2
Article Review
This article provides a thorough analysis of Robert Putnam's social capital theory and its
alleged impact on the formation of communities. DeFilippis (2001) presents an alternative
perspective to Putnam's positive position, emphasizing the significance of critically reassessing
social capital. The profound analyses and theoretical insights of Pierre Bourdieu and Glenn
Loury significantly enhance DeFilippis' (2001) reframing of the discourse on social capital,
leading to a more comprehensive and profound comprehension. The essay emphasizes the
significance of doing a comprehensive analysis of social capital's role in community
development, as well as the various social, economic, and power factors that contribute to the
formation of communities. The paper explores the limitations of overly optimistic social capital
conceptions and advocates for a more discerning and context-specific strategy to foster fair and
sustainable community development.
Critique
DeFilippis (2001) argues that the intricate structure of social capital in community
development is frequently disregarded when it is being promoted. He believes that social capital
is a contributing factor in the development of more resilient communities and the facilitation of
collaborative efforts. Nevertheless, it is important to note that it does not provide a
comprehensive resolution to the economic challenges encountered in impoverished regions.
Furthermore, social capital can contribute to the exacerbation of inequality by
marginalizing individuals who lack access to established social networks. Also, DeFilippis
(2001) offers an alternative viewpoint regarding the prioritizing of community self-sufficiency
by development specialists and policymakers when it comes to addressing structural
transformation and basic inequality. DeFilippis (2001) recommends adopting a more prudent
strategy for handling social capital.
3
Article Review
Putnam's Social Capital Model
DeFilippis (2001) provides a critical analysis of Putnam's notion of social capital, saying
that it simplifies the intricacies within communities and neglects the political aspects involved.
The primary contention suggests that Putnam's assertion exacerbates inequality and
marginalization by overlooking communal power relations and structural imbalances. DeFilippis
(2001) emphasizes the adverse outcomes that can occur when social capital is not evenly
dispersed, resulting in unequal power dynamics and marginalization. In addition, Putnam's
failure to include the political aspects of social capital enables influential organizations to
preserve their riches (DeFilippis, 2001).
Revisiting Theoretical Frameworks
DeFilippis (2001) emphasizes the importance of social networks in promoting economic
and social progress. He claims that marginalized groups encounter barriers, such as racial
discrimination, that hinder their ability to access these networks. In addition, he advocates for a
holistic approach to community development that acknowledges the interplay between
economic, cultural, and social assets, while addressing systemic disparities. DeFilippis (2001)
argues that focusing solely on economic capital, without addressing the lack of social networks
and social capital, perpetuates the cycle of disadvantage. Therefore, it is crucial to embrace a
holistic approach that considers all forms of resources to tackle systemic barriers and promote
equitable opportunities for all individuals (Leigh & Blakely, 2016).
Improving Understanding of Social Capital
4
Article Review
The notion of social capital, as developed by Loury and Bourdieu, underscores the
presence of economic, cultural, and symbolic disparities, and underscores the significance of
enacting measures to redress and rectify these inequities (DeFilippis, 2001). To provide equitable
and unbiased access to networks and opportunities, it is crucial to understand the distribution of
social capital. This technique fosters the establishment of a society open to all individuals by
removing obstacles and guaranteeing equitable opportunities for all (Leigh & Blakely, 2016). To
intervene, public administrators can support underrepresented groups and actively advocate for
increased diversity in businesses and educational institutions. The objective is to develop an
equitable society where individuals have equal opportunities to attain success and thrive, by
actively addressing disparities in social resources (DeFilippis, 2001).
Conclusion
DeFilippis (2001) conducts a comprehensive analysis of the present comprehension of
social capital, specifically challenging Putnam's excessively optimistic portrayal. He conducts an
elaborate examination of social capital, drawing upon the ideas of Glenn Loury and Pierre
Bourdieu to underscore the intricate interplay between power, inequality, and social structure in
the context of community development. The article emphasizes the significance of considering
the intricacies of social cohesiveness models when striving for substantial community
development. It proposes redirecting attention towards comprehending the fundamental elements
that contribute to socioeconomic inequality.
References
5
Article Review
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy
Debate, 12(4), 781–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2001.9521429
Leigh, N. G., & Blakely, E. J. (2016). Planning local economic development: Theory and
Practice. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
