Economic, social, human, cultural. Capital Economic, social, human, cultural.

Economic capital Something of value – capable of exchange For example: Money Physical resources Land Plant Machinery

Human capital Originally a 19th century concept – Adam Smith suggested that increased levels of education with a country amounted to an economic resource. Therefore education is an investment Mid to late 20th century the focus moved to individuals as units of capital.

Theodore Schultz (1961) American economist – argued that skills and knowledge were a form of capital. Capital investment in humans could have the same effects as capital investment in machinery. More money spent on education more efficiency more productivity extra contributions to the society.

Coleman ‘Just as physical capital is created by changes in materials, human capital is created by changes in persons that bring about skills and capabilities that make them able to act in new ways.’ (Coleman 1988:100)

problems? ‘Reductionist’ – reduces human beings to units of capital – thus ‘dehumanises’ them. Measurability – how can human capital be measured? Years of study? Qualifications held?

problems? How can qualifications be measured against one another? How can informal learning be measured?

Social capital Three main thinkers: Bourdieu Coleman Putnam

Bourdieu Bourdieu’s interest lay in exploring factors which contribute to inequalities. Cultural capital – understanding the culture – knowing how to achieve goals. Social capital – knowing who can help. His thesis is all three – economic, cultural and social tend to run together – if you have one you tend to have them all.

Bourdieu e.g. economic capital – money – allows access to fee paying private schools where social and cultural capital can be developed – networks. A conversion of economic capital in fact, into cultural and social capital. A social investment which will lead to economic advantage.

Bourdieu What are the implications of this theory? That privilege replicates itself. His theory has been accused of being ‘deterministic.’

Coleman Coleman takes a different view. He suggests that ‘social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities with two elements 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.’ (Coleman1998:98)

Coleman He identifies three aspects: Obligations and expectations – trust Information flow – colleagues, friends, family (CoP’s ?) Norms and sanctions – towards the common good

Social capital For both Bourdieu and Coleman education is an important nexus for social capital. What is the difference between the theories?

Putnam Putnam defines social capital as: ‘the features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.’ (Putnam 1993:66) Emphasis on mutuality

Putnam However he also stressed that ‘social capital is not a substitute for effective public policy but rather a prerequisite for it and, in part a consequence of it.’ (Putnam 1993:1)

Bibliography Bourdieu, P. (1983) ‘The forms of capital.’ In J.G. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Coleman, J.S. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital.’ American Journal of Sociology, 94 (supplement). Putnam, R.D. (1993) ‘The prosperous community: Social capital and public life.’ American Prospect, 4(13). Schultz T (1971) ‘Investment in Human Capital: The Role of Education and of Research’ New York: Free Press.

Activity 1 Compare the three versions of social capital. What do you think the main differences between them are? Which model is closest to the UK governments approach?