Building Social Capital in City Politics: Scope and Limitations at the Inter-organisational Level
| Published date | 01 October 2004 |
| Author | Gerry Stoker,Graham Smith,William Maloney |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2004.00493.x |
| Date | 01 October 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Building Social Capital in City Politics:
Scope and Limitations at the
Inter-organisational Level
Graham Smith William Maloney
University of Southampton University of Aberdeen
Gerry Stoker
University of Manchester
This article explores the relations between voluntary organisations and the city administration in
two British cities through an analysis of the impact of social capital. It provides a corrective to the
dominant individual-level approach by offering an organisational-level analysis of social capital.
The evidence suggests that inter-organisational social capital is not distributed equitably within
cities. Voluntary organisations that regularly engage with a city administration can build networks
of trust and information flows that outstrip those available to other voluntary organisations.
Although it is easier to build social capital within a sector, such as the voluntary sector, building
it in tight networks with voluntary organisations would appear to be an achievable goal for a city
administration – but such networks do not guarantee an enhanced overall confidence in the local
political system.
The nature and activities of voluntary organisations1have played a significant role
in research on social capital. For Robert Putnam, whose work on social capital has
dominated political science (for example, Putnam, 1993, 2000), membership and
density of voluntary organisations are key indicators of social capital. Analysts of
the ‘Putnam school’ of social capital literature often concentrate on the effect
of networks of civic engagement (such as neighbourhood and community associ-
ations, sports clubs, cultural associations and other voluntary organisations) on
individuals. Through social interaction in voluntary organisations, individuals
develop cooperative and democratic values and attitudes. Thus, the Putnam school
is particularly associated with the argument that a vibrant set of civic organisations
provides the key to effective local politics, as well as other positive policy outcomes
in areas such as education, health, crime, welfare and economic growth.2In his
influential study of Italy, Putnam (1993) argues that the relatively higher perfor-
mance of regional government in northern Italy can be directly correlated to the
nature, vitality and density of associational life; in comparison, southern Italy lacks
a vital civil society and thus suffers from ineffective governance. More recently, he
has turned his attention to what he perceives as civic decline in the US (Putnam,
2000).
The work of Putnam and his followers has been criticised at both a conceptual and
a methodological level.3However, we do not wish to add to this burgeoning liter-
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2004 VOL 52, 508–530
© Political Studies Association, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL IN CITY POLITICS 509
ature here – rather, we wish to refocus the debate by moving away from the analy-
sis of the effects of networks of civic engagement on individuals’ values and atti-
tudes. Instead, we wish to use the concept of social capital to help elucidate the
nature of relations between organisations in cities – in particular, between volun-
tary organisations and between such organisations and city councils.
We take as our starting point the view that, to understand the significance of social
capital (whether at an individual or an organisational level), it is important that it
is located in the context of an understanding of how a capacity for collective action
is constructed. In short, it is necessary to connect social capital to a theory of col-
lective action. It is this theoretical challenge that provides the starting point of this
article, before we move on to provide an account of relations between voluntary
organisations and the city councils in Birmingham and Glasgow.
Social Capital and Collective Action: Understanding
the Relationship
The definition of social capital has proved a somewhat problematic issue, with
Putnam himself seemingly willing to adopt a range of variations and other re-
searchers appearing to use the concept in a number of ways (Baron et al., 2000).
However, both James Coleman and Elinor Ostrom explicitly link the concept of
social capital to theories of collective action. Coleman’s definition of social capital
has been particularly influential:
Social capital ... is not a single entity but a variety of different entities,
with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social
structure, and they facilitate certain actions of actors whether persons or
corporate actors within the structure. Like other forms of capital, social
capital is productive, making possible the achievement of ends that in its
absence would not be possible. Like physical capital and human capital,
social capital is not completely fungible but may be specific to certain
activities. A given form of social capital that is valuable in facilitating
certain actions may be useless or even harmful for others ... Unlike other
forms of capital, social capital inheres in the structure of relations
between actors and among actors. (Coleman, 1988, p. 98)
This conception highlights at least two important issues. First, social capital is a
relational concept. Second, there are a variety of locations in which social capital is
generated, accessed and inhibited: social capital is a property of relations between
corporate actors as well as persons. What such a definition points to is the im-
portance of studying relations not only between individuals, but also between
organisations and institutions. Thus, this article focuses on inter-organisational social
capital – in particular, relations between voluntary organisations and city councils.
Such relations are equally amenable to the analysis of social capital and may offer
interesting insights into neglected aspects of urban civic infrastructure.
Social capital is a complex resource. According to Coleman, there are a number of
components of social relations that constitute useful social capital and that are
available to individuals and organisations to facilitate collective action, including
(i) the context of obligations, expectations and trustworthiness in which actors
To continue reading
Request your trial