Social Capital

In an era where it feels nearly impossible to get a job, you’re feeling defeated after being on the job market for six months, to no avail. As you vent to a close friend about what feels like the end of your career before it’s even begun, he says, “Man, why didn’t you tell me sooner? Just work at the pizzeria with me—we pay way above minimum!” Tossing dough isn’t your dream, but being in a kitchen with decent pay and an old friend doesn’t sound so bad. With your buddy’s referral, you’re being trained in no time, and you find that you really enjoy the work. It seems like your social capital has paid off, after all.

Social capital is the value we gain from our social networks, whether through support, shared norms, or access to information. It explains why connected communities often show greater resilience and cooperation as a result of positive human interaction. Social capital can be concrete or abstract, helpful information or opportunities for growth, or simply a favor for someone you know.¹ It is inherently collective in its nature as a product of beneficial connections between individuals in a social network.

Social capital in the work world describes the value of personal relationships and networks, both within a company and with external partners, that contribute to its success. This goes beyond company-to-company interactions, as the relationships that occur within companies may be just as crucial to fostering trust and reciprocity amongst colleagues for true social capital. Social capital can tie organizations together through the value found in positive connections between humans. 

Dimensions of Social Capital: Structures, Relationships, and Cognitions

Collective human behaviors result in social capital when we think about others and act in cooperative ways. There are three core dimensions to social capital that not only help us understand when these relationships arise, but also when they may succeed or fail. Let’s take a closer look:²

Before social capital was ever systematically studied and divided into types or categories, its strength was already being felt in the everyday ways people built trust and stay connected, through relationships that hold communities together. We can further understand how contemporary social capital manifests through the lens of its four types.

Not All Ties Are Created Equal: Functions of Social Capital

We all know that there are distinct flavors of connections, from kinship to casual. Bonding, bridging, linking, and identifying capital are the four different functions of relationships, from tight-knit circles to institutional connections.³  Each offers unique benefits, shaping how people access resources and opportunities, and takes on unique appearances in various industries spanning from education to civic engagement. Let’s take a closer look at the functions of social capital:²

Social Capital in the Digital Era

You’ve probably made the connection of social capital to at least one online network already, perhaps most intuitively to LinkedIn for its social capital-related vocabulary like “connections” and “networks.” This is no coincidence: the arrival of the Internet age, and especially the rise of social media networks, has been a game changer as far as what social capital means today. It's hard for us to imagine what social capital would look like in the absence of these digital networks, which afford us the convenience and ease of building social capital within and beyond our interconnected online reality.¹ Some examples might include:

Behavioral scientists care about social capital because it helps explain how and why people cooperate and make decisions within groups. It reveals the otherwise invisible threads like reciprocity and shared norms that hold communities and organizations together. Understanding social capital allows researchers to study how relationships influence behavior, like when contagious ideas or misinformation spread, or when social cohesion can promote resilience in times of stress. For behavioral scientists, social capital is not just a sociological concept—it’s a force that shapes how we act within our social environments which we can try our best to measure.

The future of social capital will likely be shaped by how we navigate increasingly digital and hybrid forms of connection. As technologies like AI, VR, and AR mediate more of our social interactions, new forms of trust and reciprocity will emerge. This will inevitably include connections between humans and machines, relationships which invoke both faith and skepticism. Tools like ChatGPT may soon become part of our social networks, forming new kinds of undiscovered relationships while closing gaps across communities that would otherwise be out of each other’s reach.

Structural Social Capital:  Refers to network connections and formal structures like institutions or group memberships that enable people to access resources and support. It’s about the “who knows who” that shapes opportunity and influence within a community.

Relational Social Capital:  The quality of trust, respect, and mutual obligation in our relationships. It reflects how strong our ties are by looking beyond just who we know, but how well we know and rely on them.

Cognitive Social Capital: The shared norms, values, and beliefs that help people feel aligned with their community. It's the mental glue that creates a sense of belonging and mutual understanding within a group.

Echo Chambers: Online or social environments where people are mostly exposed to information that reinforces their existing beliefs. Over time, this can narrow perspectives and heighten polarization by limiting diverse viewpoints, shrinking opportunities for connection and the exchange of social capital.

Long before “social capital” became a recognized concept, scholars were already exploring the power of human connection. In the 1800s, Émile Durkheim warned of the social disconnection that could erode individuals’ sense of belonging, while Alexis de Tocqueville praised civic groups for strengthening democracy.⁴ Thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau also emphasized the role of civic engagement, social classes, and networks of relations in shaping society. Though not labeled as “capital,” these early ideas framed social bonds as essential to cohesion and well-being in suggesting that relationships, though abstract, could function as valuable, accumulable resources.

Regarding the history of the term itself, the first documented use was in 1916 by Lyda Judson Hanifan, a rural school official.⁴ Hanifan wasn’t merely writing theory; he was trying to improve West Virginia’s education system through community involvement amongst students. In his efforts to do so, he coined “social capital” to describe the goodwill and neighborly connections that made schools thrive. For decades, the notion stayed relatively quiet until scholars like Pierre Bourdieu helped to conceptualize social capital based on his observations of networks of social exchanges outside of self-interest in the 1980s.⁵ Similarly, James Coleman viewed social capital as the way rational decisions emerge naturally within a social system of relationships, rather than as isolated individual goals, in his emphasis on the cumulative impact of these social interactions. 

Inspired by the work of Bourdieu and Coleman, the theory finally took off in the 1990s when Robert Putnam published both Making Democracy Work and Bowling Alone. ^{4, 5} By tracking the decline of civic participation in America, Putnam argued that democracy itself was weakening due to the decrease in how much trust is available in modern society. Social capital was no longer just about school performance or social relationships. Instead, it was about the cohesion that knits the fabric of society together. Putnam perceived social capital as the elements of social institutions like networks, cultural norms, or trust itself that lead to collective behaviors and collaboration for reciprocal benefit. To Putnam, social capital does not occur in standalone instances nor with individuals in a vacuum; rather, it is the totality of social behaviors and networks from city to even country-wide scales.⁴

As the 2000s unfolded, the digital world added new layers of complication to the already conflicting conception of social capital. Many continue to debate whether online interactions foster deeper trust and connections or just superficial contact. In other words, do online communities inspire true or fake social capital, or perhaps both? Some found that social capital flourishes in niche online communities, while others noted how misinformation and polarization may arise in tightly bonded digital echo chambers. At the same time, global development programs began using social capital as a lens for community resilience, like in disaster recovery and poverty alleviation. The idea has come a long way, from improving neighborhood schools to guiding international policy. With the plethora of opinions and interpretations surrounding it, social capital never seems to lose the core insight that we may all agree with—relationships matter.

Today, social capital is studied not just for what it enables, but also for what it excludes. We may see how strong social bonds can support well-being, yet they can also reinforce inequality, groupthink, or social silos. Behavioral science research adds to the discussion by investigating how trust is built or eroded, how norms form or change, and how people behave when networks have solidarity—or crumble apart. The evolution of social capital reflects more than a shift in language. It further demonstrates a shift in what we value and how we define trust. As we navigate increasingly digital and fragmented societies, understanding social capital may be key to reconnecting not just communities, but also individual relationships within them.

Émile Durkheim

A father of sociology, Durkheim explored how social cohesion and collective norms maintain societal order. His concept of solidarity highlights the importance of interpersonal bonds and shared values, laying early groundwork for understanding social capital as a stabilizing force.

Alexis de Tocqueville

A French diplomat and philosopher who emphasized the role of civic associations in fostering democratic engagement and trust among citizens. He viewed voluntary participation in community groups as essential to a healthy society, inspiring the core ideas later formalized as social capital.

Lyda Judson Hanifan

An American education reformer, Hanifan was the first to use the term "social capital" in 1916, referring to the goodwill, fellowship, and neighborly support that arose from community involvement. He argued that these social bonds were crucial for improving educational outcomes and community well-being.

Pierre Bourdieu

A French sociologist who introduced social capital as a form of power embedded in networks, emphasizing how it reinforces social inequality and access to resources.⁵ Bourdieu saw power dynamics in society as key to understanding sociology as well as the evolution of social culture.

James Coleman

An American sociologist who framed social capital in terms of its functional role in facilitating cooperation, especially in education and community development.⁵ Coleman’s approach was economic, with a focus on rational action as a means to understand social systems. 

Robert Putnam

An American political scientist best known for popularizing the concept of social capital through his book Bowling Alone, arguing that forms of social capital, especially civic engagement, have declined, weakening democratic and social institutions. Putnam’s argument was controversial, yet massively influential in his argument about American public and social decline.

Social capital goes beyond being a good neighbor or a favorite student. Let’s zoom in on some impacts of social capital in broader terms, such as closer bonds in the workplace, stronger communities, and more open flow of information across networks.

Getting Closer with your Colleagues

Social capital may sound abstract in its theory, yet its absence is deeply felt in experience. This may be especially true in the workplace. After the pandemic disrupted how we interact face-to-face, many organizations noticed a drop in connections at both structural and social levels. A McKinsey study found that employees with strong workplace ties are far more likely to feel engaged, supported, and committed.⁶ When people have access to one another, knowledge flows more freely, decisions improve, and motivation is easier to sustain. From our post-pandemic experience, we all came to a direct realization that performance doesn’t improve from individual talent alone; it can blossom even more through connection.

These gains aren’t accidental—meaningful social capital takes true precision. McKinsey argues that companies need to rebuild social capital with care, not merely through culture.⁶ It’s no longer enough to hope that a casual connection happens through those often awkward and disingenuous Zoom calls. Leaders need to create opportunities for genuine interaction and recognize that relationships are part of the infrastructure of performance. When people feel bonded with each other at work over and above only being employed, they’re more likely to grow in their roles and contribute to their teams—and ideally, show long-term resilience. 

Resilient and Cohesive Social Communities 

Social capital applies beyond the workplace; we can look at communities in general to discover how support and resilience emerge amongst people experiencing challenges together. The effectiveness of social capital can be seen in its ability to establish community trust during times of disaster, as one study of emergency scenarios in China found.⁷ Research shows that social capital factors like active community involvement lead to this resilience, as stronger relationships lend tools to support each other in times of crisis. An important takeaway is how collective relationships between individuals inform the group’s ability to persevere in dire times.

Building on the idea of resilience, social capital also plays a key role in shaping long-term community cohesion, which is notable when it comes to health and well-being. Some research projects claim that developing social capital through shared activities and trust-building can improve both individual outcomes and the collective health of a community.⁸ When people feel connected and included, they’re more likely to get involved in supporting others and accessing help themselves, creating a cycle where stronger ties lead to closer-knit, healthier communities.

When Connections Pay Off: Trust, Opportunity, and Performance

Another way to think of social capital is the experience of positive outcomes from word of mouth, which can actually be a more successful avenue to landing a job over conventional application routes.⁹ Though cliche, “your network is your net worth” captures when social capital maximizes outcomes for the individual. These beneficial impacts continue to benefit individuals in their own development, and groups and organizations, too. 

Those with more social capital have often been found to be happier, healthier, and perhaps most crucially, have higher trust in their community.¹ This type of individual result is seen from the top down, too, with findings suggesting organizations that emphasize the value of social capital foster more trust, reciprocated respect, and cooperative behaviors amongst employees. These are not merely positive feelings; they are indicators of potential for productivity.

As a popular theory, social capital has many criticisms, many of which regard how it is defined and applied. Let’s dive into confusions and controversies about whether social capital is “social,” whether it's “capital,” and the dark side of social connections.

Is Social Capital Actually Social?

A key limitation of social capital theory lies in the question of whether social capital is truly “social” at all. While it’s often described as embedded in networks and relationships, some definitions reduce it to a kind of personal asset, as in something an individual can possess or accumulate.⁵ This framing can be misleading—can we really “have” social capital? As prominent research in this area points out, by focusing too much on the benefits individuals receive from their connections, we risk treating social capital like a commodity, rather than a property of relationships or communities. That shift in focus blurs the lines between what is shared and what is owned when it comes to social capital.

This tension leads to deeper concerns about how social capital is applied in research and practice. If it’s treated as an individual-level resource, then the structural and cultural conditions that enable trust and cooperation may be overlooked entirely. The risk is that social capital becomes another tool for explaining individual advantage as opposed to a framework intended for understanding how collective systems of support emerge and function. In other words, reducing the “social” in social capital not only weakens the theory’s explanatory power, but also distances it from the very relationships it’s supposed to represent.

Is Social Capital Really Talking About Capital?

A second major limitation comes from how we even define the term “capital.” Even though the phrase “social capital” has gained traction across disciplines, it’s worth asking whether social connections behave in ways that resemble capital at all. Traditional capital refers to resources that can be invested and exchanged, typically in clear, measurable units. However, we all know that relationships aren’t always this clean-cut or quantifiable. The emotional and context-specific nature of social ties complicates the idea that they can be “spent” or “accumulated” like financial assets can be.⁵

Some theorists argue that the term “capital” imposes an economic framework on human relationships that may not fit.⁵ For instance, unlike money or property, social ties can’t be owned, and their “value” is rarely immutable. What may appear as a rich network in one context may find itself lost in translation in another. This raises the concern that the metaphor of capital may oversimplify something as nuanced as trust or belonging. These traits resist easy quantification, yet they are central to the fabric of society itself. If capital is defined by its ability to be traded or controlled, social capital may challenge that definition entirely.

Social Capital for Harm and Inequity

We need to acknowledge that social capital is not always applied in “good” ways, like landing a new job or becoming friendlier with your neighborhood grocery cashier. There is a dark side to social capital in how bad actors like gangs may use social capital to make social bonds stronger in their groups while attracting new members.¹ These unethical forms of social capital are seen aside from conventional forms of criminal activity, too: those on Wall Street could be just as likely to use social capital for manipulation of others rooted in self-interest. 

What may be even more crucial to point out is the groups in society who have less—it is the marginalized, isolated, and disenfranchised in our society who may have suffered from an absence of social capital resources. Next time you have a positive experience with your acquainted grocery store cashier, it is worth considering the lack of opportunities the homeless folks outside the door may have with social engagement due to their disadvantages. This may serve as a reminder to give someone in your community a chance to experience the good of social capital, as they may rarely get to. 

Women’s Self-Help Groups and Financial Inclusion in India

Social capital can, in fact, be applied to situations of capital, despite our discussion of the term’s limitations. Considering that there are groups that can be excluded at times from opportunities relative to their access to social connections, finding ways to educate such groups via social capital is a paramount application of the notion. A 2023 study published by Roy & Patro examined the impact of women's participation in self-help groups (SHGs) on their levels of financial inclusion in India.¹⁰ The research found that involvement in SHGs significantly enhanced women's access to financial services, including savings, credit, and insurance products. 

Through this research in Northeast India, women’s self-help groups (SHGs) have proven vital in increasing financial inclusion. These groups create a network of trust and mutual support, allowing women from marginalized communities access to financial resources like savings and loans. However, the impact is not uniform, and as expected, context matters. While SHGs empower women in rural areas, barriers like social norms, infrastructure, and limited financial literacy can slow adoption. This case shows that social capital can bridge gaps in access, but it also underscores the importance of local context in how networks and trust are built. In another light, we must appreciate that there’s no one-size-fits-all solution for financial inclusion.

The collective nature of SHGs fosters trust and mutual support among members, which in turn facilitates greater engagement with formal financial institutions. This study underscores the importance of social capital that is built through group cohesion and shared experiences in advancing financial inclusion among marginalized populations outside of the overly studied Western populations we tend to see in behavioral science. 

An extension we can make from this type of research is how other forms of self-help groups can be created to give those who often lack opportunities to take advantage of social capital. This comes back to our reminder that when we give people a chance at true social connections for a collective benefit, previously held assumptions on something as essential as not being able to find trusting and reciprocal relationships can be changed for the better.

Stronger Bonds for Slower Decline: Healthy Aging in Japan

When we reflect on aging populations, frailty often emerges as a silent threat that gradually diminishes independence and quality of life. In Japan, a nation at the forefront of demographic aging, researchers sought to understand whether the social fabric of a community could act as a buffer against this decline. Some have turned to the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES), analyzing data from over 21,000 older adults across 384 communities over a three-year period.¹¹

The findings were telling of the necessity of social capital. Communities with higher levels of civic participation, which were measured by engagement in activities like volunteering and hobby groups, saw a significantly lower incidence of frailty among their older residents. Specifically, each standard deviation increase in community civic participation corresponded to a 6% reduction in the odds of frailty onset. Notably, this protective effect persisted even after accounting for individual health behaviors and socioeconomic factors, which suggests that the communal environment itself plays a pivotal role.

From a behavioral standpoint, this underscores the importance of the broader social context in health outcomes. It's not only individual choices or genetics that matter here: it's the collective engagement and mutual support within a community that can increase resilience among its members. When older adults are embedded in active, participatory communities, they're more likely to maintain physical activity, mental sharpness, and a sense of purpose—and what better outcomes could you hope for while aging with those around you?

This case highlights the tangible benefits of investing in community-level social capital. Encouraging civic participation isn't just about social cohesion; rather, it's a strategic approach to public health. As societies grapple with aging populations, fostering environments where community engagement thrives could be key to promoting healthier, more independent aging.

The Misinformation Mitigation Toolbox: Dismantling the Digital Deceit

Speaking of online social capital, when was the last time a connection of yours fell for misinformation? This can happen to any of us these days. In this piece, TDL columnist Celestine Rosales provides a behavioral science toolbox to combat misinformation via nudges or prompts, boosts or education, and how to refute falsehoods.

How to effectively implement CSR into your brand: Reciprocating with customers

For businesses, gaining the trust of a customer as a byproduct of social capital is paramount, which is not as easy as telling them they’re always right. In this article, TDL columnists Triumph Kerins and Sarah Chudleight, as well as TDL co-founder Sekoul Krastev, bring purpose, corporate social responsibility, and cognitive dissonance into play with building those reciprocal relationships with customers. 

1. Kenton, W. (2024, August 8). What is social capital? Definition, Types, and Examples. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialcapital.asp#:~:text=Social%20capital%20is%20a%20set,information%20from%20one%27s%20personal%20c
2. Claridge, T. (2019, April 2). Understanding the Impact Of Your Social Capital. Institute for Social Capital. 
3. Hartfield, G. (2023, August 23). Exploring The Four Types Of Social Capital. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/08/28/exploring-the-four-types-of-social-capital/
4. Claridge, T. (2021, October 1). Evolution Of The Concept Of Social Capital. Institute for Social Capital. https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/evolution-of-the-concept-of-social-capital/
5. Claridge, T. (2018). Introduction to social capital theory. Social Capital Research. https://www.socialcapitalresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/edd/2018/08/Introduction-to-Social-Capital-Theory.pdf
6. Lauricella, T., Parsons, J., Schaninger, B., & Weddle, B. (2022, August 2). Network effects: How to rebuild social capital and improve corporate performance. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/network-effects-how-to-rebuild-social-capital-and-improve-corporate-performance
7. Liu, Y., Cao, L., Yang, D., & Anderson, B. C. (2022). How social capital influences community resilience management development. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 642-651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.07.028
8. Tierney, S. (2022, December 20). Community cohesion to develop social capital: A means of addressing health and well-being. Oxford Social Prescribing Research Network. https://socialprescribing.phc.ox.ac.uk/news-views/views/community-cohesion-to-develop-social-capital-a-means-of-addressing-health-and-well-being
9. Granovetter, Mark S. "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6. 1973, pp. 1360-1380.
10. Roy, P., & Patro, B. (2025). Effect of women's self‐help group participation on their financial inclusion measured through a women‐centric index: A study in north‐east India. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 96(1), 65-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12496
11. Noguchi T, Murata C, Hayashi T, Watanabe R, Saito M, Kojima M, Kondo K, Saito T. Association between community-level social capital and frailty onset among older adults: a multilevel longitudinal study from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES). J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022 Feb;76(2):182-189. doi: 10.1136/jech-2021-217211. Epub 2021 Aug 2. PMID: 34341149; PMCID: PMC8761993.