Abstract

Research and policy circles often emphasize the importance of social capital in achieving social transformation and economic development. There is also, however, potentially a ‘dark side’ to social capital. This study investigates the relationship between two different types of social capital—structural and cognitive—using two different measures of political violence: self-reported support for political violence and self-reported participation in political violence. We theorized that cognitive social capital will facilitate social cohesion within a community, enabling particularized trust between neighbours and a shared identity. On the other hand, structural social capital, or associational membership, potentially facilitates the diffusion of grievances and facilitates collective mobilization. Accordingly, we predict that higher levels of structural social capital will be associated with support for and participation in political violence, whilst higher levels of cognitive social capital will be associated with less support for and participation in political violence. We then test these predictions using Afrobarometer data on 40,455 individuals living in 27 African countries. Multivariate regression analysis confirms that indicators of structural and cognitive social capital have contrasting relationships with support for and participation in political violence. While particularized trust and national identity are negatively associated with political violence, religious and community associational membership are positively associated with political violence. In addition, we find that strength of attachment to a social identity, regardless of whether to an ethnic or national identity, is an important indicator of political violence.

Highlights

  • It is generally assumed that societies that experience high-levels of violence suffer from weak social capital (Blattman and Miguel 2010; Cassar et al 2013; Grosjean 2014), and that social transformation requires an increase in the density of social ties (Colletta and Cullen 2000; De Luca and Verpoorten 2015)

  • We find that measures for structural and cognitive social capital have opposite relationships with self-reported political violence

  • This was achieved by examining associational membership and civic engagement as measures for structural social capital, and trust and national identity variables to gauge cognitive social capital

Read more

Summary

Introduction

It is generally assumed that societies that experience high-levels of violence suffer from weak social capital (Blattman and Miguel 2010; Cassar et al 2013; Grosjean 2014), and that social transformation requires an increase in the density of social ties (Colletta and Cullen 2000; De Luca and Verpoorten 2015). The World Development Report 2011, for example, considers the destruction of social capital to be one of the costs of violence and advocates for community-driven development programs in order to reconstruct social capital and strengthen social cohesion, especially in areas affected by conflict (World Bank 2011). Portes (1998) notes that increased social capital can lead to negative consequences, such as constraints on individual freedom, downward levelling norms, and the social exclusion of persons not perceived to be members of the community. A cross-sectional study on social capital and adolescent behaviour using US data from 1994 to 1995, found that higher levels of participation in sports and club organizations increased tendencies towards fighting and the use of weapons (Wright and Fitzpatrick 2006). How can we explain the divergent effects of social capital on individual violence?

Objectives
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call