Smith and Kulynych (2002) believed that the phrase “social capital” has a broad, pervasive, and honorific meaning and that the term blurs many distinctions which adversely affect the scholarly inquiry, whatever its implicit or explicit normative concerns are. On the contrary, Inkeles (2000) suggested that the term capital is too limiting and suggested rather the use of the term social or communal resources because capital as an element of production of goods and services not only necessitates goods but also social support, physical and social security, freedom of expression, and opportunities to develop which is not covered by the term capital.
Smith and Kulynych (2002) believed that the word capital has a too broad, pervasive, and honorific meaning and that the term blurs many distinctions which adversely affects the scholarly inquiry, whatever its implicit or explicit normative concerns. Inkeles (2000, p. 20) suggested that the term capital is too limiting and would rather use the term social or communal resources. The author argued this on the basis of: ‘capital being an element of production, in particular the production of goods, but also services. We want not only goods and serves but also social support, physical and social security, freedom of expression, opportunities to develop ourselves and a host of these outcomes not captured by the idea of goods and services’.
Piazza-Georgi (2002) argues that capital produces income and encompasses the non-consumable but depreciating inputs into the production process. Castle (2002) adds other characteristics of capital regarding usefulness and durability.
Piazza-Georgi (2002) states that capital produces income and encompasses the non-consumable, but depreciating, inputs into the production process. The author supported Schmid (2000a) stating that capital is a productive resource that is the result of investment (Piazza-Georgi 2002). Castle (2002) adds that other characteristics of capital are usefulness and durability.
Social capital is different from other forms of capital in that it resides in social relationships whereas other forms of capital revolve around the individual (Robison et al., 2002).
Social capital is different from other forms of capital in that it resides in social relationships whereas other forms of capital can reside in the individual (Robison et al. 2002).
Certainly, it is the use of the term capital that makes the concept attractive to such a wide range of people given the blending together of sociology and economics (Adam & Roncevic, 2003).
Certainly, it is the use of the term capital that makes the concept attractive to such a wide range of people given the bringing together of sociology and economics (Adam and Roncevic 2003).
Coleman defined social capital by its function (enabling social action) as a variety of different entities which all consist of some aspect of social structure and facilitate certain actions of actors whether personal or corporate.
‘Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure’ (Coleman 1988, p. S98).
