Do social historians need social capital?

Abstract

Every so often, a concept in the social sciences emerges from humble beginnings and takes on a life of its own, crossing disciplinary boundaries, spanning disparate geographical contexts and linking analytical concerns in the academy with normative agendas in policy circles. The concept of the moment seems to be social capital. Born of some of the most prolific minds in the sociological profession, social capital has come of age in the hands of political scientists to then be adopted by economists, organizational theorists and most other kinds of social scientists. At the same time, it has left the ivory tower of academic debate by drawing attention from politicians, media pundits, and even international organizations, above all the World Bank.1 This essay is an attempt to make sense of this extraordinary intellectual and political parable and assess whether historians, who have so far largely ignored social capital, should jump on the bandwagon or patiently wait for the parable to run its course. I will first provide a review of the origins and development of the concept of social capital in the social sciences; I will then address the potential of social capital as a category of historical analysis; and finally I will briefly illustrate how I have employed this notion in my research on small-scale industrialization in central and northern Italy. I will show that there are at least two major interpretations of social capital, and that only one of them holds any promise for historians. Even though the challenges and dangers of employing the category of social capital are great, a critical revision of the concept might lead to fruitful interdisciplinary research and to a new appreciation of economic action by historians.