Social Capital Theory has drawn much academicinterest and research, has been stated as both concept as well a theory in pasttwo decades (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). The theory of social capital has been usedto explore the role, nature and the importance of connections, networks andforms of community (Cronin, 2016).
The attraction of the concept is perhaps inpart due to the common understanding that as social element, it may capture thespirit of many sociological concepts such as social support, socialintegration, social cohesion, and even norms and values (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). SCT serves as an umbrella term thatcan be easily understood and it has been developed by scholars from a range ofdisciplines (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001) although supported asa way to explore and resolve a wide variety of social issues and problems,including: health and well-being, crime, education and economic growth. The theorization of social capital, however,is mainly related to three writers, James Coleman, Robert Putnam and PierreBourdieu (Cronin, 2016).
Someacademicians have examined the use of the word ‘capital’ to identify theessence of social exchanges and attitudes. has Certainly, social capital reveals a number of features thatdistinguish it from other forms of capital. Unlike physical capital, butlike human capital, social capital has described as a result of its use (Garrison, 2009).
According to him,social capital is both an input and an output of mutual actions, to the extentthat social interaction is drawn on to produce jointly beneficial output, thequantity or quality of these relations expected to be increase. Chow & Chan(2008) has explained that social capital exists and create in the relationshipsamong people and it describe variety of pro-social behaviours, like sharedactions and community involvement whereas Coleman (1988) claimed that it helpsin stimulating actions between persons, parties or corporations where inoverall is has emerged with a relational perspective that terms social andrelational vary hand in hand and they are highly related each other (MacNeil,1985;Putnam,2005). For example, relational qualities such as trust and commitmentdeveloped with each other over a history of interactions, provides a foundationfor shared actions where these concepts and attributes come from the long termnetwork relationship held by different entities, which includes formal andinformal collaborative relationships, and the social networks formed byunderstanding between people (Hung, Lin, & Chen, 2013). Social capital is a social science concept that used in business, politicalscience, economics, public health, sociology and organizational behavior, also itrefers to the network of relationships controlled by an individual or a society,that set of resources embedded within it, strongly influence the extent towhich interpersonal knowledge sharing would occur (Darvish & Nikbakhsh,2010;Nahapiet & Ghosal,1998).
Although there are diversified set of relateddefinitions to the social capital theory, all of them tend to share the core idea’that social networks have value’. Unlike financial or human capital, which canbe obsessed by a large number of people, social capital is unique. It exists inthe structure of relationships between or among actors, making it a resourcethat doesn’t lie with one individual, but instead is mutually owned (Coleman, 1988;Edelman, Bresnen, Newell, Scarbrought & Swan,2000).This theory identi?es the importance of existingpersonal relations and networks of relations that embedded in severalrelationships forming trust and establishing expectations. In recent years, anumber of scholars have followed in applying this concept to different socialphenomena, such as internal and external organizational relationships, andcommunity relationships, as a result social capital is commonly used to studybuyer-seller relationships and economic actions (Hung, Lin & Chen,2013; Lu,Feng, Trienekens & Omta,2012).Researchers have argued that social capital is a multidimensionalconcept (Garrison, 2009).
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), in theircomprehensive review of the conceptual literatureon social capital, categorized the construct of social capital into three distinctbut clearly interconnected dimensions: structural, cognitive and relational. Individual dimensions are assumed to provide unique resourceaccess, such as information through limited associates or trust and reciprocitythat enhance the dynamic competency of using such information and they are veryimportant centered to their own features (Garrison, 2009). StructuralDimension: Structural social capital involves social and networkrelations supplementing rules, procedures, precedents and enables informationsharing, mutual actions and decision making through established roles.
Foritself, it is a relatively objective and externally observable concept (Chow& Chan,2008; Garrison,2009). This, principally studied using a networkapproach where it refers to the ways in which inspire recipients gain access toactors with desired sets of knowledge or intellectual capital. Famously,network pattern, hierarchy, density and connectivity are the factors that are usuallymeasured by this dimension (Edelman, Bresnen, Newell, Scarbrough ,2000). According to Nahapiet& Ghoshal (1998) Structural embeddednessconcerns the properties of the social system and the network of relations as awhole. The term defines the impersonal formation of links between people or entities.They used the concept of the structural dimension of social capital to denote theoverall pattern of connections between actors denoting that existence ofnetworks created for one purpose can be used for another