The M–C–M′ cycle and social capital

Abstract

Social capital has become a popular term over the past two decades amongst researchers, policy makers and practitioners from varied disciplines. This popularity, however, has resulted in a great deal of confusion over the nature and application of social capital in different contexts. This confusion has made it difficult to identify and measure social capital within the evaluation of specific social and health programmes, one of the aims of which may be to stimulate social capital. This paper identifies a theoretical model that seeks to capture the dynamic nature of social capital to assist in the development of research methods that will facilitate its measurement and exploration within such programmes. The model reported in the paper identifies the key components of social capital and expresses the relationship between those components in a dynamic system based on Marx's description of the process of capital (economic) exchanges expressed in the M–C–M′ cycle. The M–C–M′ cycle is the transformation of money (M) into commodities (C), and the change of commodities back again into money (M′) of altered value. The emphasis within the paper is on the capital element of the concept and its transactional nature with the aim of avoiding the pitfall of attributing social capital in relation to social behaviours in isolation of context and interaction. Importantly, the paper seeks to distinguish the central elements of social capital from some of the antecedent factors and outcomes often attributed to and confused with social capital adding to the problem of providing valid measurement. The model is presented as the basis for the measurement of social capital within a transactional process involving the investment of social resources in a cyclical process, which may result in net gains or losses. This process is described as the R–C–R′ cycle following Marx's model of economic capital, with the focus being on the transfer of social resources (R) rather than money (M). R represents an internal resource held by individuals, C the external resource or commodity they obtain from the network and the R′ the internal resource of altered value. The possibilities of the model in assisting in the measurement of social capital specifically in assessing formal networks are explored.

Introduction

Social capital is an increasingly popular concept with both social theorists and policy makers. From a theoretical point of view social capital suggests an important link between social structure and human agency, a major preoccupation for those trying to understand relative health experiences (Gillies, 1997); and for policy makers it is regarded as a useful barometer of ‘social health’. However, as this interest has gathered momentum, social capital has become an increasingly dense and contentious area of study (Coleman, 1988). Furthermore, the accumulation of literature on social capital has begun to obscure understanding of the concept, making it difficult to translate into policy and practice. This is compounded by a tendency of some theorists to over stretch the concept across events and contexts (Portes, 1998; Bourdieu, 1997; Portes & Landolt, 1996). Social capital has also been subject to keen critical scrutiny, being identified as both a ‘falsely inflated’ concept and as a ‘new term for an old product’ (Labonte, 1999). Despite such problems it is difficult to ignore social capital, as it remains an intuitively useful concept. However, it is necessary to transfer this interesting idea into empirically defendable and practice applicable theory.

Social capital is a multidimensional concept, each dimension contributing to the meaning of social capital although each alone is not able to capture fully the concept in its entirety. The main dimensions are commonly seen as:

• Trust (e.g., Kilpatrick, 2000; Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999; Leana & Van Buren III, 1999; Snijders, 1999; Collier, 1998; Cox, 1997; Coleman (1993a), Putnam (1993b); Coleman, 1988);

• Rules and norms governing social action, e.g., norms of reciprocity (Fukuyama, 1999; Collier, 1998; Portes & Sessenbrenner, 1993; Coleman, 1988);

• Types of social interaction (Snijders, 1999; Collier, 1998);

• Network resources (e.g., Kilpatrick, 2000; Snijders, 1999) and

• Other network characteristics (Hawe & Shiell, 2000; Kilpatrick, 2000; Astone, Nathanson, Schoen, & Kim, 1999; Krishna & Shrader, 1999; Burt, 1997; Putnam, 1995).

When developing a social capital framework to include these components, there are a number of fundamental challenges that must still be overcome if theory and practice are to evolve. These challenges include:

• the need to link the different components of social capital (and related concepts or outcomes) so as to augment the theoretical understanding of the concept (Leeder & Dominello, 1999);

• the need to resolve the contradictory use of social capital within social policy and to make the distinction between social capital as an entity as opposed to its consequences or antecedents (Woolcock, 1998) and

• the need to establish the explanatory potential of social capital through the development of effective (valid and reliable) and theoretically defendable measurement strategies.

Thus, it is contended that if these challenges are to be resolved, it is necessary to develop a model of the concept that connects firstly its components with each other and secondly these components with its outcomes and antecedents. Such a model should identify the concept within the complexity of the social world, as defined by dynamic relationships between its components, rather than what at present often appears to be a disparate collection of circumstantial variables.

While acknowledging that there is unlikely to be a consensus on the form of a social capital model, this paper makes the case for one potential analytic framework, ready for empirical testing, that attempts to captures the dynamic properties of the concept. The model has been derived from Marx's classical analysis of capital and is based on the M–C–M′ cycle outlined in Das Kapital (Marx, 1867). It is hoped that this model will help initiate the transformation of the concept of social capital from a list of social descriptors, to one with the potential to be an explanatory factor in the description and improvement of socially acquired outcomes, especially those associated within the broader understanding of individual, community and population level health.