Editing Social capital (section)

== Measurement ==

There is no widely held consensus on how to measure social capital, which has become a debate in itself.<ref name=":0" /> While usually one can intuitively sense the level/amount of social capital present in a given relationship (regardless of type or scale), [[Quantitative research|quantitative measuring]] has proven somewhat complicated, resulting in different metrics for different functions.{{citation needed|date=November 2016}}

[[Sociology|Sociologists]] [[Carl L. Bankston]] and [[Min Zhou]] have argued that one of the reasons social capital is so difficult to measure is that it is neither an individual-level nor a group-level phenomenon, but one that emerges across [[Level of analysis|levels of analysis]] as individuals participate in groups. They argue that the metaphor of "capital" may be misleading because, unlike [[financial capital]], which is a resource held by an individual, the benefits of forms of [[social organization]] are not held by actors, but are results of the participation of actors in advantageously organized groups.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Bankston|first1=Carl L.|last2=Zhou|first2=Min|year=2002|title=Social Capital as Process: The Meanings and Problems of a Theoretical Metaphor?|journal=Sociological Inquiry|volume=72|issue=2|pages=285–317|doi=10.1111/1475-682x.00017|s2cid=29333176}}</ref>

=== Name generators ===
One type of quantitative social capital measure uses name generators to construct social networks and to measure the level of social capital.<ref name=":8" /> These networks are constructed by asking participants to name people that they interact with, such as "Name all the people you've discussed important matters with in the past six months."<ref name=":8">{{Cite journal|last=Marsden|first=Peter V.|date=1987-01-01|title=Core Discussion Networks of Americans|jstor=2095397|journal=American Sociological Review|volume=52|issue=1|pages=122–131|doi=10.2307/2095397|s2cid=143815557 }}</ref> Name generators are often useful to construct core discussion networks of close ties, rather than weaker ties.

=== Social capital scales ===
Many studies measure social capital by asking the question: "do you trust the others?" Other researches analyse the participation in voluntary associations or civic activities.

To expand upon the [[Methodology|methodological]] potential of measuring [[online and offline]] social bonding, as it relates to social capital, Williams (2006), offers a matrix of social capital measures that distinguishes social bridging as a form of less emotionally-tethered relationships compared to bonding. Bonding and bridging sub-scales are proposed, which have been adopted by over 300 scholarly articles.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8554118995697847065&as_sdt=205&sciodt=0,1&hl=en|title=Google Scholar|website=google.com|access-date=28 February 2015|archive-date=4 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230204150302/https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=8554118995697847065&as_sdt=205&sciodt=0,1&hl=en|url-status=live}}</ref>

Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim & LaRose (2012) offer a noteworthy application of the scale by measuring international residents originating from locations outside of the United States. The study found that social media platforms like [[Facebook]] provide an opportunity for increased social capital, but mostly for extroverts. However, less introverted social media users could engage social media and build social capital by connecting with Americans before arriving and then maintaining old relationships from home upon arriving to the states. The ultimate outcome of the study indicates that social capital is measurable and is a concept that may be [[Operationalization|operationalized]] to understand strategies for coping with [[cross-cultural]] immersion through online engagement.

=== Cohesion measures ===
The level of [[Group cohesiveness|cohesion]] of a group also affects its social capital and vice versa.<ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320656629|title=Public Brainpower: Civil Society and Natural Resource Management|last=Overland|first=Indra|date=2018-01-01|pages=1–22|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-60627-9_1|chapter=Introduction: Civil Society, Public Debate and Natural Resource Management|isbn=978-3319606262|access-date=5 April 2018|archive-date=12 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612140013/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320656629|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/PerkinsLong.2002.Neighborhood_sense_of_communitysocial_capital.pdf|title=Perkins, D.D., & Long, D.A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291–318). New York: Plenum|access-date=2014-04-20|archive-date=25 April 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120425112158/https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/PerkinsLong.2002.Neighborhood_sense_of_communitysocial_capital.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> However, there is no one quantitative way of determining the level of cohesiveness, but rather a collection of social network models that researchers have used over the decades to operationalize social capital. One of the dominant methods is Ronald Burt's constraint measure, which taps into the role of tie strength and group cohesion. Another network-based model is network transitivity.

=== Economic measures ===
Knack and Keefer (1996) measured [[Econometrics|econometric]] correlations between confidence and civic cooperation norms, with [[economic growth]] in a large group of countries. They found that confidence and civic cooperation have a great impact in economic growth, and that in less [[Social polarization|polarized]] societies in terms of inequality and ethnic differences, social capital is bigger.

Narayan and Pritchet (1997) researched the [[associativity]] degree and economic performance in rural homes of [[Tanzania]]. They observed that even in [[Poverty index|high poverty indexes]], families with higher levels of incomes had more participation in collective organizations. The social capital they accumulated because of this participation had individual benefits for them, and created collective benefits through different routes, for example: their agricultural practices were better than those of the families without participation (they had more information about agrochemicals, fertilizers and seeds); they had more information about the market; they were prepared to take more risks, because being part of a social network made them feel more protected; they had an influence on the improvement of public services, showing a bigger level of participation in schools; they cooperated more in the municipality level.

=== Group membership-based ===
In measuring political social capital, it is common to take the sum of society's membership of its groups. Groups with higher membership (such as [[political parties]]) contribute more to the amount of capital than groups with lower membership, although many groups with low membership (such as communities) still add up to be significant.  While it may seem that this is limited by population, this need not be the case as people join multiple groups. In a study done by [[Yankee City]],<ref>W. Lloyd Warner, J.O. Low, Paul S. Lunt, & Leo Srole (1963). ''Yankee City''.  New Haven, CT: Yale University Press</ref> a community of 17,000 people was found to have over 22,000 different groups.

How a group relates to the rest of society also affects social capital, but in a different manner. Strong internal ties can in some cases weaken the group's perceived capital in the eyes of the general public, as in cases where the group is geared towards crime, distrust, intolerance, violence or hatred towards others. The [[Ku Klux Klan]] is an example of this kind of organizations.

=== Social behaviour-based ===
Foschi and Lauriola have presented a measure of [[sociability]] as a proxy of social capital. The authors demonstrated that facets of sociability can mediate between general personality traits and measures of civic involvement and [[political participation]], as predictors of social capital, in a [[Holism|holistic]] model of [[political behavior]].<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Foschi | first1 = R. | last2 = Lauriola | first2 = M. | year = 2014 | title = Does sociability predict civic involvement and political participation? | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | volume = 106 | issue = 2| pages = 339–357 | doi=10.1037/a0035331| pmid = 24467426 }}</ref>

The [[World Social Capital Monitor]] is an instrument for measuring [[social goods]] and social capital created by the [[United Nations Sustainable Development Group]] in partnership with civil society actors. The project identifies social values such as [[Trust (social science)|trust]], [[solidarity]], [[helpfulness]], [[friendliness]], [[hospitality]] and the willingness to finance public goods with the help of anonymous [[Survey sampling|surveys]]. The surveys started in 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11706#updates|title=World Social Capital Monitor – United Nations Partnerships for SDGs platform|website=sustainabledevelopment.un.org|access-date=2019-10-16|archive-date=4 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230204150302/https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11706#updates|url-status=live}}</ref>