Authors Flashcards
Putnam making democracy work 1993
Study of italy, finds north has more effective Govt as more social capital. Measures this with indicators:
Associational membership, newspaper reading, turnout, split ticket voting
Putnam 1996 Bowling alone
Americans are becoming more cut off, less social capital and less social networks. This is bad for effective govt and democracy, as decline of social capital undermines active engagement needed to collectively hold to account.
From the late 60s, people have chosen to step back from civic life: the collapse of social capital in america. Increasing time watching tv, and less time spent on community life is the cause. Tv takes up time people could spend socialising.
Almond and Verba definition of political culture
The political system as internalised in the cognitions, feelings and evaluations of its population.
The Civic Culture 1963
Study of 5 countries: uk, us, germany, italy, mexico. Aims to find out what connects individual level micro political behaviour to macro political character of the state.
Hypothesises that there are different political cultures, some of which (uk/us) are more conducive to long term democratic stability. So,e countries have a better culture because of historical context then socialisation.
In the civic culture, the political culture and the political structure are congruent, and there is the right balance of passivity and tendency to question. Participatory action is based on rationality. Political activity is balanced by passivity.
High interpersonal trust + support for gradual reform + citizens think they can influence (and other things) -> long term exp of democracy
study never replicated
Difference between social capital (Putnam theory) and political culture theory (A&V)
- the idea of interpersonal trust is common to both, but plays more solitary role in social cap.
Social capital: individual and community level
- trust in others, possessed by individuals
Political culture: macro, institutional level
- how people participate and their attitudes to institutions
3 components: trust in institutions, belief that one can influence and interpersonal trust. High levels of social capital are just one subset.
Can ultimately argue history or economic development are best determinations of democracy.
Knack 2002
Social networks can foster distrust, not just trust. Some forms of civic association breed distrust and hatred, such as groups segregated by class or occupation or ethnicity. It only builds cooperation and trust inside the group, not outside it. Only when the type of association entails reciprocity does it improve government performance:
Volunteering - reciprocal
Associations, informal socialising - no effect
Misztal
Putnam’s definition of social capital is very circular. No theoretical precision! What is the causal mechanism for trust and a rich network of associations? What produces and maintains social capital?
Social trust social network
Muller and Seligson 1994
Important criticism of both civic culture and social capital
They find interpersonal trust has no sig effect on democracy increasing, it is actually the RESULT not the CAUSE of long term democracy. Only thing that does have a link is support for gradual reform and a belief one can influence.
Civic culture: this means the two foundations of the civic culture have 2 different causes
Social capital: trust can’t -> democracy (tho this isn’t what he argues)
- muller does say it could go both ways, but trust is not the original catalyst. The longer a democracy functions, the more social capital is build up.
Maloney et al: framework for s.c
Putnam neglects the other actors who shape the framework social capital exists in: governments decide how citizens are allowed to engage civically, and welfare state policies may encourage reciprocity in the culture.
Basic mechanism criticisms of Putnam
He neglects to study whether civic association decline is due to women entering workplace or people moving house more. Aren’t some classes more likely to watch lots of tv? Classes that might associate less civically for cultural reasons.
Pamela paxton
Only inclusive associations that cut across lines in society have a positive affect on democracy.
DISTRIBUTION: Lots of social capital in one group is bad for democracy, it needs to be across and between groups!
TYPE: there are different types of social networks, not all end up producing feelings and values that assist political culture
Objective social cap - st hildas
Subjective social cap - something that produces a tie, a positive emotion and interpersonal trust. It is not automatic.
Thus she is critiquing Putnam’s assumption that the existence of social capital in itself causes a democratic political culture. TYPE and DISTRIBUTION matters
In The USA, associations have stayed constant NO fall while interpersonal trust has declined. Trust in institutions strongly correlates with events not interpersonal trust.
What is social capital? General definition.
Social networks of people who share common values form the basis of social capitals. These networks allow people to pursue goals faster and with a better outcome than alone, it is a reciprocal relationship.
Bourdieu’s definition of social capital
As asset used by elite groups, lots in a few groups, old boys network
Putnam’s definition of social capital
Features of social organisation such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by promoting coordinated actions
Lemann
Putnam’s civic association measures are ‘waning and achronistic’ outdated, more popular with elderly people. Need to measure new forms like soccer and greenpeace.
-> Putnam responds that even if you consider new ones, decline is stil there. and new ones tend to be chequebook activism, less active and reciprocal.
Maloney et al
Chequebook activists have just as strong group identification with each other
Glaeser et al
Putnam’s trust measure is from US social survey, self definition. Problematic.
Schwadel and Stout
No systematic decline across cohorts of age as Putnam suggests
Hall
Even if putnam’s thesis holds in the us, it is not mirrored in rest of europe where civic engagement and informal socialising remain strong. Hall finds that in the UK, no overall decline in association membership though there is a switch from WI-> environment. There has been a fall in trust in individuals which challenges Putnam’s causal link of civic ass-> interpersonal trust. Personal connections remain high even among generation that grew up with tv.
Pippa Norris: Critical Citizens 1999
Increasing tendency of citizens to question and criticise GOVT is found in those who are most supportive of basic values of democracy and think it is the best form of government. Distrust in politicians/legislatures does not = distrust in democracy.
Institutional confidence can be increased by extent of civil liberties and political rights, electoral system.
Pippa Norris democratic deficit
There is no decline of trust in democracy despite falling turnout and falling trust in politicians. There is a democratic deficit where expectations rise due to media , and this reduces political participation. (Contray to john et al)
John et al
You are more likely to act on a problem/participate if you care about your neighbourhood and are LESS trusting of your neighbours to act. This would contradict civic culture as that says more trust in others-> more participation.
According to Putnam, why is social capital important?
Builds up interpersonal trust, and ability to collectively act, which can then be used to hold institutions to account and make them more effective. E.g choir: people realise importance of a social network.
outcomes of social capital according to putnam
1- can resolve collective problems via cooperation
2- Increased levels of interpersonal trust
3 -facilitates flow of info that enables achievement of collective goals
