REALYN PAGILAGAN COOPERATIVES AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
BSENT 4-2

In my perception to social capital an economic idea that refers to the connections between individuals and entities that can be economically valuable. Social networks that include people who trust and assist each other can be a powerful asset. These relationships between individuals and firms can lead to a state in which each will think of the other when something needs to be done. Along with economic capital, social capital is a valuable mechanism in economic growth. For example, if you know someone at a company where you are applying for a job and this connection helps you get the job at the company, you have used social capital. Social capital can also have negative effects. For example, if a social network is used for manipulative or destructive purposes that will affect the economy negatively, such as when a group colludes to fix market prices.
In my collective conclusion and perception for the defining social capital are defined networks together with Shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate co-operation within or among groups”. In this definition, we can think of networks as Real-world links between groups or individuals. Think of networks of Friends, family networks, networks of former colleagues, and so on. Our Shared norms, values and understandings are less concrete than our Social networks. Sociologists sometimes speak of norms as society’s Unspoken and largely unquestioned rules. Norms and understandings May not become apparent until they’re broken. If adults attack a child, For example, they breach the norms that protect children from harm. Values may be more open to question; indeed societies often debate whether their values are changing. And yet values such as respect for People’s safety and security are an essential linchpin in every social Group. Put together, these networks and understandings engender trust and so enable people to work together

How does social capital work? According to my research the term social capital emphasizes not just warm and cuddly feelings, but a wide variety of quite specific benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks. Social capital creates value for the people who are connected and - at least sometimes - for bystanders as well.

My Conclusion in some issues with the notion of social capital to conclude it is worth highlighting four key issues with regard to the notion of social capital. The way in which the notion of social capital is used by the central writers Bourdieu, Coleman and Putnam while offering some important insights, and a focus for data collection and analysis, is not as yet rich theoretically. This may simply mean that more work needs to be done, or imply that the concept itself is problematic.
First, while the notion of social capital clearly has some utility we need to be aware of the dangers of ‘capitalization’. As Cohen and Prusak (2001: 9) have commented, not everything of value should be called ‘capital’. There is a deep danger of skewing our consideration of social phenomenon and goods towards the economic. The notion of capital brings with it a whole set of discourses and inevitably links it, in the current context, to capitalism.
Second, there has been a tendency not to locate exploration properly within a historical framework. Coleman and Putnam do analyze data and material over time but fail to fully contextualize it. Putnam l (2003), by placing her work within historical analysis, has been able to show just how some of the important assumptions made by Putnam, for example, need to be questioned.
Third, much of the main work undertaken around social capital has failed to properly address the gender dimension of social capital. As we saw in the work of Putnam (2003), Bookman (2004) and others, the way in which women engage and create local networks, and have to manage caring often falls beneath the radar of social capital researchers and theorists. To give him his due, Putnam does address gender in terms of changing patterns of local involvement but does not theorize it substantially, nor does he really connect with the sorts of concerns that Bookman has been subsequently voicing around the way in which we think about networks of caring, for example.
Fourth, much of the discussion of social capital has treated it as a ‘good thing’. Bourdieu, at least, was interested in the notion as a way of explaining how some were able to access resources and power, while others were not. However, the scale of local surveillance that can be involved, the possible impacts around what is deemed acceptable behavior, and the ways in which horizons may be narrowed rather than expanded are not unambiguously ‘good things’.

In terms of developing social analysis it might well be that those theorists who have explored individualization and globalization within society (and most particularly Beck 1992, 1999) have something more to offer than social capital theorists. That said, though, some of the empirical work that has been done linking involvement in associational life and participation in social networks to the enhancement of educational achievement, the promotion of health and the reduction of crime is of great significance. Social capital researchers and Robert Putnam in particular, has done us a great service. While aspects of his argument and research will continue to be disputed over the coming years, his central message is surely true. Interaction enables people to build communities, to commit themselves to each other, and to knit the social fabric.

Are human and social capital linked? For me human and social capital doesn’t exist in isolation from each other. The two are linked in complex ways and, to some extent, feed into each other. In other words, social capital promotes the development
For me social capital appears to be positively related to organizational effectiveness and to play a central role in reducing organizational transaction costs it also facilitates coordinated action to achieve desired goals justifies organizational commitment, and results in a significant positive impact on product innovation). Yet none of these benefits that result from social capital can exist without a reasonable level of trust among employees and between employees and their managers. Without some foundation of trust, social capital cannot develop the essential connections will not form. So trust is a precondition of healthy social capital. On the other hand, the trust-based connections that characterize social capital lead to the development of increased trust as people work with one another over time. Consequently, there will be less voluntary turnover stronger organizational commitment and more organizational transparency Within an organizational context, it doesn’t matter much whether trust is a pre-condition of social capital or a product of social capital because what the organizational effectiveness literature suggests is that trust and social capital are mutually reinforcing social capital generates trusting relationships that in turn produce social capital The positive returns from trust and social capital within an organizational context is partly attributed to the incorporation of the role of personal relations in Establishing trust between parties. Personal trust makes information exchange easier
For me the importance of though there is no universal definition of social capital, there appears to be general agreement on the importance of networks, trust, reciprocity and other social norms to social capital. Much attention has been paid to the formal networks in the community and formal forms of social engagement, such as that occurring through civic associations, religious and spiritual groups, political parties, sports clubs, unions and the like. However, the informal social networks that operate in a community such as social interaction between neighbors, groups of friends and informal interest groups are also important components of social capital. Different amounts of emphasis are given to the formal and informal interaction by different researchers. Bush and Baum (2001) observed that Cox acknowledged the significance of informal local networks in people’s lives in her Boyer Lecture on A Truly Civil Society, while Putnam's work has more often stressed the significance of formal group membership. Shared social norms such as reciprocity together with trust enable those in a community to more easily communicate, cooperate and to make sense of common experiences. Trust has an important role in reducing social and business "transaction" costs. Tolerance of different beliefs and cultures also stem from shared norms that imply tolerance, acceptance and respect. Reciprocity encourages the individual to balance their own self-interest with the good of the community. A statistical framework for social capital should contain elements pertaining to networks and social norms and provide scope for their measurement.