Social capital is broadly defined as a resource accessed through social networks, with the core idea being that social networks possess value and influence the productivity of individuals and groups. While the explicit use of the term is relatively recent, sociological ideas related to social capital, such as social cohesion and community, have been discussed for over a century. The concept comprises both structural and cognitive aspects, generally revolving around three key elements: social networks, norms of reciprocity, and social trust. Social networks are considered the core structural element, while reciprocity and trust represent the cognitive aspects, characterizing values or attitudes.
There has been a growing interest in social capital within the health field, with a substantial body of research indicating a generally positive relationship between social capital and health outcomes. However, the concept’s popularity has also led to ambiguity regarding its meaning, measurement, and outcomes. A significant gap in existing research is the lack of clarity on which forms of social connections are most beneficial for health. Ferlander’s article addresses this by clarifying the complex concept of social capital through distinguishing its different forms.
The article conceptually distinguishes social networks—the core element of social capital—based on several dimensions:
- Direction of ties: Horizontal and vertical connections.
- Levels of formality: Formal and informal connections.
- Strength of ties: Strong and weak ties.
- Diversity of ties: Bonding, bridging, and linking networks.
It is crucial to distinguish these different forms because they imply varying resources, support, and obligations, which are highly relevant for their health consequences. For instance, strong bonding ties often provide emotional support, which positively impacts health, especially mental health, largely through psychological mechanisms like promoting self-efficacy and reducing stress. However, these strong ties can also be a source of strain, leading to conflicts, negative health effects, and the promotion of unhealthy norms through social influence.
In contrast, cross-cutting social capital, which includes bridging and linking forms, is highlighted for its significance in health. Bridging social capital involves heterogeneous, outward-looking connections across social groups, while linking social capital refers to vertical ties connecting people across different social scales. These ties can improve access to new information and resources, enhance personal control, and aid in problem-solving. At a societal level, cross-cutting ties can lead to positive health effects through health promotion, the spread of healthy norms, and social control over deviant behaviors. Communities with high levels of bridging and linking social capital may also possess the power to influence political decisions, potentially leading to better access to services like schooling, housing, and medical care, thereby improving overall public health.
The article stresses that a differentiated approach to social capital is necessary for a better understanding of its mixed health effects and to comprehend the underlying reasons for health disparities. A balanced distribution of different forms of social capital, including high levels of support, information exchange, tolerance, accessibility, and empowerment, is likely to benefit both individuals and public health overall.
Reference for the article:
Ferlander, S. (2007). The Importance of Different Forms of Social Capital for Health. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699307077654
