Side effects of Social Capital Detected Increased trust levels in social networks have been linked to such side effects as economic growth, reduced corruption in government and self reported happiness. That how Edward L. Glaeser begins his article titled "The Formation of Social Capital" found in the 2001 issue of the journal ISUMA. Glaeser lays out a simple social capital investment model different from most social capital measurement frameworks in that Glaeser's model is founded on his observation that a persons choice to invest in social capital is an individual act not made by the community.
"Social Capital is almost always defined as an aggregate variable: the norms and networks of a particular community, for example. However, decisions to invest in social capital are made by individuals not communities."
There are many more takeaways in this article so I strongly encourage the interested reader to go the the source, read the full text yourself. But for those who like bullets here are some notable statements that stick in my head.
- Social Capital is good
- Human Capital like education is closely linked to Social Capital
- Glaeser's goal is to focus on understanding the causes that form Social Capital
- Additionally Glaeser believes that we must have a coherent model of the formation of Social Capital if we want to create more.
- Investment in Social Capital takes time so there is a real and measurable cost.
- Social Capital may depreciate
- Networks and Language are not worth much if you are the only one speaking the language or using the network.(pitch for OPML)
- Some forms of cohesion may bind groups together but also may prevent future cooperation with members from other groups.
- Individuals who work in occupations with more social contact are more likely to make an investment in social capital.
3:37:15 PM 
|
