Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the social capital treatment of Robert Putnam, the most influential conceptual theorist. The paper will detail how Putnam's treatment of social capital has evolved, examine the arguments of his critics and will also critique his socio‐economic analysis.

The approach taken is a literature review that investigates Putnam's social capital understanding and considers the reasons why this conceptual treatment “touched a nerve” and proved so influential and adaptable.

Putnam's social capital treatment belongs to a socio‐economic communitarian tradition that can be traced to de‐Tocqueville, which offers an alternative to both mainstream free market ideology and to leftwing socio‐economics.

The originality of this paper is to identify Putnam as a radical in a methodological sense, reinvigorating a Burkean, consensual interpretation of socio‐economics. The value of this paper is to offer a critique of Putnam's interpretation of social capital.

There is controversy between Putnam and Olson concerning the role of groups. Putnam argued that small groups contribute to economic growth, whereas Olson asserted that small groups hamper economic growth through rent‐seeking behavior. Since the end of the 1990s in Japan, there has been a remarkable rise in the rate of enactment of public information‐disclosure ordinances by local governments. This paper aims to use the panel data of Japan to compare the effects of Putnam‐type horizontally structured groups and Olson‐type vertically structured groups on government information disclosures.

The Arellano‐Bond type dynamic panel model is employed to control for unobserved fixed effects and endogeneity bias.

The major findings are as follows: the Putnam‐type group has a positive influence on information disclosure; and the Olson‐type group has a detrimental effect on information disclosure.

These findings support both the Putnam and Olson hypotheses. The characteristics of a particular group should be considered carefully when the influence of that group is examined.

According to Putnam, civic engagement fosters a cooperative structure and generalized trust. This leads to accumulation of social capital, in the form of inclusive, cooperative networks that are economically productive. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically this thesis.

Drawing upon data from rural Denmark, this paper double tests Putnam's somewhat simplistic model of social capital leading to higher levels of economic performance.

In test one, which is based on statistical data, it is found that social capital measured as the density of voluntary associations does not in any way influence levels of economic performance. Test two, based on qualitative fieldwork, points at the socioeconomic power of social capital, implying many positive and negative outcomes other than the sheer economic.

Data are only from Denmark.

This paper reframes the social capital research agenda, displaying to policy makers that they should not overestimate the blessing of voluntary associations.

This paper contributes to the sociological critique of the one‐sided, positive picture of civic associations.

This paper promotes a critical approach to co-operative studies by contributing new theoretical insights. The aim is to propose a new view on the co-operative firm as a socioeconomic phenomenon embedded into the local contexts in which it is situated. Sociological and economic analyses have mainly explored the relationship between co-operative members and the organization, the economic performance of co-operatives or compared co-operatives with other firm types. Less attention has been given to the co-operative–territory relation, which can reveal insights into members' collective actions, a co-operative's origins from specific social groups or how they establish relationships with certain community stakeholders over others.

The paper begins with a literature review of academic studies that situate co-operatives in relation to community, with a focus on how social capital theory has been deployed to understand this relation. It then proposes a theoretical examination of two fundamental authors in the field of social capital theory: Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu. Drawing on findings from the literature review and considerations derived from the theoretical dialog between Putnam and Bourdieu, the paper proposes a revised social capital-based framework for analyzing key relations and expected outcomes of the co-operative–territory relation.

Reconsidering the role of social capital theory for co-operative studies, this article unfolds a dual reflection. First, it underlines the necessity for research that more closely considers co-operatives' territorial relationships. Second, it critically interrogates and pushes forward social capital theory as a framework for examining the social relations that embed co-operatives and their capacity to activate territorial economies.

The paper highlights the necessity for a further examination of the co-operative–territory relationship. It presents an innovative framework for improving sociological understanding of co-operatives as organizations embedded into their local socioeconomic contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between social capital and the directors' duty to promote the success of the company and to foster business relationships, which is a comparatively under‐researched issue.

The approach taken focuses on the concept of social capital, its various forms and influence on business performance. Ultimately, the paper explores ways in which directors' duties as stated in s.172 (1) of the Companies Act 2006 may affect the building and maintenance of forms of social capital.

It seems that it is likely that by complying with s.172 (1) directors will build forms of social capital, which in turn will enhance the business performance of companies in aspects such as innovative activity, transaction costs, and productivity. Consequently, the building of social capital is likely to promote the success of the company.

It can be stated that s.172 (1) CA 2006, is a potentially paradigmatic move in the way in which company directors undertake their business and view their company's stakeholders (Dignam and Lowry). Davies appears to agree with this view commenting upon the “ideological significance” of the introduction of s.172. It certainly seems that the inclusion of a duty to consider the importance of fostering business relationships implicitly promotes the pursuit of social capital.

Explores the ideas that a group’s social capital is related to levels of social exclusion, together with the policy implication that social capital can be developed in order to counter exclusion. Analyses a school‐based research project which looks at the relationship of social capital to the well‐being of children and young people covering gender, ethnicity, age, trust and community. Concludes that Putnam’s widely used concept of social capital is problematic as it over‐emphasises “bridging, linking and bonding and neglects material, economic and political factors”. Suggests that Bourdieu’s concept is more useful.

Eight propositions state how contexts shift citizen participation. Religion, consumption patterns, and varied political repertoires transform participation. Hierarchical, authoritarian contexts foster antiestablishment participation and protest activities. Trust only emerges from some contexts. Participation in the arts and culture vary with other contextual elements.

Purpose – The chapter provides an exposition both of Hayek's causal theory of the mind (especially as applied to intentionality) and of Popper's critique of causal theories, argues that Hayek fails successfully to rebut Popper's critique, and shows how the dispute between Hayek and Popper is relevant to controversies in contemporary philosophy of mind.

Methodology/approach –The chapter elucidates Hayek's ideas and Popper's by situating them within the history of the mind/body problem and comparing them to the views of contemporary philosophers like Fred Dretske, Jerry Fodor, and Hilary Putnam.

Findings – Popper's critique has yet to be answered, either by Hayek or by contemporary causal theorists.

Originality/value of the chapter –The chapter calls attention to some important but neglected ideas of Hayek and Popper and examines some of their as-yet-unpublished writings.