![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
Using the concepts of ‘social capital deficit’ and ‘return deficit’, this study considers the social network aspects of social disadvantage among Malays in Singapore, as compared to Singaporean Chinese. Analysing a 2005 representative survey, we find Malays have less social capital than Chinese, a social capital deficit partly explained by their lower educational attainment. We find no return deficit in earnings: that is, every additional unit of social capital increases earnings equally for Chinese and Malays. However, we find return deficits in education: every additional unit of social capital (e.g. ties to educated parents) increases educational attainment more for Chinese than Malays. In all, this study offers a social capital explanation for Malay ‘plight’, complementing the more conventional explanations of human and economic capital.
Notes
1. Alatas, Myth of the Lazy Native; Tham, Malays and Modernization; Lai, Meanings of Multiethnicity; Rahim, The Singapore Dilemma; Barr and Skbris, Constructing Singapore; Mutalib, Singapore Malays.
2. Li, Malays in Singapore; Chua, “Contextualizing Networked Individualism,” 602–25.
3. Putnam, Bowling Alone.
4. Lin, Social Capital.
5. Lin, “Inequality in Social Capital,” 785–95; Lin, Social Capital.
6. The Indians form a small minority group. While Chinese make up about 75% of the resident population, and Malays make up 15%, Indians constitute about 8%. Although the smallest numerically, the Indians are, as a group, socio-economically better off than Malays. So in the ethnic hierarchy, Chinese lead, followed by Indians, followed by Malays. We include Indians in our analysis, but the focus of comparison is between the most and the least dominant groups: Chinese and Malays.
7. Mutalib, Singapore Malays.
8. Ibid.
9. Alatas, Myth of the Lazy Native; Alatas notes that John Crawfurd, Second Resident of Singapore, used the phrase ‘feebleness of intellect’ (1977:41).
10. Alatas, Myth of the Lazy Native.
11. Ibid.
12. Markasan, Bangsa Melayu Singapura Dalam Transformasi Budayanya.
13. Hirschman, Lee, and Emeka, “Explaining Race and Ethnic Disparities.”
14. Tilly, Durable Inequality; Bonilla-Silva, “Rethinking Racism,” 465–80; Hechter, “Group Formation and the Cultural Division of Labor,” 329–46.
15. Lofland, A World of Strangers.
16. Barr and Skbris, Constructing Singapore.
17. Hirschman, “Making of Race in Colonial Malaya,” 330–61.
18. Berry, “Friends for Better or for Worse,” 491–510.
19. See note 16 above.
20. Rahim, The Singapore Dilemma
21. See note 7 above.
22. We focus more often on the Chinese and Malays as the Chinese are the majority ethnic group (76%) while the Malays are the largest minority group (14%). In other analyses, we examine all three groups.
23. Marsden, “Homogeneity in Confiding Relations,” 57–76.
24. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged.
25. McDonald, Invisible Hand of Social Capital.
26. McDonald, “What’s in the ‘Old Boys’ Network?” 317–30.
27. Ibid.
28. Bourdieu, State Nobility.
29. Chua, “The Network Imperative,” 85–98.
30. Lazar, “For the Good of the Nation,” 59–74.
31. Miyata, Ikeda, and T. Kobayashi, “The Internet, Social Capital, Civic Engagement, and Gender in Japan” find that in Japan, knowing many men from diverse occupations increases women’s engagement in civil society.
32. Granovetter, “Strength of Weak Ties,” 1360–80.
33. Marsden and Hurlbert, “Social Resources and Mobility Outcomes,” 1038–59; Lai, Lin, and Leung, “Network Resources, Contact Resources and Status Attainment,” 159–78; Erickson, “Good Networks and Good Jobs,” 127–58; Lin, Social Capital; Son, Social Capital and Institutional Constraints.
34. See note 25 above.
35. Adzahar, “Weak Ties in the Singaporean Labour Market,” 203–32.
36. See note 25 above.
37. Son and Lin, “Network Diversity, Contact Diversity, and Status Attainment,” 601–13.
38. Son, Social Capital and Institutional Constraints.
39. Bian, “Bringing Strong Ties Back In,” 366–85.
40. Lareau, Unequal Childhoods.
41. Cheadle, “Educational Investment, Family Context, and Children’s Math and Reading Growth,” 1–31.
42. Dumais, Kessinger, and Ghosh, “Concerted Cultivation and Teachers’ Evaluations,” 17–42.
43. See note 16 above.
44. Ng, “The Political Economy of Intergenerational Mobility,” 115–38.
45. See note 16 above.
46. Chua, “Contingent Value of Unmobilized Social Capital,” 124–43. Figure 1 in this manuscript shows personal characteristics for both sample and population.
47. Marsden, “Recent Developments in Network Measurement,” 8–30.
48. Mirowsky and Ross, “Well-Being Across the Life Course,” 328–47.
49. Chua, “Contextualizing Networked Individualism,” 602–25.
50. McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook, “Birds of a Feather,” 415–44.
51. Hsung, Lin, and Breiger, Contexts of Social Capital; Chua, “Contacts and Contexts,” 534–38.
52. Feld, “Focused Organization of Social Ties,” 1015–35; Small, Unanticipated Gains.
53. For example: Adzahar, “Weak Ties in the Singaporean Labour Market,” 203–32, and McDonald, The Invisible Hand of Social Capital.
54. Lareau, Unequal Childhoods.
55. Ridgeway, “Why Status Matters for Inequality,” 1–16.
56. Omi and Winant, Racial Formation in the United States.
57. Gans, “Toward a Reconciliation of ‘Assimilation’ and ‘Pluralism’,” 875–92.
58. Omi and Winant, Racial Formation in the United States.
59. Ermish, Jäntti, and Smeeding, From Parents to Children.
60. Heckman, “Detecting Discrimination,” 101–16.
61. Hanushek and Rivkin, School Quality and the Black-White Achievement Gap.
62. Paik and Sanchagrina, “Social Isolation in America,” 339–60.
63. See note 4 above.
64. Collins, Black Feminist Thought.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Vincent Chua
Vincent Chua is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the National University of Singapore. He received his PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 2010. His current research focuses on the impact of labour markets, education systems and political and cultural institutions on the role and value of social capital. His works have been published in Social Networks, Social Science Research, Current Sociology, Sociological Perspectives, Comparative Sociology, International Studies in Sociology of Education and The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis. He is currently editing a special issue on social networks and social capital in East and Southeast Asia for the American Behavioral Scientist (with Barry Wellman).
Irene Y.H. Ng
Irene Y.H. Ng is Associate Professor of Social Work in the National University of Singapore. She is Director of the Social Service Research Center and the Executive Editor of Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development. Her research areas include poverty and inequality, intergenerational mobility, youth crime and social welfare policy. She is Principal Investigator of an evaluation of a national Work Support programme and Co-Principal Investigator of National Youth Surveys 2010 and 2013. She has served in committees in the National Youth Council, the Chinese Development Assistance Council, and the Family Research Network.