The state of social capital: Bringing back in power, politics, and history

Theory and Society

Volumn 31, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 573-621

  Szreter, Simon ^a  

^a ST JOHN S COLLEGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036453705     PISSN: 03042421     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1021300217590     Document Type: Review

References (127)

1. Cited in Ashok Patnaik, "Gunter Grass's Nostalgic Musings with Germany," http://www.bharatnet.com/lifestyles/books/gunter.htm
2. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
3. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
4. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
5. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
6. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
7. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
8. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
9. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
10. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
11. In addition to all the important contributions that are referenced in the ensuing notes, the following exemplify the multi-disciplinary nature of the intellectual enterprise: Richard G. Wilkinson, Unhealthy Societies: The Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996); American Behavioral Scientist 40/5 (1997), special issue, edited by Bob Edwards and Michael Foley, on "Social Capital, Civil Society and Contemporary Democracy"; Stephen Knack and Philip Keefer, "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 112/4 (1997): 1251-1288; Deepa Naryan and Lant Pritchett, "Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania," Economic Development and Cultural Change 47/4 (1999): 871-897; Peter A. Hall, "Social Capital in Britain," British Journal of Politics 29 (1999): 417-461; Journal of Interdisciplinary History 29, Parts 3 and 4 (1999), special double issue on "Patterns of Social Capital," Parts I and II; Vivien Lowndes, "Women and Social Capital: A Comment,' British Journal of Political Studies 30 (2000): 533-540; Partha Dasgupta and Ismael Sergaldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2000) ; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000); Robert J. Sampson and Jeffrey D. Morenoff, "Public Health and Safety: Community and Social Capital," in Brian D. Smedley and S. Leonard Syme, editors, Promoting Health (Washington D.C.: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 2001).
12. Robert D. Putnam, Making Social Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1993); Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
13. Robert D. Putnam, Making Social Democracy Work. Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1993); Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
14. Sidney Tarrow, "Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work," American Political Science Review 90/2 (June 1996): 389-397; special section of review articles of Making Democracy Work by Ellis Goldberg, Filippo Sabetti, Margaret Levi, and Daniela Gobetti in Politics and Society 24/1 (March 1996): 3-82.
15. Sidney Tarrow, "Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work," American Political Science Review 90/2 (June 1996): 389-397; special section of review articles of Making Democracy Work by Ellis Goldberg, Filippo Sabetti, Margaret Levi, and Daniela Gobetti in Politics and Society 24/1 (March 1996): 3-82.
16. Sidney Tarrow, "Making Social Science Work Across Space and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam's Making Democracy Work," American Political Science Review 90/2 (June 1996): 389-397; special section of review articles of Making Democracy Work by Ellis Goldberg, Filippo Sabetti, Margaret Levi, and Daniela Gobetti in Politics and Society 24/1 (March 1996): 3-82.
17. Alejandro Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner, "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action," American Journal of Sociology 98/6 (1993): 1320-1350; Alejandro Portes, editor, The Economic Sociology of Immigration (New York: Russell Sage, 1995); Alejandro Portes and Patricia Landolt, "The Downside of Social Capital," American Prospect 26 (1996): 18-22. Putnam devotes chapter 22 of Bowling Alone to a discussion of "The Dark Side of Social Capital."
18. Alejandro Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner, "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action," American Journal of Sociology 98/6 (1993): 1320-1350; Alejandro Portes, editor, The Economic Sociology of Immigration (New York: Russell Sage, 1995); Alejandro Portes and Patricia Landolt, "The Downside of Social Capital," American Prospect 26 (1996): 18-22. Putnam devotes chapter 22 of Bowling Alone to a discussion of "The Dark Side of Social Capital."
19. Alejandro Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner, "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action," American Journal of Sociology 98/6 (1993): 1320-1350; Alejandro Portes, editor, The Economic Sociology of Immigration (New York: Russell Sage, 1995); Alejandro Portes and Patricia Landolt, "The Downside of Social Capital," American Prospect 26 (1996): 18-22. Putnam devotes chapter 22 of Bowling Alone to a discussion of "The Dark Side of Social Capital."
20. Alejandro Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner, "Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action," American Journal of Sociology 98/6 (1993): 1320-1350; Alejandro Portes, editor, The Economic Sociology of Immigration (New York: Russell Sage, 1995); Alejandro Portes and Patricia Landolt, "The Downside of Social Capital," American Prospect 26 (1996): 18-22. Putnam devotes chapter 22 of Bowling Alone to a discussion of "The Dark Side of Social Capital."
21. Ross Gittell and Avis Vidal, Community Organization: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy (London: Sage Publications, 1998), 8; Mark S. Granovetter, " The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360-1380.
22. Ross Gittell and Avis Vidal, Community Organization: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy (London: Sage Publications, 1998), 8; Mark S. Granovetter, " The Strength of Weak Ties," American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973): 1360-1380.
23. For instance, affiliation to a religious denomination looks as though it ought to be a classic example of bonding social capital - a network of persons who are alike in their cosmological orientation. When such denominational congregations form clearly defined minority groups within larger polities, as during periods of religious ferment when new congregations come into being or else under circumstances of migration, this is certainly true and their bonding social capital has been well-documented. But when the religious denomination is a large and populous, well-established one with full and equal rights in the polity in question and with members drawn from all walks of life, it is likely to function more as a source of bridging social capital for members of its networks. See also the work by Portes cited in note 5 on the varying functions that networks play for immigrants.
24. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
25. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
26. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
27. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
28. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
29. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
30. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
31. G. C. Loury, "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences," in P. A. Wallace and A. LeMund, editors, Women, Minorities and Employment Discrimination (Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1977), 153-88; James S. Coleman, "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital," American Journal of Sociology 94 (1988): S95-120; James S. Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory (London: Belknap Press, 1990), Chapter 12, "Social Capital." On the intellectual genealogy of the term and its early users, see Michael Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward A Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework," Theory and Society 27 (1998): 151-208; Alejandro Portes, "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology 24 (1998): 1-24; Michael Foley and Bob Edwards, "Is It Time to Disinvest in Social Capital?" Journal of Public Policy 19 (1999): 141-173; Steve Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller, editors, Social Capital: Critical Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), Chapter 1; James Farr, "The secret history of social capital, " unpublished ms., Political Science Department, University of Minnesota.
32. Pierre Bourdieu, "Le capital social: Notes provisoires," Actes de la Recherche Sciences Sociales 31 (1980): 2-3; Pierre Bourdieu, "The Forms of Capital," in John G. Richardson, editor, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood, 1985), 241-258.
33. Pierre Bourdieu, "Le capital social: Notes provisoires," Actes de la Recherche Sciences Sociales 31 (1980): 2-3; Pierre Bourdieu, "The Forms of Capital," in John G. Richardson, editor, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (New York: Greenwood, 1985), 241-258.
34. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984). Of course the elite do, of necessity, find themselves interacting sometimes intimately in their own homes - with individuals from much poorer or even marginalized social groups (immigrant domestic workers), but the mere fact of knowledge and contact does not amount to any necessary form of social capital, especially as relationships in these circumstances are typically governed by the highly (but subtly) inegalitarian conventions of deference, on which see Erving Goffman, "The Nature of Deference and Demeanour," in E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 47-95.
35. Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984). Of course the elite do, of necessity, find themselves interacting sometimes intimately in their own homes - with individuals from much poorer or even marginalized social groups (immigrant domestic workers), but the mere fact of knowledge and contact does not amount to any necessary form of social capital, especially as relationships in these circumstances are typically governed by the highly (but subtly) inegalitarian conventions of deference, on which see Erving Goffman, "The Nature of Deference and Demeanour," in E. Goffman, Interaction Ritual. Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 47-95.
36. Michael Woolcock, "Managing Risk, Shocks, and Opportunity in Developing Economies: The Role of Social Capital," in Gustav Ranis, editor, Dimensions of Development (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for International and Area Studies, 2000), 197-212; World Bank, World Development Report 2000/01 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), Chapter 7; Michael Woolcock, Using Social Capital: Getting the Social Relations Right in the Theory and Practice of Economic Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming 2003).
37. Michael Woolcock, "Managing Risk, Shocks, and Opportunity in Developing Economies: The Role of Social Capital," in Gustav Ranis, editor, Dimensions of Development (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for International and Area Studies, 2000), 197-212; World Bank, World Development Report 2000/01 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), Chapter 7; Michael Woolcock, Using Social Capital: Getting the Social Relations Right in the Theory and Practice of Economic Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming 2003).
38. Michael Woolcock, "Managing Risk, Shocks, and Opportunity in Developing Economies: The Role of Social Capital," in Gustav Ranis, editor, Dimensions of Development (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Center for International and Area Studies, 2000), 197-212; World Bank, World Development Report 2000/01 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), Chapter 7; Michael Woolcock, Using Social Capital: Getting the Social Relations Right in the Theory and Practice of Economic Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming 2003).
39. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
40. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
41. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
42. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
43. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
44. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
45. Albert O. Hirschman, The Strategy of Economic Development (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1958); Irma Adelman and Cynthia Taft Morris, Society, Politics and Economic Development: A Quantitative Approach (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. P. 1967); Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmayer, and Theda Skocpol, editors, Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press 1985); Alice Amsden, Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 1989); Robert Wade, Governing the Market. Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1990); Peter Evans, Embedded Autonomy. States and Industrial Transformation (Princeton: Princeton U. Press, 1995); special section of World Development 24/ 6 (1996): 1033-1132, introduced by Peter Evans, presenting a set of five empirical studies contributed by Wai Fung Lam (Taiwan), Patrick Heller (Kerala), Elinor Ostrom (Brazil and Nigeria), Jonathan Fox (Mexico), and Michael Burawoy (Russia and China).
46. Eric R. Wolf, "Aspects of Group Relations in a Complex Society: Mexico," in Teodor Shanin, editor, Peasants and Peasant Society (Harmondsworth, 1971), 50-68.
47. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two key early theorists (along with James S. Coleman) of the concept, whose influence is property considered as such in all serious examinations of the early development of social capital theory (such as the frequently cited reviews by Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards - see note 8, above). This is awkward for Fine, given Bourdieu's impeccable credentials as one of his generation's foremost critical sociologists, who is certainly centrally interested in issues of power, conflict, inequality, and the state. Consequently Fine's text is slippery and internally self-contradictory on Bourdieu's role in social capital theory, claiming, in the chapter on Bourdieu (Chapter 4) that his views have been "abandoned" (p. 63) and that there has been "exclusion from the 'mature' social capital literature" (p. 55); but later he concedes that "Bourdieu's concerns are being restored to the literature, usually unwittingly ... [in] an accumulation of case studies..." (p. 97) and that "the evolving literature is effectively based upon bringing Bourdieu back in...." It is clear that there have been and continues to be an important politico-ideological divide and a dispute among exponents of social capital - what major concept in the social sciences is not subject to such contestation' Fine is premature, to say the least, in his certainty that social capital theory is the exclusive property of a methodological individualist, "rational choice" approach, which excludes issues of power and conflict from its purview. Those most concerned to clarify and develop social capital theory since Coleman and Bourdieu, such as Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards (see note 8). S. Szreter, "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," Chapter 3 in Baron, Field, and Schuller, editors, Social Capital, 56-77, and others, have been progressively and explicitly (not unwittingly) exploring the critical agenda of Bourdieu, through "linking social capital" and examination of the state, power, class, and inequality. Meanwhile, the most careful and properly contextualized empirical studies, such as those of Bebbington, have been addressing similar issues: Anthony Bebbington, "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty," World Development 27 (1999): 2021-2044; A. Bebbington and Thomas Perrault, "Social Capital, Development and Access to Resources in Highland Ecuador," Economic Geography 75 (1999): 395-418. See also the important collection of empirical studies, in the special section of World Development (1996), introduced and edited by Peter Evans, cited in note 12; and S. Saegert, J. Thompson, M. Warren, editors, Social Capital and Poor Communities (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).
48. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two key early theorists (along with James S. Coleman) of the concept, whose influence is property considered as such in all serious examinations of the early development of social capital theory (such as the frequently cited reviews by Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards - see note 8, above). This is awkward for Fine, given Bourdieu's impeccable credentials as one of his generation's foremost critical sociologists, who is certainly centrally interested in issues of power, conflict, inequality, and the state. Consequently Fine's text is slippery and internally self-contradictory on Bourdieu's role in social capital theory, claiming, in the chapter on Bourdieu (Chapter 4) that his views have been "abandoned" (p. 63) and that there has been "exclusion from the 'mature' social capital literature" (p. 55); but later he concedes that "Bourdieu's concerns are being restored to the literature, usually unwittingly ... [in] an accumulation of case studies..." (p. 97) and that "the evolving literature is effectively based upon bringing Bourdieu back in...." It is clear that there have been and continues to be an important politico-ideological divide and a dispute among exponents of social capital - what major concept in the social sciences is not subject to such contestation' Fine is premature, to say the least, in his certainty that social capital theory is the exclusive property of a methodological individualist, "rational choice" approach, which excludes issues of power and conflict from its purview. Those most concerned to clarify and develop social capital theory since Coleman and Bourdieu, such as Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards (see note 8). S. Szreter, "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," Chapter 3 in Baron, Field, and Schuller, editors, Social Capital, 56-77, and others, have been progressively and explicitly (not unwittingly) exploring the critical agenda of Bourdieu, through "linking social capital" and examination of the state, power, class, and inequality. Meanwhile, the most careful and properly contextualized empirical studies, such as those of Bebbington, have been addressing similar issues: Anthony Bebbington, "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty," World Development 27 (1999): 2021-2044; A. Bebbington and Thomas Perrault, "Social Capital, Development and Access to Resources in Highland Ecuador," Economic Geography 75 (1999): 395-418. See also the important collection of empirical studies, in the special section of World Development (1996), introduced and edited by Peter Evans, cited in note 12; and S. Saegert, J. Thompson, M. Warren, editors, Social Capital and Poor Communities (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).
49. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two key early theorists (along with James S. Coleman) of the concept, whose influence is property considered as such in all serious examinations of the early development of social capital theory (such as the frequently cited reviews by Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards - see note 8, above). This is awkward for Fine, given Bourdieu's impeccable credentials as one of his generation's foremost critical sociologists, who is certainly centrally interested in issues of power, conflict, inequality, and the state. Consequently Fine's text is slippery and internally self-contradictory on Bourdieu's role in social capital theory, claiming, in the chapter on Bourdieu (Chapter 4) that his views have been "abandoned" (p. 63) and that there has been "exclusion from the 'mature' social capital literature" (p. 55); but later he concedes that "Bourdieu's concerns are being restored to the literature, usually unwittingly ... [in] an accumulation of case studies..." (p. 97) and that "the evolving literature is effectively based upon bringing Bourdieu back in...." It is clear that there have been and continues to be an important politico-ideological divide and a dispute among exponents of social capital - what major concept in the social sciences is not subject to such contestation' Fine is premature, to say the least, in his certainty that social capital theory is the exclusive property of a methodological individualist, "rational choice" approach, which excludes issues of power and conflict from its purview. Those most concerned to clarify and develop social capital theory since Coleman and Bourdieu, such as Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards (see note 8). S. Szreter, "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," Chapter 3 in Baron, Field, and Schuller, editors, Social Capital, 56-77, and others, have been progressively and explicitly (not unwittingly) exploring the critical agenda of Bourdieu, through "linking social capital" and examination of the state, power, class, and inequality. Meanwhile, the most careful and properly contextualized empirical studies, such as those of Bebbington, have been addressing similar issues: Anthony Bebbington, "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty," World Development 27 (1999): 2021-2044; A. Bebbington and Thomas Perrault, "Social Capital, Development and Access to Resources in Highland Ecuador," Economic Geography 75 (1999): 395-418. See also the important collection of empirical studies, in the special section of World Development (1996), introduced and edited by Peter Evans, cited in note 12; and S. Saegert, J. Thompson, M. Warren, editors, Social Capital and Poor Communities (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).
50. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two key early theorists (along with James S. Coleman) of the concept, whose influence is property considered as such in all serious examinations of the early development of social capital theory (such as the frequently cited reviews by Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards - see note 8, above). This is awkward for Fine, given Bourdieu's impeccable credentials as one of his generation's foremost critical sociologists, who is certainly centrally interested in issues of power, conflict, inequality, and the state. Consequently Fine's text is slippery and internally self-contradictory on Bourdieu's role in social capital theory, claiming, in the chapter on Bourdieu (Chapter 4) that his views have been "abandoned" (p. 63) and that there has been "exclusion from the 'mature' social capital literature" (p. 55); but later he concedes that "Bourdieu's concerns are being restored to the literature, usually unwittingly ... [in] an accumulation of case studies..." (p. 97) and that "the evolving literature is effectively based upon bringing Bourdieu back in...." It is clear that there have been and continues to be an important politico-ideological divide and a dispute among exponents of social capital - what major concept in the social sciences is not subject to such contestation' Fine is premature, to say the least, in his certainty that social capital theory is the exclusive property of a methodological individualist, "rational choice" approach, which excludes issues of power and conflict from its purview. Those most concerned to clarify and develop social capital theory since Coleman and Bourdieu, such as Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards (see note 8). S. Szreter, "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," Chapter 3 in Baron, Field, and Schuller, editors, Social Capital, 56-77, and others, have been progressively and explicitly (not unwittingly) exploring the critical agenda of Bourdieu, through "linking social capital" and examination of the state, power, class, and inequality. Meanwhile, the most careful and properly contextualized empirical studies, such as those of Bebbington, have been addressing similar issues: Anthony Bebbington, "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty," World Development 27 (1999): 2021-2044; A. Bebbington and Thomas Perrault, "Social Capital, Development and Access to Resources in Highland Ecuador," Economic Geography 75 (1999): 395-418. See also the important collection of empirical studies, in the special section of World Development (1996), introduced and edited by Peter Evans, cited in note 12; and S. Saegert, J. Thompson, M. Warren, editors, Social Capital and Poor Communities (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).
51. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two
52. The extensive critique of social capital theory, published by Ben Fine, Social Capital Versus Social Theory. Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium (London: Routledge 2001), has accused it of evading these issues. It is true that certain social capital exponents, including notably Robert Putnam, have tended to fight shy of these issues. Fine, however, would like to advance the much stronger argument that social capital theory, per se, is intrinsically incapable of addressing these key questions. Such an attempt at summary execution depends on a highly selective reading, both of its historiographical origins and of the most important currents in the theoretical debate. It is symptomatic of Fine's selectivity that he spends a lot of time (Chapter 3) in critique of an author who perfectly suits his allegation, Gary Becker, but whose work on social capital plays almost no role in the current debate and is hardly ever cited. Fine gives Becker an equivalent space allocation to Pierre Bourdieu, who, by contrast, is certainly one of the two key early theorists (along with James S. Coleman) of the concept, whose influence is property considered as such in all serious examinations of the early development of social capital theory (such as the frequently cited reviews by Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards - see note 8, above). This is awkward for Fine, given Bourdieu's impeccable credentials as one of his generation's foremost critical sociologists, who is certainly centrally interested in issues of power, conflict, inequality, and the state. Consequently Fine's text is slippery and internally self-contradictory on Bourdieu's role in social capital theory, claiming, in the chapter on Bourdieu (Chapter 4) that his views have been "abandoned" (p. 63) and that there has been "exclusion from the 'mature' social capital literature" (p. 55); but later he concedes that "Bourdieu's concerns are being restored to the literature, usually unwittingly ... [in] an accumulation of case studies..." (p. 97) and that "the evolving literature is effectively based upon bringing Bourdieu back in...." It is clear that there have been and continues to be an important politico-ideological divide and a dispute among exponents of social capital - what major concept in the social sciences is not subject to such contestation' Fine is premature, to say the least, in his certainty that social capital theory is the exclusive property of a methodological individualist, "rational choice" approach, which excludes issues of power and conflict from its purview. Those most concerned to clarify and develop social capital theory since Coleman and Bourdieu, such as Portes, Woolcock, Foley, and Edwards (see note 8). S. Szreter, "Social Capital, the Economy and Education in Historical Perspective," Chapter 3 in Baron, Field, and Schuller, editors, Social Capital, 56-77, and others, have been progressively and explicitly (not unwittingly) exploring the critical agenda of Bourdieu, through "linking social capital" and examination of the state, power, class, and inequality. Meanwhile, the most careful and properly contextualized empirical studies, such as those of Bebbington, have been addressing similar issues: Anthony Bebbington, "Capitals and Capabilities: A Framework for Analyzing Peasant Viability, Rural Livelihoods and Poverty," World Development 27 (1999): 2021-2044; A. Bebbington and Thomas Perrault, "Social Capital, Development and Access to Resources in Highland Ecuador," Economic Geography 75 (1999): 395-418. See also the important collection of empirical studies, in the special section of World Development (1996), introduced and edited by Peter Evans, cited in note 12; and S. Saegert, J. Thompson, M. Warren, editors, Social Capital and Poor Communities (N.Y.: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001).
53. Carl Boggs, "Social Capital and Political Fantasy: Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone," Theory and Society 30/2 (2001): 281-297, citing Putnam, Bowling Alone, 338.
54. Carl Boggs, "Social Capital and Political Fantasy: Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone," Theory and Society 30/2 (2001): 281-297, citing Putnam, Bowling Alone, 338.
55. Boggs, "Social Capital," 295-296.
56. C. Boggs, The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere (New York: Guilford, 2000); George Monbiot, Captive state. The Corporate Takeover of Britain (Macmillan, 2000); Naomi Klein, No Logo (Flamingo, 2000); Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover. Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (Heinemann, 2001).
57. C. Boggs, The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere (New York: Guilford, 2000); George Monbiot, Captive state. The Corporate Takeover of Britain (Macmillan, 2000); Naomi Klein, No Logo (Flamingo, 2000); Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover. Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (Heinemann, 2001).
58. C. Boggs, The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere (New York: Guilford, 2000); George Monbiot, Captive state. The Corporate Takeover of Britain (Macmillan, 2000); Naomi Klein, No Logo (Flamingo, 2000); Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover. Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (Heinemann, 2001).
59. C. Boggs, The End of Politics: Corporate Power and the Decline of the Public Sphere (New York: Guilford, 2000); George Monbiot, Captive state. The Corporate Takeover of Britain (Macmillan, 2000); Naomi Klein, No Logo (Flamingo, 2000); Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover. Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (Heinemann, 2001).
60. Boggs, "Social Capital," 286-287. T. Skocpol and M. Fiorina, editors, Civic Engagement in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999), ch. 1, 16.
61. Boggs, "Social Capital," 286-287. T. Skocpol and M. Fiorina, editors, Civic Engagement in American Democracy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999), ch. 1, 16.
62. See Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier. The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 6-7 and Chapter 15, on the unusually physically isolated patterns of residential living in the United States.
63. Cynthia M. Duncan, Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale U. Press, 1999). For a historically-informed study of categories of officially-sanctioned racial disability in the United States and Brazil at the elementary level of enumeration and registration in the census, see Melissa Nobles, Shades of Citizenship. Race and the Census in Modern Politics (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2000); and more generally, see Richard Sennet and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1972).
64. Cynthia M. Duncan, Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale U. Press, 1999). For a historically-informed study of categories of officially-sanctioned racial disability in the United States and Brazil at the elementary level of enumeration and registration in the census, see Melissa Nobles, Shades of Citizenship. Race and the Census in Modern Politics (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2000); and more generally, see Richard Sennet and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1972).
65. Cynthia M. Duncan, Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America (New Haven, Conn.: Yale U. Press, 1999). For a historically-informed study of categories of officially-sanctioned racial disability in the United States and Brazil at the elementary level of enumeration and registration in the census, see Melissa Nobles, Shades of Citizenship. Race and the Census in Modern Politics (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 2000); and more generally, see Richard Sennet and Jonathan Cobb, The Hidden Injuries of Class (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1972).
66. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests (Cambridge: Polity Press 1987; first published 1968), see Appendix, esp. p. 314.
67. Woolcock, "Social Capital and Economic Development," esp. pp. 161-182.
68. Eugenio Biagini, "British Trade Unions and Popular Political Economy 1860-1880," Historical Journal 30 (1987): 811-840.
69. Roger Davidson, Whitehall and the Labor Problem in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. A Study in Official Statistics and Social Control (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985); Rodney Lowe, Adjusting to Democracy. The Role of the Ministry of Labor in British Politics 1916 39 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); Alastair Reid, Social Classes and Social Relations in Britain, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1992), Chapters 4-5. The classic study remains H. A Clegg, Alan Fox, and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions since 1889. Vol. I 1889-1910 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).
70. Roger Davidson, Whitehall and the Labor Problem in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. A Study in Official Statistics and Social Control (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985); Rodney Lowe, Adjusting to Democracy. The Role of the Ministry of Labor in British Politics 1916 39 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); Alastair Reid, Social Classes and Social Relations in Britain, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1992), Chapters 4-5. The classic study remains H. A Clegg, Alan Fox, and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions since 1889. Vol. I 1889-1910 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).
71. Roger Davidson, Whitehall and the Labor Problem in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. A Study in Official Statistics and Social Control (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985); Rodney Lowe, Adjusting to Democracy. The Role of the Ministry of Labor in British Politics 1916 39 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); Alastair Reid, Social Classes and Social Relations in Britain, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1992), Chapters 4-5. The classic study remains H. A Clegg, Alan Fox, and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions since 1889. Vol. I 1889-1910 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).
72. Roger Davidson, Whitehall and the Labor Problem in Late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. A Study in Official Statistics and Social Control (Beckenham: Croom Helm, 1985); Rodney Lowe, Adjusting to Democracy. The Role of the Ministry of Labor in British Politics 1916 39 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); Alastair Reid, Social Classes and Social Relations in Britain, 1850-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1992), Chapters 4-5. The classic study remains H. A Clegg, Alan Fox, and A. F. Thompson, A History of British Trade Unions since 1889. Vol. I 1889-1910 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).
73. With millennial timing, Robert Fogel has recently argued that religious awakenings are, indeed, the United States' motor force for social movements of this kind: Robert Fogel, The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism (Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 2000).
74. See Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1999) for an accessible summary statement of his work to date.
75. Nobles, Shades of Citizenship, Chapter 2.
76. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier, Chapter 8.
77. Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order 1877-1920 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1967), Chapter 5.
78. Note, however, that there were also distinct limits to the scope of cross-class political imagination, trust and ingenuity shown in U.S. society at this time, as can be appreciated by comparing the gains made by the working classes in the United States with those made in Britain. There, the combination of relatively well-organized workers, with union membership already reaching over 40 percent of the labor force by the first decade of the twentieth century, along with significant middle-class ideological and political support from both the Fabian Socialists and the collectivist "New Liberals," resulted in the passing of the important 1908 national pensions and 1911 national insurance acts. The latter was in the teeth of the same kind of opposition from a coalition of both the middle-class insurance industry and the working-class provident institutions (led in the United States by Samuel Gompers, President of the A.F.L.) along with the medical profession, which were the set of oppositional forces that sank the American Progressives' attempts to organize a similar federal system of social security in the United States during the same period, 1910-1917. See Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 235-257. This also points to the importance of the rather different history and political complexion of the more modest American trade-union movement, which did not begin to follow the strategy of working-class inclusion, signalled in 1889 in Britain with the formation of the all-grades New Unions, until the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O) after 1935. On American trade-unionism, see David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor. The Workplace, the State and American Labor Activism, 1865-1925 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1987); Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People's Movements. Why they Succeed, How they Fail (New York: Pantheon, 1977), Chapter 3.
79. Note, however, that there were also distinct limits to the scope of cross-class political imagination, trust and ingenuity shown in U.S. society at this time, as can be appreciated by comparing the gains made by the working classes in the United States with those made in Britain. There, the combination of relatively well-organized workers, with union membership already reaching over 40 percent of the labor force by the first decade of the twentieth century, along with significant middle-class ideological and political support from both the Fabian Socialists and the collectivist "New Liberals," resulted in the passing of the important 1908 national pensions and 1911 national insurance acts. The latter was in the teeth of the same kind of opposition from a coalition of both the middle-class insurance industry and the working-class provident institutions (led in the United States by Samuel Gompers, President of the A.F.L.) along with the medical profession, which were the set of oppositional forces that sank the American Progressives' attempts to organize a similar federal system of social security in the United States during the same period, 1910-1917. See Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 235-257. This also points to the importance of the rather different history and political complexion of the more modest American trade-union movement, which did not begin to follow the strategy of working-class inclusion, signalled in 1889 in Britain with the formation of the all-grades New Unions, until the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O) after 1935. On American trade-unionism, see David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor. The Workplace, the State and American Labor Activism, 1865-1925 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1987); Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People's Movements. Why they Succeed, How they Fail (New York: Pantheon, 1977), Chapter 3.
80. Note, however, that there were also distinct limits to the scope of cross-class political imagination, trust and ingenuity shown in U.S. society at this time, as can be appreciated by comparing the gains made by the working classes in the United States with those made in Britain. There, the combination of relatively well-organized workers, with union membership already reaching over 40 percent of the labor force by the first decade of the twentieth century, along with significant middle-class ideological and political support from both the Fabian Socialists and the collectivist "New Liberals," resulted in the passing of the important 1908 national pensions and 1911 national insurance acts. The latter was in the teeth of the same kind of opposition from a coalition of both the middle-class insurance industry and the working-class provident institutions (led in the United States by Samuel Gompers, President of the A.F.L.) along with the medical profession, which were the set of oppositional forces that sank the American Progressives' attempts to organize a similar federal system of social security in the United States during the same period, 1910-1917. See Paul Starr, The Social Transformation of American Medicine (New York: Basic Books, 1982), 235-257. This also points to the importance of the rather different history and political complexion of the more modest American trade-union movement, which did not begin to follow the strategy of working-class inclusion, signalled in 1889 in Britain with the formation of the all-grades New Unions, until the formation of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (C.I.O) after 1935. On American trade-unionism, see David Montgomery, The Fall of the House of Labor. The Workplace, the State and American Labor Activism, 1865-1925 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1987); Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People's Movements. Why they Succeed, How they Fail (New York: Pantheon, 1977), Chapter 3.
81. Richard Hosfstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985); and see S. Brint and C. Levy, "Professions and civic engagement," ch. 5 in Skocpol and Fiorina, Civic Engagement, 163-210.
82. Richard Hosfstadter, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985); and see S. Brint and C. Levy, "Professions and civic engagement," ch. 5 in Skocpol and Fiorina, Civic Engagement, 163-210.
83. Jon C. Teaford, City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850-1970 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U. Press, 1979).
84. The theory of cultural bias holds that at any and all times the adversarial discourses within a liberal democracy will reflect a continuous flux of debate among four or five types of justificatory argument and their respective constituencies, comprising the opposed values of fatalism, autonomy, competitive individualism, egalitarianism, and hierarchy. On the theory of cultural bias, see Mary Douglas and Steven Ney, Missing Persons. A Critique of Personhood in the Social Sciences (Berkeley and Los Angeles: U. of California Press, 1998), Chapter 5. The original formulation of the theory was: Richard Ellis, Michael Thompson, and Aaron Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press).
85. The theory of cultural bias holds that at any and all times the adversarial discourses within a liberal democracy will reflect a continuous flux of debate among four or five types of justificatory argument and their respective constituencies, comprising the opposed values of fatalism, autonomy, competitive individualism, egalitarianism, and hierarchy. On the theory of cultural bias, see Mary Douglas and Steven Ney, Missing Persons. A Critique of Personhood in the Social Sciences (Berkeley and Los Angeles: U. of California Press, 1998), Chapter 5. The original formulation of the theory was: Richard Ellis, Michael Thompson, and Aaron Wildavsky, Cultural Theory (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press).
86. From a comparative perspective, the obvious omission in this list of "state" achievements is the failure to establish a universalist, federally-funded national health service after World War II. Instead, a very comprehensive and generous program was established for Veterans and their families but not for the populace in general. In accounting for this difference it is perhaps relevant to note that America was the only major belligerent in the Second World War not to experience the devastation of a home front - on the contrary the war years of full employment were a period of great prosperity for business and the blue collar class, while the proportion of its male population who saw active service was significantly lower than the principal European nations involved. There was at the end of the war in the United States, correspondingly, much less of a sense that the populace as a whole had universally suffered in common and faced a life-threatening test together. It was this sense of national delivery, which provided the moral justification for the revolutionary and expensive act of collective expiation, which the establishment of the National Health Service in Britain by its first majority Labor government undoubtedly symbolized. By contrast, in the United States, no such collective symbolic capital could be mustered to overcome the opposition of the usual vested interests of the medical profession and the private insurance industry, as Paul Starr's narrative account shows: Starr, The Social Transformation, 280-289. Instead in the United States there was more of a sense that one large section of the nation owed a moral debt to another smaller part - the veterans - a debt that could be satisfied with a scheme specific to them.
87. Joseph Nye, Philip D. Zelikow, David C. King, editors, Why People Don't Trust Government (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press), 6-7, 15-16.
88. A telling observation made by Ernest R. May, "The Evolving Scope of Government," Chapter 1 in Nye et al., Why People, 45.
89. It is not, of course, intended to suggest that this shift was in any way monolithic nor that the positive public endorsement for the strong state was uniform throughout the later period. There were inevitably many local and individual variations of opinion, along with side eddies in the nation's changing mood, as the helpful theory of cultural bias makes clear. A particularly serious example of this was the menacing character, which agencies of the federal government assumed during the notorious episode of McCarthyism in the 1950s. But despite this and the alienation of the intellectual left, the general disposition of the populace toward the state remained, on balance, relatively positive through to the late 1960s.
90. Wiebe, The Search for Order, 27-33.
91. Wiebe, The Search for Order, Chapter 6, and pp. 166-176; and see the discussion of the local election battles, which Jane Addams of Hull House fought against the Chicago "boss," Johnny Powers, in the 1890s: Mary L. M. Bryan and Allen F. Davis, editors, 100 Years at Hull House (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1990), 53-57. For more on one central aspect of this movement, see Barbara G. Rosenkrantz, Public Health and the State. Changing Views in Massachusetts, 1842-1936 (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1972), esp. Chapters 3-4; John Duffy, The Sanitarians. A history of American Public Health (Urbana: U. of Illinois Press, 1990), Chapters 10-12.
92. Wiebe, The Search for Order, Chapter 6, and pp. 166-176; and see the discussion of the local election battles, which Jane Addams of Hull House fought against the Chicago "boss," Johnny Powers, in the 1890s: Mary L. M. Bryan and Allen F. Davis, editors, 100 Years at Hull House (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1990), 53-57. For more on one central aspect of this movement, see Barbara G. Rosenkrantz, Public Health and the State. Changing Views in Massachusetts, 1842-1936 (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1972), esp. Chapters 3-4; John Duffy, The Sanitarians. A history of American Public Health (Urbana: U. of Illinois Press, 1990), Chapters 10-12.
93. Wiebe, The Search for Order, Chapter 6, and pp. 166-176; and see the discussion of the local election battles, which Jane Addams of Hull House fought against the Chicago "boss," Johnny Powers, in the 1890s: Mary L. M. Bryan and Allen F. Davis, editors, 100 Years at Hull House (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1990), 53-57. For more on one central aspect of this movement, see Barbara G. Rosenkrantz, Public Health and the State. Changing Views in Massachusetts, 1842-1936 (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1972), esp. Chapters 3-4; John Duffy, The Sanitarians. A history of American Public Health (Urbana: U. of Illinois Press, 1990), Chapters 10-12.
94. Wiebe, The Search for Order, Chapter 6, and pp. 166-176; and see the discussion of the local election battles, which Jane Addams of Hull House fought against the Chicago "boss," Johnny Powers, in the 1890s: Mary L. M. Bryan and Allen F. Davis, editors, 100 Years at Hull House (Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1990), 53-57. For more on one central aspect of this movement, see Barbara G. Rosenkrantz, Public Health and the State. Changing Views in Massachusetts, 1842-1936 (Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1972), esp. Chapters 3-4; John Duffy, The Sanitarians. A history of American Public Health (Urbana: U. of Illinois Press, 1990), Chapters 10-12.
95. Kevin Mattson, Creating a Democratic Public. The Struggle for Urban Participatory Democracy During the Progressive Era (Pennsylvania: Penn State U. Press, 1998).
96. Theda Skocpol, with M. Ganz, Z. Munson, B. Camp, M. Sewers, and J. Oser, "How Americans Became Civic," in Theda Skocpol and Morris Fiorina, editors, Civic Engagement in American Democracy (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute, 1999), 27-80.
97. For examples of such right-wing analysis, see, for instance, D. Green, Re-inventing Civil Society. (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1994); D. Green, Community Without Politics (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1995).
98. For examples of such right-wing analysis, see, for instance, D. Green, Re-inventing Civil Society. (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1994); D. Green, Community Without Politics (London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 1995).
99. See above, note 12.
100. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power. II. The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993), esp. ch. 3. Kenneth H. F. Dyson, The State Tradition in Western Europe: A Study of an Idea and Institution (Oxford: Robertson, 1980); Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society. England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); Rolf Torstendahl and Michael Burrage, editors, The Formation of Professions. Knowledge, State and Strategy (London: Sage, 1990).
101. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power. II. The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993), esp. ch. 3. Kenneth H. F. Dyson, The State Tradition in Western Europe: A Study of an Idea and Institution (Oxford: Robertson, 1980); Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society. England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); Rolf Torstendahl and Michael Burrage, editors, The Formation of Professions. Knowledge, State and Strategy (London: Sage, 1990).
102. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power. II. The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993), esp. ch. 3. Kenneth H. F. Dyson, The State Tradition in Western Europe: A Study of an Idea and Institution (Oxford: Robertson, 1980); Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society. England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); Rolf Torstendahl and Michael Burrage, editors, The Formation of Professions. Knowledge, State and Strategy (London: Sage, 1990).
103. Michael Mann, The Sources of Social Power. II. The rise of classes and nation-states, 1760-1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press, 1993), esp. ch. 3. Kenneth H. F. Dyson, The State Tradition in Western Europe: A Study of an Idea and Institution (Oxford: Robertson, 1980); Harold Perkin, The Rise of Professional Society. England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989); Rolf Torstendahl and Michael Burrage, editors, The Formation of Professions. Knowledge, State and Strategy (London: Sage, 1990).
104. Theodor Schilling, "Subsidiarity as a Rule and a Principle, or: Taking Subsidiarity Seriously," Harvard Law School Jean Monnet Program, http://www.jeanmonnet-program.org/papers/95/9510ind.html
105. Stephen J. Kunitz, "Accounts of Social Capital: The Mixed Health Effects of Personal Communities and Voluntary Groups," Chapter 8 in David Leon and Gill Walt, editors, Poverty, Inequality and Health. An International Perspective (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2001), 162-163.
106. Oscar Handlin and Mary Flug Handlin, Commonwealth. A Study of the Role of Government in the American Economy: Massachusetts, 1774-1861 (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, revised edition 1969, first published 1947); and for a recent survey of this work, see May "The Evolving," 29-36.
107. Oscar Handlin and Mary Flug Handlin, Commonwealth. A Study of the Role of Government in the American Economy: Massachusetts, 1774-1861 (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, revised edition 1969, first published 1947); and for a recent survey of this work, see May "The Evolving," 29-36.
108. Handlin and Handlin, Commonwealth, p. xvi (preface to the first edition).
109. Handlin and Handlin, Commonwealth, pp. xi-xii.
110. By 1860 municipalities had debts of $200 million to fund their activities, 3 times the federal debt: M. Melosi, The Sanitary City (J. Hopkins Press, 2000), 78. See also, Eric H. Monkkonen, The Local State: Public Money and American Cities (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1995).
111. By 1860 municipalities had debts of $200 million to fund their activities, 3 times the federal debt: M. Melosi, The Sanitary City (J. Hopkins Press, 2000), 78. See also, Eric H. Monkkonen, The Local State: Public Money and American Cities (Stanford: Stanford U. Press, 1995).
112. Samuel P. Huntington, "Americans and Their Government," p. 1, address to Visions of Governance for the twenty-first century conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, 1996, cited in Gary Orren, "Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government," Chapter 3 in Nye et al., Why People, 88-89.
113. Samuel P. Huntington, "Americans and Their Government," p. 1, address to Visions of Governance for the twenty-first century conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, 1996, cited in Gary Orren, "Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government," Chapter 3 in Nye et al., Why People, 88-89.
114. Samuel P. Huntington, "Americans and Their Government," p. 1, address to Visions of Governance for the twenty-first century conference, Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, 1996, cited in Gary Orren, "Fall from Grace: The Public's Loss of Faith in Government," Chapter 3 in Nye et al., Why People, 88-89.
115. The fact that this may have been accompanied also by an ambiguous popular attitude toward so much government, at times manifesting itself in great distrust, is entirely plausible, but this is an altogether different, and more subtle emphasis from the blunt view articulated in the citation from Huntington. This point about ambiguity and the continual possibility of alternatives would be the sort of interpretative viewpoint that the theory of cultural bias would - justifiably - insist upon (see note 33).
116. The most influential representative of the antagonistic position toward the liberal state within the post-structuralist and post-modernist stream has been Michel Foucault. See his initial contribution, Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences (London: Tavistock, 1970); and, for a more ambivalent view of the state, see his later reflections, Michel Foucault, "Governmentality," (trans. R. Pasquino), in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, editors, The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1991), 87-104. For an accessible overview of the whole field, see David Lyon, Postmodernity (Buckingham: Open U. Press, second edition 1999).
117. The most influential representative of the antagonistic position toward the liberal state within the post-structuralist and post-modernist stream has been Michel Foucault. See his initial contribution, Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences (London: Tavistock, 1970); and, for a more ambivalent view of the state, see his later reflections, Michel Foucault, "Governmentality," (trans. R. Pasquino), in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, editors, The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1991), 87-104. For an accessible overview of the whole field, see David Lyon, Postmodernity (Buckingham: Open U. Press, second edition 1999).
118. The most influential representative of the antagonistic position toward the liberal state within the post-structuralist and post-modernist stream has been Michel Foucault. See his initial contribution, Michel Foucault, The Order of Things. An Archeology of the Human Sciences (London: Tavistock, 1970); and, for a more ambivalent view of the state, see his later reflections, Michel Foucault, "Governmentality," (trans. R. Pasquino), in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller, editors, The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, with Two Lectures by and an Interview with Michel Foucault (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester, 1991), 87-104. For an accessible overview of the whole field, see David Lyon, Postmodernity (Buckingham: Open U. Press, second edition 1999).
119. Although it is arguable that New Zealand went in for this approach more deeply than any other western liberal democracy, coming to it rather late in the 1990s, but also it has pulled away, in repulsion from its consequences, most rapidly - in less than a decade.
120. Skocpol and Fiorina, Civic Engagement, ch. 1, acknowledges that new forms of association seem more inward-looking, as does R. Wuthnow, "Mobilizing civic engagement," ch. 9, in the same volume.
121. Skocpol and Fiorina, Civic Engagement, ch. 1, acknowledges that new forms of association seem more inward-looking, as does R. Wuthnow, "Mobilizing civic engagement," ch. 9, in the same volume.
122. For examples of an eminent economist's attempts to work with these problems, see Partha Dasgupta, "Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital," in Partha Dasgupta and Ismail Serageldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2000); Partha Dasgupta, Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2001).
123. For examples of an eminent economist's attempts to work with these problems, see Partha Dasgupta, "Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital," in Partha Dasgupta and Ismail Serageldin, editors, Social Capital. A Multifaceted Perspective (Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2000); Partha Dasgupta, Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment (Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2001).
124. Extensively explored in: Ichiro Kawachi, Bruce Kennedy, and Richard G. Wilkinson, editors, The Society and Population Health Reader. Vol. 1. Income Inequality and Health (New York: The New Press 1999).
125. Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (London: Allen and Unwin 1970).
126. J. Galbraith, The culture of contentment (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992)
127. Rebecca Abers, "From Clientelism to Cooperation: Local Government, Participatory Policy, and Civic Organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil," Politics and Society 26 (1998): 511-537. With thanks to Emilio Luque for alerting me to Abers' article.