Abstract
The current world development agenda led to a focus called the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). There were 17 development goals that became the world’s commitment to be achieved soon. The results of the consensus in 1995 at the World Summit for Social Development stated that the development must make humans as the center of development. One of the benchmarks for human development was based on the Social Capital index. Various countries had developed the concept of social capital. So far, the capital of the OECD had become the most referenced, such as Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, as a reference in developing indicators of social capital. This study aimed to prove Lin’s theory which stated that assets or economics were directly proportional to the development of social capital. The results showed that economic variables such as GRDP per capita were inversely proportional to social capital. Subsequently social capital was significantly influenced negatively by Indonesia’s democracy index and significantly influenced positively by population density
Highlights
The current development paradigm should have focused on humans as the center of development
It’s not surprising if social capital is associated with economic development which is measured by socioeconomic variables
Putnam explained that democracy and the economy of society could be a bridge to social capital through networking (Putnam, 1995 in BPS, 2012)
Summary
The current development paradigm should have focused on humans as the center of development. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2001) added that human welfare could be measured through three things (see Figure 1), namely: natural capital, physical capital, and human capital and social capital. It’s not surprising if social capital is associated with economic development which is measured by socioeconomic variables. Putnam (1993) is the first researcher who succeeded in providing a basis for the study of social capital associated with socioeconomic. Putnam explained that democracy and the economy of society could be a bridge to social capital through networking (Putnam, 1995 in BPS, 2012). In one of Ferragina’s (2013) research results stated that socioeconomic variables had an effect on social capital. Social capital has two analysis level (Bhandari and Yasonobu, 2009). (a) Individual level, social capital was measured from individual samples, (b) micro-, meso-, and macro level; social capital was measured from individuals and aggregated by various method to describe social capital at a greater level of analysis
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
