Social Capital in Britain

Abstract

In his influential 1999 article, ‘Social Capital in Britain’, Peter Hall1 offers Britain as a counter-example to Robert Putnam's analysis of declining social capital in the United States. This article draws on subsequent data sets to update Hall's assessment of the levels of social capital in Britain. It offers a generally less optimistic appraisal. European Values Survey data for Britain indicates that the decline in social trust between 1990 and 1995 paralleled US figures, and that levels of social trust appeared to plateau between 1995 and 1999. The article argues that distributional issues are critical to the assessment of social capital in Britain, and that levels of both participation and trust show persistent and even growing splits by social class. It suggests that there are relevant influences which were not fully considered by Hall, such as the changing nature of associational life and the rise in income inequality during the 1980s. In order for Britain to enjoy robust levels of social capital, policies must address these social divisions. Furthermore, previously ignored arenas such as the workplace and opportunities presented by new communication technologies may be particularly fruitful for the future development of social networks and trust in Britain.

This article has benefited from comments and assistance from a variety of people as well as presentations at several conferences and seminars. In particular the authors would like to thank Helmut Anheier, Tanya Burchardt, Terrence Casey, Peter Hall, Pauline Jas, Julian Le Grand, Kelly Kollman, David Piachaud, Robert Putnam, Tom Schuller, Sally Stares, Simon Szreter, Zoe Williams, and members of the LSE Social Capital Working Group.

Notes

1. This article was prompted by an interest to follow up Peter Hall's 1999 article on social capital in Britain, and unless otherwise cited all references to Hall are references to this article: Peter A. Hall ‘Social Capital in Britain’. British Journal of Political Science, 29 (1999), 417–461.

2. Official designations of social class in Britain are based on the occupational status (as established by job title) of the ‘head of household’, the male adult (if there is one) in the house. There is debate about the fairness and usefulness of this strategy, and education, income or assets are not directly factored in, as they are in some countries. The Standard Occupational Classification of 1990, used here, specifies the following breakdown(and percentage of population in 1990 census:) A/I Professional etc. (4 per cent), B/II Intermediate managerial and technical (27 per cent), C1/III Skilled non-manual (24 per cent), C2/IV Skilled manual (21 per cent), D/V Partly skilled/semi-skilled (17 per cent), E/VI Unskilled (7 per cent.)

3. Warde et al (2003) comment that the number of people who were not members during the 1990s was a ‘mere’ 15.6 per cent of the population, and that whilst this may indicate a flighty and uncommitted attitude to membership, it may also demonstrate conscious choice and thoughtful consideration.

4. This is supported when you review the trends over a period, based on Gershuny and Fisher, ‘Leisure’. Similarly in Jil Matheson and Carol Summerfield, eds, Social Trends No 31 – 2001 edition. (London: Office for National Statistics, 2001) and Jil Matheson and Penny Babb, eds, Social Trends No 32 – 2002 edition. (London: Office for National Statistics, 2002)

5. The Strategy Unit within the Cabinet Office produced Private Action, Public Benefit in September 2002 and The Treasury published the Cross Cutting Review of the Role of the Voluntary Sector in Public Service Delivery also in September 2002

6. These trends are outlined in some detail in Anthony Atkinson: ‘Is Rising Inequality Inevitable?’ in Peter Townsend and David Gordon, eds, World poverty: new policies to defeat an old enemy (Bristol: Policy Press, 2002). Also in Anthony Atkinson (2000). ‘Chapter 10: Distribution of Income and Wealth’ in Albert Henry Halsey and Josephine Webb,eds, Twentieth-century British social trends (UK: Macmillan, 2000) and in Sir Peter Barclay, (Chair): Volume 1: Inquiry into Income and Wealth (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1995).

7. For examples, see Derek Brown, ‘Democratic deficit’. The Guardian, (Friday September 24, 1999)