Social Networks, Collective Action and Public Policy: The Embeddedness Idea Reconsidered
The theory of social capital is frequently criticised for its negative aspects given that social networks do not always support economic development and democracy (Portes 1998). The literature of collective action shows how game theory can help to explain such unwanted effects, because ‘in a social...
Saved in:
Published in | Networks, Trust and Social Capital pp. 131 - 154 |
---|---|
Main Author | |
Format | Book Chapter |
Language | English |
Published |
Routledge
2005
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISBN | 9780754636366 0754636364 |
DOI | 10.4324/9781315248158-15 |
Cover
Summary: | The theory of social capital is frequently criticised for its negative aspects given
that social networks do not always support economic development and democracy
(Portes 1998). The literature of collective action shows how game theory can help
to explain such unwanted effects, because ‘in a social dilemma, actors may
sometimes find it attractive to utilise social relations for personal ends that are
unrelated to or even in conflict with collective goals’ (Flache 1996, p. 3). Another,
less explored weak point in the theory of social capital concerns the relationship
between social capital and public policies (cf. Montgomery et al. 2001). For
instance, research in industrial districts has shown how social capital can be a
crucial resource for local development,1 as well as that the collective-action
approach does not necessarily benefit everybody. There is no systematic
exploration, however, of the role of public policies in social-capital creation,2
although the subject is of major importance today. The crisis of the industrial
districts (Cossentino et al. 1996) and the new role of the state in economic growth,
require finding out the mechanisms with which public policies can increase local
social capital. The most interesting point here is one that has hardly been
considered, namely the deliberate promotion of social capital through socialengineering by the state. So, ‘if social capital is a self-organising system with many
actors connected in an amorphous web or network, it cannot be controlled with the
tool kit of rational utilitarian instrumental planning* (Wilson 1997, p. 748). I
disagree, and would argue that the new local-development policies are a possible
link between self-organising systems and state regulation. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | SourceType-Books-1 ObjectType-Book Chapter-1 content type line 8 |
ISBN: | 9780754636366 0754636364 |
DOI: | 10.4324/9781315248158-15 |