Social Capital & European Society

Social capital and its role in society have been defined by many different scholars and writers in different ways. Lyda Hanifan was one of the first to use the term in 1916. Her definition of social capital was, “Those tangible assets [that] count for most in the daily lives of people: namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse among the individuals and families who make up a social unit.” Other academics such as Jane Jacobs (1961), Pierre Bourdieu (1983) and James S. Coleman (1988) have done much to carry the concept further over the years. More recently, Robert Putnam has become an important writer on the topic, and is also much responsible for bringing the term into popular use after his 2000 book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. In one of his earlier publications he writes, “social capital refers to features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam, 1993). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has written much about social capital as it relates to their work. In one of their publications, Brian Keeley (2007) writes, “We can think of social capital as the links, shared values and understandings in society that enable individuals and groups to trust each other and so work together (Keeley, 2007).” It is challenging to bring all these definitions together. For the purpose of this paper, social capital will simply refer to: the values and social norms embedded in a society that create social cohesion, encourages individuals to trust each other and facilitates cooperation.

Europe as a society has been shaped, in large part, by an abundance of social capital that has allowed it to grow and prosper economically. The shared norms and values held by Europeans throughout the centuries—values such as honesty, keeping of commitments, respect for people’s property, safety and security, goodwill, self-sacrifice and reliable performance of duties—which are largely a result of the widespread adoption of Christian tradition, have been an essential, underlying foundation upon which European peoples have cooperated. The networks of trust, or social cohesion, created by these shared norms have enabled Europeans to work together to build an advanced, civilized society that could not have been possible without this abundance. The World Bank Group writes, “social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable… [it] is not just the sum of the institutions which underpin a society – it is the glue that holds them together (World Bank, 2011).” Indeed, it was this unique abundance of social capital that led this small peninsula at the tip of Asia to be called by many as simply “The Continent;” it is what has made Europe “Europe,” distinct from its eastern roots (Fountain, 2004).

A growing body of research has demonstrated how social capital contributes towards economic growth and prosperity (e.g. Whiteley, 2000; World Bank, 2011; Iyer, Kitson & Toh 2005). Central to understanding how this works is the idea that certain norms and values (such as the ones mentioned above) actually have economic value in that they foster economically beneficial relationships and cooperation—and in doing so they lower transaction costs (Fukuyama, 2001). It is no coincidence that countries where interpersonal trust is higher and social capital is stronger also have the most developed economies (Knack & Keefer, 1997; Knack, 2002).

A good way to demonstrate how trust and social capital has economic value is to use an illustration. Vishal Mangalwadi, an Indian author and philosopher, describes in one of his books (Mangalwadi, 2009) his first visit to the Netherlands during which time he realized that trust is a valuable economic asset. On this visit while staying in a rural part of the country, his host took him to buy fresh milk. They walked to a neighbouring farm and entered through an unlocked door into the facility where cows were milked. His host proceeded to fill his milk jugs from the vat, and then deposited money into a jar. They proceeded to leave with their milk, never encountering another person during the entire transaction. Mangalwadi was dumbfounded. He did not understand what prevented others from coming to steal the money in the jar, or to at least take the milk for free (not to mention the cows). This brief example shows how social capital can contribute to economic prosperity—but also how fragile it is. Because the milk farmer trusted his neighbours to pay for their milk without supervision, it lowered the transaction costs. Conversely, if the farmer at some point experienced theft, he may lose trust and take precautions by hiring someone to manage the transactions, ultimately leading to an increase in the price of milk. Taking the argument even further, if the hired worker were not himself trustworthy, and only made rational decisions based upon his own return on investment, he might begin pocketing some of the money. Continuing to lose, the milk farmer may be tempted to boost profits by watering down his milk. His customers would then be forced to create a regulatory institution that could ensure quality—further hiking up prices. This scenario shows, albeit on a very small scale, how social cohesion has economic benefit, and how the breakdown of trust in an economy can have detrimental and far-reaching effects. Mangalwadi realized what European communities had that was largely lacking in his own country, and what was responsible for the relative difference in economic prosperity: social capital.

The breakdown of the trust relationship between public transport companies and those using public transport in the Netherlands was one of the main reasons for the introduction of the OV chip card system, and serves an example of how social cohesion is deteriorating in Europe. The system, which cost a fortune to implement, was a rational response by the public transport companies in the face of profit losses due to fraud on the part of commuters who could no longer be trusted to “punch in” with their strippenkaart (Thales Group, 2011). By deviating from the social norms (namely honesty and trustworthiness), and cheating the system, the very consumers who tried to avoid costs to themselves in the short term, effectively caused the prices of public transport to increase for the entire society. Similar phenomenon can be observed throughout Europe in the corporate world and even politics. As people place less value on the social norms that have helped to shape Europe, social cohesion deteriorates and people trust each other less. As social cohesion breaks down, individuals tend to make decisions based solely on their personal rate of return rather than what is beneficial or “right” for the network in which they are embedded.

There are numerous reasons why social capital can be said to be on the decline in Europe. One of the main reasons is the diminishing role of the family in society. Increasingly more children are growing up with only one parent, or with parents that do not live together (Morgan & Zippel, 2003). Additionally it is increasingly more common that both parents work, and therefore invest less time with their children. Traditionally, the family has played the greatest role in passing on important social values and norms that constitute social capital (Putnam, 2000). Another possible reason for the decline may be decreased involvement with religious institutions. Increasingly fewer Europeans affiliate themselves with religious beliefs (Pollack, 2008). Religious institutions have been shown to play an important role in the development of social capital (Fukuyama, 2001).

The reasons why these values and social norms are disappearing are many and varied, but the results are clear: trust disappears, and transaction costs increase as problems like corruption, bribery, fraud and criminality take their place. Studies have shown that corruption raises the cost of capital and uncertainty in the economy (Gray & Kaufman, 1998), and some studies have shown that corruption is even spreading in Western Europe (Porta, 1997). On the other hand however, the same study shows that society is also becoming more concerned about problems like corruption and wants to do more to fight them. Also, while many of the traditional values that have contributed to social capital are on the decline, other values such as tolerance, environmentalism and social responsibility are on the rise in Europe. Additionally, the average economic and social well-being in much of Western Europe has been steady or on the rise.

How does one reconcile these seemingly inconsistent trends? Perhaps social capital is merely changing form. One other possibility is that Europe is not yet fully experiencing the effects of its steady decline in social capital, but is still reaping the benefits of the strong social cohesion created by prior generations. If this is the case, it is only a matter of time until Europe undergoes a painful transformation. As social capital continues to decline, it may be that Europe no longer finds itself positioned next to the United States at the forefront of the global economy.

Fountain, J. (2004). Living as people of hope (p. 53). Rotterdam: Initialmedia. 

Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third world quarterly, 22(1), 7-20.

Gray, Cheryl W.; Kaufman, Daniel (1998). Corruption and Development. World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/11545

Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The Rural School Community Centre. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. 67, 130-38.

Iyer, S., Kitson, M., & Toh, B. (2005). Social capital, economic growth and regional development. Regional Studies, 39(8), 1015-1040.

Keeley, B. (2007). OECD Insights Human Capital How what you know shapes your life: How what you know shapes your life. OECD Publishing.

Knack, S. (2002). Social capital, growth and poverty: A survey of cross-country evidence. The role of social capital in development: An empirical assessment, 42-82.

Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. The Quarterly journal of economics, 1251-1288.

Mangalwadi, V. (2009). Truth and transformation: A manifesto for ailing nations. Seattle: YWAM Publishing.

Morgan, K. J., & Zippel, K. (2003). Paid to care: The origins and effects of care leave policies in Western Europe. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 10(1), 49-85.

Pollack, D. (2008). Religious change in Europe: theoretical considerations and empirical findings. Social compass, 55(2), 168-186.

Porta, D. (1997). Democracy and corruption in Europe. London: Pinter.

Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13(Spring), Vol. 4.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Thales Group (2011). The OV-chipkaart Story: A Nationwide Interoperable Fare Collection System in the Netherlands. ThalesGroup.com. Retrieved Dec. 13, 2014, from https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/thales_-_the_ovchipkaart_story_-_v2.pdf

The World Bank Group. (2011). What is Social Capital. Retrieved 12 11, 2014, from World Bank: http://go.worldbank.org/K4LUMW43B0

Whiteley, P. F. (2000). Economic growth and social capital. Political Studies,48(3), 443-466.

A Post To Make Evolutionists Angry

The debate over whether intelligent design is a credible topic to teach children (or even mention to children) in school is such a no-brainer to me that I am simply flabbergasted as to why it is such a hotly debated topic. The only way I can think to explain its passionate dismissal by so many educators, is complete professional bias because of its connection to religion, the most unpopular of subjects today.

When looking for an explanation, is it not simply good practice to consider more than one possibility? Of two explanations, one may very well be proven wrong, eventually, and then the other would be more sure. And yet in the case of the origin of life, only one possible explanation is put forward in schools, and it is one that has not been proven. Rather, it is one that has been proven to be very shaky indeed.

The refusal to consider alternate explanations is dishonest, unwise, unbalanced, and just bad practice. And it's not just refusal. It is protest marches, court cases, hate mail... it is pulsating forehead veins! I say stay this madness! Education has been hijacked by the dogma of the staunchly irreligious.

Logic seems to dictate loudly that intelligent design is not only a credible explanation in talking about the origin of complex systems, but a far more likely explanation than unaided evolution is. We must remember, however, that they are very different types of explanation. While one of them is purely based on science, the other admits that science alone cannot always be used to prove what can be proven logically or philosophically. But is it really so strange that a thing, contemplating itself, is unable to explain its own origin using observation and analysis?

Why then such fury? Is it anything more than a gross overreaction to the hint of a religious flavor? It is a fury that causes evolutionists to become more narrow and religious in their thinking even than their counterparts! For which is more narrow and dogmatic, to accept nothing but what the scientific method can prove, or to accept some element of the unexplainable? Is it more narrow to believe only in the natural, or to leave room also for at least the possibility of the supernatural?

But logic gives the greater argument. Setting aside the question of life, let us ask this: What complex system, showing clear order, do we know of that did not come about from something even more complex and orderly than itself? A complex thing like a book can only exist because it came from a more complex author. A complex ECG printout can only exist because it came from a much more complex printer. A complex ant hill, can only exist because it came from a much more complicated ant. What about a beehive? A melody?

In fact, we cannot find anything complex and orderly that did not originate from something even more complex and orderly, and with a specific creative intent. It would be madness to try to explain a book by postulating that a nearby printing press exploded, and the letters, ink and paper all fell down together coincidentally, and in the right sequence to produce intelligent text. It would be lunacy to try to explain a pop song by postulating that there was an accident in the recording studio, and all the instruments were knocked about while the record button was pressed. It is madness and lunacy precisely because even the dullest of us recognize the signs of intelligent design in literature and music.

We cannot find anything complex and orderly that did not originate from something more complex and orderly. And yet in the case of the most complex and orderly thing of all, life, we are taught to believe that the opposite is true. Even with absolutely no precedent, we are taught to deny these clear principles. We are taught to believe that life did not originate from something more complex and orderly, but instead that the universe exploded and that all the pieces did indeed fall down together coincidentally and in the right sequence.

Is this not simply madness? It may very well not be madness, it may in fact be true. In the case of life, perhaps the printing press may well have exploded to produce the book. But what about the likelihood of those two contrasting explanations? We are talking about astronomical figures here. What sane person, finding a book, would assume such a far-fetched explanation? And yet, this is how we are taught to think!

Is it the apparent absence of an author that leads men to think this way? They look around, and see no obvious sign of an author (besides life itself), and so they wrack their brains for centuries in order to come up with any explanation that is at least feasible. And then they tell it to themselves for centuries more, until they they actually believe it is true. That is precisely our situation! Evolution may be feasible, but is it likely? Is it not more likely that we simply have not found the author?

Actually, it is not the apparent absence of the author only, but it is the intentional unwillingness for there to be an author that has caused us to take the most unlikely explanation imaginable, and elevate it to the dogma of our age. Why? For many reasons. For intellectuals, it is because believing in God means accountability. For non-intellectuals, it is because believing in God is so damn unfashionable. Also, because religion through the ages has proven to be so damning, men will believe anything to escape it. Is it really so foolish to imagine God away for the sake of self-preservation?

But intellectual honesty must at some point prevail. And even though we may hate the idea, we must admit the obvious. As clearly as we know that a beehive is the result of the intelligent bee, we can see that life is also the result of something, or someone intelligent, beyond our ability to fully explain or perhaps ever understand. Either that is true, or we are betting on the feasibility of a theory with a likelihood of somewhere between a number astronomically minuscule, and zero.

So why is there such vehement protest against the theory of intelligent design? Why do we insist only on the dogmatic indoctrination of evolution? Bias, nothing more.

SPF

Set Your Mind To It!

I can fix water pipes. Who knew? I just repaired my grandma's copper piping that provides water to her garden. I'm not a plumber, I'm just a guy with a will to get things done.

Actually, I've been doing all kinds of handy stuff lately. Remodeling, installing floors and shelves, running cables through buildings, putting up light fixtures, working on cars and bikes, fixing enormously complex computer problems, setting up Linux servers. I have no training in any of this stuff.

People always tell me it's so amazing that I am able to manage the IT department considering I've had no training at all. My instinctive reaction is to say, “you could do it too!” All it takes is a little patience and perseverance.

All I know about computers, or about any other handy work, I learned by trial and error, critical thinking, logical deduction, reading and research, lots of inquisitiveness, and simply continuing to have at it until it's done.

People tell me I have a special gift for figuring things out. I suppose that is possible. But I think it has to do more with the mere willingness to set your mind to it. I think all of us are far more capable of doing things than we know. We far too often give up, or don't try at all, because we assume we won't be able to do something.

Here is a good example: I started getting so many requests to fix peoples' personal computers, I was overwhelmed. So I decided to start charging €3 per 10 minutes. Very soon, all the requests stopped! People, at least in most cases, were suddenly, as if by magic, able to fix the problems themselves!

If you're reading this, I want to challenge you. You know that problem that you're waiting for the repair man, or your dad to come over and fix? The kitchen sink... or the computer? Try giving it a go yourself... Be patient, be inquisitive, and set your mind to it. I bet you'll be surprised!

SPF

Defining Faith

People tend to think of faith and doubt as mutually exclusive. It is typically said that one either "has faith" (in or for something) or they are "doubting". In this way of thinking, faith is reduced to a state of mind.

Christians continually feel guilty because they don't "have enough faith", and by this they seem to mean they don't "believe strongly enough." When they encounter things in life that cause them to experience doubt (wether in small or large matters), they usually see that as something bad.

I would define faith differently. I would even say that faith requires the presence of doubt. Faith is not just a state of mind, but an act of will, which by definition requires exercising. Faith is not the absense of doubt, but it is what you choose to do when faced with doubt.

Were I to tell you that flying elephants exist, you would not naturally believe me, nor could you choose to believe me because you cannot force your mind to accept something that is contrary to what it knows to be actual. Again, faith is not a state of mind. You could, however, choose to trust me, and make decisions based on what I have told you. In this you would be exercizing faith; not in flying elephants, but in me and in my character.

The above example is absurd. But in the same way God calls us to have faith in him and in his character through making decisions based not on what we naturally perceive, but on what he has said.

Taking all this into account, I would say that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but fear. God has spoken clearly that he is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Exo 34:6). God has spoken clearly that he is our provider (Gen 50:21). In fact, the most repeated command in the bible is, "do not fear," or some variation of that.

When we are confronted with doubts or situations that cause us to doubt, we can either choose to be afraid and to worry, or to exercise faith by trusting in God's characteristics, and continuing to live in light of what God has said about himself.

This also releases the Christian from the guilt associated with doubt. Doubt is natural to the rational mind and is very healthy. Instead of trying to ignore it, avoid it, cover it up with endless religious activity, or feel guilty about it, we should engage it, wrestle with it, and allow it to send us seeking for answers. After all, an unexamined faith is not worth having.

Seeking truth should be any person's foremost agenda. By wrestling with doubts we obtain much understanding, and ultimately more solid grounds for our faith, and also the things we believed that turn out to be groundless, we can leave behind.

Why is God invisible? There would be no need to exercise faith were he not. But God enjoys being sought after.

So my friends, do not be afraid, take advantage of your doubts, and remember, we are to live by faith, not by sight.

SPF