The novelty and heuristic power of social capital come from two sources.
First, the concept focuses attention on the positive consequences of sociability
while putting aside its less attractive features. Second, it places those positive
consequences in the framework of a broader discussion of capital and calls attention
to how such nonmonetary forms can be important sources of power and influence,
like the size of ones stock holdings or bank account. The potential fungibility
of diverse sources of capital reduces the distance between the sociological and economic perspectives and simultaneously engages the attention of
policy-makers seeking less costly, non-economic solutions to social problems.
In the course of this review, I limit discussion to the contemporary reemergence
of the idea to avoid a lengthy excursus into its classical predecessors. To
an audience of sociologists, these sources and the parallels between present social
capital discussions and passages in the classical literature will be obvious.
I examine, first, the principal authors associated with the contemporary usage
of the term and their different approaches to it. Then I review the various
mechanisms leading to the emergence of social capital and its principal applications
in the research literature. Next, I examine those not-so-desirable consequences
of sociability that are commonly obscured in the contemporary literature
on the topic. This discussion aims at providing some balance to the frequently
celebratory tone with which the concept is surrounded. That tone is especially
noticeable in those studies that have stretched the concept from a
property of individuals and families to a feature of communities, cities, and
even nations. The attention garnered by applications of social capital at this
broader level also requires some discussion, particularly in light of the potential
pitfalls of that conceptual stretch.