ABSTRACT
It is frequently claimed that enhanced well-being and health are among the most welcome side effects of social capital (Hawe and Shiel 2000). Over the past decade or so the concept of ‘social capital’ has become fi rmly established within Anglophone public health paradigms. Social capital is variously defi ned in terms of social norms, trust, reciprocity and interpersonal networks. For instance, Pierre Bourdieu defi nes social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition’ (2006, 110). Different thinkers emphasize various aspects of how the dimensions of social capital intersect to enable people to participate in and fl ourish through the collective structures of society (Portes 1998; Baron, et al. 2002). Without doubt the most infl uential theorist of social capital is the political scientist Robert D. Putnam (1993, 1995, 2000). His work is among the most cited in the English language social sciences and has been celebrated by both President Clinton in the United States and Prime Minister Tony Blair in the United Kingdom (Szreter 1999). Blair, for instance, eulogized Putnam’s conception of social capital in his vision of the ‘good community’:
‘As Robert Putnam argues . . . communities that are inter-connected are healthier communities. If we play football together, run parentteacher associations together, sing in choirs or learn to paint together, we are less likely to want to cause harm to each other. Such inter-connected communities have lower crime, better education results, better care of the vulnerable.’ (Blair 2002, 12-13).
