Radical
Statistics
Quantifying social capital: measuring the intangible in the local policy context
Martin Roberts and Martin Roche
Amongst the competing discourses of social exclusion that emerged in the 1990s, the notion of social capital has taken hold and entered the vocabulary of national and local politics, and is now frequently invoked as a resource to be harnessed and promoted. In the UK, this popularity stems initially from the use of the term by Tony Blair in 1995 and later (King & Wickham-Jones, 1999), and wider adoption has followed the Social Exclusion Unit's references to social capital in their influential reports (SEU 1998, 1999). While the term is gaining currency, it remains poorly understood. Yet, at the local scale there is growing pressure to measure the distribution of social capital to aid the formulation of policy and programmes to combat social exclusion and enhance quality of life. This paper considers the relationship between social capital, quality of life, and social exclusion, and, drawing on work in progress in the Black Country sub-region of the UK, speculates on a pragmatic methodology for measuring this nebulous phenomenon.
What to measure: deprivation, social exclusion, quality of life or social capital?
The measurement of poverty and social exclusion, and the targeting of policy to combat these problems, has long relied upon indices of socio-economic deprivation. Numerous and familiar variations on the same theme have been hashed and rehashed in the search for the ideal index for any given task, whether it be a specific requirement such as predicting demand for GP services (Jarman, 1983), or a universal index of deprivation (e.g. DoE, 1995). The search for the optimum universal index continues, with improvements in information systems and the increasing availability of local information driving the development of more complex and - it is argued - more comprehensive indices. The DETR's Index of Deprivation 2000 claims to be the best general index so far developed, though it is acknowledged that poor quality information in some domains (notably crime and the physical environment) continues to impede comprehensiveness (DETR 2000).
While indices of socio-economic deprivation remain the dominant tool for targeting local regeneration programmes, they are widely recognised as inadequate reflections of lived experience, informed more by economic paradigms than the social reality within communities. Indeed, they largely ignore the concept of community, except as an undifferentiated aggregation of information at some (essentially arbitrary) geographical scale. Further, they adopt a deficit model, measuring always the lack of resources or services. Also their too narrow conception of disadvantage fails to capture the full compass of the term 'social exclusion'. Its implications of multi-faceted disadvantage reach beyond a want of resources to incorporate constrained life chances, educational underachievement, low aspirations, and a sense of disconnectedness.
In the health field, deficit models of disease-induced disability are gradually being replaced by a more positive, 'capital' oriented approach to understanding quality of life which stems from a subject-centred stance in which the patient's own views are privileged above the 'expert' analysis of the physical consequences of disease (Bowling, 1997). The search for a similar 'person-centred' and 'community-oriented' approach in social policy has been gathering pace in the 1990s with a gradual recognition that the identification of areas of disadvantage should '...move from assuming what is best for people to letting them say what they think would be better' (Dorling, 1996, quoted in Burrows and Rhodes, 1998, p. 2) and seek to capture all that quality of life might entail.
Academics and politicians have cast around for a theoretical 'hook' on which to hang such a wider conception of quality of life - one which embodies a 'capital' model valuing community life and perceptions of lived experiences above simple economic measures - and in recent years the term 'social capital' has found its way into the lexicon of public policy in the UK. Of particular note has been the engagement of the notion in diametric opposition to the phenomenon of social exclusion - its construction as the opposite pole to all forms of disadvantage (Percy-Smith, 2000). A key influence here has been New Labour's adoption of a 'third way', strongly influenced by the work of Anthony Giddens (1994; 1995; 1999), which has placed renewed emphasis upon the old Tocquevillian notion of citizenship (Driver and Martell, 2000; King and Wickham-Jones, 1999). This approach places a heavy emphasis upon the mobilisation of civil actors and the development of a more participative culture in British society. The resulting policy formulations have placed increased emphasis upon the positive role of informal social structures and the development of:
...social capital, by helping people into work; tackling the risk factors linked to crime, drug misuse, school failure and family breakdown; and encouraging participation in community activities (SEU 1999, Annex B).
Measuring social capital
The need to measure social capital has gained added piquancy (and urgency) from the recent appearance of the term in the strategic policy initiatives of many local authorities, a process which is only likely to escalate as the notion gains wider currency. Not surprisingly, many local authorities have taken their lead from bodies such as the Social Exclusion Unit and are increasingly looking to social capital as a resource which can be used proactively for the purpose of community development - and indeed socio-economic development - as well as a framework within which more general issues of quality of life can be gauged. Now, as the term emerges into the vernacular of policy interpretations, it is exposed to the rigours of traditional local government models of resource management and distribution. Consequently there is a danger that much of the subtlety and innate value of social capital as an interpretational tool may be lost. But that does not invalidate social capital as a policy tool, and while the concept may be nebulous, it is also sufficiently robust to withstand transformation into pragmatic reality.
The policy arena is one that does not deal in the grey boundaries of conceptual debate but rather in the certainties of budgets and finite resources, with the consequence that, much like any other potential resource, social capital will have to be quantified in some way so that it can be applied within a traditional model of local development and policy. However contentious such an approach may be in some quarters it mirrors the hard-edged realities of local policy prescriptions and thus requires our attention as to how such a process can be achieved. Local policy aimed at promoting social capital inevitably requires a baseline, a quantification of social capital, and perhaps even a social capital map. The question becomes one of measuring a phenomenon which is typified by abstract human relations such as trust, obligations and reciprocity in a way which, whilst remaining true to their complexities, reduces the level of abstraction in order to allow practical responses to be developed.
In stark contrast to the emerging necessity to develop new measures of social capital for the policy context are the theoretical arguments over whether or not social capital is actually something that can be measured at all. In fact some commentators would see social capital as a concept that literally defies measurement in any meaningful way (Portes, 1999). Others adopt the more conciliatory view that it is possible to get a handle on such complex social phenomenon through more easily defined proxies, at the same time accepting that:
...measurement of the total stock of co-operative social relationships based on norms of honesty and reciprocity is not a trivial task. (Fukuyama 1999, 23)
Whilst these debates are undoubtedly relevant, previous experience suggests that the expedientcy of the policy environment largely divorces itself from such concerns. Once the need for compromise is accepted the task then becomes one of developing methods that are of value to the policy-maker and true to the sense of the meaning and innate value of social capital as a descriptive construct. There are perhaps two aspects to such an undertaking. Firstly, there is the 'model' of policy prescription which social capital must adhere to and, secondly, there is the degree of theoretical robustness that can be employed in this process. The former factor can be seen as relating to a set of criteria which roughly fall into the categories of availability and geographic sensitivity. The second point relates largely to ensuring that any measures of social capital adhere, as far as possible, to the precepts concerning the theoretical manifestation of the phenomenon. Before we examine what this approach might look like in practice, there is a body of work already in existence which we can turn to for guidance on measuring social capital.
Despite the relatively short-lived apprenticeship of social capital quite a clear orthodoxy has emerged regarding methods of measurement. The main influences upon this body of work have been the political scientists Robert Putnam (1993) and Francis Fukuyama (1995; 1999). Putnam utilises data from the General Social Survey (for the United States) and the World Values Survey in tandem with voter turnout, newspaper readership and time-budget surveys. Also in the US, the National Commission on Civic Renewal utilised existing data such as divorce rates and levels of crime as indicators of social capital deficit, thus avoiding the problem of measuring social capital at all. Fukuyama, in turn, adopts a combination of these approaches for the purpose of his analysis of the phenomenon. Although their interpretations are not slavishly followed by all contributors, they do exert a distinct influence over the majority of practical applications. Two factors characterise this approach. Firstly, the data it uses are largely non-original, that is, they rely upon proxies of social capital from existing datasets. Hence, such approaches could be seen as theoretically naive in that a form of perverse logic operates whereby the available data define the interpretation of social capital used in any given instance.
Secondly, this approach is geographically insensitive (i.e. the datasets used are largely spatially indeterminate) and, again, this can be seen as intrinsic to reliance upon forms of data ostensibly derived for different purposes:
Neighbourhood level research is dominated by studies of poverty rates and other social-demographic characteristics based on census data or other government statistics that do not provide information about the social organizational dynamic of administrative units. (Sampson et al, 1999, p638)
Another consequence of this, and one with particular relevance to policy evaluations, is that the model is input rather than output oriented so that little is ever said (or indeed can be said) about the innate value of the types of processes measured in such a fashion.
More generally though, it is possible to find approaches to the statistical measurement of social capital which are more grounded in the theoretical typology developed by the likes of James Coleman (1988; 1990) and Pierre Bourdieu (1997) (see for example Fernandez et al, 2000; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Sampson et al, 1999; Taylor, 2000). The work of Onyx and Bullen (2000) in particular utilises a component analysis of items that are theoretically derived from the typology of social capital originally developed by Coleman (1988). However, although this offers a welcome addition to the traditional orthodoxy it still ignores the profitability aspect of social capital - that is, tangible expressions of individual and group benefits from any resource that is measured.
Sampson et al (1999) offer another approach which is grounded in the rich typology of social capital developed by Coleman (1988). In turn, from this basis they develop a range of measurements to indicate the influence of neighbourhood characteristics upon spatial interdependence amongst children in the Chicago area. Although their data are not original - they utilise material from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighbourhoods - it does at least lend itself to the theoretical rigours of social capital as an abstract construct. However such instances - of existing datasets lending themselves to valid interpretation within a social capital framework - are likely to remain rare. Given the urgency for new measures to be developed in the policy environment in the UK this would seem to be an issue which is in critical need of being addressed. With this in mind, the following section offers one possible way forward.
Measuring social capital: embedded approaches?
Perhaps the central component in any valid approach to the measurement of social capital is the nature of the data used. As already suggested, the use of non-original data results in an interpretation which is defined as much by what is easily available than any valid notion of what the concept 'social capital' actually represents. With this in mind, a suggested first step in the creation of a new way to measure social capital would be the creation of an original database of theoretically-informed indicators of social capital for a given locale. The use of a questionnaire survey would ensure that a wide spatial coverage was achievable. A 'productivity' factor could also be built in to the survey asking respondents about their perceptions of beneficial aspects of social capital. Although this assessment would be subjective, it would prove a critical link between social capital as a measurable entity and a resource to be fostered and used for the good of communities.
As suggested in the previous section, replicability of data lies at the heart of policy interpretations of social capital. However, the cost of replicating the survey methodology suggested here is likely to make longitudinal assessments cost prohibitive. Yet, this problem can be circumvented by utilising the dataset developed through the questionnaire survey as a foundational link to indicators which are more readily available to bodies such as local authorities through existing means of consultation and data collected for other administrative or statutory reasons. By validating the relationship between two sets of indicators - one theoretically-derived and the other selected from the existing datasets on time-use and participation rates - within the initial questionnaire, a viable model of social capital which can be revisited longitudinally can be developed
One effective starting point for developing indices of deprivation is to attempt to encapsulate the dimensions of deprivation in a series of domains. This approach, applied for instance in the development of the DETR's Indices of Deprivation 2000 (DETR, 2000), adopts a synthetic discretisation of the range of possible dimensions, and so both simplifies the task of identifying candidate indicators and enables more subtle analyses of thematic, rather than global, deficit. Thus ID2000 incorporates the domains of: income; employment; health and disability; education, skills and training; housing; and access to services. In a similar way, domains of social capital can be synthesised and used as the basis for identifying the indicators to be captured. Onyx and Bullen's (2000) component analysis has identified a number of emerging themes in social capital theory, and these yield four domains to provide a basis for developing accessible and serviceable indicators: participation, altruism (or reciprocity), trust, and sociability.
While these domains appear at first sight to be less tangible than those of deprivation indices, capturing indicators for them within an original questionnaire survey is relatively straightforward, if mundane. Examples of appropriate questions are:
Participation
Click HERE for Table 1: Facilities survey
Altruism
Click HERE for Table 2; Altruism Survey
Trust
Click HERE for Trust survey
Sociability
Click HERE for Sociability survey
However, when the issue of replicability and non-original data sources is considered, the options for indicators become severely constrained; but they are not so constrained that potentially useful indicators cannot be identified. For the participation, altruism and sociability domains some examples can be drawn out:
Participation
- Attendance at community consultation events run by the local council.
- Voting in national and local elections.
- Attendance at evening classes or other non-compulsory educational provision.
Altruism
- Numbers of classroom assistants at local schools.
- Numbers of Neighbourhood Watch (and similar) scheme co-ordinators.
- Numbers of advocates for persons with disabilities.
Sociability
- Numbers subscribing to sports facilities access schemes with local authorities.
- Numbers using art galleries and museums.
- Numbers attending after school events or activities.
Non-survey indicators of trust, on the other hand, are not so readily identifiable. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of any non-survey data source which might represent an adequate proxy for trust, and so trust must be put aside, to be imputed if required, perhaps, from the values for the other domains.
The non-survey ('proxy') indicators can be readily converted into simple questions to be presented alongside the more direct ('actual') indicators in a questionnaire survey. The data captured enables a locally specific model of the relationship between the 'actual' and 'proxy' indicators to be developed, which then informs the development of an index of social capital drawing on non-survey data sources. It is worth noting that the 'proxy' indicators do not draw on the more traditional socio-economic measures. While this has the benefit of avoiding deficit measures which are likely to be negative indicators of social capital, it does present challenges for the quality and scope of local information systems. But the increasing emphasis on improving local information, driven by the SEU's PAT18 report (SEU 2000) and other developments such as Best Value and the demand of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, is creating greater potential to capture suitable indicators of social capital at the local scale.
The above demonstrates that social capital is measurable, and that there is reason to believe that acceptably robust indices of social capital can be derived from data routinely collected by local agencies, provided that a local indicator validation exercise is conducted. More than this, it demonstrates that the emphasis on community quality of life appearing in the discourses of local government can be given a tangible meaning, routed in theory and expressed in measures that are - in local government speak - 'fit for purpose'.
Summary
Given the enthusiasm for social capital that local government is currently expressing in the UK, the need for more effective measures of the theoretical construct seems highly apposite. With few exceptions, existing approaches to the measurement of social capital hold little efficacy for political interpretations. However, an alternative approach to the measurement of social capital has been outlined which may offer a way forward that is both conceptually valid and practically robust. Future interpretations and applications should seek to adopt a more nuanced approach if the true value of social capital as an instrument of policy and, more importantly, a useful tool in the fight against social exclusion, is to be realised. This should be accompanied by the development of alternative discourses of local policy, from measuring deficit to measuring capital, and towards a fuller recognition of the value of social capital as a major contributor to quality of life.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The ideas in this paper arise in part from ongoing applied research being undertaken on behalf of the Black Country Consortium, which includes many public sector agencies in the boroughs of Wolverhampton, Sandwell, Dudley and Walsall.
REFERENCES
Bourdieu, P. (1997) 'The forms of capital', in A. H. Halsey (ed.), Education: culture, economy, and society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bowling, A. (1997) Measuring Health: a review of quality of life measurement scales, Second edition, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Burrows, R. and Rhodes, D. (1998) Unpopular Places? Area disadvantage and the geography of misery in England, Joseph Rowntree Foundation Area Regeneration Series, Bristol: The Policy Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1988) 'Social capital in the creation of human capital', American Journal of Sociology, 94 (supplement).
Coleman, J. S. (1990) Foundations of social theory, Cambridge MA: Belnap Press.
Department of the Environment (1995) 1991 Deprivation Index: a review of approaches and a matrix of results, London: HMSO.
Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (2000) Indices of Deprivation 2000, Regeneration Research Summary No. 31, London: DETR.
Driver, S. and Martell, L. (2000) 'Left, right and the third way', Policy & Politics, 28: 147-61.
Fernandez, R. M., Castilla, E. J. and Moore, P. (2000) 'Social capital at work: networks and employment at a phone center', American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1288-1356.
Fukuyama, F. (1995) Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity, London: Hamish Hamilton.
Fukuyama, F. (1999) The great disruption: human nature and the reconstitution of social order, London: Free Press.
Giddens, A. (1994) Beyond left and right: the future of radical politics, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1995) Politics, sociology and social theory: encounters with contemporary social thought, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1999) The third way: the renewal of social democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Jarman, B. (1983) 'Identification of underprivileged areas', British Medical Journal, 286 (28 May: 1705-1709.
King, D. and Wickham-Jones, M. (1999) 'Social capital, British social democracy and new labour', Democratization, 6: 181-213.
Onyx, J. and Bullen, P. (2000) 'Measuring social capital in five communities', Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 36: 23-42.
Percy-Smith, J. (2000) 'Introduction: the contours of social exclusion', in J. Percy-Smith (ed.), Policy responses to social exclusion: towards inclusion? Buckingham: Open University Press.
Portes, A. (1999) 'Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology', Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 1-24.
Putnam, R. D. (1993) 'The prosperous community: social capital and public life', American Prospect, 13: 35-42.
Sampson, R. J., Moreoff, J. D. and Earls, F. (1999) 'Beyond social capital: spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children', American Sociological Review, 64: 633-660.
Social Exclusion Unit (1998) Bringing Britain Together: a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal (Cm 4045), London: The Stationery Office.
Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Annual Report (Cm 4342), London: The Stationery Office.
Social Exclusion Unit (2000) 'National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal, Report of Policy Action Team 18: Better Information', London: Central Office of Information.
Taylor, M. (2000) 'Communities in the lead: power, organisational capacity and social capital', Urban studies , 37: 1019-1036.
Martin Roberts and Martin Roche
Centre for Applied Social Research
University of Wolverhampton
Wulfruna Street
Wolverhampton
01902-323321
01902-322680
emaiil: m.g.roberts@wlv.ac.uk
m.j.roche@wlv.ac.uk
