James Coleman developed the concept of "social capital", which refers to norms that function within social networks. In his book Public and Private High Schools (1987), Coleman specifically studied the impact of social capital on student achievement. He determined that the school success of students, to a large extent, depends on the similarity in values and norms between parents and teachers of a school. If parents and teachers only share values and norms, then there is what he called a "value community", and when parents and teachers have social interactions outside of school, then there is a "functional community". The best example of a functional community are Catholic schools. The results showed that students from schools that had functional communities achieved the greatest success, students in value communities achieved medium success, while students who went to schools where parents' social capital was small or non-existent had the worst success. Coleman explores the impact of modern corporations on American society in his book The Asymmetric Society (1982). He believes that corporations, due to their great economic and legal influence, have drastically reduced the importance and social capital of families, neighborhoods, and churches. Corporations are increasingly influencing the destinies of individuals. 

Pierre Bourdieu sees social capital as consisting of social networks and personal acquaintances that an individual can use as a resource to implement his or her strategy. He defines social capital as “the sum of active or potential resources that are connected through the possession of a network of permanent relations of mutual acquaintance and recognition, which are more or less institutionalized, or, in other words, with the inclusion into a group” (Bourdieu 1994: 90). He viewed the family as one of the primary sources of social capital, particularly among socially dominant groups such as the upper middle class and the haute bourgeoisie. For Bourdieu, the ideal institutionalized form of social capital was exemplified by titles of nobility. In contrast, lower social classes were seen as possessing limited forms of capital, including social capital. He argued that social capital is created, either consciously or unconsciously, through participation in social networks and relationships. These relationships often involve a degree of ambiguity, such as unspoken obligations and expectations between members. According to Bourdieu, social capital depends on a certain level of similarity and solidarity among group members, since the benefits gained from membership help sustain group cohesion. The maintenance and reproduction of social capital, therefore, require ongoing sociability, repeated interactions, and continual mutual recognition among members.

In the book, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (1995), Francis Fukuyama studies the cultural foundations of economic success, arguing that trust is a key precondition for prosperity. He defines liberal democracy as a system that protects basic rights and is based on consent through free and fair elections, but emphasizes that political structures alone are not enough—social cohesion matters just as much. Fukuyama argues that trust promotes cooperation, reduces the need for costly regulation, and enables complex economic organization. While cooperation can exist without trust, he maintains that high levels of trust make large-scale, efficient collaboration much easier, especially in modern economies where most activity occurs within organizations rather than through individuals. This trust stems from shared moral values and social norms, which he calls “social capital,” and which are not simply the result of rational calculation. Overall, Fukuyama concludes that economic success depends not only on markets and technology but also on fragile cultural factors like trust, warning that declines in social capital—even in advanced democracies—could undermine prosperity. 

Alejandro Portes has also explored the concept of social capital, emphasizing both its benefits and its limitations. Social capital refers to the resources individuals can access through their participation in social networks and group structures. Portes highlights that shared racial or ethnic identity can help groups achieve common goals such as economic advancement, educational success, political engagement, and mutual aid. However, this same cohesion can also produce negative effects, including resistance to assimilation or upward mobility, where individuals who deviate from group norms may be excluded or penalized.

Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner, in their article in “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action” (1993), distinguish between the sources and outcomes of social capital, identifying four main origins: internalized values, reciprocal exchanges, collective solidarity, and enforceable trust through sanctions. These sources are rooted in the motivations of group members, which may be driven by genuine solidarity or by strategic expectations of reciprocity. Together, these dynamics form a system in which individuals can secure benefits by engaging in social networks.

Importantly, Portes challenges overly positive interpretations of social capital by pointing out its downsides. These include the exclusion of outsiders and the burden placed on successful group members to conform or provide support. His work calls for a more critical and balanced analysis, avoiding the assumption that all outcomes linked to social capital are inherently beneficial. This perspective also shifts attention toward a micro-level understanding, focusing on how individuals actively build and use social ties for personal gain, echoing Pierre Bourdieu’s instrumental view of social capital.

Robert Putnam played a key role in shaping the study of social capital by emphasizing its institutional and communitarian dimensions. In Making Democracy Work (1993), he and his colleagues analyzed the performance of 20 regional governments established in Italy in 1970. Despite having similar financial resources, these regions varied significantly in their effectiveness. Putnam found that regions with higher levels of social capital—characterized by strong civic participation, trust, solidarity, tolerance, and dense networks of associations—tended to govern more successfully. He defines social capital as the features of social organization—such as trust, norms, and networks—that enhance societal efficiency by enabling coordinated action. Putnam also argues that governments can function more effectively with less direct intervention when citizens are willing to cooperate and uphold shared norms. His research further shows that institutions capable of building horizontal connections across diverse groups help strengthen trust and civic integration, ultimately supporting more effective governance.

In Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000), Putnam explores the decline of social capital in the United States. He defines social capital as the networks, norms of reciprocity, and trust that arise from social connections. Like other forms of capital, it can grow or diminish over time. Social capital is reflected in everyday activities such as participating in clubs, engaging in community organizations, socializing beyond the family, volunteering, and taking part in political and civic life. Putnam distinguishes between two types of social capital: bonding and bridging. Bonding social capital strengthens ties within homogeneous groups but can be inward-looking. Bridging social capital, by contrast, connects diverse groups and facilitates the flow of information and cooperation across social divides. Healthy societies require both forms.

Putnam argues that social capital benefits both individuals and society. Individuals with strong social ties tend to be happier and have better access to opportunities, such as employment. At the societal level, dense social networks foster cooperation, trust, and mutual obligation. In smaller or tightly knit communities, people act generously with the expectation of reciprocity, building reputations and reinforcing trust. In larger societies, this dynamic evolves into what Putnam calls “generalized reciprocity,” where individuals act with consideration for others without expecting direct returns. Such trust-based systems make societies more efficient and cohesive.

Civic engagement plays a central role in generating social capital. Participation in voluntary associations—such as sports clubs, unions, and cultural groups—helps individuals connect and collaborate, increasing their capacity to achieve shared goals. Communities with strong institutional structures tend to experience greater civic involvement, which in turn promotes economic prosperity and resilience. Putnam presents evidence that regions with higher social capital enjoy better outcomes: cleaner and safer public spaces, improved health, stronger educational performance, and lower crime rates. He also links social integration to lower suicide rates, echoing insights from Émile Durkheim.

The central argument of Bowling Alone is that modern individualism has significantly eroded social capital in the United States. Over recent decades, participation in civic, social, and political life has declined sharply—from reduced involvement in clubs and religious institutions to fewer social interactions and family gatherings. Putnam uses the metaphor of “bowling alone” to illustrate this shift away from collective engagement. Putnam argues that social capital in the United States peaked between the late 1950s and mid-1960s and has steadily declined since. He supports this claim with extensive evidence across multiple areas of social and civic life. Ultimately, Putnam warns that diminishing social capital creates a cycle of social disintegration, where weakened connections further exacerbate societal challenges.

Two major theorists who approached social capital from a rational choice perspective are Nan Lin and Ronald S. Burt. Both emphasized that individuals intentionally invest in social relationships and structures that can generate benefits for themselves and others. Lin focused particularly on how social capital contributes to status attainment and social mobility. In his work Social Capital (2001), he developed a systematic framework of propositions explaining the role of social capital in social advancement.

Burt, by contrast, concentrated on network structures and the advantages enjoyed by individuals occupying strategically important positions within them. In The Social Capital of Structural Holes (2002), he identified mechanisms such as contagion, prominence, closure, and brokerage that shape the distribution of social capital across networks. Integrating the concept of structural holes into his theory, Burt argued that individuals who connect otherwise separate social networks often possess greater social capital because they can control information and resource flows.

Similarly, Michael Woolcock introduced the concept of “linking” social capital, referring to vertical connections between communities and formal institutions, particularly the state, which can support local partnerships and economic development. Other scholars have likewise emphasized the family as a key source of social capital.

References:

Bourdieu. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture (1970);

     -     Outline of a Theory of Practice (1972);

     -     Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (1979);

     -     State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power (1989);

     -     The Logic of Practice (1990, in French 1980);

     -     “The Forms of Capital”, in Richardson, J. E. (ed.). Handbook of Theory for Research in the Sociology of Education (1986);

     -     “Social Capital and Economic Development: Towards a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework”, in Theory and Society (1998);

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J. D. Wacquant. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (1992);

Burt, Ronald S. “The Social Capital of Structural Holes”,  in M. F. Guillén, R. Collins, P. England, and M. Meyer (eds.). The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field (2002);

Coleman. Equality of Educational Opportunity (1966);

     -     The Asymmetric Society (1982);

     -     Public and Private High Schools: The Impact on Communities (1987);

     -     “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, in American Journal of Sociology (1988);

     -     Foundations of Social Theory (1990);

Cook. Social Capital: Theory and Research (2001);

Dasgupta P., and I. Serageldin. (ed.). Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective (2000);

Fine, B. Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social Sciences at the Turn of the Millennium (2000);

Fukuyama, F. Trust, the Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity (1995);

Halpern, David. Social Capital (2005);

Lin, Nan. “Inequality in Social Capital”, in Contemporary Sociology (2000);

     -     “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital”, in Nan Lin, Karen Cook, and Ronald Burt (eds). Social Capital: Theory and Research (2001);

     -     Lin, Nan. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action (2001);

Molyneux, M. “Gender and the Silences of Social Capital: Lessons from Latin America”, in Development and Change (2002);

Morrow, V. “Conceptualizing Social Capital in Relation to the Well-Being of Children and Young People: A Critical Review”, in Sociological Review (1999);

Mouw, Ted. “Social Capital and Finding A Job: Do Contacts Matter?”, in American Sociological Review (2005);

Portes, Alejandro. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology”, in Annual Review of Sociology (1998);

     -     “The Two Meanings of Social Capital” Sociological Forum (2000a);  

     -     “Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of Its Role in Development”, in Journal of Latin American Studies (2000b);

     -     “Social Capital and Community Development”, in Mauro F. Guillén et al. (eds) The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field (2002);

Portes, Alejandro, and Patricia Landolt. ‘‘The Downside of Social Capital’’, in American Prospect (1996);

Portes, Alejandro, and Julia Sensenbrenner. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action”, in American Journal of Sociology (1993);

Putnam, R. D.  Making Democracy Work (1993);

     -     Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000);

Sassen. A Sociology of Globalization (2006). 

Schuller, T., Baron, S., & Field, J. “Social Capital: A Review and Critique”, in Baron, S., Field, J. & Schuller, T. (eds.). Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (2000);

Smith, Sandra S. “'Don’t Put My Name On It': Social Capital Activation and Job-Finding Assistance among Black Urban Poor”, in American Journal of Sociology (2003);

Svendsen, Gunnar L. H. “Studying Social Capital in Situ: A Qualitative Approach”, in Theory and Society (2006);  

Welzel, Christian, Ronald Inglehart, and Franziska Deutsch. “Social Capital, Voluntary Associations, and Collective Action: Which Aspects of Social Capital Have the Greatest 'Civic Payoff'?”, in Journal of Civil Society (2005); 

Wollebaek, Dag, and Per Selle. “Does Participation in Voluntary Associations Contribute to Social Capital? The Impact of Intensity, Scope, and Type”, in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly (2002);

Woolcock, Michael. “The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes”, in Canadian Journal of Policy Research (2001).