Using the 2017 module of International Social Survey Program (ISSP), we explore the differences in individual social capital between netizens and non-netizens across seven countries and make a tentative analysis of how varying degrees of economic development and inequality are associated with social capital and netizen’s advantage in social capital. We find that netizens have higher social capital than non-netizens in six ISSP member countries, supporting a common social compensation effect. Second, national economic development is positively associated with social capital but the netizen’s advantage in social capital is lower in more advanced economies. Third, national economic inequality is negatively associated with social capital while the netizen serves as a protective role in offsetting its negative influence on social capital.
AkaedaN (2023) The welfare state and the roles of social capital in subjective well-being: The crowding-out and crowding-in arguments revisited. Journal of Social Policy. DOI: 10.1017/S0047279423000223
2.
AlecuAHellandHHjellbrekkeJ, et al. (2022) Who you know: The classed structure of social capital. British Journal of Sociology73(3): 505–535.
3.
AntonelliCTubianaM (2020) Income inequality in the knowledge economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics55: 153–164.
4.
ArrowKJ (1998) What has economics to say about racial discrimination?Journal of Economic Perspectives12(2): 91–100.
5.
AspalterC (2006) The East Asian welfare model. International Journal of Social Welfare15(4): 290–301.
6.
AttewellP (2001) The First and Second Digital Divides. Sociology of Education74: 252–259.
7.
BeckU (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
8.
BianY (2019) Guanxi: How China Works. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
BianYZhangY (2023) Regime politicization and communist party membership in China, 1949–2014. In: LiYBianY (eds) Social Inequality in China. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, pp. 107–130.
10.
BourdieuP (1986) The Forms of Capital. In: RichardsonJ (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood: Westport, CT, pp. 241–258.
11.
BourdieuP (1987) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
12.
BowersJDrakeKW (2017) EDA for HLM: Visualization when Probabilistic Inference Fails. Political Analysis13(4): 301–326.
13.
BucknerEAbdelazizY (2023) Wealth-based inequalities in higher education attendance: A global snapshot. Educational Researcher52(9): 544–552.
14.
BurtRS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press.
15.
BurtRS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior22: 345–423.
16.
BurtRS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology110(2): 349–399.
17.
BurtRSReagansRE (2022) Team talk: Learning, jargon, and structure versus the pulse of the network. Social Networks70: 375–392.
18.
CastellsM (2009) The Rise of the Network Society.
19.
ChenCDKuECS (2013) Bridging indistinct relationships and online loyalty: Evidence from online interest-based communities. Online Information Review37(5): 731–751.
20.
ChenYVolkerB (2016) Social capital and homophily both matter for labor market outcomes—Evidence from replication and extension. Social Networks45: 18–31.
21.
ColemanJS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
22.
ColemanJS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambrige: Havard University Press.
23.
CrossleyN (2008) (Net)Working out: Social capital in a private health club. The British Journal of Sociology59(3).
24.
DiMaggioPHargittaiENeumanWR, et al. (2001) Social implications of the Internet. Annual Review of Sociology27: 307–336.
25.
DurkeimE (1964) The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.
26.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “Friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication12(4): 1143–1168.
27.
EmirbayerMGoodwinJ (1994) Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology99(6): 1411–1454.
GanzeboomHBGTreimanDJ (2003) Three Internationally Standardised Measures for Comparative Research on Occupational Status. In: Hoffmeyer-ZlotnikJHPWolfC (eds) Advances in Cross-national Comparison: A European Working Book for Demographic and Socio-economic Variables. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 159–193.
30.
GelmanA (2005) Two-stage regression and multilevel modeling: A commentary. Political Analysis13(4): 459–461.
31.
GruzdAHaythornthwaiteC (2014) Networking online: Cybercommunities. In: ScottJCarringtonPJ (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. London: Sage.
32.
Hafner FinkMHočevarMGrošeljD, et al. (2019) Slovensko javno mnenje 2018/1: Ogledalo javnega mnenja, mednarodna raziskava Socialna omrežja in socialni viri (ISSP 2017). In: CzrjmimkLjC (ed.) Vrednote prostora in okolja, Uporaba novih tehnologij/interneta [Data file]. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana.
33.
HamptonKNLeeC-jHerEJ (2011) How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings. New Media & Society13(7): 1031–1049.
34.
HollidayI (2000) Productivist welfare capitalism: Social policy in East Asia. Political Studies48(4): 706–723.
35.
HuangMHWhangTLeiXC (2017) The internet, social capital, and civic engagement in Asia. Social Indicators Research132(2): 559–578.
KääriäinenJLehtonenH (2006) The variety of social capital in welfare state regimes: A comparative study of 21 countries. European Societies8(1): 27–57.
38.
KavanaughALReeseDDCarrollJM, et al. (2005) Weak ties in networked communities. Information Society21(2): 119–131.
39.
KolosiT (2017) Tárki Omnibusz 2017/01. Budapest: TÁRKI Social Research Institute.
40.
KrautRPattersonMLundmarkV, et al. (1998) Internet paradox—A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being?American Psychologist53(9): 1017–1031.
LetkiNMieriņaI (2015) Getting support in polarized societies: Income, social networks, and socioeconomic context. Social Science Research49: 217–233.
43.
LiL (2020) Chinese General Social Survey, CGSS 2017. Beijing: Renmin University of China: National Survey Research Center at Renmin University of China.
44.
LiXGGuoXX (2022) Dynamics of social capital in Urban China, 1999 to 2014: An age-period-cohort analysis. Social Networks68: 394–406.
45.
LinN (1982) Social resources and instrumental action. In: MarsdenPVLinN (eds) Social Structure and Network Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 131–145.
46.
LinN (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
LinNBianY (2021) Social capital: An Update. In: SmallMLPerryBLPescosolidoB, et al. (eds) Personal Networks: Classic Readings and New Directions in Egocentric Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 504–518.
48.
LinNDuminM (1986) Access to occupations through social ties. Social Networks8(4): 365–385.
49.
LinNEricksonBH (2008) Theory, Measurement, and the Research Enterprise on Social Capital. In: LinNEricksonB (eds) Social Capital: An International Research Program. Oxford University Press, 1–24.
50.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–444.
51.
NahSLeeSLiuW (2022) Community storytelling network, expressive digital media use, and civic engagement. Communication Research49(3): 327–352.
52.
NatCen Social Research (2021) British Social Attitudes Survey, 2017. [Data Collection]. 2nd ed. UK Data Service.
53.
NicholasRBShigehiroO (2017) The psychological consequences of income inequality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. Wiley.
OeschD (2013) Occupational Upgrading in Europe since 1990. In: OeschD (ed.) Occupational Change in Europe: How Technology and Education Transform the Job Structure. Oxford University Press.
56.
OteroGVölkerBRözerJ, et al. (2023) Differences in access to social capital across societies. European Sociological Review. DOI: 10.1093/esr/jcad035.—jcad035
57.
OyefugaEShakeshaftC (2021) Social capital and the higher education academic achievement: Using cross-classified multilevel models to understanding the impact of society on educational outcomes. Youth & Society55(1): 163–183.
58.
PenardTPoussingN (2010) Internet use and social capital: The strength of virtual ties. Journal of Economic Issues44(3): 569–595.
59.
PichlerFWallaceC (2009) Social capital and social class in Europe: The role of social networks in social stratification. European Sociological Review25(3): 319–332.
60.
PodolnyJMPageKL (1998) Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology24: 57–76.
61.
PortesA (1998) Social Capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology24: 1–24.
62.
PutnamRD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
63.
RagneddaM (2017) The Third Digital Divide: A Weberian Approach to Digital Inequalities. Routledge.
64.
RagneddaM (2018) Conceptualizing digital capital. Telematics and Informatics35(8): 2366–2375.
65.
RagneddaMAddeoFRuiuML (2024) How offline backgrounds interact with digital capital. New Media & Society26(4): 2023–2045.
66.
RagneddaMRuiuMLAddeoF (2020) Measuring digital capital: An empirical investigation. New Media & Society22(5): 793–816.
67.
RainieLWellmanB (2012) Networked: The New Social Operating System. The MIT Press.
68.
ReichSMSubrahmanyamKEspinozaG (2012) Friending, IMing, and hanging out face-to-face: Overlap in adolescents' online and offline social networks. Developmental Psychology48(2): 356–368.
69.
Rodríguez-CamachoJALinderMJütteD, et al. (2024) Digital capital: Importance for social status in contemporary society and antecedents of its accumulation. Computers in Human Behavior159: 108316.
70.
SapinMJoyeDAWolfC (2020) The ISSP 2017 social networks and social resources module. Int J Sociol50: 1–25.
71.
SmallML (2009) Unanticipated Gains: Origins of Network Inequality in Everyday Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
72.
SmithTW (2020) General Social Survey. 2018: National Opinion Research Center (NORC).
73.
SonJLinN (2012) Network diversity, contact diversity, and status attainment. Social Networks34(4): 601–613.
74.
SongL (2015) Does who you know in the positional hierarchy protect or hurt? Social capital, comparative reference group, and depression in two societies. Social Science & Medicine: 136–137:117127.
75.
SozialwissenschaftenGL-If (2019) German General Social Survey—ALLBUS 2018. GESIS Datenarchiv, Köln. ZA5272 Datenfile Version100. https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13325
76.
SteinfieldCDiMiccoJMEllisonNB, et al. (2009) Bowling online: Social networking and social capital within the organization. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Communities and Technologies, University Park, PA, pp. 245–254. Association for Computing Machinery.
77.
SumSMathewsMRPourghasemM, et al. (2008) Internet technology and social capital: How the internet affects seniors' social capital and wellbeing. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication14(1): 202–220.
78.
ThaiMTurkinaESimbaA (2020) The impact of national social capital on business creation rates in the formal vs. informal sectors. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. DOI: 10.1108/IJEBR-02-2020-0071
79.
ShahDVKwakNHolbertRL (2001) “Connecting” and “Disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18(2): 141–162.
80.
VisserMGesthuizenMScheepersP (2018) The crowding in hypothesis revisited: New insights into the impact of social protection expenditure on informal social capital. European Societies20(2): 257–280.
81.
WeberM (1978) Classes, status groups and parties. In: RuncimanWG (ed.) Max Weber: Selections in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–56.
82.
WellmanB (2001) Computer networks as social networks. Science293(5537): 2031–2034.
83.
WellmanBHaythornthwaiteC (2008) The Internet in Everyday Life. Wiley.
84.
WilkinsonRGPickettKE (2017) The enemy between us: The psychological and social costs of inequality. European Journal of Social Psychology47(1): 11–24.
85.
XiongYTZhuYM (2025) Hometown relations in WeChat practice among internal migrants: Rethinking social capital logic in modernised China. Sociology-the Journal of the British Sociological Association59(3): 524–541.
86.
ZafirovskiM (2020) A Modern Guide to Economic Sociology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
