Social capital

Abstract

In parallel with, and as a complement to, globalisation, ‘social capital’ has enjoyed a meteoric rise across the social sciences over the last two decades. Not surprisingly, it has been particularly prominent across development studies, not least through heavy promotion by the World Bank. As a concept, though, as has been argued persistently by a minority critical literature, social capital is fundamentally flawed. Although capable of addressing almost anything designated as social, it has tended to neglect the state, class, power, and conflict. As a buzzword, it has heavily constrained the currently progressive departure from the extremes of neo-liberalism and post-modernism at a time of extremely aggressive assault by economics imperialism. Social capital should not be ignored but contested – and rejected.

Keywords:

• Civil Society
• Governance and Public Policy
• Aid

Notes

1. Thanks to the editors for comments on an earlier draft.

2. For debate about the (absence of) history of social capital, see Fine (2007a) and Farr (2004, 2007). The latter's response, to the effect that there is a history, reports six million items for social capital on an Internet search. Yet his own history is more or less forcibly confined to a single source, John Dewey, with a few other bit players.

3. Key texts include Harriss (2001), Smith and Kulynych (2002), and Bebbington et al. (2004). See also Fabio Sabatini's website www.socialcapitalgateway.org/. For my own works, and more general context of economics imperialism, see www.soas.ac.uk/departments/departmentinfo.cfm?navid = 490

4. On Becker and Bourdieu, see Fine (1999a). For a fuller account of economics imperialism, see Fine and Milonakis (2007).

5. See especially Fine (2002a, 2003).

6. Although there is a healthy literature on social capital and political activity as such.

7. Note that Coleman as individual tends to be acknowledged more than his ‘rational choice’ approach, explicit reference to which would deter many punters.

8. See Moore (2001) for a more general critique of incorporation of such notions in anaesthetised forms.

9. Given the excellent Woolcock (1998), it seems that the mole's condition three is operative on occasion.

10. I cannot resist pointing to the answer that might have been given by a World Bank ‘lead economist’, Bonnel (2000: 849), who, in discussing social capital, argues that ‘Reversing the spread of the HIV/AIDS epidemics and mitigating its impact’ require three sets of measures: (1) sound macro-economic policies; (2) structural policy reform; and (3) modifying further the systems of incentives faced by individuals.

11. See Foreword to Fine (2004).

12. Note, though, that Bebbington et al. do at least reference (and essentially accept) my criticisms of social capital (other than strategically), but in the context of its having served its purpose within the Bank, which can now, with its civilised economists, move on to issues of empowerment and the like. The mind boggles.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ben Fine

Ben Fine is Professor of Economics at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. Recent publications include The New Development Economics: A Critical Introduction (2006). Forthcoming are From Political Economy to Freakonomics: Method, the Social and the Historical in the Evolution of Economic Theory (2007), Reinventing the Economic Past: Method and Theory in the Evolution of Economic History (2008), and Privatization and Alternative Public Sector Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa: Delivering on Electricity and Water (2007).