Microenterprise and social capital: A framework for theory, research, and policy

Journal of Socio-Economics

Volumn 30, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 193-198

  Woolcock, Michael ^a  

^a WORLD BANK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035804527     PISSN: 10535357     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1053-5357(00)00106-2     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. 1. For a more complete discussion of this framework, see my paper "Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework," Theory and Society (1998), Vol. 27(2): 151-208. The details of this intellectual history, along with the findings of the two major "schools" of research on social capital and economic development, are also outlined in this paper.
2. 2. According to Hanifan, social capital referred to "those tangible substances [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit . . . If [an individual comes] into contact with his neighbor, and they with other neighbors, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community" (p. 130). See Hanifan (1916), "The rural school community center" Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 67: 130-138. Hanifan was, at the time, the superintendent of schools in West Virginia.
3. 3. Robert Putnam (1993) Making Democracy Work Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. 4. Robert Putnam (1995) "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital" Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78. For a fuller account, see Putnam (1997), "Bowling alone:democracy in America at century's end," in Axel Hadenis (ed.) Democracy's Victoryand Crisis, pp. 27-70. For a full account of the fruits of this project, see AlejandroPortes (1995), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
5. 4. Robert Putnam (1995) "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital" Journal ofDemocracy 6(1): 65-78. For a fuller account, see Putnam (1997), "Bowling alone: democracy in America at century's end," in Axel Hadenis (ed.) Democracy's Victory and Crisis, pp. 27-70. For a full account of the fruits of this project, see AlejandroPortes (1995), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6. 4. Robert Putnam (1995) "Bowling alone: America's declining social capital" Journal ofDemocracy 6(1): 65-78. For a fuller account, see Putnam (1997), "Bowling alone:democracy in America at century's end," in Axel Hadenis (ed.) Democracy's Victoryand Crisis, pp. 27-70. For a full account of the fruits of this project, see Alejandro Portes (1995), The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7. 5. William Julius Wilson (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged Chicago: University of Chicago Press; see also Wilson (1996) When Work Disappears New York: Knopf. Thesestudies are published in the June 1996 issue of World Development. Peter Evans(1996) "Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence onsynergy" World Development 24(6): 1119-1132. See also Evans (1995) EmbeddedAutonomy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. To distinguish "autonomy" and"embeddedness" from their use in other social scientific settings, I re-label these terms"organizational integrity" and "synergy" to reflect their deployment in developmentstudies (see Table 2, below).
8. 5. William Julius Wilson (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged Chicago: University of Chicago Press; see also Wilson (1996) When Work Disappears New York: Knopf. These studies are published in the June 1996 issue of World Development. Peter Evans(1996) "Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence onsynergy" World Development 24(6): 1119-1132. See also Evans (1995) EmbeddedAutonomy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. To distinguish "autonomy" and"embeddedness" from their use in other social scientific settings, I re-label these terms"organizational integrity" and "synergy" to reflect their deployment in developmentstudies (see Table 2, below).
9. 5. William Julius Wilson (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged Chicago: University of Chicago Press; see also Wilson (1996) When Work Disappears New York: Knopf. Thesestudies are published in the June 1996 issue of World Development. Peter Evans (1996) "Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence on synergy" World Development 24(6): 1119-1132. See also Evans (1995) EmbeddedAutonomy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. To distinguish "autonomy" and"embeddedness" from their use in other social scientific settings, I re-label these terms"organizational integrity" and "synergy" to reflect their deployment in developmentstudies (see Table 2, below).
10. 5. William Julius Wilson (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged Chicago: University of Chicago Press; see also Wilson (1996) When Work Disappears New York: Knopf. Thesestudies are published in the June 1996 issue of World Development. Peter Evans(1996) "Government action, social capital and development: reviewing the evidence onsynergy" World Development 24(6): 1119-1132. See also Evans (1995) Embedded Autonomy Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. To distinguish "autonomy" and "embeddedness" from their use in other social scientific settings, I re-label these terms "organizational integrity" and "synergy" to reflect their deployment in development studies (see Table 2, below).
11. In my Theory and Society paper I present a table that attempts a synthesis of the results of the Sage and the AAAS working groups. Space precludes me from doing so here, but the essence of the argument is that the fortunes of formal institutions and community groups cannot adequately be understood apart from one another.