IJE Advance Access originally published online on July 26, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(4):989-993; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl117
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Commentary |
Commentary: Social capital and health: making the connections one step at a time
Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: Ichiro.Kawachi{at}channing.harvard.edu.
The study by Tony Blakely et al.1 in this issue of the journal adds to the growing international evidence suggesting that social capital matters less for the health of residents in comparatively egalitarian countries, in contrast to highly unequal societies with inadequate safety nets. Although New Zealand experienced dramatic surges in income inequality following the structural reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, the country, nonetheless, managed to preserve robust support for public infrastructure (e.g. primary health care services, public education) that arguably helps to mitigate the consequences of rising inequality.
The New Zealand study is broadly consistent with the survey of literature on social capital and health carried out recently by Islam et al.2 The authors identified 42 studies on social capital and health published between 1995 and 2005, including 30 single-level studies (either individual-level or ecological data) as well as 12 multilevel studies from different countries. Regardless of study design, the review found a fairly consistent fixed effect association between social capital and a range of health outcomes. However, in the multilevel studies, the between-area variance (random effect) in health tended to be substantially lower in egalitarian countries compared with that in unequal countries.2 That is, the intra-class correlations (ICCs) for health outcomes were considerably lower in studies based in more egalitarian countries (e.g. Sweden) compared with those based in unequal countries such as the US. For example, ICCs from studies of neighbourhood influences on health typically range from 5 to 10% in US studies, but they tend to range between 1 and 2% for studies in Sweden.2 One implication is that in egalitarian societies, with strong safety nets and adequate provision of public goods, neighbourhood contexts (including the level of social cohesion) may be less salient for the health of residents in contrast to segregated and unequal societies such as the US. Echoing this view, a recent panel-data multilevel study of 275 Swedish municipalities found a modest fixed effect association between voting participation (as a marker of social cohesion) and health-related quality of life.3 However, 98% of variation in health was attributed to the individual level and only 2% to the municipality level.3
The modest (or in the New Zealand case, null) association between social capital and health in more egalitarian societies is reminiscent of literature on income inequality and health, where null findings have been reported from countries such as Sweden,4 Denmark,5 Japan,6 New Zealand,7 and Canada.8,9 By contrast, an association between income inequality and worse health status has been reported in highly unequal societies, including the US,10 Chile,11 and Ecuador.12 One interpretation of the evidence is that both income inequality and social capital are aggregate markers of deeper political and social arrangements (e.g. neo-liberalism vs support for the welfare state,13 and/or provision of universal primary care services14) that are contingent on the history of each country. An alternative possibility is that there are non-linear effects of income inequality on population health,15 such that beyond a certain threshold limit of inequality, social cohesion breaks down, and with it, support for spending on public goods.16 Recent evidence from a public-goods experiment tends to support this theory.17,18 Anderson et al.17 carried out a public-goods experiment in which participants were forced to choose between investing their allotted monetary tokens to a private account or to a shared (public) account. The return on the public account was set as a linear function of the total amount contributed by players in the game; the greater the amounts paid into the public kitty, the higher the returns to each player. However, when there is free-riding and players do not trust each other, the optimal strategy is to keep all investments in individual accounts. The experiment is thus a variant on the classical prisoner's dilemma game: if each player acts selfishly and hoards their tokens in their private accounts, they would walk away from the game with a fixed and predictable amount of money, but that amount would be less than the money they would each have earned if they had cooperated instead and invested all their tokens in the public account. The dilemma consists of the fact that no player knows how much the others have invested in the public account. If an individual player invests heavily in the public account but nobody else does, she would end up with less money compared with what she would earn when pursuing the selfish strategy. Faced with this situation, most players hedge their bets and invest some proportion of their tokens in the public account while holding back the remainder in their private accounts. The actual amount that players contribute to the public pool depends on cooperation between players and the extent to which they trust one another (i.e. believe that fellows are not free-riding).
The novel twist introduced into this game by Anderson et al. was to vary the distribution of the payments that each player was given when they showed up for the experiment. In some experiments, everybody received the exact same amount. In other experiments, some people received much more, while others received less. Furthermore, in half of the experiments, the initial distribution of payments was revealed to all players, but the actual payment given to each player was kept secret. In the other half, the actual payments awarded to each player were made public in a mock ceremony prior to the start of the game.
The results of this experiment support the theory that greater inequality in the distribution of incomes leads to less cooperative behaviour and lowered willingness to contribute to the public purse. Inequality in the distribution of initial payments consistently and significantly dampened the amount of contributions made to the public account, particularly when inequality was made salient to the players, i.e. in the experimental condition in which the distribution of rewards was publicly revealed at the beginning of the game.17,18
 |
‘Cohesion’ vs ‘network’ theories of social capital |
|---|
 Top 'Cohesion' vs 'network' theories... Bonding and bridging social...Next stepReferences |
|---|
One of the criticisms of the social capital literature has focused on the fairly widespread practice of using proxy indicators to measure area-level social capital.19
Lacking primary data, investigators have resorted to a diverse—and some say increasingly remote—set of proxy indicators ranging from voting behaviour, volunteering, local crime rates, perceptions of corruption, and even newspaper readership.19 Some of these indicators may be causal precursors or consequences of social capital, but they should not be confused with the concept of social capital itself.
Blakely et al.1 are appropriately cautious about noting the limitations of their indicator of social capital, which was based upon a measure of volunteering activities among census respondents. In the Swedish study cited above,3 voting participation was used as the indicator of municipal social capital. The observation that voting and volunteering are proxies for social capital, however, begs the question of what is ‘social capital’? The existing literature highlights two distinct conceptions of social capital. On the one hand, social capital has been conceptualized as the resources—for example, trust, norms, exercise of sanctions, and mutual assistance—available to members of tightly knit communities. We label this the ‘social cohesion’ school of social capital (Moore et al.20 have also labelled this the ‘communitarian’ definition of social capital). The social cohesion definition tends to emphasize social capital as a group attribute (e.g. a property of communities or neighbourhoods) and to analyse it as a contextual influence on individual health.21 As many have pointed out (e.g. Portes22), cohesion can produce both socially benign outcomes and undesirable outcomes, i.e. resources within tightly knit groups and communities are equally serviceable for the production of social ‘bads’ as well as goods. A citation network analysis of social capital literature in public health found that researchers have ‘privileged’ the social cohesion definition of social capital.20 The studies by Blakely et al.1 as well as Islam et al.3 belong squarely within this tradition.
By contrast, the ‘network’ theory of social capital defines the concept in terms of resources—for example, instrumental support, information channels, social credentials—that are embedded within an individual's social network.23 In contrast to measures of social cohesion, which typically rely upon survey items inquiring about perceptions of trust and reciprocity, and then aggregating the individual responses up to the group level, the network approach to social capital employs methods of sociometric analysis, i.e. either ego-centred network mapping or whole network analysis. Examples of measurement techniques for the former approach include Lin's Position Generator,24 which asks individuals (egos) to nominate others in their network (alters) who provide them with access to valued resources, e.g. prestige, political connections. An alternative approach is the Resource Generator, developed by van der Gaag and Snijders,25 which is a multidimensional index that taps an individual's access to resources across several domains of life (e.g. at home and in the work place) and spans across a range of goods from the material (e.g. borrowing money) to the symbolic (e.g. prestige, influence).
Distinct from these ego-centred sociometric approaches, whole network analysis involves saturation surveys of all existing social connections within a defined collective (e.g. a school or a workplace). The resulting data can then be manipulated to derive different structural properties of the network, several of which have relevance for social capital, e.g. ‘cohesion’, reciprocity, and centrality.26 Moore et al.20 contend that these network approaches have been marginalized and under-utilized in public health literature on social capital (although this claim might surprise some researchers who have utilized network analyses to explore the dark side of social capital—e.g. behavioural contagion—in studies of injection drug users,27 tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use among adolescents,28 and suicidal behaviour29).
The difference between the ‘network’ and ‘cohesion’ definitions of social capital may superficially resemble the frequently drawn distinction between the individual vs collective definitions of social capital. As already alluded to above, the cohesion approach to social capital emphasizes it as a collective (and often spatially-bound) attribute. However, it would be a mistake to view social capital in mutually exclusive terms, as either an individual or a collective asset; clearly, it can be both.30 To paraphrase Lin,23 social relations with embedded resources can be expected to be beneficial (and occasionally harmful) to both the collective and the individuals in the collective. The challenge lies in better integrating theory and measurement across different levels of social interaction, from individuals interacting with others within their own networks to interactions between groups within a broader social context. For example, Durlauf31 cites a scenario using the example of race relations, where social capital might promote strong intra-group (within own network) interactions, but it might also increase the level of inter-group hostility and, thereby, contribute to diminished social cohesion. In this example, both the individual and collective aspects of social capital are of substantive interest.
|
Bonding and bridging social capital |
|---|
|
Top'Cohesion' vs 'network' theories...Bonding and bridging social...Next stepReferences |
|---|
Additional insights into the mechanisms underlying social capital and health are likely to come from carefully distinguishing between so-called bonding and bridging/linking social capital.32 Bonding social capital refers to trusting and cooperative relations between members of a network who are similar in terms of social identity (e.g. race/ethnicity), whereas bridging/linking social capital refers to connections between individuals who are dissimilar with respect to social identity (bridging capital) or who interact across explicit power and authority gradients in society (linking capital).32 Although the New Zealand study did not incorporate measures to distinguish between these types of capital, a growing number of studies suggest that doing so may be critical for understanding the complex ways in which social capital may promote—and also harm—the health of individuals. In a cross-sectional study among residents of a disadvantaged, predominantly minority community in Birmingham, Alabama, Mitchell and LaGory33 reported that while bridging social capital (measured by the strength of trust and associational ties with others of a different race and educational background as the respondent) was associated with lower levels of mental distress, bonding social capital was related to health in the opposite direction, i.e. greater distress. Additional studies from Baltimore, Maryland,34 and Adelaide, Australia,35 suggest that stronger bonding ties within disadvantaged communities may be a detriment to the health of residents. In the Baltimore study, lower maternal community attachment was associated with fewer behavioural and mental health problems among children living in low-income areas.34 In a cross-sectional survey of a working class suburb in Adelaide, Ziersch and Baum35 reported that involvement in community groups was associated with worse physical health as measured by the SF-12. Qualitative interviews with residents in the same study found that respondents were more apt to link their participation in community groups with negative mental and physical health outcomes.
The bottom line from these studies seems to be that closer ties with neighbours can have a net negative effect on the health of residents, especially in deprived communities. This phenomenon could be linked in turn to the observation that within disadvantaged communities, stronger bonding ties may involve higher expectations to assist neighbours in need, and hence higher levels of financial and mental strain. The key to promoting health in this situation is for individuals to be able to access resources outside their immediate social milieu. Testing such a hypothesis requires explicit measures of bridging and linking social capital, exemplified by concepts such as ‘upper reachability’, which is part of Lin's Position Generator instrument.23
|
Next step |
|---|
|
Top'Cohesion' vs 'network' theories...Bonding and bridging social...Next stepReferences |
|---|
Beyond improving the conceptualization and measurement of social capital, future studies must additionally grapple with the thorny issues of causality. Existing studies, even those with a panel design1,3 have not adequately dealt with the problem that social capital is endogenous. At the individual level, it is not completely established whether good health is the result of social capital or whether social capital is the result of good health and/or other unmeasured personal characteristics that determine both health status and patterns of social engagement. At the community level, social cohesion may be a reflection of the health status of residents (i.e. you have to be healthy to volunteer). Some people also choose where to live based on their preferences for social interactions with neighbours. To the extent that such preferences are also correlated with health, we have an endogeneity problem.
Solving these problems (which in passim are not unique to studies of social capital and health) will require study designs in which the exposure (social capital) can be manipulated through either natural experiments (instruments) or randomization (e.g. cluster community trials).36 Though this is by no means an easy task—since there is plenty of debate about what causes social capital to rise or fall at either the individual or the community level—persuading policy makers of the relevance of social capital for health will probably hinge upon more convincing demonstrations of causality.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
Kawachi is supported in part by the MacArthur Foundation Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health.Conflicts of interest: None declared.
|
References |
|---|
|
Top'Cohesion' vs 'network' theories...Bonding and bridging social...Next stepReferences |
|---|
1 Blakely T, Atkinson J, Ivory V, Collings S, Wilton J, Howden-Chapman P. No association of neighbourhood volunteerism with mortality in New Zealand: A national multilevel mortality study. Int J Epidemiol 2006;35:981–89.
2 Islam MK, Merlo J, Kawachi I, Lindstrom M, Gerdtham U-G. Social capital and health: Does egalitarianism matter? A literature review. Int J Equity Health 2006;5:3.
3 Islam MK, Merlo J, Kawachi I, Lindstrom M, Burstrom K, Gerdtham U-G. Does it really matter where you live? A panel data multilevel analysis of Swedish municipality level social capital on individual health-related quality of life. Health Econ Policy Law 2006 (in press).
4 Gerdtham U-G, Johannesson M. Absolute income, relative income, income inequality, and mortality. J Hum Resour 2004;39:228–47.
5 Osler M, Prescott E, Gornbaek M, Christensen U, Due P, Engholm G. Income inequality, individual income, and mortality in Danish adults: analysis of pooled data from two cohort studies. BMJ 2002;324:13–16.
6 Shibuya K, Hashimoto H, Yano E. Individual income, income distribution, and self rated health in Japan: cross sectional analysis of nationally representative sample. BMJ 2002;324:16–19.
7 Blakely T, Atkinson J, O'Dea D. No association of income inequality with adult mortality within New Zealand: a multi-level study of 1.4 million 25–64 year olds. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:279–84.
8 Ross NA, Dorling D, Dunn JR et al. Metropolitan income inequality and working-age mortality: A cross-sectional analysis using comparable data from five countries. J Urban Health 2005;82:101–11[Web of Science][Medline]
9 Ross N, Wolfson M, Kaplan GA, Dunn JR, Lynch J, Sanmartin C. Income inequality as a determinant of health. In: Heymann J, Hertzman C, Barer ML, Evans RG (eds). Healthier Societies. From Analysis to Action. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 202–36.
10 Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. Whose health is affected by income inequality? A multilevel interaction analysis of contemporaneous and lagged effects of state income inequality on individual self-rated health in the United States. Health Place 2005;12:141–56.[Medline]
11 Subramanian SV, Degaldo I, Jadue L, Vega J, Kawachi I. Income inequality and health: multilevel analysis of Chilean communities. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003;57:844–48.
12 Larrea C, Kawachi I. Does economic inequality affect child malnutrition? The case of Ecuador. Soc Sci Med 2005;60:165–78.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
13 Coburn D. Beyond the income inequality hypothesis: class, neo-liberalism, and health inequalities. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:41–56.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
14 Shi L, Starfield B. Primary care, income inequality, and self-rated health in the United States: a mixed-level analysis. Int J Health Serv 2000;30:541–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
15 Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. Income inequality and health. What have we learned so far. Epidemiol Rev 2004;26:78–91.
16 Kawachi I, Kennedy BP. The Health of Nations. Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health. New York: The New Press, 2002.
17 Anderson LR, Mellor JM, Milyo J. Inequality, group cohesion, and public good provision. Working paper. Virginia: College of William and Mary, 2003. Available at: http://lrande.people.wm.edu/papers_hp.html (accessed on April 17, 2006).
18 Anderson LR, Mellor JM, Milyo J. Social capital and contributions in a public-goods experiment. AEA Pap Proc 2004;94:373–76.
19 Paldam M. Social capital: one or many? Definition and measurement. J Econ Surv 2000;14:629–53.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
20 Moore S, Shiell A, Hawe P, Haines VA. The privileging of communitarian ideas: Citation practices and the translation of social capital into public health research. Am J Public Health 2004;95:1330–37.[CrossRef]
21 Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, (eds). Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 174–90.
22 Portes A. Social capital: Its origins and application in modern sociology. Annu Rev Sociol 1998:24:1–24.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
23 Lin N. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 1999;22:28–51.
24 Lin N. Social Capital. Theory and Research. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 2001.
25 van der Gaag M. Measurement of Individual Social Capital. Amsterdam: F&N Boekservices, 2005.
26 Hawe P, Webster C, Shiell A. A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:971–75.
27 Friedman SR, Aral S. Social networks, risk-potential networks, health, and disease. J Urban Health 2001;78:411–18.[Web of Science][Medline]
28 Valente TW, Gallaher P, Mouttapa M. Using social networks to understand and prevent substance use: a transdisciplinary perspective. Subst Use Misuse 2004;39:1685–712.[CrossRef][Medline]
29 Bearman P, Moody J. Suicide and friendships among American adolescents. Am J Public Health 2004;94:89–95.
30 Kawachi I, Kim DJ, Coutts A, Subramanian SV. Reconciling the three accounts of social capital (commentary). Int J Epidemiol 2004; 33:682–90.
31 Durlauf SN. The case "against" social capital. Focus 1999;20:1–4.
32 Szreter S, Woolcock M. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int J Epidemiol 2004;33:650–67.
33 Mitchell CU, LaGory M. Social capital and mental distress in an impoverished community. City Community 2002;1:195–215.
34 Caughy MO, O'Campo PJ, Muntaner C. When being alone might be better: neighborhood poverty, social capital, and child mental health. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:227–37.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
35 Ziersch AM, Baum FE. Involvement in civil society groups: Is it good for your health? J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:493–500.
36 Oakes JM. The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology. Soc Sci Med 2004;58:1929–52.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. M. Leung From Confucius to Obama J. Public Health Med., March 1, 2009; 31(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Moore, M. Daniel, C. Paquet, L. Dube, and L. Gauvin Association of individual network social capital with abdominal adiposity, overweight and obesity J. Public Health Med., March 1, 2009; 31(1): 175 - 183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T Fujiwara and I Kawachi A prospective study of individual-level social capital and major depression in the United States J Epidemiol Community Health, July 1, 2008; 62(7): 627 - 633. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Ferlander The Importance of Different Forms of Social Capital for Health Acta Sociologica, June 1, 2007; 50(2): 115 - 128. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||