Ekine A.

It is easy and chip in time of production n distribution The concept of social capital became fashionable only relatively recently, but the term has been in use for almost a century while the ideas behind it go back further still. "Social capital" may first have appeared in a book published in 1916 in the United States that discussed how neighbours could work together to oversee schools. Author Lyda Hanifan referred to social capital as "those tangible assets [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit". That gives some sense of what's meant by social capital, although today it would be hard to come up with a single definition that satisfied everyone. For the sake of simplicity, however, we can think of social capital as the links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together. In recent years, the term entered the popular imagination with the publication in 2000 of Robert Putnam's bestseller, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Putnam argued that while Americans have become wealthier their sense of community has withered. Cities and traditional suburbs have given way to "edge cities" and "exurbs" vast, anonymous places where people sleep and work and do little else. As people spend more and more time in the office, commuting to work and watching TV alone, there's less time for joining community groups and voluntary organisations, and socialising with neighbours, friends and even family. To demonstrate this decline, Putnam looked at the way Americans play 10-pin bowling, a sport with a big following in the United States. He found that although bowling has never been bigger, Americans are no longer competing against each other in the once-popular local leagues. Instead, they are literally bowling alone. Putnam argued that the decline of the community networks that once led Americans to bowl together represents a loss of social capital.

Criticisms The concept of social capital has its critics. One argument that's made is that Putnam got it wrong when he said social engagement is eroding. Instead, it may just be evolving. Rather than joining groups in our neighbourhoods, like bowling leagues, we're now joining groups made up of people who share our beliefs fighting for environmental protection or gay rights, for instance rather than our locality. These groups such as a branch of Greenpeace or Amnesty International can exist in the "real" world. But they may also exist only virtually on the Internet, which is arguably creating whole new "communities" of people who may never physically meet but who share common values and interests. Not everyone, however, is convinced that these new forms of community have the same value as more traditional forms.

Varieties of social capitalThere's much debate over the various forms that social capitaltakes, but one fairly straightforward approach divides it into threemain categories: Bonds: Links to people based on a sense of common identity("people like us") such as family, close friends and people whoshare our culture or ethnicity. Bridges: Links that stretch beyond a shared sense of identity, forexample to distant friends, colleagues and associates. Linkages: Links to people or groups further up or lower down thesocial ladder.The potential benefits of social capital can be seen by looking atsocial bonds. Friends and families can help us in lots of waysemotionally, socially and economically. In the UnitedKingdom, forexample, a government survey found that more people secure jobsthrough personal contacts than through advertisements. Such sup-port can be even more important in countries where the rule of law