ABSTRACT
The creator and main exponent of social capital theory, Robert Putnam (1993:167), defines the concept as follows: ‘Social capital here refers to features of social organisation, such as trust, norms, and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’ A little later (1995b:664-5) he uses virtually the same words: ‘by “social capital” I mean features of social life-networks, norms, and trust-that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’ In this way Putnam treats social capital as a mixture or blend of subjective social norms (trust), objective features of society (social networks), and outcomes (effectiveness, efficiency). The advantage of such an approach is that it combines different aspects of the concept in a very interesting way which gives them an explanatory power of enormous potential. Equally, the disadvantage is that it runs together, perhaps even confuses, different things whose relationships are properly the subjects of empirical investigation. Are norms of trust generated by social networks and social organisations? Do these, in their turn, improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions? Norms, networks, and collective goods may well be intimately related, but there again, they may not. Whether they are or not is not a matter of definition, but a question for empirical research.
