Social Capital ,Civic Society Social Capital ,Civic Society & Democracy

Making Democracies Work

2

Key issuesKey issues

I. What is Putnam’s theory of social capital?p

II. What is the evidenceIn Italy?In the US? Robert Putnam and Theda SkocpolEuropean cases and worldwide patterns?

III What are the implications for civic III. What are the implications for civic engagement and development in new democracies?

3

Key challenges: Putnam 2005Key challenges: Putnam 2005

What has happened to civic engagement and social capital in America over the last 30 to 40

?years?Why the decline?

I now think that my analysis overlooked three important factors: the growth of inequality, the growth of diversity, and the decay of mobilizing organizations.

Does it matter?h d b ?What can we do about it?

The weakest part of my argument was the paucity of solutions, and it remains so despite the creative insights of many people and my own efforts, as exemplified in the book Better Together. That our p gdemocracy seems even less healthy today than it was a decade ago suggests that my diagnosis was right -- and that practicable ideas for revitalizing American civic life are needed more urgently than ever.

4

Review: core conceptReview: core concept

What does "social capital" mean?The central premise of social capital is p pthat social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all " i l t k " [ h l k ] d "social networks" [who people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other networks to do things for each other ["norms of reciprocity"]. www bettertogether orgwww.bettertogether.org

5

2 Evidence in United States?2.Evidence in United States?

Putnam’s Bowling AloneAggregate trends in decliningAggregate trends in declining

Social trustCivic engagement g g

eg Voting turnoutAssociational membership

Uni ns PTAeg Unions, PTATrust in government

Why? So what?y

6

7

Declining social trust US Declining social trust, US .60

sted

"

.50

pe ca

n be

trus

t

.40

.30

% "M

ost p

eopl

.20

200199619931990198819861983197819751972

%

.10

0.00200199619931990198819861983197819751972

Note: Q. “Do you think that most people can be trusted, or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” % agreeing that ‘Most people can be trusted’Source: US General Social Survey, 1974-2000

8

9

10

11

Putnam concludes:Putnam concludes:

“By virtually every conceivable measure social capital has eroded measure, social capital has eroded steadily and sometimes dramatically over the past two generations ”over the past two generations.Bowling Alone P.287.

12

Index of US social capitalIndex of US social capital

Measures in each state% who

Served on committee of local organizationf gServed as officer for club/organ last yearCivic & social organizations per 1000 popAttended club meetings last yearTurnout in presidential electionsTurnout in presidential electionsAttended town meeting last yearDid volunteer work last yearWorked on community project last yeary p j ySpent ‘a lot of time’ visiting friendsEntertained at home last yearAgree ‘most people can be trusted’Agree ‘Most people are honest’Agree Most people are honest

13

ConsequencesConsequences

Education & children’s welfareSafe and productive neighborhoodsSafe and productive neighborhoodsEconomic prosperityGreater health and happinessBetter governance eg tax evasion g gratesNegative impacts? Tolerance?Negative impacts? Tolerance?

14Theda Skocpol: Diminished democracy (2003)

Prior to 1960: mass membership associations Cross-class membership, regular local meetings and national headquarters (eg fraternal associations)

Aft 1960 i f f i ll d d After 1960s- rise of professionally-managed advocacy groups

Based on patrons, mass mailing, & specialized expertise for lobbying, research and media projects

Causes?Social trends (education, women’s roles, rise of professional middle classes) and Changes in the political opportunity structureChanges in the political opportunity structure

Consequences?Loss of bridging groups, greater social inequality, less leadership training, ‘doing-for’ not ‘doing with’, targeted activation fragmentation of the common goodactivation, fragmentation of the common good

Critiques of measures and Critiques of measures and evidence?

16

Critique?Critique?

1. Measures dated and limited?2. New forms of association

S i l i l b li i1. Social movements eg anti-globalization2. Internet communication & activism

3. Old organizations exclusionary?g y1. Race and gender

4. Nostalgic normative assumptions?5 Problems of disentangling causality5. Problems of disentangling causality

1. Healthy, happy, safe societies generate stronger social linkages?

6 Misdiagnosis of causes?6. Misdiagnosis of causes?

Explanation for any erosion?

18

Why decline in US civic engagement?Why decline in US civic engagement?

Decline of long ‘civic’ generation – interwar and postwarTime pressureEconomic hard timesEconomic hard timesResidential mobilitySuburbanizationMovement of women into paid workforceMovement of women into paid workforceDisruption marriage/familyChanges in US economy1960s inc Vietnam/watergate/cultural revolt1960s inc. Vietnam/watergate/cultural revoltGrowth of welfare stateCivil rights revolutionTelevision & technolo yTelevision & technology

19

Additional factorsAdditional factors

Social diversityRacial divisions in the USRacial divisions in the US

Social inequalityM bili i i tiMobilizing organizations

Role of churches

20

Role of TVRole of TV

TV to blame for post-civic generationWhy?Why?

Time- displacementH TV t hi i d Heavy TV watching may induce passivity/malaise/mistrustEffects on childrenEffects on children

21

Critique: Does TV erode social capital? NorrisCritique: Does TV erode social capital? Norris

Matters what you watch as much as how much you watch ithow much you watch it

Evidence American Citizen Participation Study 1990More hours of TV watching = less participation (with controls)But m re h urs f tchin TV ne s nd But more hours of watching TV news and current affairs = more participationChicken & egg problem of causal arrowgg p f

22

23

II:Putnam Ed. Democracies in II Putnam Ed. Democracies in Flux

h l f l l The evolution of social capital in contemporary society

20022002Oxford University Press

Full text chapters available at http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/

End

Next class: Global trends and European casesp