Current enthusiasm for the concept reviewed in this article and its proliferating
applications to different social problems and processes is not likely to abate
soon. This popularity is partially warranted because the concept calls attention
to real and important phenomena. However, it is also partially exaggerated for
two reasons. First, the set of processes encompassed by the concept are not
new and have been studied under other labels in the past. Calling them social
capital is, to a large extent, just a means of presenting them in a more appealing
conceptual garb. Second, there is little ground to believe that social capital will
provide a ready remedy for major social problems, as promised by its bolder
proponents. Recent proclamations to that effect merely restate the original
problems and have not been accompanied so far by any persuasive account of
how to bring about the desired stocks of public civicness.
At the individual level, the processes alluded to by the concept cut both
ways. Social ties can bring about greater control over wayward behavior and
provide privileged access to resources; they can also restrict individual freedoms
and bar outsiders from gaining access to the same resources through particularistic
preferences. For this reason, it seems preferable to approach these manifold processes as social facts to be studied in all their complexity, rather
than as examples of a value. A more dispassionate stance will allow analysts to
consider all facets of the event in question and prevent turning the ensuing literature
into an unmitigated celebration of community. Communitarian advocacy
is a legitimate political stance; it is not good social science. As a label for
the positive effects of sociability, social capital has, in my view, a place in theory
and research provided that its different sources and effects are recognized
and that their downsides are examined with equal attention.