revise my paper

Introduction

Social capital and its injection into economic development strategies have increased drastically with Robert D. Putnam’s work in the late 1990’s. Putnam theorized that social capital operated as a bridge that connected communities to economic growth. In addition, Putnam believed that these networks built through social capital led to increased civic engagement and fostered a culture of “generalized reciprocity (Putnam, 1994). With these networks of civic engagement, Putnam believed that communities could facilitate greater trustworthiness of individuals and local businesses and utilize momentum built from previous collaboration to drive future collaboration. In Putnam’s worldview, poor communities were poor simply because they lacked the social capital to develop economic partnerships within their community. Hypothetically, as a community developed a trust of its individuals, social capital would grow. With the growth of social capital would come economic growth. This understanding of social capital skyrocketed in popularity. As DeFilippis highlights, the theory was so widely spread that the Urban Affairs Association of Louisville adopted this ideal as the backbone principle for its very own economic development project (DeFilippis, 2001). While social capital magnified in use, many theorists questioned its legitimacy.

DeFilippis opens his review of Putnam’s work with the backdrop of the shooting of Columbine High School in 1994. The shooting took place in a relatively wealthy suburb of Colorado. If Putnam’s theory of social capital is true, why is there such a lack of social connectedness in wealthy suburbs across America? This question summarizes several weaknesses of Putnam’s use of social capital evaluated in the article. This review will seek to highlight DeFilippis’ main criticisms of social capital and the purpose of his criticisms. In addition, this review will analyze the impact social capital theory had on local economic development in the 19 years since DeFilippis’ review was published. Finally, this review will explore the themes of Putnam and DeFilippis’ views through the lens a Biblical worldview.

James DeFilippis’ Debunking of Social Capital and Its Impact

James DeFilippis’ review critiques Putnam’s application of social capital. He also notes how quickly Putnam’s application of social capital was embraced. Putnam’s arguments for social capital were adopted as a generalized framework for economic development proposals and discussions. Putnam’s work on social capital was adopted as a central component for addressing poverty in American cities. However, DeFilippis criticized this blanket adoption of social capital as not necessarily promoting either economic development or democratic participation (DeFilippis, 2001). Below is a summary of the three issues DeFilippis highlighted in Putnam’s application of social capital and the impact this analysis had.

Putnam’s Views of Individuals, Community, and Power

The first weakness DeFilippis capitalizes on is Putnam’s view of a community as an actor. DeFilippis contends that communities are not actors, but outcomes. DeFilippis highlights that a community cannot exist absent individuals, and therefore cannot be an actor unto itself. Putnam’s theory of social capital relies on the notion that if individuals can accumulate social capital, then communities of people with social capital can “stockpile” that capital (DeFilippis, 2001). DeFilippis points out correctly that if Putnam’s theory is true, one should see more social capital in richer communities. This means that gated communities should exhibit more social connectedness, more trust in each other, and more civic engagement. However, the reality is richer communities are known for their isolation, not their community. Gated communities do not participate in the markers Putnam claims as social capital. Richer communities do not attend PTA’s at higher rates, do not attend church at higher rates, and do not participate in civic activities at higher rates. If Putnam’s theory were correct, the inverse would be true.

Putnam’s Views of Civil Society as Social Capital

The second weakness is Putnam’s conflation of social capital as civil society. DeFilippis criticizes Putnam for exercising a poor interpretation of Alexis De Tocqueville’s work in Democracy in America. Tocqueville’s work assumes that civil society exists because of mutually shared interests of people. DeFilippis criticizes Putnam’s extrapolation of civil society as social capital. Putnam further extrapolates these ideals to divorce social capital from capital itself (DeFilippis, 2001). Stripping social capital of an economic value, according to DeFilippis, destroys social capital’s ability to generate economic growth for a community. If social capital cannot manifest itself into actual capital, it cannot be used as an economic strategy for local development.

DeFilippis then uses Putnam’s own empirical evidence of social capital against him. DeFilippis highlights Putnam’s reliance on ethnic enclaves as a real-world example of how social capital generates material capital. However, DeFilippis utilizes the Harlem development as a counterpoint. As Harlem’s Italian community prospered, Harlem’s black community did not. Social capital was unable to “spill over” from the Italian enclave into other parts of the Harlem community. DeFilippis concludes that due to the competitive nature of capitalism, common interests within networks do not create win-win relationships via social capital.

Putnam’s Assumptions of Declining Social Capital

DeFilippis arrives at his final critique of Putnam’s work by questioning whether Putnam’s assumption of social capital decline is accurate. According to Putnam’s own work, of social capital is incline, economic growth must too be in decline. However, Putnam marks the decline of social capital as beginning in the 1960’s. DeFilippis contends that anyone would be hard-pressed to speculate that sectors of the American economy have too been in decline for that long. Instead, DeFilippis pivots to the growing divide between the upper, middle, and lower classes in America. If Social Capital theory were true, then the wealthy would not be getting disproportionately wealthier than the middle and lower classes. In addition, DeFilippis takes issue with Putnam’s assertion that the lower class lacks social capital at all. Instead, DeFilippis believes they hold a tremendous amount of social capital that cannot materialize as actual capital to lift the community from below the poverty line.

DeFilippis’ Impact in Local Economic Development

DeFilippis’ criticisms of Putnam’s application provided a different lens through which to evaluate community economic development. By questioning core assumptions the field held at the time, DeFilippis provided alternative means for understanding social capital and its relevance to community development. DeFilippis sought to uncover errors in thought perpetrated by Putnam’s theory and offer different strategies for social capital to generate material capital for low-income communities. DeFilippis offered up alternatives rooted in community development credit unions (CDCUs), microenterprise lending circles, community land trust (CLTs), and mutual housing associations (MHAs) to assist in reconnecting social capital to economic capital.

Critical Analysis of DeFilippis

DeFilippis’ analysis offered a fantastic summary of the extensive literature surrounding social capital theory. It also provided a succinct criticism of Putnam’s application of social capital. However, DeFilippis spent considerable effort in “debunking” the myth of social capital and little effort on alternative strategies. DeFilippis’ alternatives read more as an afterthought. In addition, they provide little context to how each strategy would connect the ideas of social capital with material capital. The next 5 sections are dedicated to analyzing DeFilippis’ strengths and weaknesses, his place in economic development literature nearly 20 years after authoring the article, and additional necessary research that should be done.

Strengths

DeFilippis finds his strength in criticizing underlying assumptions held by Putnam and other economic development theorists of that time. DeFilippis correctly places social capital back in the context of sociological theories of the time. While social capital does have an important place in discussing the life and wellbeing of a community, DeFilippis accurately depicts social capital as a component, not a framework. In addition, DeFilippis stresses the importance for contextualizing social capital within economic capital as earlier scholars such as Coleman and Loury understood it (DeFilippis, 2001). DeFilippis also brings attention to Bourdieu’s views of social capital as an explicit attempt to understand the production of classes and class division (DeFilippis, 2001). In Bourdieu’s view, social capital cannot and should not be divorced from capital. This interpretation provides a much clearer and more theoretically useful approach. A final strength worth mentioning is the simplicity with which DeFilippis makes his points. His articulation of the weaknesses of Putnam’s theory is precisely defined and easy to digest.

Weaknesses

DeFilippis’ primary weakness is found directly after he summarizes his points of contention with Putnam’s theory of social capital. DeFilippis spends a considerable amount of effort debunking Putnam’s works, but provides little to no alternatives. While DeFilippis stresses that social capital must be applied with material capital, he does little to demonstrate how this is achieved. He briefly and hazardously throws out MHAs, CDCUs, and CLTs as alternatives with little care for what each of those processes entail and how they will assist impoverished communities use their accumulated social capital to generate wealth. DeFilippis falls in his own trap of providing some theory and no process. He leaves his alternatives largely up to the reader’s imagination. Alternative measures are particularly important in a criticism like DeFilippis’, as it was a criticism of a currently implemented framework in economic development. DeFilippis had a responsibility to do more than simply point out a flaw in current economic policy. Without a clear alternative, the status quo will always seem preferable.

A secondary weakness in DeFilippis’ critique is the lack of exploration of the root causes of Putnam’s assumptions. Putnam makes tremendous leaps in his application of social capital from community networks to economic capital generation. Putnam’s theory relies on a heavily privileged understanding of community identity. The implications of his theory stipulate that a poor community is poor because of a lack of morals, character, and trust in the community. This leaves the reader room to speculate that because most impoverished communities are comprised of people of color, that these qualities must also be inherent in individual persons of color. Putnam’s dangerous assumptions can be twisted to promote classist and racist language in describing economic situations within impoverished communities.

Place in Economic Development Literature

The most important component of this critical analysis is the place DeFilippis’ work has in describing the current public administration field nearly 20 years after his publishing date. DeFilippis’ work, if written today, would offer valuable supplemental discussion to texts such as the Leigh and Blakely text. The Leigh and Blakely text highlight the distinction that exists between community development and community economic development. This distinction serves to bolster several of DeFilippis’ points nicely. Had this distinction been more commonly understood in the 90’s, the issues with Putnam’s theory would have been more evident. While social capital plays an integral role in community development, the link to community economic development is more challenging to prove with Putnam’s construction and application. Leigh and Blakely accurately describe this distinction in their definition of community development and community economic development. Community development is described as focusing on “a broad range of development issues that include housing, business and job development, health and safety, and child development as well as education and other critical public services” (Leigh and Blakely, 2017, pg 368). However, community economic development plays a small subset within community development, in Putnam’s theory, community development happens through community economic development. It is clear to see that Putnam has put the cart before the horse with this explanation.

Despite DeFilippis’ attempts at providing alternatives, the few that he did provide have not withstood the test of time. As Leigh and Blakely describe, several CDC’s such as the Eastside Community Investments (ECI) had a disastrous lifespan. ECI was lauded as the poster child for CDCs in the 1970s with 100 staff members, housing corporation, a credit union, and health and community wellness centers (Leigh and Blakely, 2017, pg 376). However, due to the increase in project sizes and larger housing and business investments, ECI faced financial ruin. CDCs like ECI often have issues attempting to delve into economic development projects as most are founded for social development. As such, staff members know little of economic development and lack oversight of a traditional Board of Directors. If DeFilippis’ criticism was to be written now, it would need to revisit alternative plans for attaching economic capital to social capital in impoverished communities.

Biblical Perspective and Conclusion

Understanding the intricacies of social capital and economic capital is critical to assessing problems communities face and crafting policies to address those problems. As the McDonald and Leigh and Blakely texts continuously reiterate, economic development is about the wellbeing of the community. Social capital is vital in measuring the health of a community. Utilizing social capital requires connecting it to a source of wealth generation. Stripping social capital of its capital removes its effectiveness and risks creating frameworks for community economic development that damage the community further. Leviticus 25:35 biblically sets what social capital should look like: “ If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you.”. This verse reminds us that we are given a responsibility to the communities we reside in. We are instructed to bear each other’s burdens in Galatians. Finally, as Jesus tells us, what we do in service to the least of these is done in service directly to Him.

References

Blakely, E. J., & Leigh, N. G. (2017). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice. Los Angeles: SAGE.