The Dictionary of Human Geography

Comp. by: VPugazhenthi Stage : Revises1 ChapterID: 9781405132879_4_S Date:1/4/
09 Time:15:23:36 Filepath:H:/00_Blackwell/00_3B2/Gregory-9781405132879/appln/3B2/
revises/9781405132879_4_S.3d

and associated urbanization (termed a

society’s ‘increasing scale’: Shevky and Bell,

1955). Increasing scale (not to be confused

with other uses of that term – seescale)

involves three interrelated trends:

. Changes in the range and intensity of so-
cial relations produced by greaterdivision
of labourand reflected in the distribution
of skills and rewards within society – this
trend was termedsocial rankoreconomic
status.
. Increasing differentiation of functions within
society and its constituent households
generating new lifestyles and household
forms – termedurbanizationorfamily status.
. The concentration into cities of people
from different cultural backgrounds– seg-
regationorethnic status.

The link between these three trends and resi-

dential differentiation was not clear in the ori-

ginal presentation. Shevky and Bell selected

variables to represent the three trends (the

percentage in certain occupations for eco-

nomic status, for example), which were meas-

ured for the variouscensus tractsin a city

and used to produce standardized indices for

each tract on each construct. The tracts were

then classified into a typology of social areas

depending on their values on the three indices.

Although the technique was soon super-

seded by the more inductive approach of

factorial ecology, and the theory was

largely ignored withinurban geography, the

three constructs remained central to much

analysis of urban residential patterns. rj

Suggested reading

Johnston (1969).

social capital The idea that access to and

participation in groups can benefit individuals

and communities – the nub of contempo-

rary social capital scholarship – is a well-

established sociological insight dating to the

nineteenth century writings of Karl Marx,

Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Tonnies,

among others. The term itself was first

invoked (and then only once) by the econo-

mist Glen Loury in a 1977 article in which he

critiqued neo-classical theories of racial

income inequality. Loury contended that by

its commitment to methodological individ-

ualism, orthodox labour economics was

incapable of factoring how social context –

specifically, poorer connections of young black

workers to the labour market and their lack of

information about opportunities – impeded

intergenerational mobility and reproduced

race divisions rooted in economic inequality

(Loury, 1977).

The sociologist Alejandro Portes (1998)

attributes the first theoretically refined analysis

of social capital to Pierre Bourdieu, who

defined the concept as ‘the aggregate of the

actual or potential resources which are linked

to possession of a durable network of more or

less institutionalized relationships of mutual

acquaintance or recognition’ (Bourdieu,

1985, p. 248). Although Bourdieu’s note, ini-

tially published in French in 1980, remained

neglected within the English-speaking world,

the concept of social capital proliferated,

catalysed by a conjuncture of events. These

included the publication of an article in the

late 1980s by a leading American sociologist,

James Coleman, in which he explored the con-

nection between aspects of ‘social structure’

and ‘human capital’ formation (Coleman,

1988). Although Coleman’s treatment of

social capital lacked the rigour of Bourdieu’s

formulation, it garnered far more traction.

Post-1989markettriumphalism, accompany-

ing receptivity within and outside academia

(e.g. at powerful multinational institutions

such as the World Bank) to non-dirigiste

sources of economicdevelopment, and the

linked emergence of a ‘globalcivil society’

discourse (which conflated ideas of free society

and free market) undoubtedly contributed to

the popularity of Coleman’s thesis.

Since then, mainstream social science has

operationalized the concept of social capital in

a bewildering number of ways. The shared

impulse has been to parlayculturein a form

sensible to economics and policy science. This

importation of culture into the economic is

sorely inadequate (see cultural economy).

Of the three broad categories of empirical

approaches currently in vogue, the first evalu-

ates how social relations might function as

collateral or assurance that an economic trans-

action will occur in the manner anticipated –

the distilled wisdom here is that social capital in

the form oftrustminimizes the risks (and,

hence, costs) associated with transactions and

boosts economic competitiveness. A second

approach measures how social capital as density

of strong and weak social ties and group

membership acts as an insurance mechanism

during periods of need or crisis – the contention

being that social cohesion is positively correl-

ated with the ability of individuals to shield

themselves from idiosyncratic risks. A third

approach conceptualizes social capital as a

Gregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_S Final Proof page 689 1.4.2009 3:23pm

SOCIAL CAPITAL