‘Social Capital’ in Central, Eastern and South East Europe: Methodological, Theoretical and Epistemological Debates

Abstract

The concept of `social capital' has recently become widely adopted in both research and development practice. Until the 1990s very few scholars had referred to it, drawing either on Bourdieu (1980, 1984, 1986, 1993, 1996; among others)1 or on the rational choice theorist James S. Coleman (1988a, 1988b; among others).2 The popularity of `social capital' since the 1990s is due mainly to the political scientist Robert Putnam. His book on Italian civic culture (Putnam et al., 1993, see also Putnam 1995, 2000) referred to `social capital' mostly as `membership in groups' --- assuming this to be a precondition for good governance and growing economic development. Putnam et al. (1993) conceptualized `social capital' more specifically as `features of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions' (p. 167). As his numerous critics (for instance Fine, 2010, p. 166; see also Navarro, 2002; Mohan and Nohan, 2002; White, 2002; Shortall, 2004; Cheshire and Lawrence, 2005) have pointed out, Putnam's understanding may have neglected the language of power, class, race, gender or conflicting interests while employing `social capital' as a romantic, essentialist and universalist notion of the structural contexts that influence political participation and economic life.