by
Ryan Avent
118
Social Capital in the Twenty-First Century
1
terms
2
notes
121
Social capital is not quite as intuitive a concept as plain old capital. Physical capital--buildings and computers et al--shapes the way people behave at work. Social capital--behavioural patterns that live in our heads--do too.
on p122 he defines it as "individual knowledge that only has value in particular social contexts" which makes it an interesting concept, but it is quite different from more recognisable definitions (e.g., Bourdieu's)
Social capital is not quite as intuitive a concept as plain old capital. Physical capital--buildings and computers et al--shapes the way people behave at work. Social capital--behavioural patterns that live in our heads--do too.
on p122 he defines it as "individual knowledge that only has value in particular social contexts" which makes it an interesting concept, but it is quite different from more recognisable definitions (e.g., Bourdieu's)
capital deepening
(en)
where the capital per worker is increasing in the economy (differs from capital widening, as the latter sees capital increase while the labour force also increases so capital per worker is constant)
138
when an economy like China grows from extreme poverty to something like middle-income status is 'capital deepening', or the application of more capital per worker
notable
7 years ago
when an economy like China grows from extreme poverty to something like middle-income status is 'capital deepening', or the application of more capital per worker
notable
7 years ago
140
Hopefully, thinking about society in this way allows us to better understand differences in economic performance. Social capital evolves over long periods of time, lives in the heads of those operating within society (but is often embodied in institutions, such as governments or firms), and influences economic behaviour. Some forms of social capital are growth compatible, others are not. In rich countries, norms and institutions encourage the clever application of new ideas to profitable ends, and innovators can take comfort in the belief that their efforts will be fairly judged in the market, and that any returns they earn will not be unjustly seized by others or the state.
[...] social capital can't easily be exported. [...] Social-capital-rich countries can merely try to create conditions that encourage the accumulation of healthy social capital in poorer countries. The European Union is a grand effort to do something very much along those lines: to create the incentives in peripheral European states with weaker social capital to invest in and deepen the sorts of social capital that are conducive to openness, the rule of law and free markets. International trade agreements and institutions such as the World Trade Organization are another way in which states actively seek to nurture social-capital deepening in poorer countries. Countries constantly use the geopolitical leverage available to them to try to improve the behaviour of troublesome neighbours, and these efforts occasionally bear fruit. Yet we should also acknowledge that countries are not, on the whole, very good at encouraging social-capital accumulation in others.
this is the most naive BS i've ever seen. defining social capital in this fairly standard and positive way and assuming THAT accounts for differences in economic performance is just ... unbelievable
the use of "fairly judged" is just wow, there's a lot to unpack here
plus this view of institutions like the EU and the WTO as benign (or even good) is so childlike
he then goes on to suggest migration as a solution which is obviously problematic (wtf happens to everybody else???)
Hopefully, thinking about society in this way allows us to better understand differences in economic performance. Social capital evolves over long periods of time, lives in the heads of those operating within society (but is often embodied in institutions, such as governments or firms), and influences economic behaviour. Some forms of social capital are growth compatible, others are not. In rich countries, norms and institutions encourage the clever application of new ideas to profitable ends, and innovators can take comfort in the belief that their efforts will be fairly judged in the market, and that any returns they earn will not be unjustly seized by others or the state.
[...] social capital can't easily be exported. [...] Social-capital-rich countries can merely try to create conditions that encourage the accumulation of healthy social capital in poorer countries. The European Union is a grand effort to do something very much along those lines: to create the incentives in peripheral European states with weaker social capital to invest in and deepen the sorts of social capital that are conducive to openness, the rule of law and free markets. International trade agreements and institutions such as the World Trade Organization are another way in which states actively seek to nurture social-capital deepening in poorer countries. Countries constantly use the geopolitical leverage available to them to try to improve the behaviour of troublesome neighbours, and these efforts occasionally bear fruit. Yet we should also acknowledge that countries are not, on the whole, very good at encouraging social-capital accumulation in others.
this is the most naive BS i've ever seen. defining social capital in this fairly standard and positive way and assuming THAT accounts for differences in economic performance is just ... unbelievable
the use of "fairly judged" is just wow, there's a lot to unpack here
plus this view of institutions like the EU and the WTO as benign (or even good) is so childlike
he then goes on to suggest migration as a solution which is obviously problematic (wtf happens to everybody else???)