Rebuilding Social Capital

By Maryann Keating and Barry Keating

Social capital—the capacity of people to cooperate toward common aims—is an indispensable element in a free and prosperous society. Yet many studies show that social capital has been declining in many places in recent decades. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Robert Putnam, Francis Fukuyama, and Charles Murray, the authors describe social capital, demonstrate why it is important, and chart its decline. They also offer insight into the task of restoring it, a project that deserves the commitment of all those concerned about preserving what is good while building a better future.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Acton Institute
• Release date: Nov 16, 2020
• ISBN: 9781880595251

Book preview

I Introduction*

Robert Putnam, an American political scientist best known for his books Bowling Alone and Our Kids, believes that the performance of government and other social institutions is powerfully influenced by citizen engagement in the public square. He, along with other social scientists, labels the capabilities fostered by such engagement as social capital, the capacity for groups to form and pursue shared objectives.¹

Putnam is not merely nostalgic but seriously concerned about issues affecting civil society. Other social philosophers similarly identify a decline in social capital as a primary issue affecting contemporary governance. Following the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1988, it was generally accepted that the former Soviet bloc countries lacked a well-developed civil society. Recent research, however, has focused on the decline in social capital in economically advanced countries, including the United States—a phenomenon that has been called the Great Disruption.

We hypothesize that a decline in the ability to work toward common objectives is a symptom of declining opportunities for individuals to acquire social capital throughout their lives. To determine whether Americans spend less time on accumulating social capital, we consider the amount of time households and, in particular, teenagers spend participating in voluntary, religious, and social activities. Our goal is to identify factors disrupting the formation of social capital and participation in private organizations, a hallmark of American culture.

Economic terms such as the Great Depression, capital stock (e.g., machinery, tools, equipment, and technical know-how), and externalities are appropriated in our work to describe social phenomena. Economists study and write extensively on maintaining free enterprise in the public square, and, we suggest, some of these concepts transfer in understanding civil society. Economic freedom, after all, is only one element of human freedom.²

A significant difference between economic and overall social wellbeing is that declines in economic production and a nation’s capital stock are explicit and capture widespread attention. Of greater importance is the less measurable loss in social capital.

Does it make a difference if social capital is diminishing? On a practical level, significant public resources are needed to pick up the slack when individuals do not share a working consensus on rights and responsibilities. Furthermore, if a critical mass of individuals fails to follow social norms, then the government, to maintain order, is required to become more coercive and intrusive. Quality of life, constitutional democracy, and mar-kets function only when they can live off several centuries of accumulated social capital.

---

1* We wish to thank Craig Ladwig of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation and the Dekko Foundation for encouraging us to examine the role of voluntary organizations in creating social capital. We also wish to acknowledge the help of Kevin Schmiesing, the editor of this publication for the Acton Institute. Any shortcomings remain our own.

Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of

American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000);

idem, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2015).

² See Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1991), no. 39. Hereafter cited as CA.

II

The Concept of Social Capital

Social capital refers to a certain set of informal values and skills shared among members of a group that permit cooperation regardless of socioeconomic characteristics. Social capital can be directed toward harmful ends but, for now, we define social capital as the learned ability of individuals to engage socially and work within organizations to pursue common objectives.

In economics, the term fixed capital refers to a stock of equipment, and investment and depreciation are flows adding to or decreasing the existing stock. The stock of social capital at any point in time is fixed but may be augmented or diminished by changing institutions and the behavior of residents. A significant factor responsible for the Great Disruption in social capital is a loss of transcendental religious beliefs maintaining the social order. Without religious sanctions or some other code of ethics sustaining traditional attachments and responsibilities, the stock of social capital declines.

Catholic Social Teaching and Social Capital

Catholic social teaching (CST) offers hope to those concerned with maintaining social order in a democratic state. Ultimately, it provides a framework available to all for sustaining traditional attachments and responsibilities along with personal autonomy.

Catholic social teaching deals explicitly with the positive value of voluntary associations and thus indirectly with social capital. John Paul II is forthright about the interest of the Church, as just one of many voluntary associations, in maintaining membership and independence. He explains, In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending the human person … [and] the various social organizations and nations—all of which enjoy their own spheres of autonomy and sovereignty (CA, no. 45).

The contribution of CST in dealing with civil society is often dismissed a priori because it explicitly refers both to natural law and the concept of the common good. Its social teaching is based on a vision in which the social nature of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the common good (CA, no. 13). At its core, CST is an understanding of human nature and the human condition.

Unfortunately, all too frequently, natural law concepts are used to justify policies based on an individual’s particular definition of the common good. Acknowledging these misgivings, we believe that CST, especially as presented in Gaudium et Spes (GS) and the papal encyclicals Centesimus Annus (CA) and Mater et Magistra (MM), significantly contribute to understanding civil society.¹

The focus