Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences

By Robert D. Putnam. 2001

1,617 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9b8c41336ea86d9202f50b4351164eb1120a8a86

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Social capital and subjective well-being trends: Comparing 11 western European countries (2010, unknown): “11 In this way the author identifies crucial aspects of social capital specifying their role in social relationships: they enable different people to co-operate (even unconsciously) to reach common goals Putnam (2001).”
Is trust the missing root of institutions, education, and development? (2013, background): “Similar results are reported in cross-country studies, where higher levels of trust are found to be associated with less corruption, for instance by Putnam (2001) and Uslaner (2002), better legal quality nd bureaucratic efficiency and, perhaps, also more participation in the political process, a…”
Is social capital associated with corporate innovation? Evidence from publicly listed firms in the U.S (2020, background): “Cross-county differences in economic development, infrastructure quality, and labor market quality could drive differences in corporate innovation across counties; such differences are likely to correlate with county-level demographical factors such as income level, population size, population growt”
Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives (2017, methodology): “Further, indices like the Social Progress Index [144] and the Sustainable Neighborhoods for Happiness Index [145], and measures of social capital [146] and social cohesion [147] serve as potential measures for S-LCA models.”
A Tale of Two Scales: Evaluating the Relationship Among Life Satisfaction, Social Capital, Income, and the Natural Environment at Individual and Neighborhood Levels in Metropolitan Baltimore (2011, methodology): “This result strongly supports the conclusion that social capital is fundamentally a relational construct that relates to the shared knowledge and networks that facilitate collective experience within the neighborhood (Coleman, 1988; Ostrom, 1999; Putnam, 2001; Woolcock, 2001).”
Ghost-House Busters: The Electoral Response to a Large Anti Tax Evasion Program (2016, unknown): “In particular, the finding on social capital is consistent with Putnam (2001), who finds that the percentage of tax evasion, as measured by the Internal Revenue Service, is strongly related to differences in social capital at the state level.”
Institutional Performance and Social Capital: An Application to the Local Government Level (2005, background): “The existence and maintenance of social capital in a society have been shown to increase the success of schools and their pupils (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1997) and to lower incidences of social problems such as teen pregnancy ( Putnam, 2001 ), delinquency (Hagan, Merkens, & B”
Building Financial Satisfaction (2006, background): “supports the notion that there might be positive externalities from higher levels of social capital ( Putnam, 2001; Helliwell, 2001).”
How's Life? Combining Individual and National Variables to Explain Subjective Well-Being (2003, unknown): “Putnam (2000, 2001) explains individual measures of well-being with individual-level and state-level variables to provide preliminary estimates of the relative contributions of income, health, social connectedness and family status to individual well-being.”
Social Capital and Debt Contracting: Evidence from Bank Loans and Public Bonds (2017, unknown): “Putnam ((2001), p. 48) argues that “the best single predictor of the level of social capital in American states is distance to the Canadian border.”
The productivity of trust (2015, background): “…rights and allow for efficient provision of central public goods, be it because they result in a stronger rule of law, as in Knack and Keefer (1997) or Bjørnskov (in press), lower corruption, as in Putnam (2001) or Uslaner (2002), or a more efficient public bureaucracy as in Bjørnskov (2010).”