Social Capital, according to Nan Lin, is the investment and mobilization of resources
resources within one's network, and is divided into two major dimensions:

- Social Resources
- Network Location

Nan Lin's Categories of Social Capital

There are two components to inequality in capital: the Structural explanation and homophily. Historical and institutional makeup of societies provide unequal opportunities to different groups along the lines of race, class, gender, caste, etc. 

Secondly, there is a homophilic tendency of most individuals to live and associate with people who share common social and cultural characteristics, and so remain within closed network systems.  Certain degrees of awareness within these groups can motivate communities to create cross-group networks which leads to better access to resources, but homophily generally restrains the ability of actors to access other groups.


Theory of Inequality

Nan Lin is a proponent of neo-capital theories, which sees capital accumulation through the lens of an actor-based perspective rather than a class-based perspective.  As such, he posits that investment and mobilization of capital are mechanisms that can be used by individuals and communities in order to achieve beneficial outcomes.  He couples this view with an analysis of how inequality in the distribution of Social Capital affects socioeconomic inequality.  The proposition being that accumulation of Social Capital leads to better material outcomes (i.e., higher earnings, better employment, better mental health) and that inequality in Social Capital leads to inequality in these material outcomes.

Augustana College (IL)

The sum of an agent’s social network, the resources within that network, and the ability to access and mobilize the resources and individuals from that network.  Social networks come in a variety of forms and compositions that include kin networks, families, business and social organization, and government institutions.  Bourdieu uses the term “durable network” to imply that the people and institutions that an agent has some form of long-lasting association with or membership in. All individuals within an agent’s network have some sort of resource that the agent needs or wants for any particular reason, and an agent has a varying ability to access other people or resources within that network in the form of an exchange or social obligation. 

Social Capital

Coleman critiques and synthesizes two popular academic perspectives on human economic action: Rational Action Theory, and the Socialized Actor.  The Rational Actor perspective claims that agents have control over their resources and actions and can pursue their own self-interest but tends to ignore the external influence of the agent’s social environment.  The socialized view sees human action as a result historical and social norms and values that dictate individual economic decision making but lacks an adequate explanation for internal motivation.  Coleman uses dimensions of Social Capital to bridge the gap between these two perspectives, introducing an theory to human action that both accounts for the influence of social structures on the individual while allowing room for autonomous agency in pursuing economic action.  

Forms of Social Capital

Social structure made of actors and the set of all potential interactions with other actors or organizations.

- Strength of Ties

Social Networks 

Inequalities in Social Capital

This article examines the effect social class, gender, and ethnicity on the social capital of young Swedish graduates, and how their subsequent accumulation of social capital impacts their status and salary as they enter the labor market. In other words, how do identity markers affect access to social capital, and how valuable is social capital in the labor market?

Social Capital and Stratification of Young People

- Psychological/sociological capitals and employee engagement

Learn Before

Related

Learn After