Social Capital Theory has drawn much academic
interest and research, has been stated as both concept as well a theory in past
two decades (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). The theory of social capital has been used
to explore the role, nature and the importance of connections, networks and
forms of community (Cronin, 2016). The attraction of the concept is perhaps in
part due to the common understanding that as social element, it may capture the
spirit of many sociological concepts such as social support, social
integration, social cohesion, and even norms and values (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001). SCT serves as an umbrella term that
can be easily understood and it has been developed by scholars from a range of
disciplines (Lin, Cook, & Burt, 2001) although supported as
a 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 Pierre
Bourdieu (Cronin, 2016).Some
academicians have examined the use of the word ‘capital’ to identify the
essence of social exchanges and attitudes. 
has Certainly, social capital reveals a number of features that
distinguish it from other forms of capital. Unlike physical capital, but
like 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 extent
that social interaction is drawn on to produce jointly beneficial output, the
quantity or quality of these relations expected to be increase. Chow & Chan
(2008) has explained that social capital exists and create in the relationships
among people and it describe variety of pro-social behaviours, like shared
actions and community involvement whereas Coleman (1988) claimed that it helps
in stimulating actions between persons, parties or corporations where in
overall is has emerged with a relational perspective that terms social and
relational vary hand in hand and they are highly related each other (MacNeil,1985;
Putnam,2005). For example, relational qualities such as trust and commitment
developed with each other over a history of interactions, provides a foundation
for shared actions where these concepts and attributes come from the long term
network relationship held by different entities, which includes formal and
informal collaborative relationships, and the social networks formed by
understanding between people (Hung, Lin,
& Chen, 2013).

 

Social capital is a social science concept that used in business, political
science, economics, public health, sociology and organizational behavior, also it
refers to the network of relationships controlled by an individual or a society,
that set of resources embedded within it, strongly influence the extent to
which interpersonal knowledge sharing would occur (Darvish & Nikbakhsh,2010;
Nahapiet & Ghosal,1998). Although there are diversified set of related
definitions 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 can
be obsessed by a large number of people, social capital is unique. It exists in
the structure of relationships between or among actors, making it a resource
that 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 existing
personal relations and networks of relations that embedded in several
relationships forming trust and establishing expectations. In recent years, a
number of scholars have followed in applying this concept to different social
phenomena, such as internal and external organizational relationships, and
community relationships, as a result social capital is commonly used to study
buyer-seller relationships and economic actions (Hung, Lin & Chen,2013; Lu,
Feng, Trienekens & Omta,2012).

Researchers have argued that social capital is a multidimensional
concept (Garrison, 2009). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), in their
comprehensive review of the conceptual

literature
on social capital, categorized the construct of social capital into three distinct
but clearly interconnected dimensions: structural, cognitive and relational. Individual dimensions are assumed to provide unique resource
access, such as information through limited associates or trust and reciprocity
that enhance the dynamic competency of using such information and they are very
important centered to their own features (Garrison, 2009).

 

Structural
Dimension: Structural social capital involves social and network
relations supplementing rules, procedures, precedents and enables information
sharing, mutual actions and decision making through established roles. For
itself, it is a relatively objective and externally observable concept (Chow
& Chan,2008; Garrison,2009). This, principally studied using a network
approach where it refers to the ways in which inspire recipients gain access to
actors with desired sets of knowledge or intellectual capital. Famously,
network pattern, hierarchy, density and connectivity are the factors that are usually
measured by this dimension (Edelman, Bresnen, Newell, Scarbrough &
Swan,2000). According to Nahapiet
& Ghoshal (1998) Structural embeddedness
concerns the properties of the social system and the network of relations as a
whole. 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 the
overall pattern of connections between actors denoting that existence of
networks created for one purpose can be used for another

x

Hi!
I'm Katy!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out