Network topologies as collective social capital in cities and regions: a critical review of empirical studies

ABSTRACT

This paper outlines a theoretical framework to study collective social capital at the local scale using social network analysis. To do so, it develops a review on empirical research that found evidence regarding the impact of networks on the performance of cities and regions. Eight network topologies are identified with collective social capital: size and composition, connectivity, closeness, clustering, small world, openness, centralization and heterophily. The paper inquires into the effects of these properties concluding that they influence two aspects that are highly relevant for territorial development: they facilitate the diffusion of information and they foster cooperation among actors. Results help tracing roots among three different academic fields: literature on social capital, local and regional economics, and social network analysis. Furthermore, the article suggests a framework to obtain relevant conclusions regarding political and economic aspects of territorial capacities.

KEYWORDS:

• Social capital
• social network analysis
• local development
• regional development

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Comisión Sectorial de Investigación Científica: [Proyectos de I+D, 2016/ 448]. The author thanks Adrián Rodríguez Miranda for useful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Pablo Galaso http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7639-8225

Notes

1 See Durlauf and Fafchamps (2005) or Westlund and Adam (2010) for a review on empirical studies of social capital and its influence on different social and economic aspects.

2 As presented below, some studies also consider non-local actors connected to local nodes.

3 To save on space, we do not include the formal definitions of the variables used to measure these topologies. They can be found in the corresponding papers.

4 Heterophily can be also understood as the opposed to homophily, i.e. the preference for nodes to attach to others that are similar in some way (see, e.g. McPherson et al., 2001). In the social network analysis literature, homophily is also known as assortativity.

5 On the relationships between network topologies, see Jackson (2008) or Wasserman and Faust (1994).

6 We explain the rationale of these mechanisms based on our 20 selected papers as well as on other relevant network studies that do not meet the four requirements.