As seen in previous sections, sociological analyses of social capital have been
grounded on relationships between actors or between an individual actor and a
group. Throughout, the focus has been on the potential benefit accruing to actors
because of their insertion into networks or broader social structures. An interesting
conceptual twist was introduced by political scientists who equate social
capital with the level of civicness in communities such as towns, cities,
or even entire countries. For Robert Putnam, the most prominent advocate of
this approach, social capital means features of social organizations, such as
networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual
benefit. The collective character of this version of the concept is evident in
the next sentence: Working together is easier in a community blessed with a
substantial stock of social capital (Putnam 1993, pp. 3536).
In practice, this stock is equated with the level of associational involvement
and participatory behavior in a community and is measured by such indicators
as newspaper reading, membership in voluntary associations, and expressions
of trust in political authorities. Putnam is not shy about the expected reach and
significance of this version of social capital: