Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 1
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.”
Steven L. Johndrow
College of Arts and Sciences, Liberty University
PADM 530: Politics, Strategies, and Initiatives of Community Economic Development
Dr. William Clements
April 21, 2024
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 2
Introduction
This review will look at the article “The Myth of Social Capital in Community
Development.” This article looks at the flaws in prioritizing social capital in modern community
development. The describes that the contemporary usage of Robert Putnam’s theories are flawed
due to issues of power in production and separation from economic capital. This article was
written by Dr. James DeFilippis, who holds a Ph.D. from Rutgers University. Dr. DeFilippis is
currently a professor at Rutgers where his research focuses are urban political economy and
political philosophy, community development theory and practice, and immigration.
Summary
Dr. DeFilippis beings with a brief discussion on what social capital is. He describes an
important early usage coming from “A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences. In
Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination,” written by Glenn Loury. This definition
describes that a person’s social origin has a substation effect on their upbringing. The article then
attempts to explain a theory developed by Pierre Bourdieu which addressed social class
production and divisions. This theory describes production of capital to be about power.
The article then describes Robert Putnam’s work which is used by community developers
and researchers in modern times. This theory is discussed as completely redefining social capital.
Dr. DeFilippis describes Putnam’s work’s fundamental beliefs as social capital being possessed
vice realized, it is combined with civil society, and it is a normatively good thing.
In discussing Putnam’s followers and community development, Dr. DeFilippis describes
the research around Putnam’s theories to ignore large amounts of research while unquestioningly
accepting Putnam’s theories. Then described that Putnam’s theories are being utilized across
America while not promoting economic development or democracy.
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 3
Dr. DeFilippis then describes the fundamental flaws of Putnam’s theories. First, Putnam’s
statement that social capital is possessed by communities is disputed that communities cannot
possess anything. Instead, he presents institutions and individuals can possess. The next part of
the theory he presents is the idea of social capital and civil society. Dr. DeFilippis finds flaws in
Putnam’s simplistic view that social capital and civil society are both good. There are theories
from Putnam that would agree with this as societies participation in civic activities allow for
citizens to provide their own influences (Mikiewicz, 2021). The third critique Dr. DeFilippis
discusses in Putnam’s theories is the relationship of social capital and economic growth. Putnam
describes that social capital along with civil society as promoting economic growth. Dr.
DeFilippis challenges this as having little research to support this. DeFilippis explains that in
many enclaves economic developed is often limited to existing communities such as ethnic
enclaves leaving little room for outsiders to develop economically.
Final sections of the paper revolve around whether social capital is declining in America
and new understanding of social capital. The paper looks at Putnam’s statement that America is a
social capital decline. Much of Putnam’s opinion on this belief of this is based on declining civic
group membership, religious adherence, and voter engagement (Pitas, Ehmer, 2020). The
primary argument points to Putnam contradicting himself when he states that social capital and
economic development are linked. The argument looks at economic prosperity that has taken
place in the United States and how it happened if social capital has been declining.
Concluding the paper, Dr. DeFilippis states that he believes social capital is important for
community development. Rather, he challenges Putnam’s entire interpretation and that it
disconnects social capital from capital. He states that Putnam’s theories are fundamentally
flawed, and there would not be an expectation of people to turn their social capital over to
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 4
outsiders. His proposal is to build true win-win social networks in low-income communities,
while building on existing networks.
Critique
This article looks deeply at what flaws are present in Robert Putnam’s theories. Dr.
DeFilippis article does break down various elements of Putnam’s theories and goes what is his
opinions of these theories. Much of his opinions are based on research from older theories. There
is some basis for these theories, some research shows that different communities such as those
based on race have different associations with social capital. One study finds for example
differences in voting turn out between white and black based on how social capital has formed
(Gilbert, Ransome, Dean, DeCaille, and Kawachi, 2022). I believe where this article falls short
is that Dr. Filippis does not provide significant evidence or examples of where these “flawed
theories are present in the communities but rather states his opinion based on the research he
subscribes to. This is not to discount his opinion but rather there is little example to prove.
Conclusion
This article written by Dr. Defilippis looks to discount many of the theories on social
capital presented by Robert Putnam. Dr. Defilippis looks at three areas of focus in which he
points out flaws. This includes communities’ possession of social capital, social capital and civil
society, and social capital and economic growth. Additionally, he addresses the disparity in U.S.
economic growth and Putnam’s statements that U.S. Social Capital is declining. Dr. Defilippis
makes many points based on the research he subscribes to but examples of specific cases of
failure is limited.
Review of “The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development.” 5
References
Gilbert,@K.@L., Ransome,@Y., Dean,@L.@T., DeCaille,@J., & Kawachi,@I. (2022). Social capital,
Black social mobility, and health disparities.@Annual Review of Public Health,@43(1), 173-
191. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052020-112623
Mikiewicz,@P. (2021). Social capital and education – An attempt to synthesize conceptualization
arising from various theoretical origins.@Cogent
Education,@8(1).@https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2021.1907956
Pitas,@N., & Ehmer,@C. (2020). Social capital in the response to COVID-19.@American Journal of
Health Promotion,@34(8), 942-944.@https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120924531
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
