约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨

全文可参见： http://www.cenet.org.cn/cn/ReadNews.asp?NewsID=14683

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-17 16:51:09编辑过]

　　「作者简介」方竹兰（1954-），女，上海人，经济学博士，中国人民大学教授，主要研究方向为产权理论和人力资本理论。中国人民大学马克思主义学院，北京100872

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-6-29 9:00:55编辑过]

全文可参见： http://www.zei.gov.cn/zjeco/0210/17.htm

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-8-17 16:51:44编辑过]

社会资本：一个重要的概念（北望经济学园·经济社会学版2002—2004年主题讨论）

——感谢北望经济学园各位前辈的讨论给予我们的思想启迪。

小黎 / 编辑整理 2005年6月29日

——————————————————

社会资本：一个重要的概念

萧敢：

The role of social capital in collaborative learning (Note: This document provides an introduction to this topic, and the content will be updated from time to time. Any reference to this page should include November 2001 as date of publication)

Social capital can be thought of as the framework that supports the process of learning through interaction, and requires the formation of networking paths that are both horizontal (across agencies and sectors) and vertical (agencies to communities to individuals). The quality of the social processes and relationships within which learning interactions take place is especially influential on the quality of the learning outcomes in collaborative approaches. Taken one step further, this suggests that social capital plays an important role in fostering the social networks and information exchange needed to achieve collective action - and sustaining a social and institutional environment that is ready to adapt and change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The notion of social capital has been around for decades, but it is with the work of Jane Jacobs (1961), Pierre Bourdieu (1983), James C. Coleman (1988) and Robert D. Putnam (1993, 2000) that it has come into prominence. This is how Putnam (2000, p. 19) introduces the idea:

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called "civic virtue". The difference is that "social capital" calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital. In other words, interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric. A sense of belonging and the concrete experience of social networks (and the relationships of trust and tolerance that can be involved) can benefit people greatly. The premiss for much of what is written in this report is that working together through collaborative partnerships is a powerful way to improve our communities and environment. These are alliances that can be used to improve the health of a community in the widest sense of the term (environmental, educational, economic, social, etc.). They encourage people, hopefully operating at a range of scales and levels, to work together and make a difference. For example, an initiative to improve water quality by riparian planting might involve a landcare group, local school, community environmental group and agencies (regional councils, Department of Conservation, etc.). Because these partnerships bring people together from different parts of the wider community, their efforts often have the weight to be successful.

The social whole is more than the sum of its individual components. Social systems provide a range of functions that are not met through market transactions. Households, communities of interest, and neighbourhoods create networks of mutual obligation, care, concern, interest and even conflict (access to other points of view). In the development and organisational learning literature these networks, norms, exchanges and trust that facilitate co-operation for mutual benefit are referred to as "social capital".

Social capital also has an important potential "downside" (Portes & Landholt 1996): communities, groups or networks that are isolated, parochial, or working at cross-purposes to society's collective interests can actually hinder economic and social development.

Vertical and horizontal associations A broader understanding of social capital accounts for both the positive and negative aspects by including vertical as well as horizontal associations between people, and behaviour within and among organisations, firms and institutions. This view recognises that "bonding" ties are needed to give communities a sense of identity and common purpose, but also stresses that without "bridging" ties that transcend various social divides (e.g. religion, industry sectors, ethnicity, socio-economic status), bonding ties can become a basis for the pursuit of narrow interests, and can actively preclude access to information and material resources that would otherwise be of great assistance to the community. Bridging is essentially a horizontal metaphor, however, implying connections between people who share demographic characteristics. Social capital also has a vertical dimension, which can be called "linkages." The capacity to gain access to resources, ideas and information from formal institutions beyond the community is a key function of linking social capital. A multi-dimensional approach highlights that different combinations of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital produce the range of outcomes observed in the literature.

Social capital supports learning through interaction, and requires the formation of networking paths that are both horizontal (across agencies and sectors) and vertical (agencies to communities to individuals). This, in turn, implies that relationships within which learning interactions take place influence the learning outcomes in collaborative approaches. Social capital plays an important role in fostering the social networks and information exchange needed to achieve collective action - and in sustaining a social and institutional environment that is ready to adapt and change.

Some agencies recognise the value of social capital, but are are not cognisant of the various types of interconnections necessary. For example, a territorial authority may integrate different sectors and/or departments, but fail to encourage two-way vertical connections with local groups. Another may form local associations without building their linkages upwards to other external agencies. In general, two-way relationships are better than one-way, and linkages subject to regular quality checks are generally better than historically embedded ones.

Measuring social capital Social capital has been measured in a number of innovative ways, though for a number of reasons obtaining a single "true" measure is probably not possible, or perhaps even desirable. First, the most comprehensive definitions of social capital are multidimensional, incorporating different levels and units of analysis. Second, any attempt to measure the properties of inherently ambiguous concepts such as "community", "network" and "organisation" is correspondingly problematic. Third, few long-standing surveys were designed to measure "social capital", leaving contemporary researchers to compile indexes from a range of approximate items, such as measures of trust in government, voting trends, memberships in civic organizations, hours spent volunteering. New surveys currently being tested will hopefully produce more direct and accurate indicators. Measuring social capital may be difficult, but it is not impossible, and several excellent studies have identified useful proxies for social capital, using different types and combinations of qualitative, comparative and quantitative research methodologies.

References Bourdieu, P. 1983: Forms of capital. In: Richards, J. C. ed. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, New York, Greenwood Press.

Coleman, J. C. 1988: Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95-S120.

Jacobs, J. 1961: The death and life of great American cities. New York, Random Books.

Portes, A.; Landolt, P. 1996: Unsolved mysteries: The Tocqueville files II. The American Prospect 7(26).

Putnam, R. D. 1993: Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton NJ, Princeton University Press.

Putnam, R. D. 1995: Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. The Journal of Democracy 6(1): 65-78.

Putnam, R. D. 2000: Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York, Simon and Schuster.

Spellerberg, A. 2001: Framework for the measurement of social capital in New Zealand. Research and Analytical Report 2001#14. Wellington, Statistics New Zealand.

社会资本的概念是由科尔曼和普特南定义的，我把普特南2000书中的定义抄在下面

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to the properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals - social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely related to what some have called "civic virtue". The difference is that "social capital" calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful when embedded in a sense network of reciprocal social relations. A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital.

下面一篇文章对社会资本的计算和比较给出一个介绍

How is Social Capital Measured? Social capital has been measured in a number of innovative ways, though for a number of reasons obtaining a single "true" measure is probably not possible, or perhaps even desirable. First, the most comprehensive definitions of social capital are multidimensional, incorporating different levels and units of analysis. Second, any attempt to measure the properties of inherently ambiguous concepts such as "community", "network" and "organization" is correspondingly problematic. Third, few long-standing surveys were designed to measure "social capital", leaving contemporary researchers to compile indexes from a range of approximate items, such as measures of trust in government, voting trends, memberships in civic organizations, hours spent volunteering. New surveys currently being tested will hopefully produce more direct and accurate indicators.

Measuring social capital may be difficult, but it is not impossible, and several excellent studies have identified useful proxies for social capital, using different types and combinations of qualitative, comparative and quantitative research methodologies.

Quantitative Studies

Knack and Keefer (1997) use indicators of trust and civic norms from the World Values Survey for a sample of 29 market economies. They use these measures as proxies for the strength of civic associations in order to test two different propositions on the effects of social capital on economic growth, the "Olson effects" (associations stifle growth through rent-seeking) and "Putnam effects" (associations facilitate growth by increasing trust). (Inglehart (1997) has done the most extensive work on the implications of the WVS’s results for general theories of modernization and development.)

Narayan and Pritchett (1997) construct a measure of social capital in rural Tanzania, using data from the Tanzania Social Capital and Poverty Survey (SCPS). This large-scale survey asked individuals about the extent and characteristics of their associational activity, and their trust in various institutions and individuals. They match this measure of social capital with data on household income in the same villages (both from the SCPS and from an earlier household survey, the Human Resources Development Survey). They find that village-level social capital raises household incomes.

Temple and Johnson (1998), extending the earlier work of Adelman and Morris (1967), use ethnic diversity, social mobility, and the prevalence of telephone services in several sub-Saharan African countries as proxies for the density of social networks. They combine several related items into an index of "social capability", and show that this can explain significant amounts of variation in national economic growth rates.

Comparative Studies In his research comparing north and south Italy, Putnam (1993) examines social capital in terms of the degree of civic involvement, as measured by voter turnout, newspaper readership, membership in choral societies and football clubs, and confidence in public institutions. Northern Italy, where all these indicators are higher, shows significantly improved rates of governance, institutional performance, and development when other orthodox factors were controlled for. His recent work on the United States (Putnam 1995, 1998) uses a similar approach, combining data from both academic and commercial sources to show a persistent long-term decline in America’s stock of social capital. Putnam validates data from various sources against the findings of the General Social Survey, widely recognized as one of the most reliable surveys of American social life.

Portes (1995) and Light and Karageorgis (1994) examine the economic well-being of different immigrant communities to the United States. They show that certain groups (e.g. Koreans in Los Angeles, Chinese in San Francisco) do better than others (e.g. Mexicans in San Diego, Dominicans in New York) because of the social structure of the communities into which new immigrants arrive. Successful communities are able to offer new arrivals help with securing informal sources of credit, insurance, child support, English language training, and job referrals. Less successful communities display a short-term commitment to their host country, and are less able to provide their members with important services.

Massey and Espinosa (1997) examine Mexican immigration to the US. They show that policies such as NAFTA, which advocate the free flow of goods and services across national borders, also increase the flow of people, since goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed by people. Using survey and interview data, they show that a theory of social capital is a far better predictor of where people will migrate, in what numbers, and for what reasons, than are neo-classical and human capital theories. These results are then used as the basis for proposing a number of innovative policy measures designed to produce a fairer and more effective management of Mexican immigration to the US.

Qualitative Studies

Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993) examine what happens to immigrant communities when some of their members succeed economically, and wish to leave the community. Their interviews reveal the pressures that strong community ties can place on members; so strong are these ties that some members have Anglicized their names to free themselves of the obligations associated with community membership. Gold (1995) provides evidence that Jewish communities in Los Angeles manage to maintain both the integrity of their community structure and participate more fully in mainstream economic life.

Fernandez-Kelley (1996) interviewed and observed young girls in urban ghetto communities in Baltimore, and discovered that normative pressures to leave school, have a baby while still a teenager, and reject formal employment were very powerful. Surrounded on a daily basis by violence, unemployment, and drug addicts, the girls’ only way of establishing their identity and status was through their bodies. Anderson (1995) studied the role of "old heads," long-term elderly members of the poor urban African-American community, as sources of social capital. "Old heads" once provided wisdom and guidance to the young, but their advice and input today is being increasingly ignored as respect for the elderly declines, and as the community continues to fragment economically.

Heller (1996) examines the case of the south Indian state of Kerala, where literacy rates, longevity, and infant mortality rates have long been the most favorable on the sub-continent. Tracing the history of state-society relations in Kerala, Heller shows how the state has played a crucial role in bringing about these results, by creating the conditions that enabled subordinate social groups to organize in their collective interest. However, the state in Kerala has also been hostile to foreign investment and the maintenance of infrastructure, which has made it difficult for a healthy and well-educated population to transfer its human capital into greater economic prosperity.

Measurement Tools

Led by a growing body of evidence which shows social capital as a potential contributor to poverty reduction and sustainable development, increasing efforts are being made to identify methods and tools relevant to social capital.

Challenges

This is especially challenging because social capital is comprised of concepts such as "trust", "community" and "networks" which are difficult to quantify. The challenge is increased when one considers that the quest is to measure not just the quantity but also the quality of social capital on a variety of scales.

Social capital researchers aim to identify methods and tools which can quantify and qualify social capital to inform policymakers and stakeholders to enable them to impact existing and create new social capital which could benefit poor people and nations.

Few long-standing surveys were designed to measure "social capital", leaving researchers to compile indexes from a range of approximate items, such as measures of trust in government, voting trends, memberships in civic organizations, hours spent volunteering. Surveys currently being tested will hopefully produce more direct and accurate indicators.

Methods

Measuring social capital may be difficult, but it is not impossible, and several excellent studies have identified useful proxies for social capital, using different types and combinations of qualitative, comparative and quantitative research methodologies. (Woolcock and Narayan, 2000)

How we measure social capital depends on how we define it. The most comprehensive definitions of social capital are multidimensional, incorporating different levels and units of analysis. Trust, civic engagement, and community involvement are generally seen as ways to measure social capital. Depending on the definition of social capital and the context, some indicators may be more appropriate than others.

Once it has been decided which how social capital is to be measured, for example by measuring civic engagement through household surveys, cultural factors may be taken into account in designing the survey instrument. Newspaper readership may be a better indicator of civic engagement in Italy (Putnam 1993) than in India because of the varying literacy rates.

Measuring social capital among the poor, particularly studying the same households over time, is difficult because the poor are often involved in informal work, may not have a long-term address or may move. Ironically, the people who move may be the ones who have social connections.

The surveys must be designed so that the potential respondents do not feel stigmatized. The poor may be particularly skeptical to be open if the interviewers are associated with a government agency whom they do not trust.

Examples

World Values Survey has measured interpersonal trust in 22 countries by asking questions such as: ‘Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people? (Knack and Keefer 1997)

The Social Capital Initiative at the World Bank is currently funding 10 social capital projects which will help define and measure social capital, its evolution and its impact.

"The proposed analytical methods cover a wide range of qualitative and quantitative approaches. These include quantitative methods in formal research designs with use of control groups, econometric analyses calling on instrumental variables and principal component approaches, as well as case studies, qualitative and inductive methods. A variety of approaches was a priority of the project selection process; it should help determine further the relative aptitude of different approaches at apprehending the nature and the determinants of social capital." (Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No.1, The World Bank, April 1998)

Social Capital Social capital refers to those stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people can draw upon to solve common problems. Networks of civic engagement, such as neighborhood associations, sports clubs, and cooperatives, are an essential form of social capital, and the denser these networks, the more likely that members of a community will cooperate for mutual benefit. This is so, even in the face of persistent problems of collective action (tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma etc.), because networks of civic engagement:

foster sturdy norms of generalized reciprocity by creating expectations that favors given now will be returned later; facilitate coordination and communication, and thus create channels through which information about the trustworthiness of other individuals and groups can flow, and be tested and verified; embody past success at collaboration, which can serve as a cultural template for future collaboration on other kinds of problems; increase the potential risks to those who act opportunistically that they will not share in the benefits of current and future transactions. Social capital is productive, since two farmers exchanging tools can get more work done with less physical capital; rotating credit associations can generate pools of financial capital for increased entrepreneurial activity; and job searches can be more efficient if information is embedded in social networks. Social capital also tends to cumulate when it is used, and be depleted when not, thus creating the possibility of both virtuous and vicious cycles that manifest themselves in highly civic and uncivic communities.

The concept of social capital is meant to respond to a variety of problems in the United States today, though clearly its relevance and supporting research is international in scope. These include:

inner-city ills. Urban renewal and public housing policies, along with the exodus of black middle classes from the inner city, have depleted stocks of social capital available, and thus impaired school performance, job referral, drug- and crime-avoidance, and self help. Equal opportunity strategies and social welfare programs are unlikely to succeed unless they can be coupled with ways to replenish remaining stocks of social capital, such as those represented by the black church. Broader economic development strategies, and ones targeted at specific regions and ethnic groups, also compel attention to models in the U.S. and abroad that are based on social networks and industrial districts.

vitality of democratic institutions and civic life. The growing disaffection of citizens from their public institutions may be related to a decline in civic engagement, and contrasts with earlier periods when Americans had plentiful stocks of social capital. The key to making American democracy work, Alexis de Tocqueville noted in his classic Democracy in America, has been the propensity of Americans to form all kinds of civic associations. (See, for example, Tocqueville's Political Associations in America.) Forms and examples of social capital There are many forms of social capital, and the challenge is to locate and mobilize those forms that can contribute to public problem solving and democratic participation. This means not only making clear distinctions between those forms of civic association that are illiberal and exclusivist, and those that are not. It means understanding how homogeneous forms of social capital based on common racial, class and ethnic ties can complement heterogeneous forms that create broader linkages across these boundaries, and how policy designs and institutional partnerships can provide the needed supports. In short, this entails modernizing the Tocquevillian heritage in ways appropriate for a society that is increasingly diverse and complex. Some examples are the following:

congregation-based community organizing. Perhaps the fastest growing form of community organizing today, congregation-based organizing mobilizes existing stocks of social capital in church networks, and generates new stocks across denominations and (sometimes) across ethnic and racial lines. It relies on one-on-one relationship building as the foundation stone for locating and developing community leaders and building trust through a mutual understanding of self interest and values. Political strategy on the larger stage of urban politics also plays a key role in mobilizing social capital in order to empower disadvantaged communities, lay effective claim to resources, and hold elected leaders accountable. And, increasingly, congregation-based organizations also seek to develop new social capital in complex, ongoing partnerships with business allies and public officials, such as COPS and Metro Alliance's Project QUEST job training program in San Antonio and BUILD's attempts to bring an organizing dimension to the Community Building in Partnership project in the Sandtown-Winchester section of Baltimore. The QUEST model also uses church networks to recruit job trainees and vouch for their character and commitment, thus utilizing academic insights on job search networks for an explicit organizing approach to the problem of a changing local economy. (See, for instance, East Brooklyn Churches Build Nehemiah Homes and Baltimore's Commonwealth of Schools.)

civic environmentalism. Civic environmental projects have developed at local, state, and even national levels over the past decade and a half, sometimes on the foundations of national regulatory approaches, and sometimes in response to their deficiencies. Local Leagues of Women Voters, for instance, have developed community education programs on groundwater pollution in an effort to enhance awareness among the general public and within key civic, political, and business institutions, and have used this as a basis for an action agenda entailing specific institutional commitments and new forms of voluntarism, such as elders trained as community monitors. (See, for instance, Rockford League Educates Public for Groundwater Protection.) Civic organizations in the National Estuaries Program, such as Save the Bay in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, engage in similar community education to change norms, develop new sources of monitoring (e.g. fishermen), increase public support for bonds to improve infrastructure, broker good corporate citizen reputations, and collaborate on innovative production and workplace training practices to reduce toxics. (See, for instance, Save the Bay Develops Civic Approach to Estuary Protection.) Working with the EPA's Design for the Environment Project and public interest groups, national trade associations in printing and dry cleaning utilize their networks to generate voluntary development, testing, and diffusion of alternative production techniques to reduce toxics, save jobs and keep smaller businesses competitive. (See, for instance, Printing Trades Collaborate to Reduce Toxics.)

participatory school reform. Various school reform approaches are noteworthy not only for their participatory pedagogies, but for their conception of the schools as the hub of networking of community actors that can support the reform process and the educational experiences of children. The Algebra Project of Bob Moses, Comer schools, Zigler Schools, Essential Schools and District 4 in East Harlem develop various strategies for this: mobilizing networks of parents and developing their leadership capacities; incorporating parents into multidisciplinary teams; bringing adult education and services into school buildings; developing student internships and service learning in community organizations; organizing oral history and other projects around the stories of community leaders; involving community and local business leaders in mentoring. These schools build on the notion of creating a "conspiracy of the entire community" to educate the child, but also on young people's opportunities to do work of real value within community networks and institutions.

county Extension agents. The county Extension system was an important effort to develop social capital in the past, and in some states new efforts are underway to revitalize this mission. Extension agents are coming to realize the limits of service and expert approaches, and coming to rethink their role as catalysts of new community partnerships. Thus, they bring institutional actors together in health services, link church groups and seniors groups, convene self help networks, and provide training so that community volunteers can continue projects without depending on the county agents. They bring together local businesses and banks to provide resources and meeting space for citizen problem solving groups and low-income women's empowerment networks. They help develop the educational materials that civic partners can use in local groundwater protection projects, and engage in the kinds of "public issues education" that develops community deliberative capacities. These efforts draw upon concepts of "citizen politics" and other traditions within community organizing, as well as older traditions within Extension. (See, for instance, County Extension Agents in Alabama Catalyze Community Health Efforts of Citizens.) Some Relevant Issues There are many issues that need to be addressed in refining the social capital framework and developing appropriate organizing and policy tools that build upon it. Several important ones are the following:

the decline of social capital. Robert Putnam has presented compelling evidence for the decline in social capital in the United States over the past generation, measured by a variety of indices of participation in church-related groups, labor unions, PTAs, traditional women's clubs, fraternal organizations, and mainline civic organizations. Verba, Schlozman and Brady's recent study of civic voluntarism presents some data that is consonant with this, but also much that supports Americans' deserved reputation for high levels of involvement in voluntary associations. Of particular note is the evidence that participation has modestly increased at the level of community and local problem solving activities, and that the decrease in voter turnout has not been accompanied by a general decrease in citizen activism, even on campaign related activities. As these and other scholars continue to refine their measures and debate quantitative trend lines, it is important to keep in mind several things. First, we do not know how and whether specific indices of decline in participation have impacted on citizen capacities to innovate to solve problems. Membership in the League of Women Voters may have declined 42 percent since 1969, but local Leagues have developed a whole variety of civic innovations to address environmental and child care issues that were not on the agenda a generation ago. Membership in the national Federation of Women's Clubs is down by more than half, but newer women's groups have addressed issues -- including ones such as domestic violence that were previously masked within old forms of social capital -- by developing grassroots networks, community supports, and educative relationships with criminal justice and social welfare agencies that represent new investments in social capital.

Secondly, and related to this, is that we need to be careful not to interpret the argument for the overall, quantitative decline of social capital to entail a nostalgia for earlier times. This is most obvious when it comes to forms of social capital that were illiberal and socially exclusivist. Their decline (if we could measure this adequately) should be seen as a net gain. But the decline of other forms of social capital, such as bowling leagues, may not be all that significant, if they do not lend themselves to being mobilized for new forms of community problem solving and trust building. The decline of church attendance may be far more significant.

civic innovation and social capital. Wherever one might stand on the issue of overall decline of social capital, it is important to recognize that civic innovation has been occurring over the past several decades in many arenas, and that these innovations represent substantial social learning upon which we might continue to build. The clearest case of this is in civic environmentalism, where there have been overall quantitative increases and much qualitative innovation. In the arena of community organizing and community development there have been substantial qualitative innovation and some measures of quantitative growth (numbers of community organizing projects and networks, linkages with urban officials, capacities for complex partnerships, multiracial organizing), but also broader indices of decline, such as that represented by the exodus of the black middle class from inner-city urban networks. In women's organizations, as noted, there have been innovation and selective participation increases in grassroots networks amidst other indicators of decline, with the overall balance still unclear. In community health and AIDS work, we also see civic innovation that builds social capital. Some forms of civic journalism, such as the Taking Back Our Neighborhoods project of the Charlotte Observer, also have the potential to help build problem solving networks around crime in neighborhoods. Rather than focus on overall quantitative increases or decreases in social capital, where the link to democratic vitality is often speculative, a civic innovation approach asks how social capital and community assets can be mobilized, and in which specific forms to enhance capacities to solve public problems and empower communities. A congregation-based community organizing project that mobilizes the social capital of church networks and the public leadership capacities of grassroots women to empower disenfranchised communities in the urban power structure warrants more attention than simple church-based social capital as such. One that builds new linkages across denominational, class or racial lines, warrants still more, as does one that can do this and engage in complex partnerships with business and political actors. Service unions that build new relational models of organizing based on women's workplace culture and networks, such as the Harvard clerical union, or that develop models of working time flexibility that permit greater integration of paid work with unpaid family and civic commitments, warrant more attention than bowling leagues.

how can public policy support social capital building? While there are some clear examples of how public policy can destroy social capital (e.g. urban renewal projects of the 1950s and 1960s), there is less clarity on how policy can be used to help build it. Putnam's recommendation that government policies be vetted for their indirect effects on social capital is a good starting point. However, his argument that policy should focus on community development, with attention to "religious organizations and choral societies and Little Leagues that may seem to have little to do with politics or economics," seems misplaced, unless we can show the specific ways in which these can be converted to enhanced public problem solving capacities. Competing claims on public resources alone warrant a more targeted approach, not to mention the need to avoid supporting social capital that is illiberal and exclusivist, and that may further compound our problems of governance. It is important to ask how policies designed to support the building of social capital also foster responsible democratic deliberation. A policy that supports the development of environmental justice networks, for instance, may be crucial in building social capital needed to confront environmental racism. But if these networks are acting on the terrain of a Superfund policy design that is highly flawed in the way that it discourages responsible citizen deliberation about costs and risks, then the result may be highly problematic in terms of effective toxics policy, as well as justice among competing worthy claims. On these kinds of issues, social capital ought be complemented by deliberative democracy in a broader framework of "public policy for democracy." (See, for instance, Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland's essay, Civic Environmentalism, especially the section Commuity Empowerment and Public Policy for Democracy.)

Selected Readings Robert Putnam, "The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life," The American Prospect 13 (Spring 1993), 35-42;

Robert Putnam, "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6:1 (January 1995), 65-78;

Robert Putnam, "The Strange Disappearance of Civic America," The American Prospect 24 (Winter 1996). These three essays represent the most accessible overview of the concept of social capital, as well as the specific arguments made for its decline in the United States in the last generation. They have also defined the public discussion of the concept. "The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life," presents a summary of the book-length study of Italy, Making Democracy Work , which shows how centuries-old regional differences in civic culture and social capital impacted on the success of the regional government reforms that were initiated in 1970. This essay also outlines the basic aspects of the concept, and summarizes much social scientific literature that demonstrates its relevance for economic development, urban ills, and ethnic differences.

"Bowling Alone" caught the nation's attention with its quantitative evidence of the steady decline in social capital since the 1960s, as measured by participation in many different kinds of civic and political activities. These trends are especially striking in view of the steady increase in levels of education over the same period. Countertrends -- the growth of new mass-membership organizations, nonprofit service agencies, and "support groups" -- do not offset other quantitative indicators of decline, nor do they substitute qualitatively for the kind of civic connectedness that is being eroded. Several possible explanations are considered.

"The Strange Disappearance of Civic America" provides the most systematic analysis of possible explanations, and dismisses some previously suspected culprits. Among the latter are residential mobility and suburbanization, the rise of the welfare state, race and the civil rights revolution, the time and money squeeze, and the changing role of women. The relative decline in civic involvement is greater for women than for men, but Putnam remains agnostic on how much of this is due to the movement of women into the workforce, the two-career family or to family time squeeze, since participation is down for all categories of women and not just those employed full time.

The breakdown of the traditional family unit plays some modest role, but the main culprit is television. This seems to be the only factor that can account for the steady decline of social capital that began even earlier than previously thought -- the 1940s and 1950s -- and accounts for the phenomenon of a "long civic generation," born between 1910 and 1940, which has not been followed by cohorts with anything approaching its levels of civic engagement.

Francis Fukuyama, Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York: Free Press, 1995. This is a clearly written account of the role of trust in the creation of social capital, with particular attention to economic development. The core argument is that there are high trust and low trust societies and cultures. High trust societies tend to develop greater social capital, and consequently enjoy greater economic growth, particularly in the transition to a post-industrial economy. Likewise, high trust groups and cultures accumulate greater social capital. Fukuyama sees social capital as the glue that holds the otherwise centrifugal structures of the market together. This is an important conservative statement on the relation of social capital to markets. Much of the argument can be gleaned from Chapters 2-5, and 23-26.

Sidney Verba, Kay Schlozman, and Henry Brady, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. This is a major, systematic study of the structure of voluntary activity in America. The authors interviewed more than fifteen thousand Americans about their civic and organizational life. They then took a subsample of around 2,500 activists to try and see what characteristics separate activists from their less active fellow citizens. They find a surprisingly high degree of activity overall, but also find important inequalities among the active along the lines of ethnicity, race and, especially, class. The latter, measured by family income, education and job skills, accounted for the gap in participation between African Americans and Latinos, on the one hand, and Anglo-Whites, on the other. And while the authors note the continuing debate on the extent of civic participation, they find no ambiguity on how the vast increase in money contributions as a form of participation generates "participatory inequality" of voice among Americans. Written primarily for social scientists, this book is an important reference for everyone concerned with civic life. The general reader can recover much of the argument in Chapters 1-4 and 16-17. However, it offers little guidance on how to enhance civic participation, other than warning of further participatory inequalities.

James Coleman, Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. This is a classic statement on the theoretical foundations of trust and social capital. Unfortunately it is one of the most dense and difficult. It is not for a general reader. However, we urge those interested in the theory of social capital to read Chapter 12, "Social Capital" which remains the fullest theoretical statement of this concept on which much of Putnam's work is based. Those interested in trust may want to read Chapter 5, "Relations of Trust," and Chapter 8, "Systems of Trust and Their Dynamic Properties."

Mark Russell Warren, Social Capital and Community Empowerment: Religion and Political Organization in the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1995. This is the most in-depth and perceptive study of community organizing from the perspective of social capital. It examines the Texas network of the IAF, and emphasizes the issues of mobilizing social capital through religious institutions and building new social capital across communities, and particularly across racial lines. It also provides a case study of Project QUEST in San Antonio. The author is currently revising it for publication as a book.

Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland, Social Capital and Civic Innovation: Learning and Capacity Building from the 1960s to the 1990s. This essay, originally presented at the Social Capital session of the American Sociological Association in August 1995, focuses on civic innovation in the environment and community organizing. It argues that there has been significant innovation and capacity building, even amidst some indicators of social capital depletion, and argues for an approach focused on the specificity and complexity of public problem areas.

Prepared by Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland, who are, respectively, editor-in-chief and research director of the Civic Practices Network.

潜龙：

社会资本与中国 我感觉中国的社会资本还是比较充裕的，祖祖辈辈能把国家这个大企业做这么大，而且还是单一制政权组织形式，凝聚力，整合力，向心力都属上乘，在很长一端时间内我们都应归于“高信任度社会”之列。

Kielboat：

福山恰恰把中国归到世界的中等社会资本国家之列－－主要是因为有传统因素的支撑，这点，潜龙对传统人际－社会关系的强调是对的，－－很幸运的没有与东欧等前社会主义国家为伍居于社会资本不足、低社会信任度国家。福山的分类我是赞同的，也是目前社会学界的共识：涉及社会资本的形态问题，中国的社会资本形态需要高级化，向民主导向的，基于社区、社团等等共同体建立新的社会资本增量和质的改善，否则，原有社会资本也必将被恶劣的政治伦理侵蚀，导致目前国内的种种社会坏像，如暴力化、冷漠化、投机主义泛滥等等。对东欧国家的社会资本严重不足，我也有切身感受。

牧师羽良：

福山的归类里，中国大陆和意大利西西里地区都是低信用的地区。 郑也夫先生在他的《信任》一书也剖析过这个问题。

北望：

韦森说欧洲除了意大利之外基本都可将文化归于个人主义，我忽然想到如果中国也可以归结为社群主义的话，有没有可能得出这个假说“社群主义基础之上的地区比个人主义传统之上的地区信用要差呢？”，这背后又有什么逻辑呢？

那天史教授也谈到这个问题，讲到格雷夫，他用了温州的例子来解释格雷夫的观点。 温州人在外边很讲信用，他们可以将生意做到全世界，但是外边的人很少去温州做生意、投资。

Kielboat：

信任的缺失与以不信任为基础的结构 孙立平 来源：公法评论

有人讲了这样两个故事： 一个人觉得他现在自己的左手都不相信右手，“左手帮右手挠痒痒，右手想，挠得那么舒服，不知用心何在。右手帮左手擦肥皂，左手想，搓得那么起劲，然后要干甚么？两只手端一碗热汤，左手想，我得自己端住，别指望右手；右手也同样这么寻思。结果，害得他多花了一倍的劲。 一个人在儿子三四岁时，给他上了一堂启蒙课：儿子要喝水，他给了一杯。儿子喝了一大口，烫得哭了起来。他说，谁让你不试试烫不烫，甚么都得自己试，谁也别信，爸爸也不能信。 故事的本身显得有点荒谬。但如果我们将其中的角色换成我们市场中做生意的两个商人，恐怕这个故事就显得普通而又平常了。甚至在其他的社会场所，类似的逻辑也并非完全不存在，差别只是程度不同罢了。近些年来，我国社会生活中信任的缺失问题，已经引起人们的严重关注。事实上，信任是社会生活的最基本的基础。如果没有了最起码的信任，可能我们的生活就会寸步难行。 比如，我们到菜摊上买菜。你说我要两斤西红柿。往往是，卖菜的小贩给你称了两斤，就倒在了你手里拿着的口袋里。如果这时候你不承认口袋里的西红柿是小贩刚刚倒进来的，小贩几乎没有任何办法证明那西红柿是他刚刚倒进来的。但一般地说，这样的情况不会发生。小贩会不加思索地将西红柿倒进去，而你也不会赖帐。这是因为他对你有着基本的信任。然后小贩会说：两斤西红柿总共2元钱。你说没零钱，接着就把一张50元的钞票递给给了小贩，然后等着他给你找零钱。下面的情节是非常重要的：小贩随手就将50元的整钞仍到了钱匣子里，然后给你找零钱。如果这个时候小贩说，你还没给我钱呢。你有办法吗？你有什么办法能够证明钱匣子里那张50元的整钞，就是你刚才给卖菜的小贩的？如果有人让你说出那张钞票的编号，从而证明那张钞票是你的，你十有八九说不出来。但在日常生活中，这样的事情也绝少会发生。为什么？因为人们之间有着基本的信任。这样的故事说明，哪怕是在我们最司空见惯的日常生活中，信任这个东西都是须臾不可离开的。如果离开了基本的信任，像在菜摊上买菜这样每天都要发生的日常生活活动，都是没有办法进行的。 现在要提出的一个问题是，在一个社会中如果出现了信任结构缺失的情况，这个社会的社会生活会变得怎样？许多的研究已经表明，在社会信任缺失的情况下，交易的成本会加大。比如，在我们举的买菜的例子中，如果没有基本的信任作为基础，交易也不是完全没有可能进行，比如在交易的每个环节上都订立书面的协议，或者都要有共同承认的证人在场。但这样一来，交易的成本就会大大增加。在我们的社会中，由于信任结构的缺失，从而使得社会交易成本加大，并进而影响到社会经济活动顺利进行的例子，可以说屡见不鲜。在商人和商人之间，首先要把对方假设为一个骗子，否则就可能上当受骗；在消费者和商人之间，凡是要购买一个大一点的东西，总要先绷紧一根弦：可别掉进陷阱里；在社会的公共生活中，官方的统计数字你不敢完全相信，报纸上的报道你不敢完全相信。这样，人们几乎在做每件事情的时候，都要向本文开始故事中那端汤的手一样，多用上一倍甚至不止一倍的力气。 问题还不仅仅如此。 在《信任论》一书中，著名社会学家郑也夫曾经分析过信任结构的缺失与秘密社会甚至黑手党的关系。郑也夫教授指出，在一些地方，秘密社会甚至黑手党的泛滥，是与社会中信任结构的缺失密切联系在一起的。由于人们不相信用常规的，法律的方式来解决问题，就会转而求助于秘密社会甚至黑社会。而这恰恰是秘密社会乃至黑手党能够滋生的基础。他举了一个例子：在黑手党闻名世界的意大利的西西里，在发生偷盗时，如向警方报告，75%的情况是无所作为，15%能找到罪犯，只有10%能追回赃物；如找黑手党调节，只有5%未获成功，当然被盗人要拿出被盗财物的1/4到1/3供调节人和盗贼分享。 对意大利西西里以及其他一些地方的黑手党，学者们已经进行了许多的研究，他们将黑手党称之为“不信任的代价”。他们发现，在这些地方，存在着一系列令人遗憾的现象：即使能够给双方带来利益，人们也不合作；人们用受害的手段竞争；在某些场合，即使人们能够从竞争中得到相当大的收益，他们也不这么做。现在的问题是：这是由于人们缺少理性吗？学者的答案是否定的。他们认为，黑手党是对信任普遍缺失的反应。而这种信任的缺失，是在复杂的历史上形成的。他们发现，这些地方在西班牙统治之前，就存在这样的一些特征：顺从而不是反抗统治、贵族贪图享乐、法庭对贵族卑躬曲膝、将个人利益置于公众利益之上、普遍的欺骗狡猾和偏袒、犯罪和谋杀等。而在西班牙统治时期，这种信任结构的缺失被进一步放大和严重化了。有学者指出，“西班牙人不仅为达到统治目的而利用不信任，他们也教被统治的人民这么做，并把它一代一代向下传”。在西班牙统治期间，一直实行“分而治之”和“使之贫穷”的政策，在不同地区和不同群体的人民之间制造不信任和仇恨，特别是在那不勒斯和西西里人之间制造仇恨。在这个期间，存在着一种对信任结构的故意的破坏。也就是说，它一方面掠夺着属国的财富，另一方面也掠夺着属国的“美德”。 然而，这种对社会信任的破坏是一个相当精致而复杂的过程。因为对于一个外来的统治者来说，他既要“瓦解一个社会的信任”（这有利于他的统治），但同时又要“保证它成其为社会所需的宏观条件和微观条件”（这是统治的基础）。按照多利亚的分析，其具体的做法包括，在政治与社会结构上，“封授了大批的新贵族，新贵族的信任不再是社会之间的，而是直接面向国王”。同时，这“也非常有助于在旧贵族政府中产生敌意和动乱”。在文化上以西班牙的行为规范来取代公众信任所依赖的旧规范，“‘习俗的变异’成功地产生了那些保证共和国自身继续瓦解的法律条令”。正如帕格顿所指出的，“实际上，这种文化价值观的变迁所带来的，是一个建立在所有成员相互信任基础上的道德社会的消亡，取而代之的是一个建立在怀疑和利己、傲慢和自大基础上的贵族专制的社会”。 而帕格顿更对西班牙统治者摧毁信任的具体技术进行了深入的分析。在信任建立和维持的过程中，信息量是一个非常重要的因素。“因此西班牙人为了破坏那不勒斯的信任社会，便有计划地减少公民可得到的信息量”。于是，将政府的活动对公众保密，在大学中教授非怀疑性的课程，倡导宗教的盲从等。于是，神秘化和信息的缺乏一起，导致了信任的毁灭，使得人们无法正确地理解他们的公民责任。在这样的情况下，结果，在西班牙的统治下，那不勒斯成了这样的一个社会：贵族阶层以其地位本来应该对共同体承担责任，但这地位却只给他们带来无知和傲慢；法律文本本应使执法人主持公正，却变成了对无休止的高价诉讼的特许；公众节日本应像罗马竞技一样鼓励平民对勇敢和对祖国的热爱，也变得只是消遣和放纵的场合。因此，“上层愤怒地对待下层，因为上层认为尊敬是他应得之物，下层却认为上层骗取了他们的尊敬；而下层也同样对待上层，因为他们认为上层人物都自视甚高，这样在各阶层之间就既无团结也无友爱。”每个人都不再关心其同胞的幸福，而只关心自己的和近亲的私人目的。在经济活动领域中，则充满着交易的不可测性、协议的不确定性，从而使得非个人的广泛合作不可能进行，对超过群体外的人普遍不信任。经济活动领域信任的广泛缺失，必然造成商业的凋零和经济的落后。 从某种意义上来说，黑手党就是对这种信任普遍缺失状况的反应。人是理性的。在这种自私和缺乏信任的社会中，人们唯一要做的就是，如何使自己处于有利的位置。而且，由于最基本的规则和信任的不存在，人们无法用正常“市场竞争”的手段来达到上述目标。在这样的争夺中，他们的最现实的目标不是要战胜对手，而是要伤害对手。“人们唯一的目标，就是从比自己地位高的人那里寻找特权，向跟自己地位相同的人强行要求特权，并把最小的一部分分给地位低的群体”。而黑手党的组织和行动方式，无疑是最适应这种环境的。“任何时候，黑手党都可以被看成是一个成功的群体，或者是几个群体的成功的联合。它的成功不仅在于它能够防御性地应对信任的缺乏，而且也能使用残忍的、必要的暴力手段，通过不断地排外，把不信任变成有利的行动。它最重要的行为就是在尽可能大的领域内垄断尽可能多的资源。”而且就整个社会来说，由黑手党来控制经济秩序和社会生活，尽管“交易成本要比一个信任社会中要高，但回报又比一点交易也没有要高一些”。 黑手党不同于一般的犯罪团伙，黑手党的真正意义是在于，它不仅仅是一个独特的社会群体，更重要的是，是它造就了一种新的社会秩序，或者说造就了一种以强化不信任为机制、以暴力为基础的相对稳定的社会结构。正如甘姆贝塔所指出的，在一个深度不信任社会中，不管价值和文化规范是什么，强制和经济利益能在那些最接近黑手党的人中产生理性的适应行为。在这里，暴力成了合作的最主要的机制，同时大量存在的黑帮规范又减少了暴力的使用。但仅仅有暴力的威胁还是不够的，合作必须依赖于经济利益这个更强有力的武器。在群体内部，在面临被捕或生命的威胁时，团结一致能够减少违法活动的风险。在群体外部，可以形成更广泛的经济联系：如通过腐蚀公务员、向参选者提供支持等方式交换利益。而这就是黑手党参与社会生活的最基本的原则。 因此，在面对社会信任严重缺失的状况时，我们面临的一个挑战就是：如何防止社会生活“西西里化”或“那不勒斯化”。近些年来我国社会生活中黑社会势力的猖獗，使我们感到，这种担心决不是多余的。

断刀！：

关于信任问题的确是个很好的研究课题。我不完全赞同福山的观点，我觉得张维迎教授的分析更值得我的信任。另外我也觉得张维迎的嗅觉很灵敏，我甚至认为张维迎在某种程度上在引领着中国经济学界一大批制度经济学人的努力方向（至少对我的影响是如此）。同时，在很长的时期内他也历史地注定成为人们攻击的标靶。所以我曾经在和朋友的交谈中把张维迎称为我国经济学界的“标帜”。标即他永远难以逃出被人攻击的命运，有些人总想通过批到他而一举成名；帜即他总引领着很大一部分向前跑，成为很多人赶超的目标，在一定程度上为中国经济学界的发展做出了自己独特的贡献。

下面是张维迎教授在今年的“中国改革和新制度经济学研讲班”（上海）上的报告提纲。我把他整理出来，以飨朋友们。 报告一：寻找信任的制度结构 报告人：张维迎（北京大学光华管理学院副院长） 时间：7月历1日上午8：20——11：30

一、你为什么参加这次报告会？ 张维迎教授指出，我们来参加此次报告会，一则是基于对天则所的信任，上海大学的信任，二则基于对张维迎教授本人的信任。此外还有对其他一些事物的信任，如上海的警察等。 二、信任是交易的前提 张维迎教授认为，没有信任就没有市场，没有信任，就不会有劳动分工、社会资本，就不会有经济增长；人与与人间没有信任就没有授权，企业与企业之间，国家与国家之间如果没有信任就没有合作。 三、中国的信任危机 张维迎教授列举了中国农业银行为储户提供验钞机，人民币问题、发票、饭店结帐、购买电器、股票市场以及茅于轼老师的保姆学校等事例说中国目前存在着信任危机。 四、中国是一个缺乏信任的社会吗？ 张维迎教授首先部分地肯定了美国经济学家福山在《信任》一书中的解释：华人社会人们之间缺乏信任，美国、日本、德国等的信任度高于华人社会，如香港、台湾；华人企业家只信任与自己有血缘关系的人而不信任家庭和亲属以外的人，所以没有职业经理人阶层。 同时，张维迎教授认为，中国人在本性上并非就一定缺乏信任。张维迎教授指出，如果中国人本性上缺乏信任，为什么能把国家做大？为什么皇帝愿意用外人管理国家而不实行“分封制”（用自家人管理国家）？并且，纸币的使用，山西票号等案例说明中国人本性上并非缺乏信任。为了弄清原因，张维迎教授对信任做了独特的分类。 五、信任的分类 从来源进行划分，信任可以分为基于特征的信任，基于制度的信任、基于信誉的信任，从对象进行划分，信任可以划分为对个人的信任，对组织的信任，对政府的信任。 六、中国社会的信任何以被破坏？ 张维迎教授认为首先归咎于长期以来对中华文化的否定，文化破坏导致了规则的破坏，其次在于中国长期缺乏合理的产权制度，因为产权是信任的载体，无恒产，则无信任；再次在于中国政府行为的短期化和缺乏约束。 七、重建信任制度的艰难道路 张维迎教授认为： 第一、加快合理的产权制度的形成； 第二、规范政府的行为； 第三、健全体制； 第四、规范中介机制； 第五、提高民众的教育水平。

kielboat ：

张维迎只是其国际学术的联系比较紧密而已，呵呵。 学术不自由，英语不好，自己不用功钻研，多读书，多看国际学术期刊，经费不够，。。。就得被这样的学术中介牵着鼻子跑。 这里并没有任何贬低张的意思。现有学术体制问题大了。刚贴的那篇北大外哲所的文章就很说明问题。 另外，看不出张对信任的解释有什么新东西，或者与福山有什么不同。 这几年，关于信任的经济学文献已经可用汗牛充栋来形容了，建议大家自己上网先找些，自己阅读更要紧。

萧敢：

K博士说的很在理，我一直追随的路子是Santafe Institution的一批人在做的演进博弈。 代表人物有Bowls,Gintis，Fehr。另一条可以追随的路子是L.Samuelson

我比较喜欢micro level的分析，虽然对梁漱鸣，费孝通深感敬仰，但我不会做macro level和构建框架的工作。

李茶：

关于华人社会的社会资本、信任等问题，港台的学者做得较多。杨国枢、乔健、黄光国等有不少相关研究。国内的学者，做国民性的有沙莲香、做理论的有郑也夫，做实证的有沙的学生彭泗清等，除沙已退休，后两人正当其年，前景看好。

萧敢：

Paul DiMaggio - "Cultural Capital and School Success: The Impact of Status Culture Participation on the Grades of the U.S. High School Students"

They note that past research has shown that neither family background nor measured ability are good predictors of variation in student grades. Put forth that aspects of cultural style are only loosely associated with family background.

He uses Weber's concept of status culture. Elite status groups generating or appropriating their won specific, distinctive traits. Elite groups are defined as collectivities bound together by personal ties and a common sense of honor based upon and reinforced by shared conventions. This shared culture

aids group efforts to monopolize for the group as a whole scarce social, economic and cultural resources. This is accomplished by providing coherence to existing social networks and facilitating the development of comembership, respect, and affection out of which new networks are constructed. Status cultures are seen as resources used to promote intergenerational status persistence.

Bourdieu's concept of cultural capital is used. Cultural capital is defined as instruments for the appropriation of symbolic wealth socially designated as worthy of being sought and possessed. Cultural capital is inculcated in childhood and is recognized by those who also posses the same cultural capital.

Weber put forth the idea that as the market system corroded the status cultures. Instead people begin to choose from a handful of status cultures. This brings forth the idea of status culture participation. This puts forth the idea of status as a cultural process and not an attribute of individuals. A person can display various cultural resources that are appropriate for different settings.

A series of hypotheses are proposed:

1) Measures of cultural capital are related to one another in a manner that suggests the existence of a coherent status culture of which they are elements.

2) Cultural capital is positively related to school success, in particular to high school grades.

3) Cultural Capital mediates the relationship between family background and school outcomes.

3a) Cultural capital's impact on school success is largely net that of family background.

4) Returns to cultural capital are highest for students from high status families and least to students from low status families. (cultural reproduction)

4b) Returns to cultural capital are highest for students who are least advantaged. (cultural mobility model)

In measuring cultural capital student self reports are used. High culture is the point of reference. There are several reasons for this, 1) classical music etc. represent the most popular form of prestigious art forms, 2) to the extent that there is a common cultural currency in the elites, high culture best represents this, 3) if cultural capital is not supposed to depend on the school system, then because high culture receives little attention it is appropriate and 4) high culture is an element of elite culture that teachers regard as legitimate.

Three things were measured.

Attitude: students rated their interest in specific artistic activities and occupations on a scale.

Activities: based on questions about the extent to which students have created visual arts, performed publicly, attended arts events, or read literature.

Information: tests designed to tap familiarity, appreciation, and historical knowledge about literature, music and art.

Four separate factors are identified. Each represents a type of cultural resource and each represents a coherent set of interrelated traits:

Cultural interests: all the attitude measures except interest in attending symphony concerts and cultivated self-image.

Cultural Information: Three cultural information tests scores.

Cultural Capital: this includes both activity and attitude measures.

Middlebrow activities: non-high culture creative pursuits.

The expectation that knowledge of one type of high culture will be related to another type. If a person has mastery of one, then they will be familiar with others. The results indicate that cultural information test scores in different cultural disciplines are strongly associated. Therefore students

who engage in one kind of cultural activity are more likely than others to be interested in any other high cultural activity.

Factor 1 should have less of an effect on grades than factor 2 or 3, because it measures attitudes rather than actual behavior or information. Factor two is expected to have a major impact because students can display what they know and in a manner that teacher will reward and recognize. Factor three would have the greatest impact if cultural capital is a set of interests, dispositions, behaviors, and styles that re learned and enacted socially. Factor 4 should have very little impact.

Results:

1) Students cultural information test scores were largely determined by some underlying set of aptitudes, skills, and motivations that lead students to do well or poorly on tests.

2) Cultural capital is positively related to high school grades.

3) Cultural interests and middlebrow activities have no significant impact on grades.

These results support the expectation that both the cultural reproduction and mobility models have. This is that participation in prestigious status cultures has a significantly positive impact on grades. There is no support for the idea that differences in grades are the result of academic achievement

motivation. There is no real evidence of the extent that cultural capital plays in mediating the relationship between school success and family background.

For women the cultural reproduction model fits better. Returns to cultural capital are greatest to women from high status families and least to women from low status families. For men it is a different story. The positive impact of cultural capital on grades is restricted to students from lower and middle status households. These results are more in line with the cultural mobility model. These results were part of an overall pattern that suggested that cultural capital plays different roles for men and women.

Women participated more in high cultural activities. The individual culture measures were more strongly related to ability scores for men. The specific attitude, activity, and information measures were, in every case, more strongly correlated with family background for girls than for boys. Lastly

the interrcorrelations among the cultural measures were stronger for high status girls than for lower status girls. No such differences were seen among boys. High cultural interests might have been prescribed for teenage girls and not for boys.

Due to the fact that there was a weak correlation between cultural capital and family background a couple of points are drawn. The first is that the data provided a limited amount of information. Secondly, however, it shows that educational attainment is a very imperfect proxy for cultural capital. A third possible lesson is that single measures of cultural capital or participation in status cultures are inadequate.

Although these limitations are present, the data does reflect that cultural capital has an impact on high school grades. What also needs to be taken away from this study is the image of status as a process.

回头重读社会资本的文献,感受很深。

叶臻：

高信任度和社会资本不是等同的概念 高信任度和社会资本不是等同的概念。两者不能一概而论。信任度在一定程度上在于对权力，组织，性别，意识形态的认可和服从。社会资本则是达到目的的手段。

社会资本的文献已经很多了。只是觉得高信任度和社会资本应分开来讨论。胡乱举一例：甲在黑社会圈子里有很好的信用，但如果他被关到监狱里了，社会资本就要让位于权力。他可能还有很高的交易信用度（囚犯间）。但是，在监狱长看来，他是没有什么社会资本的。 社会资本可能还有一种互相模仿，互相拍马屁的功用吧。后来的跟着前面的，只要是楷模，不管好坏，总有跟屁虫。达到了一定数量，就成了什们什么族，什们什么阶级。

萧敢：

叶兄，举例不是定义的方法。社会资本是有很多定义，但社会学概念众说纷纭，因此在讨论前明确定义是最重要的。 社会学（或者现在流行的所谓行为学）就要对行为做出解释。例如你说的模仿，有无数文献对此作出了解释。 对信任度的研究是研究社会资本的一种方法。也许它还不是很全面，需要我们用新的方法从新的角度来研究社会资本。

Kielboat：

信任度和社会资本是相通的，而且前者是后者的一个重要指标，并可间接证明社会资本在一个社会内部不应是异质化的，而应是同质的。楼上叶兄的理解恰恰是基于社会资本的异质化，当然这也是中国传统－前现代“社会资本”（其实不能说是社会资本，就像中国传统社会经纪形态不能用资本主义来定义一样，只是社会资本的某一种产生基础，有发生学和形态学的意义）的一个特征，所以产生了低信任度。

油漆：

我认为孤立地谈社会资本没有多大意义，我关心的是资本的社会化问题。

要理解资本，首先要理解什么是成本。人们的生产活动有两个方面，一个人与自然的关系，一个是人与社会的关系，从前者考察人们的经济活动，关注的是生产成本问题，而从后者考察人们的经济活动，关注的是交易成本的问题。交易成本存在的前提是什么？是人与人之间关系的不确定性。因为人们无论是组织生产还是进行贸易，都是以一定的确定性关系为基础的。这种确定性可能是通过强制形成的，也可能是通过协商形成的，但本质上都属于交易范畴。显然，这种交易是需要付出代价的。如果代价过高的话，无法实现交易，也就无法实现或维持确定性的关系，生产与贸易也就无法进行。需要强调的是，在经济活动中，不确定性与确定性，不确定性是第一性的。为什么？因为历史地看，人们之间关系总是从隔绝走向交往，从孤立的存在走向社会的存在。推动这种历史发展的是生产力，因此，生产力越发达，人们之间的交往也就越频繁，人们之间关系的不确定性也就越强，而经济社会活动对确定性的追求也就越强烈，人们也就越需要降低经济社会活动过程中的交易成本。

那么，资本是什么？在马克思那里有两个定义，一个是作为物的资本特殊，一个是作为社会关系的资本一般。前者具体说，就是可以带来剩余价值的价值，后者具体说则是特定历史条件下的生产关系。我们一般从前者来理解资本，从这个角度说，资本要实现的功能就是通过暂时的付出获得更大利益。这个暂时的付出是什么，无它，就是成本。而从人与社会的关系的方面来看，资本要实现的功能就是降低交易成本（降低成本也就意味着带来收益），从而保证在相对确定的社会关系的基础上实现生产与贸易活动的发展。从这个意义上，也就可以理解马克思为什么把资本的本质归结为特定历史条件下的社会关系了。需要强调的是，作为特定社会关系、生产关系的资本并不是静态的，因为随着生产力的发展，人们之间的社会关系总是不断变化的，或者说，确定性总是不断被不确定性所取代，因此资本只有不断地发展，才能实现自身的功能。

资本怎样才能实现自身的功能？或者说资本应当如何发展才能不断地增殖？根本的一条就是资本的运作能够与社会关系的变动相适应，能够不断地把生产与贸易活动中的不确定性转化为确定性，而从人与社会的关系方面来说，就是能够不断地降低生产与贸易活动的交易成本。这样一个过程就是资本社会化的过程。关于资本社会化的问题是马克思资本论第三卷的重要内容。当然，马克思所针对的仅仅是以物质资本为主要形式的资本主义生产总过程，而且他强调了这种形式的社会化的历史局限性。但是不管怎么说，马克思的分析已经充分证明了一点资本社会化与生产力发展之间的重要关系。

综上所述，一句话，资本只有通过不断的社会化才能够实现自身的功能，它才能成为资本。

回来说信任的问题就很简单了。从把社会关系的不确定性转化为确定性的角度来说，信任的确是一种资本，一种关系资本或者社会资本。但是这里需要强调的是，与其孤立的说信任是一种资本，不如说信任是一种生产活动，是一种创新行为，是一种投资行为。我信任你，首先意味着我们之间的关系存在不确定性，当然我可以有很多理由相信你，但是这种不确定性是前提条件，要不人们怎么说“人心隔肚皮”呢？：）我为什么要信任你？因为我有求于你，我需要你的帮助，我想和你做交易，甚至我需要你的某种付出，用奈特的话说，我是想获得某种“利润”。所以，信任是资本实现其自身功能的一个环节而已。：）进一步说，当人们说这个社会缺少信任的时候，实际上并不是一种社会资本减少了，而是社会的不确定性增强了，人们对信任的需要更强烈了而已（当然，也可能是人们需要用更加制度化的方式来实现不确定性向确定性的转化）。只有从这个意义上，我们才能用一种发展的眼光来认识社会资本的意义问题。这同时也说明，在我们这个社会，在社会资本问题的背后，更重要的是资本的社会化问题。

话又说回来，当一种确定性的关系已经不合时宜的时候，再维持这种确定性就不再是一种社会资本而是一种社会成本了。所以，与人处事，不能轻易信任别人，也不能轻易地接受别人的信任。要么怎么说“识时务者为俊杰”呢？：）

如果说我对社会资本理论不尊重的话，我并非始作俑者。不知各位对阿罗宣称“强烈建议放弃资本的这个隐喻，以及‘社会资本’这个词”，对奥斯特罗姆宣称“把社会资本当作一时的狂热，是很不幸的”的观点，有何观感。 这里强调一下，我并非想否定社会资本理论。林南先生的“social capital”曾经是我重点阅读的书籍。但是我想，首先我们需要搞明白社会资本为什么是一种资本，同时我反对孤立地考察社会资本问题。 当然，大家可能认为我对资本社会化的理解是多么的外行。的确，我对资本社会化问题的关注与时下流行的似乎驴唇不对马嘴，不过我觉得并不冲突。我恰恰想说明一点，人们现在大谈如何进行产权多元化的时候往往忽视了产权多元化的实质。产权本身就是不可能100%清晰界定的，重要的是这个过程，这个过程中难道我们只能看见金融大腭、风度翩翩的CEO的身影吗？ 或许我的理解是无稽的，但是我依然强调一点，要么你就一针见血指出我的鄙陋之处，要么就闭嘴。呵呵。

牧师羽良：

你谈的跟别人讨论的是两码事。 至今我没想明白你总把产权问题联系到这个话题有什么必要。产权不可能100％的清晰界定从张五常到巴泽尔早就重申过无数遍，我想这里还不至于让你来普及这个东西吧？ 所以，改动一下你的话：要么你就搞清楚别人在说什么，要么就闭嘴。呵呵，我做人不厚道也是被逼出来的。

油漆：

肯尼思·阿罗：放弃“社会资本”，载于曹荣湘编：《走出囚徒困境：社会资本与制度分析》，上海三联书店2003年版225~228页。

的确，我所说的和别人说的有很大不同，而且还仅仅是一个初步的思路，但是我不认为我所讨论的不是一个问题，只是当大家都习惯了钻进社会资本的被窝去一窥究竟的时候，我力图站在床边欣赏一个活的整体而已。比如，我最后分析的信任问题。 补充一下，昨天读《制度、契约与组织：从新制度经济学角度的透视》，有一篇论文的观点就是强调不信任具有的积极意义。 我并没有说产权不能100%界定是我的发现，我强调的是如何认识产权界定的过程。我对制度创新的定义就是：在不确定性条件下通过资本的社会化降低交易成本的过程。 牧师先生，坦率地说，我没觉得你做人不厚道。这个问题，我也不关心。

Liucunf：

受文化的影响，中国的市场机制还不太完善，制度对组织或个体的约束还不严格。企业通过建立社会网络，利用内含的默契、惯例、信任以及惩罚机制来维护大家的共同利益，从而使市场行为得以延续。例如，对很多企业而言，对交易合同的重视程度可能还不如对“内部圈子”信任的重视程度。由此，我们就能很容易地理解我国温州的小商品生产群富有活力的原因。企业的社会网络是一个组织通过社会交往形成的域，代表了市场经济中处于纯粹的经济的交易和在一个企业组织中完全一体化之间的一种中间管理模式，温州模式是社会网络价值的最直接体现。企业的社会资本就是企业通过社会交往而建立的社会网络以及通过这个网络摄取稀缺资源的能力，它存在于企业网络中，是分析企业网络产生和发展及发挥效用的解释性概念。Granovetter在研究中指出，东亚强调人际关系文化的国家，如日本，企业之间以及企业和员工之间的合作关系等都是用传统主流经济学很难解释的现象。他认为，这些都是由于没有把经济活动放在具体的社会关系和网络背景下来看待的结果。由此可见，企业社会网络理论也是一种符合中国独特文化的研究方向，它将为我们在借鉴西方管理理论的基础上，形成中国特色的管理理论并运用于实践提供强有力的工具。但运用社会网络经营企业要以不与现存制度相抵触，不损坏全社会的利益为前提。

Kielboat：

这两年这个题目真是非常热，新文献极多。

liucunf ：

新文献是比较多，但基本上是概念性的，方法上还是比较少。社会网络理论是经济社会学的概念，上世纪90年代西方才开始把它拿来研究企业问题，从目前来看，发展的还比较慢，还没有主流的理论与方法，可能的原因是社会网络比较复杂，在不同的制度和不同的文化下，社会网络对企业的影响是不同的。还有，需要大量的社会调查，周期长，困难大。经济行为镶嵌于社会结构或企业镶嵌于社会网络中的观点正逐渐受到人们的重视。将社会网络理论应用于企业管理是时代的要求，也是中国特有文化的要求。较为重要的是，要尽快形成一种比较完整的、对企业管理有现实指导意义的、可操作的企业网络理论与技术方法，为企业在网络环境下获取竞争优势提供有效的理论指导，为社会资源获得最优配置做出贡献。

Kielboat：

没有那么有效的指导意义，也不可能有那么重要的贡献。 发展的不慢了，主流方法当然有，不会只有支流。

粗略看了前面的讨论，不乏精彩言论，但是似乎是“无主题变奏”。能否理出一个清晰的讨论提纲来呢？或者针对某个问题先行讨论？而且，我注意到上面文献只有泛泛的分析，并没有实证研究。

我觉得有几个问题是应该搞清楚的：

1、不同领域的学者们是如何定义和测度“社会资本”的？能否归纳出一个图表？

2、社会资本对经济增长的推动作用有哪些实证研究？研究方法和指标？

3、国内哪些人做了规范的社会资本的应用研究？

4、社会资本又来源于什么呢？社会资本与非正式制度的关系是什么？