Benefits and Harms of Social Capital

Social capital—just like any other form of capital (physical, financial, or human)—is not inherently good or bad.
Its impact depends on how it is structured and how it is used.

Let’s examine both sides:

✅ The Benefits of Social Capital

Think about the power of strong social bonds. Whether it’s your family, your close friends, or your community, these relationships can help you in three major ways:

1. Emotional Support

• People provide comfort, encouragement, and mental stability during times of stress or crisis.

2. Social Support

• Communities help in child-rearing, marriage alliances, elderly care, dispute resolution, and upholding traditions.

3. Economic Support

• Jobs, loans, business opportunities, even migration pathways often emerge from informal networks.

📌 Real-world example (UK):

A government survey revealed that more people found jobs through personal contacts than through formal advertisements.
This shows how bonding and bridging capital can substitute or complement formal institutions.

📌 Developing countries:

In places where the state is weak and welfare systems are inadequate, clans and kin groups often step in:

• Funding education
• Providing shelter
• Helping the sick and elderly

💡 In such contexts, social capital fills the gap left by the state.

❌ The Harms and Limits of Social Capital

However, the same bonds that offer support can also become barriers.

1. Over-Bonding and Social Isolation

• Immigrant or tightly-knit ethnic groups may be so inward-looking that they rarely form bridges with mainstream society.
• This can make them feel excluded, or even cause them to exclude themselves.
• Such groups may face economic stagnation or lack of upward mobility.

🔄 Remember: Exclusion can be self-imposed or system-imposed.

2. Social Capital Used for Harmful Ends

• Social capital is based on trust and shared norms—but that doesn’t always lead to good outcomes.

📌 Example: Criminal gangs or drug cartels

• They rely heavily on internal trust, loyalty, and secrecy.
• These are all components of strong bonding capital, but used to undermine society.

📌 Example: Inward-looking corporate culture

• Some companies may have tight-knit teams that resist change, ignore outside feedback, and become echo chambers.
• This weakens innovation and adaptability.

But the Same Social Capital Can Enable Progress

• Conversely, when used wisely, social capital can drive collaboration, innovation, and efficiency.

📌 Example: Silicon Valley (USA)

Putnam credits much of Silicon Valley’s success to the cooperation and informal networking between startup founders, engineers, and venture capitalists.
This bridging and linking capital led to a thriving innovation ecosystem.

🔁 Summing Up: Dual Nature of Social Capital

Positive Use	Negative Use
Emotional, social, and economic support	Social exclusion and isolation
Fills governance gaps in weak states	Reinforces inequality and hierarchy
Promotes collaboration and innovation (e.g., Silicon Valley)	Enables crime networks, nepotism, and groupism
Builds resilient communities	May resist reform, discourage diversity, or hinder progress

🧠 Conclusion

So, when we talk about population as a social capital, we are recognizing a deep truth:

People are not just units of labor or consumers—they are networks of trust and norms, capable of creating both value and damage, depending on how those networks are used.

Therefore, building positive social capital is not just about increasing interaction—it’s about fostering inclusive, outward-looking, and ethically grounded relationships within and across groups.

Criticism of Social Capital

Just like any concept that gains intellectual popularity and policy traction, social capital too has its share of critics. While many celebrate its ability to capture the “soft glue” of society, others caution against over-idealising it.

Let’s examine the major strands of criticism one by one.

1️⃣ Is Social Capital Really Declining—or Simply Evolving?

Robert Putnam, in his influential book Bowling Alone, argued that social engagement in America was eroding—people were no longer joining community clubs, neighbourhood groups, or civic associations.

But some critics say: Putnam got it wrong.

🔁 Their counterpoint:

We’re not becoming less social—we’re simply socialising differently.

• People today might not join a local bowling league, but they actively join cause-based groups that reflect their values.
  • Environmental protection (e.g., Greenpeace)
  • LGBTQ+ rights (e.g., Pride collectives)
  • Animal rights, feminism, climate justice, etc.
• These groups may exist offline (through marches, events) or purely online (forums, hashtags, petitions, campaigns).

💡 Virtual platforms have created entirely new communities, sometimes more engaging than traditional locality-based groups.

📌 Key Issue:

Are these value-based digital communities as strong, cohesive, or trust-building as physical ones?
That’s still debated.

2️⃣ Is Social Capital Too Vague to Be Useful?

Some critics argue that “social capital” is a fuzzy, umbrella term that lacks precision.

• What exactly counts as social capital?
• How do we measure it?
• Is it an input, an outcome, or a process?

📌 For economists, the term “capital” usually involves present sacrifice for future gain.
For instance, a child studying instead of playing is building human capital.

But:

• If someone chats with their neighbour or joins a WhatsApp group, is that a form of capital?
• Does it involve any sacrifice or investment?

❓ Is every interaction or community tie a form of capital?
Critics say this broad usage dilutes the meaning.

3️⃣ Are All Forms of Social Capital Equally Valuable?

Even among supporters of the concept, there’s disagreement on which forms of social capital matter most.

• Is bonding (close ties) more important than bridging (cross-group ties)?
• Is online participation as meaningful as real-world engagement?
• Can negative social capital (e.g., criminal gangs) be measured the same way as positive civic engagement?

In short, critics worry that the term may be too normatively loaded and empirically weak.

4️⃣ Despite Criticism, Why Does the Concept Remain Relevant?

Even with these criticisms, policy-makers and politicians across the world continue to explore the idea of social capital.

Why?

Because of growing concerns over:

• Social isolation
• Polarisation
• Marginalisation of vulnerable groups
• Decline of public trust in institutions

Governments today are not just asking:

“How many jobs have we created?”

They are also asking:

“How strong is the sense of community?”
“Are people feeling left out or included?”

🧠 This is where the concept of social capital provides a framework to think about society not just in economic, but relational and emotional terms.