Types of Social Capital

Attempts to more thoroughly conceptualize social capital have resulted in many authors identifying different types and characteristics, the most common being the distinction of structural and cognitive, and bonding and bridging. Although not always called the same thing, the distinction between bridging and bonding (and often linking as well) is common in the literature. Aldridge, Halpern et al (2002) identified these main types of social capital. Bonding is horizontal, among equals within a community whereas bridging is vertical between communities (Dolfsma and Dannreuther 2003; Narayan 2002; Narayan and Pritchett 1999). Wallis (1998) and Wallis and Crocker et al (1998) referred to bonding capital as localized which he defined as being found among people who live in the same or adjacent communities, and bridging capital, which extends to individuals and organizations that are more removed. Bridging social capital is closely related to thin trust, as opposed to the bonding (splitting) social capital of thick trust (Anheier and Kendall 2002).

The other important distinction of social capital, developed by Norman Uphoff and Wijayaratna (2000) spans the range from structural manifestations of social capital to cognitive ones (Grootaert and Van Bastelaer 2002a). Structural social capital facilitates mutually beneficial collective action through established roles and social networks supplemented by rules, procedures and precedents (Hitt et al. 2002). Cognitive social capital, which includes shared norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs, predisposes people towards mutually beneficial collective action (Krishna and Uphoff 2002; Uphoff 1999). Cognitive and structural forms of social capital are commonly connected and mutually reinforcing (Uphoff and Wijayaratna 2000).

There are numerous other examples in the literature; for example, whether its ties are strong (intensive and repeated) or weak (temporary and contingent); vertical (operating through formal hierarchical structures) or horizontal (in which authority is more decentralized); open (civically engaged and exercising open membership) or closed (protective and exercising closed membership); geographically dispersed or circumscribed; and instrumental (membership as social collateral for individual wants) or principled (membership as bounded solidarity) (Heffron 2000). These varieties of types of social capital require further exploration to establish a widely agreed upon framework, vital for empirical analysis (Van Deth 2003).