Editing Social capital (section)

=== In race and ethnicity ===
{{POV section|date=October 2021}}
Using a network-based conception for characterizing the social capital of collectivities (such as organizations or business clusters),<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Huber|first1=Franz|year=2009|title=Social Capital of Economic Clusters: Towards a Network-Based Conception of Social Resources|url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/201627/1/Franz_Huber_TESG_final.doc|journal=Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie|volume=100|issue=2|pages=160–170|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9663.2009.00526.x|access-date=31 October 2019|archive-date=7 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200807170330/https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/201627/1/Franz_Huber_TESG_final.doc|url-status=live}}</ref> Lester, Maheshwari, and McLain (2013) note that negative social capital may be the cause for disadvantageous differences among minority firms versus majority firms. While studying norms among [[African Americans|African-American]] family firms and [[European Americans|Euro-American]] family firms, Lester et al. noted that negative social capital was created when the owner of the company was pressured to engage in social behavior not conducive to firm profits.<ref name=":7">{{Cite journal|last1=Lester|first1=Monica|last2=Maheshwari|first2=Sharad K.|last3=McLain|first3=Michael|date=2013|title=Family Firms and Negative Social Capital: A Property Rights Theory Approach|url=http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol15/No1/article%203%20Lester%20et%20al%20after%20assistant%20ed.pdf|url-status=dead|journal=Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management|volume=15|issue=11|pages=11–24|doi=10.21818/001c.17934 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151208133824/http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol15/No1/article%203%20Lester%20et%20al%20after%20assistant%20ed.pdf|archive-date=8 December 2015|access-date=25 October 2015}}</ref>

[[Robert Putnam]], in his later work, also suggests that social capital, and the associated growth of [[public trust]] are inhibited by immigration and rising racial [[Multiculturalism|diversity]] in communities.<ref>[[Robert D. Putnam|Putnam, Robert D.]] 2006. ''E Pluribus Unim: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century,'' Nordic Political Science Association</ref> Putnam's study regarding the issue argued that in American areas with a lack of homogeneity, some individuals neither participated in bonding nor bridging social capital. In societies where immigration is high (US) or where ethnic heterogeneity is high ([[Eastern Europe]]), it was found that citizens lacked in both kinds of social capital and were overall far less trusting of others than members of homogenous communities were found to be.  Lack of homogeneity led to people withdrawing from even their closest groups and relationships, creating an atomized society as opposed to a cohesive community. These findings challenge previous beliefs that exposure to diversity strengthens social capital, either through bridging social gaps between ethnicities or strengthening in-group bonds. It is very important for policy makers to monitor the level of perceived socio-economic threat from immigrants because negative attitudes towards immigrants make integration difficult and affect social capital.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Marozzi|first1=Marco|date=2015|title=Construction, Robustness Assessment and Application of an Index of Perceived Level of Socio-economic Threat from Immigrants: A Study of 47 European Countries and Regions|journal=Social Indicators Research|volume=128|pages=413–437|doi=10.1007/s11205-015-1037-z|s2cid=152888964}}</ref>

Varshney (2001) studied the correlation between the presence of interethnic networks (''bridging'') versus intra-ethnic ones (''bonding'') on [[ethnic violence]] in [[India]].<ref name="Varshney">{{Cite journal|last1=Varshney|first1=Ashutosh|year=2001|title=Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society: India and Beyond|journal=World Politics|volume=53|issue=3|pages=362–398|doi=10.1353/wp.2001.0012|jstor=25054154|s2cid=73642565}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Ashutosh Varshney: Home|url=http://sitemaker.umich.edu/varshney/home|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016072429/http://sitemaker.umich.edu/varshney/home|archive-date=16 October 2015|access-date=10 October 2012|website=umich.edu}}</ref>
He argues that interethnic networks are agents of peace because they build bridges and manage tensions, by noting that if communities are organized only along intra-ethnic lines and the interconnections with other communities are very weak or even nonexistent, then ethnic violence is quite likely.
Three main implications of intercommunal ties explain their worth:<ref name="Varshney" />
# Facilitate communication in the community across ethnic lines
# Squelch false rumors
# Help the administration carry out its job and in particular peace, security and justice

This is a useful distinction; nevertheless, its implication on social capital can only be accepted if one espouses the [[Structural functionalism|functionalist]] understanding of the latter concept. Indeed, it can be argued that interethnic, as well as intra-ethnic networks can serve various purposes, either increasing or diminishing social capital. In fact, Varshney himself notes that intra-ethnic policing (equivalent to the "[[Self-governance|self-policing"]] mechanism proposed by Fearon and Laitin, 1996)<ref name="Fearon">{{cite journal|last1=Fearon|first1=James|last2=Laitin|first2=David|year=1996|title=Explaining Inter-Ethnic Cooperation|journal=American Political Science Review|volume=90|issue=4|pages=715–735|doi=10.2307/2945838|jstor=2945838|s2cid=55500292}}</ref> may lead to the same result as interethnic engagement.