importance of social participation (Fitzpatrick & LaGory, 2002; Freitag, 2003), the distinction between bonding and bridging capital (Burt, 2000; 2007), and whether social capital should be thought of as an individual characteristic or a community characteristic (Coleman, 1990; Knack & Keefer, 1997). In addition to these fault lines, social capital has come to have nuanced meanings within dissimilar academic discourses (e.g. public health and economics). Given the contested and emerging nature of social capital, it is important to offer a definition to ground this project. The definition given here highlights social capital as a shared, communal resource made up of pro-social norms and beliefs that exist between people and institutions. My working definition of social capital for this project is as follows: ‘Social capital is the networks of relationships that afford, encourage, and engrain pro-social, altruistic, and mutually beneficial behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs within a group.’
In this orientation toward social capital there are two potential entropic forces that threaten social capital. In the absence of more compelling terms we may tentatively call these entropic forces 'negative social capital' and 'social deficit'. Negative social capital may be thought of as the networks of relationships that reject, discourage, or poison mutually beneficial behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs. These networks of dysfunction (i.e. networks of crime and corruption) may mirror social capital, but their ultimate draw on society makes them a negative social capital. Conversely, social deficit can be thought of more basically as a lack of social intercourse. Where negative social capital builds poisonous behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs, social deficit is an absence of networks of relationships. Social deficit need not be absolute (i.e. complete hermitry); rather, the social deficit can be thought of as a force eroding social capital.
This working definition of social capital along with the two entropic forces may be at odds with the views of some researchers and writers who see all connections – even connections that are explicitly non-pro-social – as social capital. However, I hope it remains instructive in identifying the two competing challenges to social capital. In the literature there is competing notions about whether all social networks are social capital, even if that social capital is in service of crime, war, corruption, exploitation, etc. Alternatively, some researchers feel that social capital is only a source of capital when it is directed toward socially beneficial ends. I agree with this notion, though the challenge of determining what is a 'socially beneficial end' remains a highly contested question. A full resolution to this question is beyond the scope of this project; however, hopefully this examination of the challenges of social capital as an emerging term offers the reader a more clear sense of the tensions that exist with social capital theory as well as a general understanding of the author's worldview.
FEATURES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital is frequently broken into two sub-groups –bonding and bridging. Putnam refers to bridging capital as inclusive whereas bonding capital he refers to as exclusive (Putnam, 2000, p. 22). Bridging capital is “outward looking and [attempts to] encompass people across diverse social cleaves” (p. 22). By contrast, bonding capital is “inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups” (p. 22). Putnam is careful to point out that not all social capital is purely bridging or bonding. As one example, “The Knights of Columbus was created to bridge cleavages among different ethnic communities while bonding along religious and gender lines” (p. 23). One may intuitively notice the similarities between bonding capital and the more nefarious concept of ‘othering’ (Kirschner, 2012; Jensen, 2011). The critique that bonding capital may rely on – or at least be susceptible to – social processes that are inherently flawed and dangerous is a fair one. Social capital is not an inherently benevolent force. Strong bonding social capital may be as present in gangs and terrorist organizations, as it is in a community watchgroup. As Putnam says, “[s]ocial capital…can be directed toward malevolent, antisocial purposes, just like any other form of capital” (p. 22). So bonding capital is the networks of close knit social groups which potentially exist in contrast to other social groups. By contrast, bridging capital are the networks that allow individuals to connect into new networks for social, economic, political, or other purposes.
Social capital is best thought of as a perishable good which needs to be used to sustain itself and grow (Bailey & Brown, 2004). Social capital requires regular investment or the networks begin to weaken (Bourdieu, 1986). Given that social capital is inherently based on the norms of reciprocity of goodwill and mutual sympathy, it is intuitive that a failure to renew these norms will cause the decline of social capital. While these norms may be weakened through an active violation such as crime (Neal, 2011) or corruption (Banerjee, 2016) - these norms may also be weakened by a simple withdrawal from the activities which produce them. Atrophy is a subtle, and perhaps more insidious, pervasive risk to social capital in stable, economically advanced communities.
Social capital is frequently confused with human capital. Whereas human capital is found within individuals, social capital is found within relationships (Coleman, 1988). Human capital can be increased through an increase of individuals and the development of those individual’s talents. Each individual is a repository of human capital which in turn can be mobilized towards projects which may require expending human capital, often in exchange for financial capital. Human capital is formally defined as “productive wealth embodied in labor, skills, and knowledge” (Tan, 2014). In short, in human capital the relationships between individuals are not directly relevant. By contrast, social capital is made up by the relationships between the individuals rather than the individuals themselves.
CAN INSTITUTIONS GENERATE SOCIAL CAPITAL?
It may be asked, “can institutions generate social capital?” Some economic programs have shown great promise at generating social capital. In Dowla’s (2006) research at Grameen Bank in Bangladesh he was principally interested in showing the benefits microfinance can have socially as economically. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh showed enormous ability to “enable creation of social capital” (Dowla, 2006, p. 119). Grameen was not interested in creating social capital, but rather in “providing credit to mostly poor women” (p. 119) – social capital came as a latent effect. We can extrapolate that there are often social relationships that are impacted by economic relationship – whether intended or not. The structures, institutions, and incentives of the economy encourage or discourage social capital. This is not to suggest that Grameen’s microfinance model is necessarily the best model for providing economic or social capital development (Bateman, 2011), but rather to simply illustrate the way in which institutions are able to develop or destroy social capital.
Research on social capital and economic development demonstrates a myriad of positive effects that come with social capital. Social capital plays a positive role in accessing formal credit in an imperfect market (Dufhues, Buchenrieder & Munkung, 2013), in reducing poverty and facilitating rural development (Fafchamps, 2004; Hayami, 2009), facilitating trade unionism (Whaites, 2005; Johnson & Jarley, 2005; Jarley, 2005), in the efficient functioning of financial markets and institutions (Calderon, et. al, 2002; Guiso, 2010), in accessing other types of capital (Dinh, Dufhues & Buchenrieder, 2012), and fostering local economic and community development (Holyoke, 2004). As Putnam (2000) says, “[a] society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society…Trustworthiness lubricates social life….Civic engagement and social capital entail mutual obligation and responsibility for action” (p. 21).
So while social capital is a public good, in the sense that it is a non-monetary benefit to the well-being of the public at large, it may be actively discouraged through systems that encourage self-interested, non-democratic decisions over community-interested decisions. In Habbermasian terms, systems that fail to embody democratic principles suffer a legitimation deficit or legitimation crisis (Habermas, 1975). Perhaps 2016 dual political shocks – Brexit and Trump – are initial signs of a growing legitimation crisis in the western world. As Dobrohoczki (2006) says about global capitalism in his excellent article on the parallel term ‘social cohesion’: “
The fall of communism is one example of this, the delegitimation of a state dominant system that wielded coercive power over the lifeworld; but so too is the growing angst over free trade and global capitalism as manifest in the anti-globalization movement against market dominated systems (p. 143).
Building social capital may become an increasingly important goal for municipal, provincial, and national communities as an increasingly polarized political sphere presents practical problems for communities. The echo-chamber effects of social media, which erode the former unifying role of agreed upon sources of information; the decline of institutions that brought people face-to-face; and the rising opportunities and threats of globalization all pose radical new challenges to social capital. Economic institutions which further undermine social capital add further stress to a social and political body which relies upon goodwill, trust, and some degree of affinity between its citizens.
CREDIT UNIONS AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
Social capital has played an important role in credit unions throughout their history. As Mangan (2009) says of Irish credit unions, “Membership of a credit union is determined by the ‘common bond’ of occupation, residence in a locality, employment by a particular employer or membership of an organization” (p. 95). This “common bond” is analogous to social capital. It is this common bond that has defined many Canadian credit unions which trace their history to a failure of market and state solutions for their community. Credit unions generally take as there base “a group of people sharing some intangible bond of association such as employment, religion, trade, profession, politics, hobby, or locality.” (Griffiths & Howells, 1991, p. 204). Credit unions “develop...closely alongside communities” (Thomas, Cryer, & Reed, 2008, p. 107).
However, despite the intuitive connection between credit unions and social capital there is a considerable gap in the credit union literature. While there is a literature that explores the relationship between credit unions and social capital (Catturani, et. al, 2016), it is fairly modest and emergent. There is a more sophisticated literature that explores the connection between cooperatives and social capital (Kasabov, 2016; Melece, 2013; Nilsson, et. al., 2012; Ruben & Heras, 2012; Simmons & Birchall, 2008; Tregear & Cooper, 2016); however, that literature only applies to credit unions in a general way. There may be systemic differences related to a credit union’s structure that go beyond the general relationship explored between cooperatives and social capital. Further, there may be specific differences to the way the Canadian credit union system approaches and cultivates social capital.
THE RESEARCH QUESTION
This project attempts to break ground on this gap in the literature through a series of interviews, presented in podcast form, with leaders in the Canadian Credit Union system.
The unstructured interview style of this project is qualitative in nature, and not intended to function an empirical study producing objective findings. The research style, questions, and research participants are intentionally chosen to give a snapshot of the state of social capital in the Canadian credit union system. It is my hope that, using these podcasts as a springboard, future thought leaders in the credit union system can advance a more nuanced understanding the role that social capital plays in the creation, maintenance, and development of credit unions as well as the role credit unions play in generating social capital.
There are four areas of interest this project seeks to explore. First, do credit unions conceptualize social capital? If so, what language and measures do they use? Second, how do credit unions maintain, develop, and facilitate social capital? What resources are dedicated to it and what success and/or failure has been experienced? Third, credit unions are not alone in building or benefiting from social capital. What other intuitions, structures, and conditions build social capital and how ought a credit union to interact with these institutions, structures, and conditions? Fourth, what challenges do credit unions face in maintaining, developing, and facilitating social capital? What role will social capital play in credit unions in the coming decades?
It is my hope that these podcasts will be accessible, interesting, and valuable to a wide audience of co-operators. Ideally, there will be value for practitioners, academics, and the credit union member in this project. For the practitioner– practical tools for enhancing business. For the academic – an addition to the literature on credit unions and social capital. For the member – a clear sense of the movement they are a part of.
Bailey, J. and Brown, K. (2004). Social capital and trade unions. Proceedings of the association of industrial relations academics of Australia and New Zealand Conference. February 3-6. 2004, Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
Banerjee, R. (2016). Corruption, norm violation and decay in social capital. Journal of Public Economics, 137, 14-27.
Bateman, M. (2011). Confronting microfinance : Undermining sustainable development. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. In R. Sutton & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 345–423). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Burt, R. S. (2007). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Calderon, C., Chong, A., and Calindo, A. (2002). Development and efficiency of the financial sector and links with trust: Cross-country evidence. Economic development and cultural change, 51(1), 189-204.
Catturani, I., Kalmi, P., and Stefani, M. (2016). Social capital and credit cooperative banks. Economic notes, 45(2), 205-234.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120. *Read online, not downloaded*
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
de Tocqueville, A. (2006). Democracy in America – Volume 1. (H. Reeves, Trans.). Web publication. (Original work published 1840)
de Tocqueville, A. (2006). Democracy in America – Volume 2. (H. Reeves, Trans.). Web publication. (Original work published 1835)
Dinh, Q. H., Dufhues, T. B. and Buchenrieder, G. (2012). Do connections matter? Individual social capital and credit constraints in Vietnam. European journal of development research, 24(3), 337-358.
Dobrohoczki, R. (2006). Cooperatives as social policy means for creating social cohesion in communities. Journal of rural cooperation, 34(2), 139-159.
Dowla, A. (2006). In credit we trust: Building social capital by Grameen Bank in Bangladesh. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 102-122.
Dufhues, T., Buchenrieder, G., and Munkung, N. (2013). Social capital and market imperfections: Accessing formal credit in Thailand. Oxford Development Studies, 41(1), 54-75.
Fafchamps, M. (2004). Market institutions in sub-Saharan Africa: Theory and evidence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fieseler, C., & Fleck, M. (2013). The Pursuit of Empowerment through Social Media: Structural Social Capital Dynamics in CSR-Blogging. Journal Of Business Ethics, 118(4), 759-775.
Fitzpatrick, K. M., & LaGory, M. (2002). Unhealthy places: The ecology of risk in the urban landscape. New York: Routledge.
Freitag, M. (2003). Beyond Tocqueville: The origins of social capital in Switzerland. European Sociological Review, 19, 217–232.
Griffits, G. and Howells, G. (1991). Slumbering giant or white elephant: Do credit unions have a role in the United Kingdom credit market. North Ireland Legal Quarterly, 43(3), 199-215.
Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan Jones, V., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring social capital. An integrated Questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank Series, nº 18.
Guillen, L., Coromina, L., and Saris, W. (2011). Measurement of social participation and its place in social capital theory. Social Indicators Research, 100(2), 331-350.
Guiso, L. (2010). A trust-driven financial crisis: Implications for the future of the financial markets. In EEAG report in the European economy, Monaco, DE: CESIfo.
Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy in Political and Social Science, 67, 130-138.
Harvard University. (2016). The Saguaro seminar: Civic engagement in America. Retrieved from https://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/saguaro/
Hayami, Y. (2009). Social capital, human capital and the community mechanism: Toward a conceptual framework for economists. Journal of Development Studies, 45(1), 96–123.
Holyoke, T. (2004). Community mobilization and credit: The impact of nonprofits and social capital on community reinvestment act lending. Social science quarterly, 85(1), 187-205.
Jarley, P. (2005). Unions as social capital: Renewal through a return to the logic of mutual aid? Ladies studies journal, 29(4), 1-26.
Sune Qvotrup Jensen. (2011). Othering, identity formation and agency. Qualitative Studies, 2(2), 63-78.
Johnson, N. B. and Jarley, P. (2005). Unions as social capital: The impact of trade union youth programmes on young workers' political and community engagement. Transfer, 11(4), 605-616.
Kasabov, E. (2016). Investigating difficulties and failure in early-stage rural cooperatives through a social capital lens. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 895-916.
Kirschner, S. R. (2012). How not to other the other (and similarly impossible goals): Scenes from a psychoanalytic clinic and an inclusive classroom. Journal Of Theoretical And Philosophical Psychology, 32(4), 214-229.
Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? Across—country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 1251–1288.
Mangan, A. (2009). 'We're not banks': Exploring self-discipline, subjectivity and co-operative work. Human Relations, 62(1), 93-117.
Melece, L. (2013). Agricultural Cooperatives for Social Capital Development in Latvia. Organizacijø Vadyba: Sisteminiai Tyrimai, (66), 53-67.
Neal, D. (2011). Social Capital and Urban Crime (Criminal justice (LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC)). El Paso: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC
Nilsson, Jerker, Svendsen, Gunnar L. H., & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard. (2012). Are Large and Complex Agricultural Cooperatives Losing Their Social Capital? Agribusiness, 28(2), 187-204.
Pharr, S., and Putnam, R. (2000). Disaffected democracies: What's troubling the trilateral countries? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revivial of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Putnam, R. (1996). The strange disappearance of civic America. The American Prospect, (24), 34.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy, (6)1, 65-78.
Putnam, R., Feldstein, L.., and Cohen, D. (2004). Better together: Restoring the American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Ruben, R., & Heras, J. (2012). Social capital, governance and performance of Ethiopian coffee cooperatives. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 83(4), 463-484.
Rupasingha, A., Goetz, S. J., & Freshwater, D. (2006). The production of social capital in US counties. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 83–101.
Schrauwers, A. (2011). "Money bound you—money shall loose you": Micro-credit, social capital, and the meaning of money in Upper Canada. Comparative studies in society and history, 53(2), 314-343.
Simmons, R. & Birchall, J. (2008). The role of co-operatives in poverty reduction: Network perspectives. Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(6), 2131-2140.
Tan, E. (2014). Human Capital Theory. Review of Educational Research, 84(3), 411-445.
Thomas, R., Cryer, R., and Reed, N. (2008). 'Straight from the horse's mouth': An empirical exploration of success in the Irish credit union movement. Journal of social welfare & family law, 30(2), 107-116.
Tregear, & Cooper. (2016). Embeddedness, social capital and learning in rural areas: The case of producer cooperatives. Journal of Rural Studies, 44, 101-110.
Uphoff, N., & Wijayaratna, C. (2000). Demonstrated benefits from social capital: The productivity of farmer organizations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. World Development, 28(11), 1875-1890.
Walters, W. (2002). Social Capital and Political Sociology: Re-imagining Politics? Sociology, 36(2), 377-397.
Whaites, M. (2005). Social capital and the trade unions: Reciprocity, or understanding the ties that bind us? Convergence,38(1), 25-40.
Wood, L. and Giles-Corti, B. (2008). Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 154-163.