In recent years interest has grown in the idea of social capital, and what role it might be able to play in economic development and social inclusion. This briefing note gives an overview of what social capital is, why policy-makers are interested in it, and some information on how the North East compares to other parts of England.

What is social capital?
Social capital refers to the formal and informal networks that people rely on to get by in life. This includes everything from contact with family or neighbours, to acquaintances known through clubs, societies and voluntary organisations we might belong to. It is also about the shared values that arise from those networks.

Two main types of social capital have been identified (Putnam 2000):
1. Bonding social capital: is essentially about strong bonds of care, for example within families, close friendship groups or communities. Bonding social capital is good for ‘getting by’ in life.

2. Bridging social capital: is characterised by looser networks of contacts or acquaintances, for example through work or friends of friends. Bridging social capital is more outward looking, bringing people into contact with others from different backgrounds, and can be an important source of information. Bridging social capital is good for ‘getting ahead’ in life.

Is social capital a good thing?
Social capital can be a very good thing. Research suggests that higher levels of social capital are associated with better health, higher educational attainment, better employment outcomes and lower crime rates (Halpern 2005). As one academic puts it, people with higher levels of social capital are more likely to be ‘housed, healthy, hired and happy’ (Woolcock 2001).

However, levels of social capital are not evenly distributed, and people that are better off are more likely to have high levels of social capital. Conversely the most disadvantaged in society are more likely to have lower levels of social capital. This leads to an important question about the direction of causality - are you better off because you have high levels social capital, or do you have higher levels of social capital because you’re better off?

Furthermore, social capital is not automatically a good thing. If wealth and levels of social capital reinforce each other it is possible to see how social capital can reinforce social inequalities – just look at the “old boys’ network” (Stafford and Marmot 2006). Also, some forms of bonding social capital can promote or reinforce negative group identities, for example the Klu Klux Klan or street gangs.

How can we measure social capital and how does the North East measure up?
It is difficult to get an accurate measure of people’s social networks, although simply asking people if they think, generally speaking, other people can be trusted seems to be a straightforward and fairly reliable way of measuring social capital (Halpern 2005)

In the UK the Office of National Statistics’ General Household Survey and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG)/Home Office’s Citizenship Survey both include questions designed to measure levels of social capital. They do this by asking questions about whether people trust their neighbours; whether they think their neighbourhood is a place where people help each other; how many clubs and social groups people belong to; and how often they see friends and family.

The 2005 Citizenship Survey was published in June 2006, and used a large enough sample size for regional comparisons to be made. Analysis of the results suggests the North East generally has similar levels of social capital to the rest of England. However, the proportion of people in the North East that strongly felt they belonged to their neighbourhood (41 per cent) was higher than any other English region (the English average was 31 per cent). This may point to higher levels of bonding social capital compared to other parts of England.

The survey also found people in the North East were the least likely to think that people from different backgrounds get on well together, with 69 per cent agreeing with the statement, compared to an England average of 80 per cent. This may indicate lower levels of bridging social capital in the region.

Some other headline findings from the survey were:
· In the North East, 42 per cent of people thought many people in their neighbourhood could be trusted, compared to 49 per cent in England as a whole.

· The same proportion of people in the North East and England (19 per cent) definitely felt that people in the neighbourhood pulled together to improve it.

· The same proportion of people in the North East and England (88 per cent) either agreed or strongly agreed that people in their neighbourhood were willing to help their neighbours.

· In the North East 66 per cent of people had friends with different incomes to them, compared to 70 per cent for England as a whole.

· The proportion of people in the North East reporting participation in informal voluntary activities at least once a month was the same as the England average at 37 per cent. However people were less likely to volunteer formally, with the lowest proportion of the English regions (20 per cent) reporting participation once a month compared with an England average of 29 per cent.
(Department for Communities and Local Government 2006)


References
Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (2006) 2005 Citizenship Survey http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1500941
Halpern D (2005) Social Capital Cambridge: Polity Press
Puttnam D (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community New York: Simon and Schuster
Stafford M and Marmot M (2006) ‘Social Capital and Health in Camden’ in Khan H and Muir R eds Sticking Together: social capital and local government London: ippr
Woolcock M (2001) ‘The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes’ Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2:10 pp11-17