Though a vast amount of empirical work stresses the beneficial effects of social capital, the recent literature has explicitly recognized the importance of distinguishing different types of social capital. Particularly, a distinction has been made between homogeneous (or bonding) and heterogeneous (or bridging) networks under the argument that the latter are more likely to generate positive externalities than the former. The empirical operationalization of this theoretical distinction has thus far, however, remained underdeveloped. The authors take a step to resolve this issue by assessing the diversity of (voluntary) association membership on a number of socioeconomic traits. The proposed methodology is applied to Flemish survey data on voluntary association membership. This analysis indicates that hobby clubs and humanitarian associations such as the Red Cross are among the most bridging associations, whereas women’s groups and associations for retired people are among the most bonding groups.
Abrams, D., Hogg, M. A., & Marques, J. M. (2005). The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion. New York: Psychology Press.
2.
Anheier, H., & Kendall, J. (2002). Interpersonal trust and voluntary associations: Examining three approaches. British Journal of Sociology, 53, 343-362.
3.
Beugelsdijk, S., & Smulders, S. (2003, August). Bridging and bonding social capital: Which type is good for economic growth? Paper presented at European Regional Science Association, Jyvaskila, Finland.
4.
Beyerlein, K., & Hipp, J. R. (2005). Social capital, too much of a good thing? American religious traditions and community crime. Social Forces, 84(2), 995-1013.
5.
Billiet, J. (1993). De katholieke zuil en de integratie van migranten [The Catholic pillar and the integration of immigrants]. In F. Demeyere (Ed.), Over pluralisme en democratie. Verzuiling en integratie in een multiculturele samenleving (pp. 85-104). Brussels, Belgium: VUB Press.
6.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: Free Press.
7.
Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 85-114). New York: Plenum.
8.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood.
9.
Bowen, H., & Moesen, W. (in press). Benchmarking the competitiveness of nations: Non-uniform weighting and non-economic dimensions. Corporate Governance.
10.
Coffé, H. (2002). De sociaal-culturele breuklijn en maatschappelijke betrokkenheid [The social-cultural cleavage and social involvement]. Mens & Maatschappij, 77(4), 319-337.
11.
Coffé, H., & Geys, B. (2006). Measuring the interconnections of voluntary organizations: A note on the importance of association size. Unpublished paper.
12.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital and the creation of human capital. Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
13.
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate, 21(4), 781-806.
14.
de Tocqueville, A. (1962). De la démocratie en Amérique [Democracy in America]. Paris: Galimmard. (Original work published 1835)
15.
Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1998). Beyond Toqueville: Civil society and social capital in comparative perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 5-20.
16.
Gaertner, S., Rust, M., Dovidio, J., Bachman, B., & Anastasio, P. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Browser (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230-260). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
18.
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. A. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Hooghe, M. (2003). Participation in voluntary associations and value indicators: The effect of current and previous participation experiences. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 47-69.
20.
Hurlbert, J. S., Haines, V. A., & Beggs, J. J. (2000). Core networks and tie activation: What kinds of routine networks allocate resources in nonroutine situations. American Sociological Review, 65, 598-618.
21.
Keane, J. (1998). Civil society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
22.
Knack, S. (2003). Groups, growth and trust: Cross-country evidence on the Olson and Putnam hypotheses. Public Choice, 117, 341-355.
23.
Maloney, W. A., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2000). Social capital and associational life. In S. Baron, J. Field, & T. Schuller (Eds.), Social capital. Critical perspectives (pp. 212-225). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
24.
Marshall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the city: Neighborhood context and the development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 26, 125-153.
25.
McPherson, M. (1983). The size of voluntary associations. Social Forces, 61(4), 1044-1064.
26.
Minkoff, D. (1997). Producing social capital: National social movements and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 606-619.
27.
Münster, J. (in press). Simultaneous inter- and intra-group conflicts. Economic Theory.
28.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation, and social rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Paxton, P. (2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 67, 254-277.
30.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 1-24.
31.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: Collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
33.
Putnam, R., & Goss, K. A. (2002). Introduction. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux. The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 1-19). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
Sabatini, F. (2005). Social capital, public spending and the quality of economic development. Unpublished paper.
35.
Skocpol, T. (1997). The Tocqueville problem. Civic engagement in American democracy. Social Science History, 21(4), 455-479.
36.
Stolle, D. (2000). Onderzoek naar sociaal kapitaal. Naar een attitudinale benadering [Inquiries into social capital. Toward an attitudinal approach]. In M. Hooghe (Ed.), Sociaal kapitaal en democratie. Verenigingsleven, sociaal kapitaal en politieke cultuur (pp. 25-59). Leuven, Netherlands: Acco.
37.
Stolle, D. (2001). ‘Getting to trust’. An analysis of the importance of institutions, families, personal experiences and group membership. In P. Dekker & E. M. Uslander (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 118-133). London: Routledge.
38.
Stolle, D., & Rochon, T. R. (1998). Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1), 47-65.
39.
Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Political participation and procedural utility: An empirical study. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 391-418.
40.
Wollebaek, D., & Selle, P. (2002). Does participation in voluntary associations contribute to social capital? The impact of intensity, scope, and type, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 32-61.
41.
Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27(2), 151-208.
42.
Zmerli, S. (2002, August/September). The empirical relevance of bonding and bridging social capital: An East-West German comparison. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Boston.
43.
Zmerli, S. (2003). Applying the concept of bonding and bridging social capital to empirical political research. European Political Science, 2(3), 68-75.
