Do We Need New Social Capital Indicators in Cross National Surveys?

The Potential of "Old" and "New" SC Indicators.

Julia Häuberer

Workshop on Harmonisation of Social Survey Data for Cross-National Comparison,

Prague, October 19, 2010

2

Outline

1) Social Capital Theory

2) Commonly Used Measures and Their Problems

3) Measures of Structural Entities of SC and Their Potentials

3

1) Social Capital Theory

• (1) Civic perspective (Putnam) vs. (2) Network Perspective (Lin)

(1) relations between individuals networks of civic engagement, norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness

(2) structurally embedded resources in

networks are social capital

4

Vizualization of Putnams Concept

Networks of Civic

Engagement

Generalized Trust

Norms of Reciprocity

+ +

+

5

2) Commonly Used Measures and Their Problems

International surveys mainly research on Civic perspective

• Problem at individual level:– non-covariation of associational activity and norms

of reciprocity – mixed results regarding the relation between

networks of civic engagement and social trust

Concept correct? Can we combine cultural and structural aspects of SC?

6

Solution: Conceptualizing SC as Structural Entity Only

Network,

formal/informalResources

for

expressive action

Resources

for

instrumental action

Network Size

Range

Openness/

Structural Holes

Closure/Density

Access to Social Capital Accessed Social Capital

+

+

-

-

-

+

+

-

cf. Häuberer, J. 2011. Social Capital Theory. Towards a Methodological Foundation. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

7

3) Measures of Structural Entities of SC and Their Potentials

• Name Generator (Burt)

• Position Generator (Lin)

• Resource Generator (Van der Gaag, Snijders)1) Social Relationships among Czech Citizens

2) Eurobarometer 62.2

8

Czech Republic

• Survey: Social Relationships among Czech Citizens (2007/8)

• Telephone survey, CATI, Quota sample

• Test-retest study

• Test: 400 respondents (November 2007)

• Retest: 129 respondents (June 2008)

9

Resource Generator

How many of your (1) family members, (2) friends, (3) acquaintances will provide a specific resource?– Resources for expressive action

• Personal Support Social Capital

– Resources for instrumental action• Financial Skills• Prestige Related SC.

10

Reliability I – Pearson Correlations

Family Friends Acquaintances

Help with repairsr 0.530 0.549 0.562N 123 120 27

Shop for your 0.512 0.412 0.267N 121 122 27

Put in contact with good doctor

r 0.601 0.562 0.220N 110 110 24

Advice personal problems

r 0.611 0.530 0.019N 118 122 27

Put you upr 0.612 0.764 0.831N 119 113 26

Advice legal problems

r 0.618 0.538 0.888N 119 119 27

Help find a jobr 0.392 0.483 0.468N 111 109 27

PersonalSupport- time 1-

repairs ε1

1

1

shop foryou ε2

1

contact todoctor ε3

1

advicepersonalproblems

ε41

temp. putyou up ε5

1

advicelegal

problemsε6

1

help finda job ε7

1

PersonalSupport- time 2 -

repairs ε8

shop foryou ε9

contact todoctor ε10

advicepersonalproblems

ε11

temp. putyou up ε 12

advicelegal

problemsε13

help finda job ε14

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Reliability IICFA

Family: .97Friends: .88

12

Validity I – Criterion Validity

Sex Age EducationLife

satisfaction

Personal Support (test) r -0.033 -0.248 0.138 0.051

N 343 343 343 339

Personal Support (retest) r -0.024 -0.399 0.166 0.102

N 115 115 115 112

Financial Skills r -0.185 0.013 0.104 0.120

N 129 129 129 126

Prestige r -0.269 -0.059 0.385 0.169

N 128 128 128 125

Validity II -Construct Validity

N = 129; ** p<0.01, *p<0.05

chi2 = 74.757; df = 51;

p = 0.017; GFI = 0.915;

AGFI = 0.870; RMR = 0.031

RMSEA = 0.060

PersonalSupport

repairs e1

.60** contact todoctor e2

.74**

shop foryou e3.78**

advicepersonalproblems

e4.60**

temp. putyou up e5

.61**

advicelegal

problemse6

help finda job e7

Political/Financial

Skills

earns morethan 100.000CZK/month

e12

knowsfinancials e8

.62**

works intown hall e9

.31*

Prestige related

SC

can employpeople e10.80**

appears inmedia e11

.50**

.56**

.62**

.55**

.72**

.71**

.45**

same as Van der Gaag and Snijder‘s study reveals

14

International Comparison

Eurobarometer 62.2 (2004)In the following situations would you be able to rely

on friends, work colleagues, neighbours or acquaintances to receive help or support?

Help with houshold tasks/ occasional care for household members/ personal care / help with paperwork/ discuss personal problems / borrow money, valuable goods/ help when harassed or assaulted

15

Frequencies – Accessed Resources (Percent)

All

Post-Communist Countries Other

0 13.6 11.1 15.1

1 16.3 17.4 15.6

2 18.5 20.5 17.2

3 18.5 20.3 17.4

4 9.6 10.3 9.2

5 7.2 6.7 7.5

6 5.3 4.8 5.6

7 4.2 3.8 4.5

8 6.8 5.1 7.8

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Eurobarometer 62.2

16

First Results – Influencing Factors on Accessed Resources

Independent variables stand. Beta

Gender .069***

Age -.111***

Yrs. Education .133***

Bonding SC (dich) .028***

Bridging SC (dich) .104***

Contact to Friends .145***

Contact to Colleagues .026***

Contact to Neighbours .083***

Postcommunist Country (Dummy)

-.027***Source: Eurobarometer 62.2

17

Conclusions

• RG applicable in different cultural settings– seems reliable, valid– empricial results support theoretical SC

concept

Shouldn’t we think of including the Resource Generator as standard item battery into international surveys?

Thank you for your attention!

julia.hauberer@soc.cas.cz