One Thing or Many?
(29)
(1) Different Types of Social Capital: In Coleman's understanding, "social capital is not a single
entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist
of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are
within that structure" (Coleman 1990: 302; emphasis added). Might different structures and
different forms of social capital be associated, respectively, with different issue-areas and
different levels of societal aggregation?
(2) Stock or Flow? The second alternative conceptualization considers social capital to be a
"politically neutral multiplier... neither inherently good nor inherently bad" (Berman 1997: 564).
Social capital is a stock that does not by itself produce any visible flow of benefits. Rather,
capable agents are required who can mobilize this stock and convert it into a flow of benefits.
"In addition to high levels of social capital...there also needs to be an appropriate mediating
agency, which activates the stock of social capital and makes it more productive" (Krishna
2002b: 9). Different types of mediating agents perform this task with respect to different arenas.
The fungibility of social capital is not ruled out in this view. It is limited, however, by the
availability of capable mediating agency within each separate arena.
More empirical research is required to adjudicate among these three competing
conceptualizations: Is social capital fully fungible, as the most optimistic conceptualizations
seem to imply? Is it partly fungible, as the agency view suggests? Or are there different social
capitals corresponding to different arenas of human interaction, as Coleman’s views appear to
indicate? Very little is available so far by way of empirical examinations that evaluate these
competing conceptions.
Convention